What is the acceptable level of taking inspiration from another MOC?

[JesseNight]

5 minutes ago, firefabric said:

Then why are all the other DeLoreans so different that the thought of them being somehow too similar didn't even cross my mind in the slightest ever before... 

Because it takes time to invent a good wheel. But once a good wheel exists, why change its basic design or try to reinvent it?

What I mean is it takes a lot of experimentation to get a model looking good, especially on that scale. Each tries their own methods, but no doubt people learn how they can do things better and might end up using similar parts than before when realizing it's better than their last attempt. Maybe you were the first, but you can't expect to be the last.

Let's say I see your Delorean, and while I'm happy with my own (hypothetically bc I haven't made one), you found a better Lego part to create the vents or the lights or whichever part. And someone else found a better part for a different section. Of course I would be inspired by that because it teaches me how to do things better. Now, in good decency I would probably credit people on my own as a thanks for what I've learned from their designs, but if I learned 10 different things from 10 different creators, I might forget something too.
I suppose it's a bit different in my case since I don't sell any designs. I can only imagine that proper credits among sellers are more valued. It's always a competition, no matter how you look at it.

[firefabric]

9 minutes ago, icm said:

I think some part of this is that Firefabric hasn't made a lot of MOCs of common, popular, subjects that everybody does. In the Star Wars building space, there's a lot of competition on a lot of MOC subjects. Nobody says, oh, I was the first to use 4w Technic cylinders to represent the front of the X-wing engines, therefore everybody else who uses that part in that place should credit me. Nobody says, oh, I was the first to use this part as the tips of the lasers, therefore everybody else who uses that part in that place should credit me. Many people do give credit, but you're not expected to credit every little design detail or risk accusations of plagiarism. Firefabric needs to get used to standards of credit in building subjects that have a lot more competition, and realize that some things are just common elements.

Sure, and as I said earlier I haven't asked for credit or copyright or any 'first use' etc, and I have also stated I understand that there are normal similarities between builds, mine and others, done before and after. The issue was different and quite frankly I had no expectations of the outcome, just wanted to state my opinion. 

[icm]

Well, these were normal similarities between builds.

[TeriXeri]

In this case, I think at a certain scale / proportions, of the same subject, things will look very  similar , and I personally think the little details still look different enough here, and especially since this is based on an existing subject matter, both can exist as they are.

In the case of a licensed car like this, I'd probably  be happy to see someone make a similar build, and perhaps there's a large chance there's actually little differences that might improve a build, or teach techniques I wouldn't have thought of.

Other then that, at smaller scales, LEGO is something like art of intepretation, of how a LEGO part would translate to a certain detail on the real thing, and that can vary a lot per person.

 

Edited January 23 by TeriXeri

[icm]

There's something that Firefabric has said in this thread and on Rebrickable, though not in these exact words, that strikes me as the wrong attitude to have about these things. He objects to the Barneius build because, even though it may have a different structure and different details, it "achieves the same result". In two different Lego builds of the same subject at the same scale with the same parts library, "achieving the same result" is not a mark of plagiarism or competition. It's just a mark of good building. It's an example of convergent evolution with different builders recognizing the best way to do something. If two builds don't "achieve the same result", one or both are likely to have noticeable flaws in shape, proportion, or detail. There's a reason nearly all of the best X-wing MOCs out there look virtually identical. They've simply converged to the same result of what's possible with the state of the art of the Lego hobby today, as far as the nose and the engines are concerned. I think that's what's happening here. Give it some more time, and every 8w Delorean in the future is going to use that same windscreen, that same technique for the taillights, that same technique for the exhausts, and one or the other technique for the hood. That's just what the parts library suggests as it is today.

[Edit - and yes, of course Firefabric and Barneius (both of them) deserve credit in future builds for their two excellent, startlingly realistic, models of the BTTF Delorean. Of course they do. Both their models absolutely blow away the competition, except neither of the two is better than the other. But they're both way better than the rest of the field, in my opinion.

Nevertheless, I think it's striking that the only Delorean that Firefabric has singled out for criticism is the one that he thinks looks just as good as his own. He has said, more or less, in the page and comments for his build, that his own build is the first one that he thinks really looks good, or really looks like the real thing. So is Firefabric the only builder allowed to do a good-looking Delorean? Is he the only one allowed to "achieve the same result"?

/Edit]

And nobody has ownership of that - not even the Lego company themselves, given the amount of competition in the building block market today.

Edited January 23 by icm

[JesseNight]

That's a good way of explaining it.
"Achieving a good result" would (and should) have many similarities when a very specific car with very specific details is the target, unlike when we'd just build a random car or even a certain brand.

[firefabric]

13 hours ago, icm said:

There's something that Firefabric has said in this thread and on Rebrickable, though not in these exact words, that strikes me as the wrong attitude to have about these things. He objects to the Barneius build because, even though it may have a different structure and different details, it "achieves the same result". In two different Lego builds of the same subject at the same scale with the same parts library, "achieving the same result" is not a mark of plagiarism or competition. It's just a mark of good building. It's an example of convergent evolution with different builders recognizing the best way to do something. If two builds don't "achieve the same result", one or both are likely to have noticeable flaws in shape, proportion, or detail. There's a reason nearly all of the best X-wing MOCs out there look virtually identical. They've simply converged to the same result of what's possible with the state of the art of the Lego hobby today, as far as the nose and the engines are concerned. I think that's what's happening here. Give it some more time, and every 8w Delorean in the future is going to use that same windscreen, that same technique for the taillights, that same technique for the exhausts, and one or the other technique for the hood. That's just what the parts library suggests as it is today.

[Edit - and yes, of course Firefabric and Barneius (both of them) deserve credit in future builds for their two excellent, startlingly realistic, models of the BTTF Delorean. Of course they do. Both their models absolutely blow away the competition, except neither of the two is better than the other. But they're both way better than the rest of the field, in my opinion.

Nevertheless, I think it's striking that the only Delorean that Firefabric has singled out for criticism is the one that he thinks looks just as good as his own. He has said, more or less, in the page and comments for his build, that his own build is the first one that he thinks really looks good, or really looks like the real thing. So is Firefabric the only builder allowed to do a good-looking Delorean? Is he the only one allowed to "achieve the same result"?

/Edit]

And nobody has ownership of that - not even the Lego company themselves, given the amount of competition in the building block market today.

I can agree to most of this, and it's a reasonable way of thinking, I have considered this aspect too. And I do appreciate the compliment to my build also of course. Just wanted to clarify a couple of things.

>>>> He objects to the Barneius build because, even though it may have a different structure and different details, it "achieves the same result".<<<<

This is something I said in the context of the 'same shell with different structure' example, and I specified I'm not saying that was done here. Just what could have been done, as an extreme example. 

>>>>  Nevertheless, I think it's striking that the only Delorean that Firefabric has singled out for criticism is the one that he thinks looks just as good as his own. He has said, more or less, in the page and comments for his build, that his own build is the first one that he thinks really looks good, or really looks like the real thing.<<<<

It is of course because it was the one that looked too similar to my eye (good or not), the others I had no issues with. That was the whole point but no need to get back to that. And I have never said anywhere mine looks better than any other one, that is an incorrect interpretation, I hope you see that. If you read my description, I have made attemps to build it before, and this was the first one out of my builds that I liked enough to share. When I published it, I had no clue how it would actually be received. Also, elsewhere I have stated that I don't think any small-scale Lego DeLorean actually really still looks right, not mine or others, it's a difficult subject in Lego.  

If we go a bit further with this thought process (in theory), what happens if/when we achieve the ultimate/optimal DeLorean or X-wing or anything else, where it's as close as it can be with these bricks. Should we then stop making that subject altogethe as it'll be exactly the same I.e it will always be a copy. Is that ok to do the exact same one then on the grounds that it can't be improved anymore? This is more of a thought experiment as I don't think we are anywhere near yet. Maybe the X-wing might be the best example of that tho.

[icm]

I apologize for not quite understanding what you meant. I wrote that last post without going back and forth between tabs to be sure I was getting your meaning and your words right.

Your thought experiment actually isn't just an experiment, it's happened before.

I've followed the state of the art of minifig-scale X-wings online for over twenty years, even though it's only in the past couple of years that I've actually ordered parts to build any non-set X-wings. I've also made a point of trying to find all the online pictures of Lego X-wings built before 1999. I think I have a pretty comprehensive understanding of how Lego X-wings have developed over the years.

What happens is that when the parts library reaches some state of maturity with respect to the subject, different builders will converge towards the same solutions and they will eventually reach a plateau where each new build will look virtually identical to the last one, at least to an observer who doesn't know a lot about the subject or the state of the art. During that plateau period, there may be a few builders who try different approaches, but their builds generally aren't as successful. Then a new part or parts will come out that enable something that was previously unachievable, and there will be a burst of innovation until a new plateau is reached. During the plateau periods, most builds will closely resemble, externally at least, a pioneering creation by a prominent MOC builder, but internally the structure may be very different, and if you look closely you'll see many differences on the outside that point to those structural differences on the inside.

For example, shortly after the first Lego set of an X-wing was released (set 7140 in the year 1999), MOC builders tried to build custom models to correct the following shortcomings in the set: a lack of nose taper, a lack of rear greeble, an overly narrow rear fuselage, an overly wide maximum wing opening angle, a lack of retractable landing gear, a lack of really long narrow wingtip laser guns, and a lack of studs-down (inverted attachment) lower wings. By about 2002, the techniques for this were well known, and the best custom X-wings between about 2001 and 2007 all looked more or less like variations on the Bruce Lowell model from 2003. That design was fully mature with the parts library at the time. It had 3w engines (the same part every time), a rectangular rear fuselage, wings mounted on individual click hinges with no central mechanism, lower wings that were mounted upside-down, and a blunt-tipped nose with a boxy rectangular cross section that tapered back to front when looking from the top.

However, the parts library at that time could not make a satisfying X-wing where the wings opened all at once with a center pivot, nor could it make one with 4w engines, nor with a properly hexagonal rear fuselage, nor with a sharp-tipped nose that had a properly hexagonal cross section that tapered back to front when looking from the top and when looking from the side. Also, the subtle rear rake of the lower edge of the cockpit couldn't be done with existing techniques. Because of those shortcomings, there was a period of experimentation from about 2007 to 2010 as different builders tried out different techniques and parts that didn't really produce satisfying, sturdy results.

In November 2011, Mike Psiaki posted his X-wing, which took the internet by storm after it was featured on the Brothers Brick. Psiaki had true center-pivot wings, a hexagonal aft tailcone formed with hinges and filled with lots of greebling, a cockpit canopy with a rear rake, and a sharp-tipped nose cone at the end of a nose that tapered back to front when looking from the side and made clever use of Exo-Force helicopter rotors to mimic a hexagonal cross section. Some experimentation continued with other builders, but it was soon clear that this was the best that could be done with the parts at the time. Between 2011 and 2016, most X-wings were variations of the Psiaki design.

However, the Psiaki design had notable shortcomings. The canopy was an old Classic Space-era mold that wasn't the ideal shape, the top surface of the nose couldn't have clean markings on it because of its construction, the faux-hexagon nose wasn't a true hexagon and it used rare and expensive parts, the fuselage transitioned to an ugly square slab-sided construction behind the cockpit, and the engine cylinders were becoming scarce. Meanwhile, new parts were becoming available: 4w cylinders became common, enabling larger engines; a new X-wing windscreen was released in 2015; the library of SNOT bricks and brackets proliferated; the library of wedge plates increased; and panels and tiles got larger, enabling larger smooth surfaces.

In response to the shortcomings of the Psiaki design, the waning availability of its key parts, the new parts becoming available, and the return of the X-wing to the big screen in The Force Awakens and Rogue One, there was a burst of experimentation in about 2016-2018. These new X-wings featured 4w engines, true scissor wings, true hexagonal paneled rear fuselages, pointy nose cones, noses with true two-axis taper and improved approximations of a hexagonal cross section using panels or wedge plates, fully tiled upper nose panels that allowed different markings, and the new windscreen set at a slight rearward rake. The detailed implementation of virtually everything differed from model to model, but they all looked pretty much the same on the outside. Between 2016 and 2018, most X-wing builds on the web were variations on the Tom Loftus (Inthert) design, which used bars to suggest the windscreen instead of a windscreen piece, and used studded wedge plates to form the nose. Between 2018 and 2022, most were variations on the Jerac v1, which improved on the Inthert design by using panels for a smooth nose and used the X-wing windscreen element. Since 2022, most have been variations on the Jerac v2, which improves on the Jerac v1 with a sturdier construction, refined proportions and details, an improved wing mechanism, and adaptations for the changing availability of parts between 2018 and 2022.

In parallel with the fully non-set builds, each retail set of the X-wing has prompted a burst of building as people modify the set to their desire. Usually it's not hard to identify a custom that started as a 1st-gen set (7140), a 2nd-gen set (4502), a 3rd-gen set (9493), a 4th-gen set (75218), or a 5th-gen set (75301), but sometimes a builder will modify and change their set until it no longer has hardly anything in common with the set and becomes fully custom. For instance, the true center-pivot wing mechanisms of most X-wings since 2016 can be troublesome. They don't open all the way, or they don't close all the way, or they're too tight, or they're too loose, or they get off-center, and they can be very difficult to repair. In response, another post-Jerac wing mechanism is emerging. The wing mechanism from 75301 is not a true center-pivot mechanism, as it actually has two pivots. In set 75301 it's clunky, ugly, and hard to conceal. Since 75301 is the most easily available X-wing at the moment, that mechanism has been in most of the recent set-modification builds, and it's now in the fully custom builds. 2bricks was the first that I know of to release instructions for an X-wing with wings that opened when pressing a button in the rear fuselage, but his was pretty clunky. Quarrie's Workshop built an X-wing around the 75301 mechanism that looked almost as good as a Jerac or other top-of-the-line build, but was still recognizably a 75301 derivative. Just last month, Edge of Bricks released an X-wing that's based on the Quarrie's Workshop model but improved in many ways. In my opinion, the Edge of Bricks model looks just as good as a Jerac from the outside, and it looks to be a lot more reliable and less troublesome with the wing mechanism and possibly with the nose. (All modern custom X-wings since 2016 have had very fragile noses.) I think I'll try to build an Edge of Bricks X-wing later this year, and I expect that wing mechanism will become the standard.

To summarize, we had about 6 years of the Bruce Lowell Plateau, then a few years of experimentation, then about 5 years of the Psiaki plateau, then about 2 years of the Inthert plateau, and most recently about 5 years of the Jerac plateau. I expect we're going to see a few years of the Edge of Bricks plateau. Who knows what innovations the 6th-gen X-wing (75393) will bring later this year?

Quote

What happens if/when we achieve the ultimate/optimal DeLorean or X-wing or anything else, where it's as close as it can be with these bricks. Should we then stop making that subject altogethe as it'll be exactly the same I.e it will always be a copy. Is that ok to do the exact same one then on the grounds that it can't be improved anymore?

It's happened before and it will happen again. It's a plateau in design maturity because of the parts available. You build the best one you can with the parts available, and you wait for new parts to come out. Then you build a better one!

For MOC builders, that's the most important thing about new sets: only Lego can make new molds that enable new building techniques and push the state of the art forward in MOC building. Without new molds in new sets, most MOC genres stagnate very quickly, and everything becomes a copy. When that happens, it's ok to do the exact same one on the grounds that it can't be improved anymore - but when you do the exact same build on the grounds that you can't improve it, of course you should credit the design to the original designer. That's the whole point of making instructions and posting them online. If you build something from someone else's instructions, of course you don't claim it as your own design! If you made a lot of changes to suit yourself, I think it's perfectly ok to claim it as your own creation, as long as you still credit the original builder.

And if it's your own creation from the ground up (as I believe to be the case with the Barneius Delorean), you don't need to comprehensively cite past prominent examples or the first use of every building technique and parts use in your own creation. Nobody's got time to maintain that level of attribution and awareness for everything they choose to build. A Lego creation isn't an academic paper with a hundred references in the literature review alone. (As, for example, you didn't research or credit prior builders with similar solutions in your Delorean, or I suppose in your Knight Rider car or other creations.) If you're conscious of major influences in your build, by all means cite them - but there's no need to be obsessive about it, or to chase down copycats unless it's a really cut-and-dried, open-and-shut, clear-as-day case of bad-faith copying-with-intent-to-profit. At the end of the day, we're all (within a certain MOC genre) building the same thing with the same bricks, and there's only so many ways you can do that. 

So, there are my two cents (way more than two cents, I can be very long-winded, sorry about that) on "what is the acceptable level of taking inspiration from another MOC".

Edited January 23 by icm

[firefabric]

32 minutes ago, icm said:

Your thought experiment actually isn't just an experiment, it's happened before.

I've followed the state of the art of minifig-scale X-wings online for over twenty years, even though it's only in the past couple of years that I've actually ordered parts to build any non-set X-wings. I've also made a point of trying to find all the online pictures of Lego X-wings built before 1999. I think I have a pretty comprehensive understanding of how Lego X-wings have developed over the years.

Well, I have to say that was an interesting read, thanks for posting those 2+ cents. It definitely gives a wider perspective and I understand the point better. I can also see you know X-wings throughout, you should probably make this into a blog post somewhere, lots of great information. I thought I was quite well versed in DeLorean/Time Machine but seems I have some more studying to do...

>>>> As, for example, you didn't research or credit prior builders with similar solutions in your Delorean, or I suppose in your Knight Rider car or other creations. <<<<

The way my build process goes is that first I try to think of ways to implement some key aspects of the subject, and try to specifically not look at any other versions, at least in detail, so that I don't get my mind locked into any existing solution. If I come up with something I think would work, at some point I will check out what's been done and evaluate if I have enough new ideas to add to the subject. If yes, I'll go ahead and build, if not, it goes into the back burner to wait for better ideas. But in any case, obviously my builds will also end up having some similarities to existing ones, just as others to mine, that's just how it is in Lego (as we have discussed here). In general, I do not expect any credit (I have never thought to ask for, even in this case I didn't) or feel the need to credit others if there are some similarities (as you have also pointed out it's normal). But I do do the research also, maybe I didn't state that anywhere clearly so far.

[JesseNight]

4 hours ago, firefabric said:

Also, elsewhere I have stated that I don't think any small-scale Lego DeLorean actually really still looks right, not mine or others, it's a difficult subject in Lego. 

That's very true, especially on that scale. Even the official big one (Icons 10300), I am still surprised how well they managed and all the techniques they used to accomplish that.

 

4 hours ago, firefabric said:

Should we then stop making that subject altogethe as it'll be exactly the same I.e it will always be a copy.

We should never stop making it. But we should definitely stop offering it for sale as a unique model at that point because that seems rather pointless and will obviously hurt people who were among the first to work out certain used techniques. But that just happens with commerce. It's always a competition and that's why I don't do it in my hobby.

@icm Interesting to read the full X-Wing story, you wouldn't happen to know of any websites having an illustrated version of this story? I'm curious to see how much they've changed through the different plateaus over so many years 

[edit] Nvm, I found your topic with all the X-Wings here on the forums! 

Edited January 23 by JesseNight

[icm]

@JesseNight, I've thought about writing some sort of article to contribute to a Lego blog, but I've never taken the time to do that. In April of 2022 I built a lot of the MOC X-wings that I had admired over the years and posted them to my Flickr account, so that sort of counts. Each X-wing in my Flickr album has a link to the original build it's based on. My photography is nowhere as good as the photography of any original builder, so you'd be better off clicking the links in my Flickr album than poring over the limited photos I took of each model I built.

Clicking the photo below should take you to my Flickr album.

 

[Toastie]

1 hour ago, JesseNight said:

We should never stop making it. But we should definitely stop offering it for sale as a unique model at that point because that seems rather pointless and will obviously hurt people who were among the first to work out certain used techniques. But that just happens with commerce. It's always a competition and that's why I don't do it in my hobby.

And that is exactly how I see this: It is the "unique model" bit.

As far as I am concerned, sell what you want to sell, for whatever reason, there may be very good ones. However, do not sell them as "unique". Chances are: It has been done. There are 7.9 billion people living on this planet. The majority of those cannot afford LEGO. The remaining so many tens of millions can. Of these, a certain fraction creates "my own creations" - using a limited range of available pieces. Yes, there are sooo many pieces. But no, these don't stack up in indefinite ways, when it comes to recreation or modeling. Don't get me wrong: Individual pieces do stack up in almost (in human thinking space) in almost indefinite ways - I'd call "arbitrary". And that is fine and cool. But an angle is an angle, a curve is a curve, and 2x4 can't "do" that.

When I come up with something (I do it exactly your way @firefabric!) - I then research. Just to find out - others have been there and done that. However, maybe I gave it a twist? Maybe that twist is (not unique) but interesting? That is where I usually post things. Always aware though that millions of others also experiment, think, twist the logic of LEGO.

All the best,
Thorsten

P.S.: I very much enjoyed and cannot agree more with your write-up further above. Thank you very much for taking that time.

     

[barneius]

Thank you everyone for the discussion. Much respect for @icm for a detailed and comprehensive evaluation - it must have taken much time to prepare it. Btw, it was very interesting to read your post on a LEGO X-wing build history.

All I have to say here is that I have not copied firefabric's design nor any of it's parts. I strongly disagree with @firefabric point of view. Nevertheless I think everyone may judge the issue for herself / himself. That was one of the reasons I've decided not to be active in this thread.

[firefabric]

On 2/1/2024 at 2:23 PM, barneius said:

Thank you everyone for the discussion. Much respect for @icm for a detailed and comprehensive evaluation - it must have taken much time to prepare it. Btw, it was very interesting to read your post on a LEGO X-wing build history.

All I have to say here is that I have not copied firefabric's design nor any of it's parts. I strongly disagree with @firefabric point of view. Nevertheless I think everyone may judge the issue for herself / himself. That was one of the reasons I've decided not to be active in this thread.

This thread was not directed to you specifically, I wanted to have a more general idea on what's going on because I felt the way I felt. You have chosen to deny any kind of influence whatsoever, so there would not have been much to discuss anyway. I also disagree with that, but that's sometimes an acceptable solution and I consider the case closed.

[Dazzzy]

Hi everyone. I haven't signed into Eurobricks for a couple of years now, as i find myself falling in and out of love with the hobby on a fairly regular basis nowadays, (partly because of the time investment but also because it can be an expensive hobby/pastime). However i still do enjoy MOCing Speed Champions designs and occasionally putting the instructions up for sale on Rebrickable, though I'm far from being very prolific at it. 

Anyway i just wanted to thank @firefabric for starting this topic, as it's an interesting one, and also one that doesn't seem to be much discussed, (though I'm sure it's discussed on other social media platforms, that i just don't use anymore). 

I had a fairly similar (must emphasise fairly) experience to @firefabric, in the past, and at the time of it happening i must admit i felt quite bitter about it all. What happened was although I've never actually released the MOC itself in question, i did win a LEGO Ideas contest with it, (for those who're interested, it was the '007' contest from a number of years ago now).

Anyway, fast forward a couple of years later, (i think) after winning the contest with my digital build,  i discovered one day (by way of The Lego Car Blog) that someone it seemed had copied a good percentage of my contest winning design, merely from just looking at the digital renders I'd posted to my Flickr account. It's hard for me to determine what exactly that percentage was, but at the time i felt it to be a quite good amount (sound slightly familiar @firefabric?).

So, my initial reaction to this (and admittedly a childish one in hindsight), was to immediately sign into my Flickr account, find their Flickr account, and proceed to copy paste and attach a comment, to every single picture they'd posted of their interpretation of the same subject matter.  .. I can't remember exactly the words i used (I'm not actually that good at writing, or expressing my views at the best of times), but iirc, i definitely did not insult the person in question, i just said something along the lines of:  'It would be nice if I'd at least received some kind of acknowledgement in your bio of the pics, that you've clearly taken a huge inspiration from my original design concept, within your own design'.   Well, i have to say it came as a bit of a shock to me, with the following comments from fans of his design, that followed my own initial comment posted under each of his pics. Some of the responses i received made me feel so bad, that i decided to remove the original copy pasted comment from underneath each of his pics bar one (his main picture of the MOC as i wanted to leave that one there, to bookmark to everyone viewing it, that this MOC of his was not an entirely original concept).

A few of the replies to my own remaining comments, that i received (i think i commented about 4 or 5 times in reply to others after removing the original copy pasted comment, that I'd posted below all pics), really did upset me quite a bit. One reply in particular i remember quite well, was that 'I should be thankful for winning the LEGO contest with my digital design, and that I should in no way feel put out by what he'd done, as i was lucky enough to win the contest in the first place with a digital build, and should be grateful for winning the grand prize'.   I think that one sticks in my head the most, as i don't earn that much money, don't have a well paying job, and of the 5 LEGO Creator car sets, the Christmas winter village fire station set, (i also received an AM DB5 007 print/poster signed by LEGO designer Mike Psiaki, which takes pride of place on my wall), that i received for winning the grand prize,  4 of those sets i gave away to members of my family and friends as special belated Christmas gifts, (i was originally hoping I'd have received my winnings in time for Christmas, but didn't receive them until late January due to a logistical error by LEGO themselves).

Now i know what i chose to do with my contest winnings has no bearing on the situation at hand, as nobody forced me to give away nearly two thirds of my prize winnings (albeit to people i know and love) but after all the time and effort i put into the MOC (the sleepless nights of problem solving, and countless hours poured into it overall, even compromising on the design i really wanted to build, but couldn't because i was running out of precious time to safely submit the MOC), that particular comment, really did hit a nerve with me.

Thankfully that comment wasn't made by the same person that i feel copied a good portion of my design. And in that persons credit, they did eventually admit to being inspired by my original concept. Which i feel is really good of them to admit, and as far as my knowledge extends, said person still gives credit to the original concept (in a way), by having altered the description below their pics on Flickr (and Rebrickable), to read something along the line of:  'This is not an entirely original concept, as I've been inspired by many MOCs in existence already out there, but mine is the best'.  Which indeed it arguably is, as it looks better than my original MOC, and more accurate to the subject i was trying to do.  Also you've got to really admire that they've managed to make their MOC, work, despite not being able to see the inner workings of my own original MOC, as nobody has ever seen my io files except myself, (not even LEGO themselves, despite me offering to send them the files, the day i discovered that I'd won).  

So for me personally I've moved on from it all now, though for a good long while it really did eat away at me. Which is never a good thing for anyone out there to be carrying around with them. 

 

Anyway, i think that's all I've got to say on the subject really. I'm really glad that @firefabric opened up such a discussion in the first place, and even though neither he or @barneius will ever agree about it, it's good that he's let it go/case closed. I can honestly see both sides of the story here, and probably would've made the same decision as Rebrickable has themselves. But not only that, i feel it opens up a further discussion that's already been touched upon at length in this discussion, and that's about charging for instructions of IP's we all know we have no right to, (on Rebrickable and other sites).  To be honest I'm guilty as charged with regards to that myself, and i realise that I'm running a small business (despite it not being a very profitable one). As I'm sure others will attest, it's all well and good having lots of likes attributed to a MOC, but that doesn't necessarily equal sales. 

 

(Thanks to all for reading my own personal story on the subject. I'm not very good at writing, so apologies if it all sounds confusing or unclear).

 

Edited February 4 by Dazzzy
Very poorly written

[Peppermint_M]

11 hours ago, firefabric said:

You have chosen to deny any kind of influence whatsoever,

Therein lies the issue. No one will credit influence to something that didn't influence them. @icm made an excellent breakdown on the case and many have explained and reasons something made based on IP will always resemble that IP item. And true, you will feel how you feel but you cannot force others to feel another way, which of course applies in reverse. 

However, it is better for health to move on. If money is not the important factor in "ownership" it is all just internet points and kudos which isn't worth stressing about.

[firefabric]

3 hours ago, Dazzzy said:

Anyway i just wanted to thank @firefabric for starting this topic, as it's an interesting one, and also one that doesn't seem to be much discussed, (though I'm sure it's discussed on other social media platforms, that i just don't use anymore).

Thank you also for a good and balanced write-up of your experience. I can quite easily relate, up to getting the similar comments. I did expect to get them but I still wanted to have the discussion to see how different people in the community actually feel about this. And I can see it's quite related to anyone's point of view, whether they are MOC creators or builders and if they have faced something like this themselves.

Edited February 4 by firefabric

[firefabric]

1 hour ago, Peppermint_M said:

Therein lies the issue. No one will credit influence to something that didn't influence them. @icm made an excellent breakdown on the case and many have explained and reasons something made based on IP will always resemble that IP item. And true, you will feel how you feel but you cannot force others to feel another way, which of course applies in reverse. 

However, it is better for health to move on. If money is not the important factor in "ownership" it is all just internet points and kudos which isn't worth stressing about.

What anyone says is of course from their point of view. I can see people who create MOCs and have had something like this happen mostly understand where this is coming from, whether it's finally warranted or not. But I appreciate both points of view, and that's the original topic of this discussion.

Like I said, I accept that we feel what we feel and I will leave it at that, and the issues itself is dealt with.

To put a more positive spin on things, something good also came out of this. I have also been working on changes and updates to my version in the past couple of years, and this inspired me to finish them...