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

[Peppermint_M]

I appreciate you can see a lot of similarities, to the point that it looks like copying. However, on the balance of things, I just see two Time Machine DeLorean MOCs. It is an Iconic Movie Car, so someone can easily come upon a similar parts use when creating their own model at the same scale, how else are they to build one. There is no way to create it without using any of the same parts, Mr Fusion is a cylinder, LEGO has a cylinder anyone would use to represent that. It is not a brick-for-brick copy so one can only say they took inspiration from the Back to the Future Movies.  

In the case of a unique and original MOC, if someone were to say, draw inspiration from one of my builds, some credit to the original MOC would be all I would like, nothing more. If someone had posted something that took all my design but gave no credit and claimed ownership; then I would probably share it to the Brick/MOC Busters to judge. (If they are still going!). However, it would have to be a unique concept, or a very very close copy (all parts, a unique figure parts combo etc) if I was building off some artwork I saw online or the work of someone else in another medium (Say a model maker who uses clay, or the works of a designer like Daniel Simon), then it is reasonable that someone else also came across the same solution when building their own interpretation of that work.

Probabilities wise, I think the one place that is close to claim someone has copied another is in figure part combination, only if those parts were truly uniquely combined. AKA, no characters or official product that suggests it, parts that are separated by years and themes and availability, it would be virtually impossible to create within such a small (global population wise) community. 

So, yeah. If I spotted someone doing very close to This figure or MOC, I think I would be grumpy to not be credited. 

 

[firefabric]

34 minutes ago, Peppermint_M said:

I appreciate you can see a lot of similarities, to the point that it looks like copying. However, on the balance of things, I just see two Time Machine DeLorean MOCs. It is an Iconic Movie Car, so someone can easily come upon a similar parts use when creating their own model at the same scale, how else are they to build one. There is no way to create it without using any of the same parts, Mr Fusion is a cylinder, LEGO has a cylinder anyone would use to represent that. It is not a brick-for-brick copy so one can only say they took inspiration from the Back to the Future Movies.  

In the case of a unique and original MOC, if someone were to say, draw inspiration from one of my builds, some credit to the original MOC would be all I would like, nothing more. If someone had posted something that took all my design but gave no credit and claimed ownership; then I would probably share it to the Brick/MOC Busters to judge. (If they are still going!). However, it would have to be a unique concept, or a very very close copy (all parts, a unique figure parts combo etc) if I was building off some artwork I saw online or the work of someone else in another medium (Say a model maker who uses clay, or the works of a designer like Daniel Simon), then it is reasonable that someone else also came across the same solution when building their own interpretation of that work.

Probabilities wise, I think the one place that is close to claim someone has copied another is in figure part combination, only if those parts were truly uniquely combined. AKA, no characters or official product that suggests it, parts that are separated by years and themes and availability, it would be virtually impossible to create within such a small (global population wise) community. 

So, yeah. If I spotted someone doing very close to This figure or MOC, I think I would be grumpy to not be credited. 

 

Thanks for the good thoughts. I understand what you mean, it is possible that someone comes up with the same parts for the same design. My reasoning is however, in this case it's not very likely as my version has been there for almost 2 years to see and the other was created now. My DeLorean is also a fairly known design already with one of the most number of likes on RB, so I could say it's  fairly established. There has been many DeLoreans published on RB after mine, and some borrow a few things from mine either directly or indirectly. That I consider as just normal taking inspiration, coincidence or doing the same model etc, as Lego has a limited number of parts that can represent any given thing. But there are many other DeLorean models that don't have anything in common. This was the first version that came out where I even remotely thought there is something wrong in all of these 2 years.

Given the example of Mr. Fusion, I actually can't find any other model, before or after mine, where the same parts would be used. However, in this one, it's actually brick-to-brick the same including the base. Same as the exhaust vents and tail lights. But sure if it was just those, I would still think it's normal MOC building.

[JesseNight]

13 hours ago, firefabric said:

Regarding the same photo angles, again I would think that's the best way to see the similarities and differences...?

Of course it is. I assumed wrong here, I thought you already had yours up with these photos and someone else put up theirs with almost identical photos.

I don't know, I think as said before that the fact that you both aimed to make a time machine DeLorean from BTTF limits the possibilities of being unique a lot. And despite the overall design being similar, I already pointed out seeing a large amount of differences in the finer details. From hood, front fenders, sides cabling, to all the details in front and next to Mr Fusion and the cabling below the rear bumper.
It might be very likely that they were inspired by your model if it's been up for a while. I wouldn't feel too bad about it since it could have been unintentional. It's happened to me before that I thought I found something unique, only to be reminded later that I had been inspired by something I saw a week before it (but I don't publish my hobby work so less likely to run into trouble with people about such matters).

Edited January 16 by JesseNight

[firefabric]

20 hours ago, JesseNight said:

Of course it is. I assumed wrong here, I thought you already had yours up with these photos and someone else put up theirs with almost identical photos.

I don't know, I think as said before that the fact that you both aimed to make a time machine DeLorean from BTTF limits the possibilities of being unique a lot. And despite the overall design being similar, I already pointed out seeing a large amount of differences in the finer details. From hood, front fenders, sides cabling, to all the details in front and next to Mr Fusion and the cabling below the rear bumper.
It might be very likely that they were inspired by your model if it's been up for a while. I wouldn't feel too bad about it since it could have been unintentional. It's happened to me before that I thought I found something unique, only to be reminded later that I had been inspired by something I saw a week before it (but I don't publish my hobby work so less likely to run into trouble with people about such matters).

Ok yes that makes sense now, I also misunderstood what you meant so it turned the argument upside down for me, as well as MAB's reply.

I know that happens, many times I have also thought I figured out something new and awesome, only to find out shortly after that someone else had done it way before, and usually better... I'm sure in this case that explains some of it as well. But ya, it's just that the millisecond I saw the other version, I thought 'wait what, is that mine'... that never happened before. 

My DeLorean was actually the first instruction I created for RB, so I was of course quite happy about the response it got, and it inspired to share more designs there. I've had no issues whatsoever until now, I hope this is an isolated case.

[JesseNight]

I hope it doesn't demotivate you.
I am of an age that I've known the pre internet times, and back then chances were a lot smaller to encounter similar designs because we would only share them irl with friends or people in the street or our neighborhood. Right now, we live in a time where we share everything with the whole world, with millions of others. That makes chances a lot higher that someone else will do or has done something very similar or better. Just don't let it get to you and take pride in your work. And if someone else does it better, we can learn from it for our next project.

[KennoMonkey]

I had this happen from both sides. I just want to add that I opted for peace of mind in both cases. 

A company sells one of my most popular designs, even to the point of publishing my very own instruction with no credit whatsoever. I decided not to even contact them and to be flattered by it.

Someone else called me out for “copying” their design. There were so many external differences that even the internal details couldn’t be the same. I could swear I’d never seen their MOC before this, but maybe I wasn’t remembering correctly. I decided that “inspired by” could be true and gave them that credit. They were pleased and we ended on friendly terms.

All builders know how difficult design can be. It’s also a little vulnerable to put it out there. I wish we could all be supportive, but there are immature bell ends out there. I’m sorry this happened to you. Back to original question, I feel you are justified in being miffed. I just hope it didn’t ruin your day or anything and that venting here helped. 

[JesseNight]

We live in a time where we share everything with the whole world as I've said before. I'm afraid that also results in it being vastly more difficult to ever stand out with anything when competing against millions of others... and in the end, who doesn't like to have at least some appreciation for what they're doing?

At the same time, I do admit I wouldn't appreciate it if a business takes financial advantage of something I offered for free. But I have taken the initiative to just prevent that from happening by not sharing my stuff online and only with close friends that I trust. Therefore I don't show off stuff either because I don't like having a "show off but you can't have it" attitude. Just saying when I share something publicly, I'm well aware of the possible (and likely, if it is something good) consequences.

[firefabric]

On 1/18/2024 at 4:12 AM, JesseNight said:

I hope it doesn't demotivate you.
I am of an age that I've known the pre internet times, and back then chances were a lot smaller to encounter similar designs because we would only share them irl with friends or people in the street or our neighborhood. Right now, we live in a time where we share everything with the whole world, with millions of others. That makes chances a lot higher that someone else will do or has done something very similar or better. Just don't let it get to you and take pride in your work. And if someone else does it better, we can learn from it for our next project.

 

13 hours ago, JesseNight said:

We live in a time where we share everything with the whole world as I've said before. I'm afraid that also results in it being vastly more difficult to ever stand out with anything when competing against millions of others... and in the end, who doesn't like to have at least some appreciation for what they're doing?

At the same time, I do admit I wouldn't appreciate it if a business takes financial advantage of something I offered for free. But I have taken the initiative to just prevent that from happening by not sharing my stuff online and only with close friends that I trust. Therefore I don't show off stuff either because I don't like having a "show off but you can't have it" attitude. Just saying when I share something publicly, I'm well aware of the possible (and likely, if it is something good) consequences.

That is very true, if it's on the internet, it's everywhere and this is the drawback. And when I made the decision of starting to post my builds online, I was mostly aware of this but of course at that point I wasn't really sure if my designs were anything interesting. As you said there is so much Lego stuff posted online and a lot of it is really great, so it's difficult to stand out. My mentality is that I just build what I'm interested in and if like the result myself, I'll post it online (here and RB mostly) and see if anyone else likes it. I have never considered it as competing with others as it's a hobby for me, but with this experience I can kind of see the other as competing against me from their part.

That's actually one major reason I'm not happy with the situation, I don't want to compete with anyone, so in that sense it does demotivate me in publishing more MOCs. So far I have been under the impression that on RB there is a code of conduct so to speak, to not directly compete with others especially if it's an established design, unless you really have something new to present. And of course there are rules etc there for this sort of thing, but in my case unfortunately it didn't help. But like I said, I accept the situation, even if I'm not happy about it.

[MAB]

2 hours ago, firefabric said:

That's actually one major reason I'm not happy with the situation, I don't want to compete with anyone, so in that sense it does demotivate me in publishing more MOCs. So far I have been under the impression that on RB there is a code of conduct so to speak, to not directly compete with others especially if it's an established design, unless you really have something new to present. And of course there are rules etc there for this sort of thing, but in my case unfortunately it didn't help. But like I said, I accept the situation, even if I'm not happy about it.

If you don't want to compete with anyone, then don't try to sell instructions MOCs based on popular movies or other intellectual property that other people are likely to make MOCs for. There is no code of conduct that the first person to make a MOC of a licensed object at a particular size has more rights than everyone else to make money from it or can stop others making their own versions.  If you don't want to compete for sales and build MOCs for a hobby then give the instructions away. More users will download and enjoy the MOC than when you are expecting payment for it. There are of course rules that MOCs must be your own, and rebrickable does remove MOCs where they are reported if they have been directly copied from someone else.

[JesseNight]

7 hours ago, firefabric said:

My mentality is that I just build what I'm interested in and if like the result myself, I'll post it online (here and RB mostly) and see if anyone else likes it. I have never considered it as competing with others as it's a hobby for me, but with this experience I can kind of see the other as competing against me from their part.

<cut>

So far I have been under the impression that on RB there is a code of conduct so to speak, to not directly compete with others especially if it's an established design, unless you really have something new to present. And of course there are rules etc there for this sort of thing, but in my case unfortunately it didn't help. But like I said, I accept the situation, even if I'm not happy about it.

To the first, I think that's a good way to go about it. Build for yourself, for your own fun. Share it if you feel like it, or not, whatever you feel comfortable with.

To the second... There's always been rules everywhere... and there's always been rule breakers. That's just life.
Remember that selling is always a form of competition in the end (that's why I keep it away from my hobbies aside from necessary purchases).

[firefabric]

On 1/18/2024 at 7:16 PM, KennoMonkey said:

I had this happen from both sides. I just want to add that I opted for peace of mind in both cases. 

A company sells one of my most popular designs, even to the point of publishing my very own instruction with no credit whatsoever. I decided not to even contact them and to be flattered by it.

Someone else called me out for “copying” their design. There were so many external differences that even the internal details couldn’t be the same. I could swear I’d never seen their MOC before this, but maybe I wasn’t remembering correctly. I decided that “inspired by” could be true and gave them that credit. They were pleased and we ended on friendly terms.

All builders know how difficult design can be. It’s also a little vulnerable to put it out there. I wish we could all be supportive, but there are immature bell ends out there. I’m sorry this happened to you. Back to original question, I feel you are justified in being miffed. I just hope it didn’t ruin your day or anything and that venting here helped. 

Thanks for the good input and nice words. I've also had the experience of finding my MOCs for sale on some shady sites, but somehow I didn't feel as bad about that as it was kinda expected. I also decided to consider it as a compliment to the design, because there wasn't much I could do about it anyway. In this case I was fully taken by surprise as I didn't expect it at all from a fellow MOC builder. I do still want to put my designs out there and I'll be fine with it, but this definitely put a dent in my trust how things work there.

[firefabric]

9 hours ago, MAB said:

If you don't want to compete with anyone, then don't try to sell instructions MOCs based on popular movies or other intellectual property that other people are likely to make MOCs for. There is no code of conduct that the first person to make a MOC of a licensed object at a particular size has more rights than everyone else to make money from it or can stop others making their own versions.  If you don't want to compete for sales and build MOCs for a hobby then give the instructions away. More users will download and enjoy the MOC than when you are expecting payment for it. There are of course rules that MOCs must be your own, and rebrickable does remove MOCs where they are reported if they have been directly copied from someone else.

I'm not making MOCs to compete with anyone, that's not the point for me at all. I'm also not making MOCs to sell instructions or make money, that's even further from the point. I have both free and paid instructions on RB, and I would feel the same if someone took my free designs and did the same thing. So free or not doesn't make a difference to the topic. And what you say about the code of conduct, you know that's not what I meant right?

I can see you are against charging anything for instructions as that comes up in almost every reply, I have explained my view in earlier replies and that hasn't changed. But the amounts that are generally charged for instructions on RB are so small (like a cup of coffee), that it won't prevent anyone from enjoying them. Anyway the cost of the bricks will be say tenfold, so I'd say it's fair to give a small nod to the designer also. And one more thing, charging a small fee for instructions actually prevents piracy to some extent, as there is a purchase process controlled by RB. 

[firefabric]

4 hours ago, JesseNight said:

To the first, I think that's a good way to go about it. Build for yourself, for your own fun. Share it if you feel like it, or not, whatever you feel comfortable with.

To the second... There's always been rules everywhere... and there's always been rule breakers. That's just life.
Remember that selling is always a form of competition in the end (that's why I keep it away from my hobbies aside from necessary purchases).

I'd like to think that's the way most MOC creators on RB think, make it for your own enjoyment and then if it turns out good, maybe make instructions and share it. But I can see there are nowadays some who are pushing so many designs all the time on Rebrickable that it must be their job. They need to come up with something that sells all the time and may resort to questionable methods to keep it up. I don't think that's what happened in my case, but with more people trying to actually make money off of the instructions, it will lead into competition for sales and these things will happen more. I hope RB will be able to manage that.

[JesseNight]

Not much RB can do when it's honest competition and just the amount of it giving sellers a hard time. Plenty of people are always looking to make a little extra on the side, hobbies tend to be expensive enough as it is.

[firefabric]

6 hours ago, JesseNight said:

Not much RB can do when it's honest competition and just the amount of it giving sellers a hard time. Plenty of people are always looking to make a little extra on the side, hobbies tend to be expensive enough as it is.

Yes that is the key, when it's honest competition there's no problem, I don't have any problem even if one makes it into their job or does it for a little extra as long as it's done in good taste (there are of course different opinions what that means). This is again a bit beyond-topic and I'm not sure about the other party's motives in this particular case, but this sort of thing will take some fun out of the hobby. Must be like that for him also, he was not happy about it either and chose to basically deny everything. I could have stayed silent and let it be, but for me the issue was too obvious to just dismiss.

[MAB]

On 1/20/2024 at 12:46 AM, firefabric said:

I can see you are against charging anything for instructions as that comes up in almost every reply, I have explained my view in earlier replies and that hasn't changed. But the amounts that are generally charged for instructions on RB are so small (like a cup of coffee), that it won't prevent anyone from enjoying them. Anyway the cost of the bricks will be say tenfold, so I'd say it's fair to give a small nod to the designer also. And one more thing, charging a small fee for instructions actually prevents piracy to some extent, as there is a purchase process controlled by RB. 

I'm not against charging for anything. The point is, as soon as you start charging it becomes competitive as you have something to gain/lose by selling more/less, whether you want to be in the 'competition' or not.

22 hours ago, firefabric said:

Yes that is the key, when it's honest competition there's no problem, I don't have any problem even if one makes it into their job or does it for a little extra as long as it's done in good taste (there are of course different opinions what that means). This is again a bit beyond-topic and I'm not sure about the other party's motives in this particular case, but this sort of thing will take some fun out of the hobby. Must be like that for him also, he was not happy about it either and chose to basically deny everything. I could have stayed silent and let it be, but for me the issue was too obvious to just dismiss.

Why does it take fun out of the hobby? If he hadn't have made his version, you'd have made yours and listed it at RB. He has made his, and you've still made yours and listed it at RB. So no difference in either case.  He hasn't copied yours, as confirmed by RB, so this is honest competition yet you still imply the other designer has done something wrong.

Edited January 21 by MAB

[firefabric]

40 minutes ago, MAB said:

I'm not against charging for anything. The point is, as soon as you start charging it becomes competitive as you have something to gain/lose by selling more/less, whether you want to be in the 'competition' or not.

Why does it take fun out of the hobby? If he hadn't have made his version, you'd have made yours and listed it at RB. He has made his, and you've still made yours and listed it at RB. So no difference in either case.  He hasn't copied yours, as confirmed by RB, so this is honest competition yet you still imply the other designer has done something wrong.

Ya I suppose you are correct about the charging aspect, I just never thought so far that putting instructions on RB is 'sales', I have been thinking about it more as sharing with a small 'thanks' compensation. Not just for me but everyone else too, that's the way I understood the whole idea of Rebrickable. But that has probably changed, and I guess it's ok in general.

What I mean is, this sort of thing takes some (not all) fun out of the hobby for me, as it becomes more business-like. Yes it was determined it was not a copy, which I actually stated myself to RB as well, but it was not a clear call for them either as I understood. As I said many times, I accept their decision but it doesn't change my opinion that it was wrong in my books, and I feel not exactly honest competition. I'm not just implying that, I'm stating it clearly. But ya both are there now and I'm still happy about my design and the response it has gotten, that didn't change. 

[Peppermint_M]

I can't understand why you are getting quite so twisted in knots about the MOC, I think a few other members have also pointed out that there is more chance they built their own with no copying, looking them up on RB, I have declined to link that drama here. My original intention was to share some stats between the two but you haven't exactly covered yourself in glory on the site.

Examining the parts list, his has more parts, has significantly different parts and is not a copy of your MOC but, a build of The MOST ICONIC MOVIE CAR. (Features in every list I can find, always top 10, often if not no1, the picture of it leads the article/is the thumbnail etc).

If I built your MOC, but made it purple, or bought custom chrome bricks, or pimped it up with gold, or switched some parts/added some bits to make the BTTF 3 version, or the 50's rebuild, I should say: Hey, I built this guy's MOC but did xyz to it. If I examined you MOC, reverse engineered the outer and made a few cosmetic changes, I should say: Hey, I saw this MOC and built one of my own, using the pictures as a guide. I made abc changes. That is the sort of fair acknowledgement expected in a genuine, actual case of building from someone else's MOC.

If, say, my BTT fan brother-in-law said "Build me a DeLorean time machine car like the speed champions" I would probably pull out my Hotwheels diecast, borrow my brother's larger scale LEGO set and check out which Speed Champion cars are a good place to start. Then, I would work out parts and methods to use to create it. (At the moment, Avatar sets have some interesting flexi-rubber to use) I would come out with my own version that could very well look like your MOC, because we built the same thing. However, I didn't sit there and use your MOC pictures etc to create it, I simply built the same subject in the same medium.

As for wanting some sort of "ownership" when building a MOC of a thing and expecting others not to: In all honesty, the reverse is true for me. If I plan to build a MOC and find someone else has done something the same and very close to where I would go, I do not bother/delay building it, maybe if mine has some real differences, I might. Thing is though, if I have no idea someone else has built the same thing, I go right ahead and build, then share it. 

 

[Yperio_Bricks]

4 hours ago, firefabric said:

Ya I suppose you are correct about the charging aspect, I just never thought so far that putting instructions on RB is 'sales', I have been thinking about it more as sharing with a small 'thanks' compensation. Not just for me but everyone else too, that's the way I understood the whole idea of Rebrickable. But that has probably changed, and I guess it's ok in general.

Wouldn't a 'thanks' be much more powerful if it was optional? As i understand RB, people there want to make money by selling instructions, no?

If someone wants to hear a honest 'thanks' instructions would better be free. If someone wants to earn money, instructions have to cost something But if i buy something, why would i have to thank the seller? Maybe the seller should thank the buyer because the buyer spent some money?

[icm]

A few years ago Koen Zwanenburg/Swan Dutchman built an X-wing that closely resembled the Jerac v1, which was then sold as instructions by Brick Vault. In reality, it had nothing in common except the subject and the scale. Brick Vault asked Swan Dutchman to take down his Studio model because they thought it would affect their sales. I downloaded the Studio model in the short time it was available, before Swan Dutchman graciously complied with the request. I built both models with physical parts and can attest that they had nothing in common. The entire building community lost out due to the loss of the Swan Dutchman model.

I think most of these disputes on Rebrickable are like that, and in reality there is no competition (which is ok) nor copying (which is not ok) intended. Please, relax.

Edited January 21 by icm

[firefabric]

2 hours ago, Peppermint_M said:

I can't understand why you are getting quite so twisted in knots about the MOC, I think a few other members have also pointed out that there is more chance they built their own with no copying, looking them up on RB, I have declined to link that drama here. My original intention was to share some stats between the two but you haven't exactly covered yourself in glory on the site.

Examining the parts list, his has more parts, has significantly different parts and is not a copy of your MOC...

It's a matter of opinion whether this was ok or not, I have my opinion and I have asked for other's opinions and I'm happy to get them. It may not change mine but gives some perspective so I do appreciate the input. And there have been also others agreeing with me, so it's literally a matter of opinion in the end. 

I'm not sure what do you mean by drama on RB, yes there is also a discussion where I directly pointed out my view on the issue. I usually try to be positive about hobby stuff, but this was the first occasion where I really didn't feel like just exchanging pleasantries. If you feel that was out of line, ok.

Regarding the copy comment, that is clear and that is covered many times in this thread so I'll just say that you are correct in your examples, that's how it should go in general. But I'm not trying claim any copyright or anything like that, this i have clarified many times here and there. Maybe if the other party would have accepted to admit some level of 'inspiration taken', I could have felt differently. Maybe then the RB discussion would have been more positive also. 

[icm]

On 1/12/2024 at 5:29 AM, firefabric said:

It is a valid argument and normally I would think like that too. There will definitely be similarities in builds of the same subject and that is ok. In this case, at least in my eyes, there are so many similarities and identical things that the end result looks more or less the same overall, with some obvious differences of course. That happening fully unintentionally seems quite unlikely, especially when I have not seen any other MOC of the same thing which is even remotely this close.

Continuing from my previous reply to this thread: that's what people thought about the Swan Dutchman X-wing vs the Jerac v1. In reality, they were completely different. Given what @Peppermint_M has said after examining the parts list and instructions of both Deloreans, I believe the same thing is going on here. They look the same because they're the same subject at the same scale and there's only so much you can do with Lego parts, but no "line" was crossed.

Edited January 21 by icm

[firefabric]

3 hours ago, Yperio_Bricks said:

Wouldn't a 'thanks' be much more powerful if it was optional? As i understand RB, people there want to make money by selling instructions, no?

If someone wants to hear a honest 'thanks' instructions would better be free. If someone wants to earn money, instructions have to cost something But if i buy something, why would i have to thank the seller? Maybe the seller should thank the buyer because the buyer spent some money?

I actually like that way, and I was wondering in the beginning why RB doesn't give that option directly. Later I have realized it's probably because of piracy prevention (chinese copies) and that's one major reason why I also went with the regular fee system.

>>>> But if i buy something, why would i have to thank the seller?

I guess that depends on your experience, if you got a good deal and were happy with what you got, why not... this is a slightly different transaction, people on RB are selling their own creations that they spent considerable effort on themselves, not reselling some random stuff for profit (like eBay etc).

[JesseNight]

8 hours ago, firefabric said:

Ya I suppose you are correct about the charging aspect, I just never thought so far that putting instructions on RB is 'sales', I have been thinking about it more as sharing with a small 'thanks' compensation. Not just for me but everyone else too, that's the way I understood the whole idea of Rebrickable. But that has probably changed, and I guess it's ok in general.

On RB there are instructions for free and for money, so I'm assuming the person putting it up has a choice between sharing or selling.
I'm not against either one but as MAB said, the moment you put a price on it you're basically entering a competition.

I understand your part about business taking the fun out of a hobby, for that exact reason I only choose between sharing for free, or not at all. I don't wanna do any business at all in my hobby time because I don't enjoy doing business at all, and to me that can turn a hobby into a job where expectations suddenly have to be met. I'm not saying this is always the case, it's just how it feels for me, and I really need my hobby time to be time where I take it slow without any pressure and relax.

 

4 hours ago, icm said:

A few years ago Koen Zwanenburg/Swan Dutchman built an X-wing that closely resembled the Jerac v1, which was then sold as instructions by Brick Vault. In reality, it had nothing in common except the subject and the scale. Brick Vault asked Swan Dutchman to take down his Studio model because they thought it would affect their sales. I downloaded the Studio model in the short time it was available, before Swan Dutchman graciously complied with the request. I built both models with physical parts and can attest that they had nothing in common. The entire building community lost out due to the loss of the Swan Dutchman model.

I think most of these disputes on Rebrickable are like that, and in reality there is no competition (which is ok) nor copying (which is not ok) intended. Please, relax.

That's a sad thing really. Not gonna lie, I tend to keep the peace about such things but I would be mad as hell if someone tried to take down something I put free time and love into, that I'd share with others, just so they can make more money (another reason I wouldn't share stuff publicly, to prevent such things from happening).
What I don't understand though, is why he decided to still take it down if the models were that different. Or did they threaten with legal measures? Because if they had an official permission to make a SW based model and Swan Dutchman did not, that could indeed have led to a problem...

[firefabric]

3 hours ago, icm said:

A few years ago Koen Zwanenburg/Swan Dutchman built an X-wing that closely resembled the Jerac v1, which was then sold as instructions by Brick Vault. In reality, it had nothing in common except the subject and the scale. Brick Vault asked Swan Dutchman to take down his Studio model because they thought it would affect their sales. I downloaded the Studio model in the short time it was available, before Swan Dutchman graciously complied with the request. I built both models with physical parts and can attest that they had nothing in common. The entire building community lost out due to the loss of the Swan Dutchman model.

I think most of these disputes on Rebrickable are like that, and in reality there is no competition (which is ok) nor copying (which is not ok) intended. Please, relax.

Thanks for the pointer, I looked up both X-wings and if I found the correct ones, it's an interesting comparison. X-wing is similarly a very popular subject so there will be more models made. As I'm not so familiar with the X-wing, I can probably look at them with similar eye as someone who hasn't studied the DeLorean in every possible detail. I can see that they look similar (which is natural), have some identical details (main engine inlets for example) but also many details are created with different parts. So I can see what you mean, it would be quite a similar comparison.

I'm relaxed, and I'm not taking any more actions about it. But it's an interesting topic to discuss.

3 hours ago, icm said:

Continuing from my previous reply to this thread: that's what people thought about the Swan Dutchman X-wing vs the Jerac v1. In reality, they were completely different. Given what @Peppermint_M has said after examining the parts list and instructions of both Deloreans, I believe the same thing is going on here. They look the same because they're the same subject at the same scale and there's only so much you can do with Lego parts, but no "line" was crossed.

One thing I would like point out (and this is not exactly what happened in my case, or probably in the X-wing case), in general I don't think the parts list comparison is a deciding factor, as it's possible to create the same 'shell' by looking at pictures and then make a completely different structure inside, and use similar parts (not same) for details. So I'd say you can easily find 80% different parts for a build that looks very similar outside. Obviously the comparison will tell if it's a copy, but not much more. So if I made an X-wing just by looking at the pictures, and managed to make it look more or less the same but with mostly different parts list, would that still be categorized as a different MOC if I published it? I think I might still also get a call from Brick Vault...