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

[firefabric]

30 minutes ago, JesseNight said:

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.

This is pretty much exactly how I think also. As I have said, I don't consider RB a business for me, I only add stuff there when I happen to finish something so there are no timetables to meet etc. If someone likes it, I'm happy, if not, it's ok. But as mentioned, I do prefer the small fee nowadays there. If I were to put something out completely for free, it would be much easier for the scoundrels to just take it for profit and run.

[JesseNight]

In truth, it's always easy... assuming they would do it for more than just $10 of profit to begin with 

[firefabric]

6 minutes ago, JesseNight said:

In truth, it's always easy... assuming they would do it for more than just $10 of profit to begin with 

Unfortunately yes, but there are at least some measures taken against it by RB and I can claim some kind of a copyright against a 100% copy. But I do wonder if it's really profitable even for them... maybe if they have enough variety it becomes worthwhile.

[MAB]

22 hours ago, firefabric said:

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. 

Have you ever thought about how you are taking the fun out of it for others? Somewhere else on the internet there could be someone saying they have designed a Speed Champions style version of the car from their favourite movie and put the instructions up for sale on RB. Someone else selling instructions for MOCs is harassing them saying they have copied their version and are trying to get it removed, even though they hadn't seen or bought the other one, the parts lists are very different and RB have said that they do not believe it is a copy. 

[firefabric]

3 hours ago, MAB said:

Have you ever thought about how you are taking the fun out of it for others? Somewhere else on the internet there could be someone saying they have designed a Speed Champions style version of the car from their favourite movie and put the instructions up for sale on RB. Someone else selling instructions for MOCs is harassing them saying they have copied their version and are trying to get it removed, even though they hadn't seen or bought the other one, the parts lists are very different and RB have said that they do not believe it is a copy. 

From whom I am taking the fun out of now, can you clarify? In this case the other party is one of the main creators on RB with lots of followers etc, so it's not their first foray into putting MOCs on Rebrickable. And if you call me stating my opinion (strongly yes, but with no disrespect) harassment, we have a different definition for that. Should I have just stayed silent and said nothing then?

And anyway you are making the assumption here that the other party did everything innocently and I'm complaining without any reason. Are you sure about that? If not, please refrain.

Like I said, there are some who agree with me (mostly other creators who can understand the situation from my point of view), and some who disagree, and I accept both views. But I won't accept blame without facts.

[icm]

Walt a second. This is the Barneius version you were accusing of cheating? Barneius? No way. Barneius is a highly respected, highly original, very creative builder. He would never intentionally cheat or copy. Any similarities are due to it just being the same car at the same scale with the same available parts. I'm glad you two were able to resolve it amicably. If not, this whole ordeal would certainly be taking the fun out of it for Barneius, who's one of the Speed Champions builders I respect the most.

[MAB]

1 hour ago, firefabric said:

From whom I am taking the fun out of now, can you clarify? In this case the other party is one of the main creators on RB with lots of followers etc, so it's not their first foray into putting MOCs on Rebrickable. And if you call me stating my opinion (strongly yes, but with no disrespect) harassment, we have a different definition for that. Should I have just stayed silent and said nothing then?

And anyway you are making the assumption here that the other party did everything innocently and I'm complaining without any reason. Are you sure about that? If not, please refrain.

Like I said, there are some who agree with me (mostly other creators who can understand the situation from my point of view), and some who disagree, and I accept both views. But I won't accept blame without facts.

Think about the other person's perspective. They have created something without knowledge of yours and put it up for sale. Only to be contacted by some random person that has also made a similar model telling them that they have copied it and asking them questions about it. That would affect their enjoyment.

 

 

[firefabric]

19 minutes ago, MAB said:

Think about the other person's perspective. They have created something without knowledge of yours and put it up for sale. Only to be contacted by some random person that has also made a similar model telling them that they have copied it and asking them questions about it. That would affect their enjoyment.

Yes that would be true if that was the case. But that's not the other person's perspective in this case, he was well aware of my design, had seen it already when it came out almost 2 years ago. So far I have had only positive things to say about anyone else's MOCs (including his earlier designs), whether they were DeLoreans or anything else, so I'm not exactly going around calling out people for their designs.

[icm]

Quote

30.12.2023 EDIT:

Author’s note on similarities in rear lights and exhausts between this moc and DeLorean Time Machine MOC-108607 by firefabric:

I did not take inspiration from MOC-108607 by firefabric as I worked on rear details of the DeLorean Time Machine before, came up with similar ideas, yet abandoned the project for a long time in favor of the other ones.

I do credit firefabric as the first designer who showed listed above ideas on rear lights and exhausts in his DeLorean Time Machine MOC-108607.

I think you two were both working on the Delorean from the moment you saw the printed gray windscreen in the Mercedes Speed Champions set and you were just the first to publish. Meanwhile his version was left on the back burner for a while. That's all.

This thread helps me understand why the designer of the UCS 1989 Batmobile was so intentional about doing absolutely everything differently than the Dave Slater MOC, and even leaving off some interesting features because Dave Slater had already done them, for fear of accusations of plagiarism or theft of ideas.

Cripes-a-mighty. Every X-wing looks the same. Barneius has now given you some credit where credit wasn't necessarily due. You can both move on.

Note - for myself, I do make sure to credit other builds I've seen even when I do my version completely differently. But I only post a couple pictures of my builds to Flickr, and I've never made instructions or posted to Rebrickable, so what do I know? 

[firefabric]

3 hours ago, icm said:

Walt a second. This is the Barneius version you were accusing of cheating? Barneius? No way. Barneius is a highly respected, highly original, very creative builder. He would never intentionally cheat or copy. Any similarities are due to it just being the same car at the same scale with the same available parts. I'm glad you two were able to resolve it amicably. If not, this whole ordeal would certainly be taking the fun out of it for Barneius, who's one of the Speed Champions builders I respect the most.

Well, I don't think it should matter who it is, but yes I can honestly agree that he is one of the best creators in that space and I have always liked his MOCs, and I have expressed that in our conversation as well. But that's also partly why I was so surprised at first when I saw his DeLorean, I thought why would he need to release something so close to mine, as his stuff is usually very original and on point. If it really is unintentional, I accept but I just thought there were so many similarities and identical things, that it was not likely given that there have been 2 years in between, and there are so many other DeLorean MOCs out there which are nowhere near this close. But ya, it's again a matter of opinion and anyway this discussion was not about who it was.

 

2 hours ago, icm said:

I think you two were both working on the Delorean from the moment you saw the printed gray windscreen in the Mercedes Speed Champions set and you were just the first to publish. Meanwhile his version was left on the back burner for a while. That's all.

Cripes-a-mighty. Every X-wing looks the same. Barneius has now given you some credit where credit wasn't necessarily due. You can both move on.

Yes I would have felt differently if the releases were say a few weeks apart, then it's most likely a coincidence, that happens often when for example some new part gives the inspiration, as you said. Not saying it can't be like that now, but the odds in general would turn the other way given the time span. Btw if you look at all the DeLoreans on RB, most of them look very different to each other, so there is actually a lot of variation.

And I have moved on, it's not about that, I published another MOC myself also after this thing already. I'm responding to the discussion because it's interesting, and some of it is quite constructive, like your X-wing reference.

[icm]

Taking time to look at the photos in detail, I'll grant that the Barneius Delorean does look more like the Firefabric Delorean than it looks like any other Delorean on Rebrickable. The photos Barneius took accentuate the similarities because they're taken from exactly the same poses. If all you see is the thumbnails of two very good Lego Deloreans, shown from the same angle, they will look the same, and you might wonder if one copied the other.

I'll grant that the following are very similar:

• The front bumper on each is made with studs-forward baby bows and 1x2 grille tiles in drum-lacquered silver. Is that such a big, innovative detail that it's impossible to come up with independently? Mechael, on Flickr, came up with that bumper (with smooth tiles instead of grille tiles) on March 27, 2022.
• The taillights on each are four 1x1 plates on each side, mounted studs-left and studs-right, with a 1x2 modified 45-degree slope on top. With current parts, this is simply the best way of matching the source material.
  • Firefabric was not the first to use four 1x1 plates mounted studs-left and studs-right as the taillights. His build was posted on April 17, 2022. A build by Alex_Qwerty, posted on March 24, 2022, used the same approach for the taillights - though there it was a stack of 5 with a cheese slope on the end, not a 1x2 modified 45-degree slope on top. The same builder posted a non-BTTF Delorean with the same taillights on November 28, 2021, which was after MOCturnal had already done it on November 6, 2021. Meanwhile on Flickr, on November 21, 2021 JerryBuildsBricks posted a Delorean that used the sideways-stack taillights topped with a modified 1x2 45-degree slope. The difference with the JerryBuildsBricks taillight slope, in 2021, was that it was studs-to-the-side, whereas the Firefabric taillight slope, in 2022, was studs-up. The same idea, though even simpler, was tackled by legoautohaus on October 28, 2021. Florian Wayne used the sideways 1x1 plate stack, though without slopes at the ends, on March 27, 2019. Hachiroku24 used four stacked 1x1 plates studs-to-the-side, capped with slopes, as far back as October 13, 2015! So is the stacked-taillights slope topped with a studs-up modified 1x2 45-degree slope, as seen in Firefabric and Barneius, really such a huge innovation that it couldn't be done independently? Is that really something to demand credit for?
• The big black vents on each model are, on each side, two 1x2 cheese grater slopes in black, mounted at the same angle to match the source material. With current parts, this is simply the best way of matching the source material.
  • Firefabric was not the first to use cheese graters for this. His build was posted on April 17, 2022. A build by 2bricksofficial used those on April 29, 2022. A build by KMPMOCs used a 2x2 block of cheese graters for the rear vents of the Delorean time machine on January 7, 2022. They were also used by Astro2022 on December 1, 2021. JerryBuildsBricks, on Flickr, had them on November 21, 2021 - and those were mounted at an angle, too! Also, Greg Muldoon on September 19, 2021 used double cheese graters. TheBoostedBrick did them on December 6, 2020 after an earlier version also had them on October 9, 2019. Florian Wayne used single cheese graters on March 27, 2019. Simply put, the time was ripe to use cheese graters as BTTF Delorean exhaust vents. It was "in the air" and done independently by multiple builders. Hachiroku24 used single cheese graters as far back as October 13, 2015! All Firefabric innovated was attaching them at a slant on a hinge, and that's not a huge innovation to be protective about - but he wasn't the first one to do that, as JerryBuildsBricks had already done it. Is it really necessary to credit Firefabric for this, when JerryBuildsBricks had already done it, and Barneius did it differently? Also, the idea of mounting the exhaust vents on hinges was far from new: it was used in the 2014 Ideas set, and by Henk van der Linde on December 23, 2020, though they didn't use cheese grater slopes as the vents.
• In each model, the grille-tile greebling on the sides behind the windscreen uses rounded 1x1 pizza tiles and 1x2 grille tiles in drum lacquered silver. This does seem to have appeared first on Firefabric's model before any other builder used those, but honestly is using grille tiles rather than smooth tiles something to get worked up about in a sense of personal innovation? Though the pattern was slightly different due to the lack of 1x1 quarter-round pizza tiles, and drum-lacquered silver wasn't available, Hachiroku24 used grille tiles for the greebling behind the windscreen as far back as October 13, 2015! JerryBuildsBricks had used the 1x1 quarter-round pizza tiles on November 21, 2021.
• The fusion generator is built the same. That detail is so small that it shouldn't be expected of every builder to do it differently.
• They use the same windscreen, but that is the obvious windscreen to use since 2022.
• Both models use studs-up plate construction where the gullwing doors would be.
• Both models use Speed Champions wheels, which are the obvious choice.
• Both models use the same wheel arch elements.
• Both models use the same approach for the wing mirrors, which is really very simple and nothing exceptional at all.
• Both models use flat studs-up tiles on either side of the windscreen.

But the rest looks very different to me, including:

• The hood. Barneius uses three 2x6 tiles mounted at a slight downward angle, but mostly studs-up. Firefabric uses panels mounted at a slight downward angle, but mostly studs-forward.
• The area beneath the front bumper. Barneius uses inverted baby bows for a curved, smooth look. Firefabric uses modified 1x2 plates with door rails to give a look of a metal frame.
• The rear bumper on Firefabric is a studs-backward 1x6 tile with 1x2 arch bricks rounding it out. The rear bumper on Barneius is a studs-backward 1x4 tile with 1x2 baby bows rounding it out. That rear bumper isn't the same in any way that matters.
• The black structure ahead of the black cheese grater vents is different between Barneius and Firefabric, and the way of mounting it is completely different. Firefabric uses hinge bricks that are easily visible on the outside of the model. Barneius conceals the mounting point deep within the greebled area behind the windscreen.
• The headlights. Barneius uses transparent 1x1 plates mounted studs-up, for a headlight area on each side that is 2 studs wide and 1 plate (0.4 stud) high. Firefabric uses transparent 1x1 plates mounted studs-forward, for a headlight area on each side that is 2 studs wide and 2.5 plates (one stud) high.
• The corners by the hood. Barneius uses a flat 1x4 tile area on each side, with studs up. Firefabric uses a 2x2 modified wedge tile to accomodate the larger headlights on each side, with studs out (left and right).
• The side wiring. Barneius uses a whip, a bar, and a sausage. Firefabric uses a hose, a bar, and a droid arm. Firefabric uses a java bar to extend the side wiring ahead of the front wheel. Barneius secures the whip ahead of the front wheel with a clip and tiles off the greebled area on Firefabric's model.
• The greeble above the windscreen is a minifig binocular element in Firefabric, and a Friends robot head in Barneius.
• The grille-tile greebling on Barneius is two segments: an L-shape behind the windscreen and then a straight-up-and-down tile behind the rear wheel. The grille-tile greebling on Firefabric is three segments: the L-shape is broken in two so each part can be at a different angle, and the tile behind the rear wheel is not straight-up-and-down. This indicates a very different way of building the support structure for the grille-tile greebling.
• The area beneath the rear bumper. Here it is Barneius that uses a bar to give the look of a metal frame, while Firefabric uses 1x2 black cheese slopes to give a finished-off look.
• The area beneath the license plate. There is a half-plate-thick area between the license plate and the rear bumper on the Firefabric version, while the Barneius version has the half-plate-thick area underneath the rear bumper. This points to a fundamentally different way of building the rear bumper.
• The rear greebling. Barneius uses robot hands, handlebars, and telephones. Firefabric uses wedge plates and pneumatic tees.
• The slopes immediately behind the windscreen are studs-up 1x2 modified 45-degree slopes on Barneius, and they're 1x2 tiles mounted at a flimsy angle on Firefabric. That indicates that the area behind the windscreen is built completely differently in the two models.
• At the bottom of the car body, on either side Barneius uses cheese slopes with studs left and studs right to create a 6-stud-long area that slopes inward. Firefabric's model has studs-up plate stacking in that area with no attempt to model that nuance of the source material. These differing details point to major structural differences in the way the bottom of the car chassis is built.
  • In fact, Barneius uses the latest Speed Champions wheelbase (introduced in 2022) as the base of the chassis. Firefabric builds up the chassis with plates. That is a major fundamental structural difference that means the rest of the car has to be built differently. It would be very difficult to "reverse-engineer the shell" of Firefabric's model and then build a structure in the not-visible parts that uses a 2022 Speed Champions wheelbase, if the Firefabric model wasn't already based on a 2020 or 2022 Speed Champions wheelbase (which it isn't). In fact, Firefabric makes visible (not locked behind the paywall of the instructions) photos of the underside of his car on his Rebrickable page when he shows the modifications to put it on the train tracks. If Barneius was "reverse-engineering the shell and installing a different support structure underneath", why on earth would he use a Speed Champions wheelbase? Why not start with the clearly visible plate-built chassis in those photos?
• I can't quite tell how the black front grille area between the headlights is done on either car, but it doesn't look the same to me.

In my opinion, without having downloaded and read the instructions for either model, those differences are more than enough to fully justify Barneius claiming his build as his own, without crediting it to Firefabric except maybe in a few details that are practically dictated by the available parts library.

The common details that seem to bother Firefabric (the taillights and rear exhaust vents) are not, in fact, all first used by Firefabric, and are therefore nothing to worry about in any potential dispute over whether Barneius copied Firefabric, intentionally or not - and that is just from a search of Rebrickable and Flickr, never mind all the other Deloreans that are out there on Instagram and YouTube.

The other details that can be different, are different.

Beneath the surface details, it looks to me like the structural approach to the model is quite different. There is no outer "shell" that was reverse-engineered and then filled in with some structure that doesn't matter for the purposes of this thread.

These two models are no more alike than the Jerac X-wing v1 and the Swan Dutchman X-wing. They look the same in the comparison in the first post of this thread because the angles of the photos are the same and the sizes of the photos are fairly small when seen all at once. They're both fine 8w Deloreans, and that's all.

If it feels like I'm taking way too much time to write this post, and putting way too much detail into it, that's because I am. You see, it really bothers me when someone gets suspected of copying, stealing, or plagiarizing someone else's work, without grounds. This is just a playful Lego hobby, but in other settings that sort of thing can ruin careers. It can ruin lives. I think of suspicions of plagiarism as very serious things, because they are so easy to make and yet they can have such serious consequences if they're not thoroughly and fairly investigated.

These two builds are - not - the - same.

So - it's been established several times in this thread that the Barneius model does not come near "crossing a line" in regard to the "acceptable level of taking inspiration from another MOC." The question of "what is the acceptable level of taking inspiration from another MOC" is a good question, and one worth asking, but the Barneius and Firefabric Deloreans make a bad test case for that question. Because Barneius does - not - come - near - the - line.

Edited January 22 by icm

[firefabric]

That's quite an analysis. I do agree to many of the things even if you are going into it a bit biased, mainly trying to prove me wrong. On the similarities side you mostly ask 'is that so relevant' etc to dismiss the similarity, on the differences side you point out every small thing to prove the point. But yes I agree to most of it, and I'll tell you why:

I would like to make one thing clear, and you can verify this from the other party if you wish. I have not claimed any copyright or even asked credit for any specific parts, not the tail lights, not the rear vents, nothing. I have only said I feel the build is too similar design-wise, and having too many similar and (almost) identical details, makes them look too similar. The other party came up with the credit about the tail lights and the vents by himself as those things are the most obvious similarities, I didn't ask for it. And yes, obviously there are details in mine that can also be found in other builds, I have never said otherwise and never claimed any details 'for myself'.

>>>> You see, it really bothers me when someone gets suspected of copying, stealing, or plagiarizing someone else's work, without grounds.

Whether there are grounds or not, it is again a matter of opinion. I keep repeating this because many commenters seem to offer their opinion as the truth.

[icm]

5 minutes ago, firefabric said:

even if you are going into it a bit biased, mainly trying to prove me wrong

All I'm doing is looking as closely as I can at the two models (and the others on the web) to see what similarities and differences I can see without actually paying for the instructions. I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm just trying to take a close look to see if you are right! And the evidence does not support you.

6 minutes ago, firefabric said:

I have not claimed any copyright or even asked credit for any specific parts, not the tail lights, not the rear vents, nothing.

So which parts bother you, again? If you're not asking credit for any specific parts, what are the similarities that bother you? If you aren't going to point to anything specific and say "he copied that", you haven't got a leg to stand on. 

7 minutes ago, firefabric said:

I feel the build is too similar design-wise, and having too many similar and (almost) identical details, makes them look too similar.

In that case, we may as well shut down MOC building entirely. Your two builds are not closely related. They do not have too many almost identical details. They do not look too similar. If asserting a vague sense of "looking too similar" is enough to get you to file a complaint with Rebrickable and make a long blog post about it, then the first builder to make a recognizable model of any particular object has rights to that object in perpetuity and nobody else can ever build it ever again.

Relax.

There is no plagiarism here.

There is no copying here.

[firefabric]

>>>> At the bottom of the car body, on either side Barneius uses cheese slopes with studs left and studs right to create a 6-stud-long area that slopes inward. Firefabric's model has studs-up plate stacking in that area with no attempt to model that nuance of the source material. These differing details point to major structural differences in the way the bottom of the car chassis is built.

Mine has a half-stud inset on the bottom plate to create an inward 'nuance', as well as wedge plates in the corners to bulge them up towards the wheel wells. So there is an attempt... I did have a development version trying out the exact same slope as Barneius, but somehow it didn't suit the overall look in my eye. In his it looks fine though.

[firefabric]

27 minutes ago, icm said:

All I'm doing is looking as closely as I can at the two models (and the others on the web) to see what similarities and differences I can see without actually paying for the instructions. I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm just trying to take a close look to see if you are right! And the evidence does not support you.

So which parts bother you, again? If you're not asking credit for any specific parts, what are the similarities that bother you? If you aren't going to point to anything specific and say "he copied that", you haven't got a leg to stand on. 

In that case, we may as well shut down MOC building entirely. Your two builds are not closely related. They do not have too many almost identical details. They do not look too similar. If asserting a vague sense of "looking too similar" is enough to get you to file a complaint with Rebrickable and make a long blog post about it, then the first builder to make a recognizable model of any particular object has rights to that object in perpetuity and nobody else can ever build it ever again.

Relax.

There is no plagiarism here.

There is no copying here.

You at least seem to think I'm wrong if I'm not mistaken.... I have pointed out all the similarities many times so not copying it here again, but for example if you look at the rear quarter view especially, that's almost identical (not considering certain details of course). Anyway, the point of the whole discussion has been where's the line of too many similarities. I feel in this case there were too many, and you don't think so. And you may be right, I'm not sure.

And once more, no need to ask me to relax, italics or not. This is a discussion, I have my opinion and you have yours, we can talk about it but we don't have to agree in everything. And the matter is anyway officially closed, we are just going about it for the sake of it. No need to get worked up.

>>>> In that case, we may as well shut down MOC building entirely. If asserting a vague sense of "looking too similar" is enough to get you to file a complaint with Rebrickable and make a long blog post about it, then the first builder to make a recognizable model of any particular object has rights to that object in perpetuity and nobody else can ever build it ever again.

I hope that's sarcasm btw...

Edited January 22 by firefabric

[icm]

Yes, I do think you're wrong.

I was sympathetic to you when I first started reading this thread, but the more I read it the more things bothered me, until I felt like I had to take a real close look at the two builds myself to see what I really thought about them, independent of what anyone else in the thread had said. And in my opinion, they're entirely different.

Because I consider them entirely different, I was then quite bothered that you had taken the action of reporting the Barneius model to Rebrickable with the hope that the mods would remove it from the site. That action is, in the online Lego space, as close as it gets to a formal, quasi-legal, accusation of plagiarism and theft of intellectual property.

I then felt compelled to write, in great detail, exactly why I feel that the two builds are entirely different and that you do not have a reasonable claim to credit, ownership, or first use of the distinctive design elements that you seem to value most in your model.

I also posted my long write-up on the comments page for the Barneius build on Rebrickable, because Rebrickable is the main platform for discussing those two builds. I think it's important that Rebrickable users can see a detailed third-party write-up of the similarities and differences between the two builds, rather than just the back-and-forth between you and Barneius.

I haven't replied to everything in this thread that bothers me, and I won't. The matter is closed. I think the admins on Rebrickable made the right call. I hope that in the future you and Barneius can get along. I hope that there's nothing in the future that will make you want to report another build for plagiarism, especially if that hypothetical future accusation is as undeserved as it was here.

In my opinion, this dispute is very close to the Jerac/Zwanenburg X-wing dispute, only in this case the outcome (thanks to the admins on Rebrickable) was the right outcome, and in that case it was the wrong outcome. Both Deloreans should stay up, and do stay up; both X-wings should have stayed up, but one was taken down.

I think this will probably be my last post in this thread. Cheers.

[firefabric]

Well, I really can't understand how you can say they are entirely different? That's obviously not the case. If they were, why would I have asked RB for an opinion (and btw, I didn't even ask it to be taken down, this was the first time I even considered anything like this so I asked them for advice).

This is your opinion and I'm sorry that I don't agree.

 

[icm]

I mean they are as different as it is reasonably possible to expect any two builds of the same subject at the same scale in the same time interval to be. They are as different as the two X-wings I keep mentioning.

[JesseNight]

I honestly don't fully understand why "ownership" is so important to people nowadays to begin with, but sadly I see this in every hobby and every community. People are so busy about ownership claims and making money, sometimes they forget to have fun!

Let's not forget in this case that Back To The Future is still an IP owned by Universal Studios and Amblin Entertainment (iirc), so any copying of this model without their permission kinda is an infringement on its own, even if it is being tolerated. For all we know, this might change in the future if too many people try to make money off IPs that aren't theirs to begin with. So none of us have any rights to claim to this model to begin with.

[icm]

Just now, JesseNight said:

I honestly don't fully understand why "ownership" is so important to people nowadays to begin with, but sadly I see this in every hobby and every community. People are so busy about ownership claims and making money, sometimes they forget to have fun!

Let's not forget in this case that Back To The Future is still an IP owned by Universal Studios and Amblin Entertainment (iirc), so any copying of this model without their permission kinda is an infringement on its own, even if it is being tolerated. For all we know, this might change in the future if too many people try to make money off IPs that aren't theirs to begin with. So none of us have any rights to claim to this model to begin with.

Exactly. Let's not forget that.

Star Trek: Axanar forgot that, and they ruined Star Trek fan films for everybody. (Totally different kind of fan production, totally different stakes - but still a cautionary tale.)

[JesseNight]

Similar thing happened few years ago in a digital 3D modeling group I was a part of. There used to be so much free content under a fair use policy and people were happy with it, both the sharing and the using side. Then everybody suddenly wanted money and fame, starting to claim assets as their own that were based on IPs that weren't theirs, or disrespecting the sharing people's fair requests for being credited when using their stuff. Good creators who used to offer stuff for free all pulled out and took their content offline, now it's one big commercial marketplace.

Edited January 23 by JesseNight

[icm]

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.

[firefabric]

9 minutes ago, icm said:

I mean they are as different as it is reasonably possible to expect any two builds of the same subject at the same scale in the same time interval to be. They are as different as the two X-wings I keep mentioning.

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... 

[icm]

They're different in different ways. They aren't posed exactly the same in the photographs - not that you have ownership over those poses either. They aren't as professionally produced. Also, they DO have a lot of common elements with yours, such as the tiles on the sides behind the windscreen and the studs-forward headlights. Those just aren't the similarities that jumped out at you. Meanwhile, they also have a lot in common with each other, and those other creators aren't out there slinging insinuations of plagiarism at each other.

[firefabric]

13 minutes ago, JesseNight said:

I honestly don't fully understand why "ownership" is so important to people nowadays to begin with, but sadly I see this in every hobby and every community. People are so busy about ownership claims and making money, sometimes they forget to have fun!

Let's not forget in this case that Back To The Future is still an IP owned by Universal Studios and Amblin Entertainment (iirc), so any copying of this model without their permission kinda is an infringement on its own, even if it is being tolerated. For all we know, this might change in the future if too many people try to make money off IPs that aren't theirs to begin with. So none of us have any rights to claim to this model to begin with.

This was of course discussed already but it's true, and it would affect probably 90% or more of builds on RB. It's not just movies or games. It's car brands, even some buildings etc etc.