firefabric

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Isn't that kind of obvious, that was the whole point of this post. Of course I would use the same angles, it's a comparison... isn't that the easiest way to see what's the same and what is not? However, I never called it copying, I specifically said it's not. Please read my posts to verify. JesseNight's comparison is also correct. There are definitely differences, I agree. My issue has been all along that the overall design is very similar, and a lot is also either same or very close. My list of identical/nearly identical things would be: front fender, side mirrors, sides (from in front of mirrors including doors), silver grilles (positioning and usage is almost the same), mr. fusion, exhaust vents, rear lights/fascia, hover mode wheel attachments. The size is also exactly the same, that's of course natural, but all of the those things make it look like the same design to my eye. But it's a matter of opinion what things are relevant and what not, that's why I posted the question. Regarding the same photo angles, again I would think that's the best way to see the similarities and differences...?

Well, this is another topic altogether and I'm not sure why you are pressing on it. It's not the point here and I'm not going to repeat it anymore. Regarding using the other pictures for comparison, there is something called fair use, I'll put it under that. And why do you care if I ask for an opinion from others? I feel what I feel, you can also feel as you wish. This is something people do, discuss about matters right?

Thanks for a constructive reply, this is something I was looking for. I can see you actually have experience in the same sort of thing, these are very good points. I did go through most of the steps you described and your analysis matches RB admin's reply to my report. They considered it as a close call, but sided on leaving the other MOC up. For me I feel that if we blur out the hood changes and rear details (in the rear hatch), I couldn't tell them apart, but of course my view is probably more critical than others. However that was determined as enough variation so I accepted that, even if I don't fully agree.

I think you are also taking the topic too deep, I'm not claiming any IP rights or surely not taking any legal action (no need to tell me that would pointless, that is clear from the start). So that is not the point at all, this is about what is let's say 'polite' in the MOC community. I feel that publishing a MOC this close to mine was at least impolite, and that's as far as it goes. Yes it probably ruined my day one day, but that's my problem and I'll deal with it. And I'm sure the professional designers are also upset when they find the Chinese rip-offs. Why would you think they wouldn't be?

I think you are going a bit deeper than needed for the original topic here. There is no legal action to be taken or exact percentages needed, and yes I know how I feel. It's neither of those things but I just hoped to hear genuine opinions as this was something that caught me a bit by surprise. Again I want to emphasize even more that this not about profit or IP or anything like that, just wanted to state that again as you seem to go back to those. It's basically just about the design similarities. Of course if someone directly sells your instructions, free or paid, that's not something they worked for so it's clearly wrong. I have some experience in that as well, there are Chinese companies who just took my instructions (both free and paid) and are selling unauthorized sets online. Not ideal and they are doing that only for profit. This one is not that case at all and I have never even implied that. Regarding the IP, probably 90% of MOCs on Rebrickable have some associated IP attached (Star Wars being the prime example), but I would think as long as you are not running a business and it's small-scale fandom-based work, it's ok even if there's a small 'thanks-type' fee. Most people seem to be happy to give that, but I know some think all MOCs should be free. But then should Bricklink sellers also provide the bricks for free to be fair (sarcasm, to be clear)...

This is actually pretty much how I also think. I think a MOC can be considered a work of art to some extent at least, Lego is definitely a recognised medium. But the IP comes from originality and making a scale mode of another IP isn't original. For say plastic models it's clearer, but Lego model is always an interpretation at best. Even in this case I'm not trying to claim any IP or parts usage exclusive rights. I'm just trying to figure out how I should feel about this, because I would not put out a MOC which is very close to another, I do actually check before publishing a MOC what others have done, for this reason exactly.

I agree that it's possible to arrive at the same destination independently, albeit odds are against it. It would of course be again different if the work was done at the same time without knowing. Regarding instruction sales - that's another topic but in short, this is only my hobby and I'm not doing it for profit. I only create models I'm passionate about (otherwise they wouldn't get finished even). I actually do enjoy creating instructions for successful builds, and I chose to add them on Rebrickable so that others can do the builds also if they want to. I chose to have most of them paid because that sems to be the norm on Rebrickable, but I consider the small amount more like a tip for creating the instructions. It's not any kind of business for me at least, and whatever I get goes basically to Lego Pick-a-Brick and Bricklink sellers. Regarding the IP, that is true but so far I have considered it's as a fan-based hobby, not a business even though there are small transactions involved. But if that was enforced to the tee, as you pointed out, half on internet should be probably shut down...

As I said, of course there a similarities in every build, there is no question about that. But how much is too much, when is the design too similar, that is my question.

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. Regarding not using the instructions, I'd think that's not a deciding factor since an experienced MOC builder would be able to create the same 'shell' based on a few pictures and make their own structure etc inside. I'm not saying that's exactly what happened here as I agree it's not a copy, I just feel that too many things were taken directly from the design so it ended up looking too similar.

Yes that is true. The instructions are on Rebrickable, and I have seen some built with a few modifications here and there. That's perfectly ok and I would even encourage to do that. Now it's more towards the second case... and I don't even mind about selling instructions etc so much, I just have a strong feeling a line was crossed. I didn't feel like this for any other similar MOC that I have seen until now, so that's why I'm asking for opinions.

Thanks for the reply, I'll add some clarifications to the questions below: >>> Has the builder of the second MOC specifically said they were inspired by or used elements of your build? I approached him about this, and he absolutely denies any inspiration and does not admit any similarity in the design, except for the tail lights and the exhaust vents in the back. >>> Do you distribute the instructions for people to use for building a copy? Yes, the instructions are available at Rebrickable for both designs. To my knowledge, he has not used my instructions. >>> Was your build that you created completely devoid of any LEGO Set techniques (AKA, based on the wheelbase design of a Speed Champion Set, or started with the actual DeLorean Set with the intention of scaling down)? Yes mine was done fully custom, from the ground up.

Hi, I would like to ask you for an opinion on the matter of making similar MOCs, what would you consider being a copy, a modification or being inspired by? There are a lot of experienced builders here, so I would like hear your expert opinion as I recently had my first experience of feeling like someone crossed the line of 'being inspired by' with one of my MOCs. It's not about which is better or worse, I would just like to understand if my feeling is founded or not. I have had some discussions about this but they have left me slightly confused, so I would appreciate the feedback. Here is the comparison image, my version is on the right side which was published almost 2 years ago, the one on the left was published a few weeks ago. You can also open a bigger version of the picture from this link. Thank you.

Thanks! I did work on the shape a lot over quite a few versions, as I wanted to try out every idea if it would be possible to realize. So now I can confidently say that's the best I can do, I'm happy to hear you like it!

Thank you, I appreciate that! I didn't do a parts compare yet, but I'd say the Ideas set has less than 10% matching parts... It does look similar in many ways but the build and parts used are different more or less everywhere (except the windows and the roof). Thank you for the compliment!

My latest MOC is finally complete, the Ecto-1 from the original 1984 Ghostbusters movie. This is a theme I haven't done anything before from and I was actually a bit surprised myself also that I got an inspiration to do this one. I always liked the Ectomobile and probably played around with the idea on some level but I never had any concrete plans. I think the build was mostly triggered by a random idea to try out a front end design using the fairly new 1x1 slope pieces for the hood corners. Once I had a decent version of the front end laid out, I decided to continue with the rest and see what happens. As usual there were many versions on the way and everything was changed many times over to arrive at the final design. The build takes some inspiration from the Lego Ideas 21108 set, obviously there are some similarities in part usage and the size in particular, but other than that I have made it fully from ground up. I had to use quite a few different techniques here and there to achieve the shapes I was looking for, and the car is actually made out of a few differently built sections. The base is a brick-built with the side skirts facing out, the front section has bricks facing more or less every possible way; up, down, front and sides, and the side and back panels are plate-built, sitting on top of the base. But with some useful new pieces (like the 3386 1x1x2/3 modified brick with a stud on top and side) it was possible to "bolt" everything together quite sturdily. Some more pictures: As usual in my cars, no opening doors or windows but the roof is fairly easy to take out to reveal the interior. I added the main interior details and there is room for 4 minifigures, sitting in the same arrangement as the original (2 in front and 2 in the back but on right side facing each other). The Ecto-1 is fairly large vehicle to begin with, and with all the associated details the part count is also almost double to a "standard" Speed Champions style car at around 600, but that's how it is for the official sets as well. It was a fairly big project overall, but I'm quite happy about how it came out so I made the instructions for this one as well. More information can be found on Rebrickable: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-168757/firefabric/1959-cadillac-ecto-1/

Thank you, I'm happy to hear that! Thanks! "That was very *ahem* interesting music.." Thanks! Thank you, much appreciated! Yes definitely had to choose that scene first!

Thank you, much appreciated! Gathering all the minifig parts took some time as I wanted to use standard Lego parts (no custom figures or stickers). I don't have an issue with custom parts but I wanted to see how it could work with standard parts. And also that Eurobricks competition required regular Lego parts if I remember correctly. True, the 50's audience with skirts etc would be probably a bit tricky to create, if I wanted to expand the scene still ... but I guess if you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything!

Thank you! I finally made this into a full diorama scene, the initial 12x12 version was my entry to the Licenced Forum Dynamic Action contest a while back. But yes this was definitely the scene I wanted to go with!

Presenting my latest Back to the Future -themed MOC, a diorama featuring Marty McFly playing Johnny B. Goode on stage with the Starlighters at the 'Enchantment Under the Sea' dance in 1955. It's a 24x16 diorama with a stage, back curtain and custom instruments for the band. Build itself is quite conventional, base is built the same way as a MILS plate. The back curtain however was a bit more fiddly, it's built out of 2-plate/tile 'strands' which are connected at the top and rotate around the grey round plate at the top, so it gives the possibility to rotate it into a wavy pattern. Some more pictures: If you are interested, there's more info, parts list and free instructions for the stage and instruments on Rebrickable: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-161810/firefabric/marty-mcfly-johnny-b-goode/

Finished another Back to the Future -inspired build, Biff Tannen's 1946 Ford De Luxe Convertible. The challenge was to create the round shapes of a classic car and it's always a compromise with Lego bricks so this is how it came out. I'm quite happy with the result, but of course it took quite a few iterations as usual. The structure is mostly conventional with brick- and plate-built chassis. There are a few interesting techniques used like an upside down section for the front fenders. As usual, I also created instructions, if you are interested they are available on Rebrickable: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-161180/firefabric/biff-tannens-1946-ford-super-de-luxe/ Thanks!