Shapeways and "recasting"

Looks like (from viewing it against the images in this thread) that I may've unknowingly purchased one of the recast metal keys last year from eBay (I should've guessed, it's rather bent and doesn't have that good a finish). Although I'm curious as to why some of the keys being noted as recasts of Megatron's have the seal of Rassilon mirrored.

It definitely wasn't the a "gentlemanly" thing to do, but I can easily understand the reasoning if Zenix genuinely thought it was a actual element of the design.
What hasn't helped, as NTBBCPD noted, is that it seems that the replica key is starting to become the standard for the reference, something like that has happened in the Ghostbusters community.

One of the props worn on the belt is referred to as the "Belt Gizmo", and was manufactured from a old Sanyo calculator. Reference of the particular board is very limited, to the point where an excellent replica accidentally ended up as prop reference for a time. It was eventually pointed out to be a high-quality replica, and thankfully since then, genuine reference of the item has surfaced... but when dealing with an information vacuum, it's easy to understand why something that hasn't been properly cited could end up becoming the bench mark.

I also feel that it's probably not the best idea to put all of your reliance in one "tell", especially with it being such a significant one and it being an influence from another TARDIS key design. It was always my impression that the tell was a small item that would be missed if you didn't know what to look for, not a design that is well known in it's own right.

I'd hate to be in the shoes of the person who comes up with a similar concept without having ever seen Megatron's key. It's unlikely, particularly with this prop, but it could be more likely to happen with others.
 
Last edited:
I was only commenting on the idea that it seems Megatron's key is being commonly used as a ref pic, or how easily somebody could have stumbled onto one of the recasts of his key, and thought that it was part of the original prop. Also on what seems to be the opinion of a few here, that people who model in software are somehow inferior to people who model in a physical medium. It seems out of character for this place to me, being that so many people here use CNC machines and the like to create parts. I can't see how using an easier to use software and medium cancels out the modelling done. If somebody chooses to carve a bust out of marble rather than sculpt one out of clay, the marble will obviously be the tougher medium since you only have one shot at the marble, but does that invalidate the clay sculptor because he can more easily fix mistakes?
 
Making something with you hands will always be harder then having a machine do it for you.

Its just that these machines are now so easly availble for use and the learning curve for using them keeps getting less.

When I worked at Walt Disney World I had an interesting talk with the Head Imagineer that it is getting harder and harder for them to get artist that truly understand objects in the real. So many now are not using there hands and rely on machines and cad.
Its best to use both so you will gain more from it and it shows in the work.
I see too many people using 3d software as a crutch because the say that cant draw a straight line. Well everyone has to learn somewhere.
Draw draw draw..little sketches big sketches it will help you in the long run. And if you can get a tablet or touch screen you can draw on well it a great merge of skill sets and technology.

Talent and skill sets always show in the finally product..
We had a saying when I was in the Army working in Pysops.."don't use clip art"
 
I'd agree if you're using it as a main point of reference. Less so if you're using it to fill in the gaps. Like I said, the whole secret reference thing. I'm saying, I can see how this can happen without malicious intent.

Unfortunately if you're filling in the gaps and plan to do so using someone elses replica instead of making up those details on your own, then you still need to ask the person you are referencing BEFORE you do so. Even then...why would you? Unless you can't come up with an original idea that is.



Hey guys, I'm not taking sides here or anything, but you may find this interesting.

I, being a Whovian, have also been collecting reference pics of the key in question for a while now. After reading this thread, I went back through my McCoy key folder and guess what? 3/4 of my "ref" pics are of Meg's key. (Now deleted)

I don't often get reference pics from JY threads BTW. Just something to consider.

I think this still comes down to doing the research. If you have the desire to make a replica and especially on forums such as this, you need to try harder than referencing a replica. You should spot the obvious differences of what pictures you're looking at to differentiate a replica picture from a picture of a screen used and should then follow all that back to the point they originated. True there aren't as many pictures of the screen used key out there but they exist otherwise I wouldn't be able to spot the differences and use them to point out the details that are original to the Megatron key and/or people like Mooncrest Models wouldn't have been able to make their screen accurate key. Hell, most of the pics in the JY thread were posted by forum members after scouring Google image files and Doctor Who prop sites to begin with. I'll even go one further to suggest that the limited nature of the pictures of the screen used keys should make it easier to tell you are indeed looking at a picture of a screen used key or not based on the idea that to prevent devaluation of the original prop, there aren't many pictures of the screen used props available.

Good point, I did a web search and found dozens of pictures and links to the "McCoy Tardis Key" All of which I now know are recasts or copies of the MEG key.

Except for this thread I had no way of knowing that they were recasts or that MEG and others had just based their designs on photos of a screen used key.


I'm very concerned about CAD design and 3d printing being seen as recasting. I am currently working on buying a 3d printer to produce Art, jewlery, and replica pieces. One item I was going to produce was a McCoy Tardis key based on the screen used one from the Auction photos available online.

Am I going to spend $30,000 just to get call a recaster and get banned?

Edward


I think everyone has the wrong idea when it comes to what the problem is concerning CAD and 3D printing..well, in my case anyway, I can't speak for other craftsmen here. It's not the tools that is the problem so much as people getting reference for them from known prop replica makers. I even pointed out that even if Zenix only put a constellation pattern on the back but the rest of the key were different I wouldn't have said anything. It's very clear that he modeled his key however off Megatrons key posted in his interest thread which is moot now that Megatron and Zenix have reached an agreement.

As for your question...I find that to be a counterpoint without logic just to be a counterpoint. Whether you spend $30,000 on a 3D printer and generate your own key or not isn't the issue. Making a replica without using another replica as reference so therefore none of the tells of another prop maker are present is. If you don't make your replica without taking 95% of your details from another replica where would you think there would be a problem at all? After all, Mooncrest Models made their own McCoy key based solely off the pictures of the screen used key that are available and nobody will mistake that key for anyone elses McCoy key currently or previously available and nobody can claim it to be a recast of another replica let alone of Megatrons key. The answer is obviously, no. No you wouldn't be labeled a recaster if you did your own research thoroughly and used anything other than another replica to make your replica...but you already knew that.



Looks like (from viewing it against the images in this thread) that I may've unknowingly purchased one of the recast metal keys last year from eBay (I should've guessed, it's rather bent and doesn't have that good a finish). Although I'm curious as to why some of the keys being noted as recasts of Megatron's have the seal of Rassilon mirrored.

Yes, I did too on my first McCoy key purchase as well as my second. Unfortunately that was before I learned they were recasted which happened to be not long after I joined the RPF. As for why the seal is mirrored, it's a mistake when they were making the molds. You'll also notice that the "beads on a string" on the lower part are also exactly mirrored to the way Megatron has them arranged. They just accidentally reversed the mold...or didn't care enough to recast his key properly to make a quick buck.

It definitely wasn't the a "gentlemanly" thing to do, but I can easily understand the reasoning if Zenix genuinely thought it was a actual element of the design.
What hasn't helped, as NTBBCPD noted, is that it seems that the replica key is starting to become the standard for the reference, something like that has happened in the Ghostbusters community.

One of the props worn on the belt is referred to as the "Belt Gizmo", and was manufactured from a old Sanyo calculator. Reference of the particular board is very limited, to the point where an excellent replica accidentally ended up as prop reference for a time. It was eventually pointed out to be a high-quality replica, and thankfully since then, genuine reference of the item has surfaced... but when dealing with an information vacuum, it's easy to understand why something that hasn't been properly cited could end up becoming the bench mark.

Ummmm...I think I have to argue that this isn't the same case, though I could be wrong. I can't call myself an expert on Ghostbusters props but with Tardis Keys...I'm getting there. It seems to me that pictures of the screen used key, of which there are five saved to my computer, aren't so scarce that they can't be found where on the other hand, Megatron posted a full turn around of his key right here on the same forum where a member was wondering why people are waiting patiently for two years for one of those keys while he has the same available now and happens to be selling a 95% exact duplicate key to Megatrons. Far from circumstantial evidence I would say.

I also feel that it's probably not the best idea to put all of your reliance in one "tell", especially with it being such a significant one and it being an influence from another TARDIS key design. It was always my impression that the tell was a small item that would be missed if you didn't know what to look for, not a design that is well known in it's own right.

I'd hate to be in the shoes of the person who comes up with a similar concept without having ever seen Megatron's key. It's unlikely, particularly with this prop, but it could be more likely to happen with others.

And I have to point out that there isn't just one tell, if there was that wouldn't be significant. There are a total of five tells I pointed out that originated with Megatrons key. The issue isn't the constellation on the back but ALL of the tells that were duplicated on the Shapeways key and originated with Megatrons key and ONLY Megatrons key. Not even the screen used key (and yes you can see the differences even in the limited pictures available) has those details.



I was only commenting on the idea that it seems Megatron's key is being commonly used as a ref pic, or how easily somebody could have stumbled onto one of the recasts of his key, and thought that it was part of the original prop. Also on what seems to be the opinion of a few here, that people who model in software are somehow inferior to people who model in a physical medium. It seems out of character for this place to me, being that so many people here use CNC machines and the like to create parts. I can't see how using an easier to use software and medium cancels out the modelling done. If somebody chooses to carve a bust out of marble rather than sculpt one out of clay, the marble will obviously be the tougher medium since you only have one shot at the marble, but does that invalidate the clay sculptor because he can more easily fix mistakes?

I will say that even though I love Shapeways...I will always hold in higher consideration that which was hand sculpted, hand molded and hand cast. It doesn't invalidate the other person, but having a machine carve or mold something isn't the same as an artist hand making it though, I'm sure Andy Warhol fans would argue that point. Still, why even bother with clay or anything physical when you can just generate it in a computer and never touch the model till it comes out of the other end of the machine? I think 3D printing and such has it's place but let's face it, it takes more talent to do it all with your own two hands and a few tools. Hence the reason why a hand carved violin by a world renowned maker that does everything by hand is going to cost more and be worth more than a machine manufactured violin. To say anything other would be trite nonsense.
 
...and there are always people who insist the technology isn't as good.

Right up until the point that it is. Then you just sound like a fool.

It doesn't matter what industry or art form you are talking about.
 
Ummmm...I think I have to argue that this isn't the same case

It's not the same in regard to a piece being manufactured for commercial use, but both cases involved a replica that ended up being used as reference as if it were the genuine article.

And I have to point out that there isn't just one tell

Most of the dialogue concerned only the constellation. I believe only a few (or even one person, yourself) have remarked on the others, being the thickness of the "wings" as well as the detail above where the key would enter the lock.
 
I think this still comes down to doing the research. If you have the desire to make a replica and especially on forums such as this, you need to try harder than referencing a replica. You should spot the obvious differences of what pictures you're looking at to differentiate a replica picture from a picture of a screen used and should then follow all that back to the point they originated. True there aren't as many pictures of the screen used key out there but they exist otherwise I wouldn't be able to spot the differences and use them to point out the details that are original to the Megatron key and/or people like Mooncrest Models wouldn't have been able to make their screen accurate key. Hell, most of the pics in the JY thread were posted by forum members after scouring Google image files and Doctor Who prop sites to begin with. I'll even go one further to suggest that the limited nature of the pictures of the screen used keys should make it easier to tell you are indeed looking at a picture of a screen used key or not based on the idea that to prevent devaluation of the original prop, there aren't many pictures of the screen used props available.

My comment, as I thought was clear, was in direct reference to the objects being made by groups like ours, in this case Megatron's McCoy key, being so prolific and well made that when the initiate inevitably stumbles on the pics they seem for all the world to be viable reference material.

I can see the glaring differences now, but I had those pics long before I knew who Megatron was, or even what the RPF was for that matter. I knew they weren't pics of THE key, but they sure cleared up some of the fuzzier details. In fact, had I not broken my shoulder when I did, I'd have proudly introduced myself here by displaying a freshly cast pewter key that clearly would have gotten me stoned as a heretic recaster.

You, in this very post, acknowledge the difficulties with this particular item. There are precious few photos in existence, and none of any quality. Screenshots are virtually pointless in this case. So doesn't it stand to reason that fringe builders (non-community/n00bs), of which there are MANY, look to the only GOOD reference material out there, the replicas posted by artisans in places like this?

Listen, I am in no way condoning recasting/copying the hard work of others, but it wouldn't hurt to be a bit more understanding about it either. Understand that the knowledge base of groups like this make for some amazing replicas that a single person, on their own, could never achieve. What is created in places like this becomes valuable reference materials for those using a search engine alone to research props. And much like us, the individual is not going to make just one, especially if they use a service like Shapeways, where it's just as easy to make it available for everyone to grab a copy.

Would I have been a recaster had I molded a McCoy key with 4 strings & a constellation prior to signing up here? I don't think so. Because I still spent many an hour searching for and studying the available materials, and would have spent even more creating the piece. But by the prevailing logic presented here people the world over should spend epic amounts of their life to make sure they don't reference the group's pieces when making a handful of silly trinkets...even if they know nothing of the group.
 
Alright, I'm Sooooo Tired of the "Technology is bad" feeling being displayed by some here.

If that's the case, I'd really like to know where you people draw the line.

"The guy with the crayon thinks the guy with the pencil is lazy and cheating?"
"The guy with the pencil thinks the guy with the Mayline is lazy and cheating?"
"The guy with the Mayline thinks the guy with the free Graphics Software is lazy and cheating?"
"The guy with the free Graphics Software thinks the guy with Illustrator CS is lazy and cheating?"


"The guy whittlin' props with his pocketknife thinks the guy with the x-acto is lazy and cheating?"
"The guy with the x-acto thinks the guy with the band-saw is lazy and cheating?"
"The guy with the band-saw thinks the guy with the lathe is lazy and cheating?"
"The guy with the lathe thinks the guy with the laser-cutter is lazy and cheating?"
"The guy with the laser-cutter thinks the guy with the 3d printer is lazy and cheating?"
"The guy with the 3d printer thinks the guy with the replicator is lazy and cheating?"


So, I ask again.... Where do you draw the line???

When I first joined the RPF, I was one of few who had a laser. In my threads, I often heard "That's Cheating" or "That's not fair". I'm sure most of it was in jest but there was a definite current in that direction. Now, lasers are much more common and pretty much an expected part of prop making.

All you "tech is bad" people do realize that more and more propmasters are using things like CNC, Lasers, and 3d Printing, right?

They are all just tools, and simply because you have access to it, does not mean you have the talent to use it correctly. It does not mean you have the ability design the part correctly.

When Straker said "I will always hold in higher consideration that which was hand sculpted, hand molded and hand cast." Really? What if the prop I am replicating was designed in Zbrush, then 3d Printed? Should I go back to hand sculpting because "that's how they did it when I was a kid"?

When Megatron said "I see too many people using 3d software as a crutch because the say that cant draw a straight line." Believe it or not, I once worked with a guy who could not draw a 90 degree angle in Illustrator! No matter how many times I would show him how, he would still eyeball it and be off at least a degree or two.

Again, it's not the tech, it's the talent (or lack thereof) using it!

And.... off the soapbox.
 
Last edited:
Certainly I respect tons of the artists here, Megatron included naturally, and the assertion that more skill is involved is a valid position. I'm just kind of playing devil's advocate here on the off chance I or somebody else decide to model something for Shapeways. I barely have the money to pep a bucket, let alone have something huge made up by them. I do think there should at least be a modicum of respect presented toward the people who do model in CAD or other softwares, though in this particular situation I can see how it might have poked some sore spots after all the re-castings and such Megatron has had to deal with. Sort of one of those "If you don't have something nice to say...." situations.
 
You, in this very post, acknowledge the difficulties with this particular item. There are precious few photos in existence, and none of any quality. Screenshots are virtually pointless in this case. So doesn't it stand to reason that fringe builders (non-community/n00bs), of which there are MANY, look to the only GOOD reference material out there, the replicas posted by artisans in places like this?

You have to remember, this discussion is not about non-community members. It's about how the RPF operates.

I can see the glaring differences now, but I had those pics long before I knew who Megatron was, or even what the RPF was for that matter. I knew they weren't pics of THE key, but they sure cleared up some of the fuzzier details. In fact, had I not broken my shoulder when I did, I'd have proudly introduced myself here by displaying a freshly cast pewter key that clearly would have gotten me stoned as a heretic recaster.

Well, you knew the pics weren't of THE key, but used them anyway. Why would you? I'm really just trying to understand, because when I work on a prop, I never use pictures that may be of another persons work. I do this because, I know that they will have seen the prop differently and will not have done what I would do. Also, if there are areas that are unknown, I look at it as an opportunity to put my own "stamp" on a prop.


But by the prevailing logic presented here people the world over should spend epic amounts of their life to make sure they don't reference the group's pieces when making a handful of silly trinkets...even if they know nothing of the group.

Again, it's not the world over, it's on the RPF. And I don't think it takes "epic amounts of their life" to not use someone else's work.
 
I think it's important to make sure people are not accused of plagiarism just because they are selling a similar product.

Recently, I've been selling my Transparent E11 Blaster Target Reticules on Ebay. I created the graphic in illustrator using a Master Replica E11 for reference.

2 weeks into selling them, I received an email through ebay from someone I have never done business with accusing me of counterfeiting his item.

Seeing as I have a paper trail to disprove his claim, this didn't worry me - but it didn't stop me getting pissed off.

Turns out he was indeed selling his own reticules, but in sticker form, and there were several noticeable differences in the artwork.

Just because I'm selling a similar product, this guy jumps the gun and assumes I ripped off his work.

The fact is, there are lots of talented people out there, and just because one person makes something before the other, does not give them the right to stake a claim on it.

More to the point, most of this hobby involves creating items that are technically the property of the TV/Films studio art departments - and I'm sure you wouldn't want to get into a legal battle with them…..

Instead of getting annoyed. Make your product the best it can be, make a name for yourself and people will associate your product with quality.

You will always have knock offs - always, and nothing you say or try to do will change that.

The difference in quality will be what always leads serious collectors to the superior product.
 
You have to remember, this discussion is not about non-community members. It's about how the RPF operates.

Quite frankly, it shouldn't be. The RPF is where we go AFTER we start making props, right? If we're not talking about prop making references and producing via 3D printing in general, we're wasting our time. Obviously, within the community when it becomes an issue, it's dealt with pretty easily.

Well, you knew the pics weren't of THE key, but used them anyway. Why would you? I'm really just trying to understand, because when I work on a prop, I never use pictures that may be of another persons work. I do this because, I know that they will have seen the prop differently and will not have done what I would do. Also, if there are areas that are unknown, I look at it as an opportunity to put my own "stamp" on a prop.

Actually, a more thorough reading of my post will reveal that I, in fact, DIDN'T use them, but would have. Why? Because the pictures of the real thing are insufficient, and I erroneously believed that whoever had created the reproduction had better reference materials than I could find, and the pics were great to work from.

Now that I'm part of the community, I'm with you, I get it, and I agree 100%, but remember when I was just a guy who thought it was a cool thing to have and liked making stuff. To that guy, those images were a)more available in the search engine and b)the best images available. What's not to get?

Would I use Meg's key as reference now? Hell no. It's immoral to do, and the product isn't nearly SA enough to make it worth it. But to someone who spends maybe an hour a week researching the key with intent to reproduce it (there are thousands of these people), Megatron's key IS the key they are going to make. Because there are more and better images of that key than any other.

I understand your point, but you're not considering normal people who happen to want to make a prop replica, because we are NOT normal people. We care about the stuff normal people can't even see, and we care about who sculpted each version of the prop used across a series. We can tell the difference between the Anakin Ep.III saber and Luke's Ep.IV saber. Because we want to know, and we spend TIME finding out.

Being a machinist by trade, I am skilled at 3D modeling, and I can guarantee you that had I not joined this site, you would ALL probably be making nasty posts about the things I put up on Shapeways etc. because TO THE NORMAL PERSON YOUR STUFF IS THE SAME AS THE REAL STUFF BUT WITH BETTER REFERENCE PICTURES.


Again, it's not the world over, it's on the RPF. And I don't think it takes "epic amounts of their life" to not use someone else's work.

Again, it really shouldn't be, as The RPF isn't the be-all end-all of prop replicating, and issues are dealt with well "in house" here. And you're delusional in regards to time. This is our hobby, so we already spend the time and know/care about the differences. That doesn't apply to the thousands of normal people who just so happen to be handy & enjoy movie memorabilia. The fact is, they don't CARE if it's your work or the film maker's. They care that it's a good pic, and their buddies will recognize their finished piece. It's essentially the same as a local guitarist playing SRV's version of Voodoo Chile (slight return) at the downtown bar. They copied a copy, had fun, and maybe even got a couple bucks out of the deal.
 
I think here are some different things mixed, that shouldn´t be.

1. Shapeways and 3-D modeling itself is not bad, it´s just a tool and a way to make things - sometime with better, another time with not so good results as other ways.

2. Noone would blame you if you like anothers work so much that you replicate his work instead of the original. At least not as long as you make the build solely for your own use and joy - as soon as you sell the stuff .... well then you might/will become some trouble. If you build it for yourself, you can show it (maybe with a kind nudge to the person who inspired you with his work), be proud of it, and if you´ve done a good job you still get some nice comments, maybe even from the original creator.


The only problem is when people take other peoples work to make some money. Some say "it might happen by mistake", sure it can. BUT - most of the time only when they investigate fast to get it done only, to get it done for getting sales. If you do a specific work/item cause you love it for itself, you have a deep interest, you are not looking for a fast way to get it of the workbench to get the sales - and as more as you love it and are fiddling with the subject, the better are your chances that you notice if you based your work on the work of another person.

The fast side is not stronger. No. Quicker, easier, more seductive. You will know the good side from the bad when you are calm, at peace. Passive. ;)
 
Quite frankly, it shouldn't be. The RPF is where we go AFTER we start making props, right? If we're not talking about prop making references and producing via 3D printing in general, we're wasting our time. Obviously, within the community when it becomes an issue, it's dealt with pretty easily.

So we're going to police the whole world and apply the RPF rules to the whole world?



Actually, a more thorough reading of my post will reveal that I, in fact, DIDN'T use them, but would have. Why? Because the pictures of the real thing are insufficient, and I erroneously believed that whoever had created the reproduction had better reference materials than I could find, and the pics were great to work from.

I've re-read your post several times, and I can only determine you didn't use them because you got injured? Not out of some sense of increased morality.

Now that I'm part of the community, I'm with you, I get it, and I agree 100%, but remember when I was just a guy who thought it was a cool thing to have and liked making stuff. To that guy, those images were a)more available in the search engine and b)the best images available. What's not to get?

We're talking about how the RPF can only control what happens on the RPF. What's not to get?


I understand your point, but you're not considering normal people who happen to want to make a prop replica, because we are NOT normal people. We care about the stuff normal people can't even see, and we care about who sculpted each version of the prop used across a series. We can tell the difference between the Anakin Ep.III saber and Luke's Ep.IV saber. Because we want to know, and we spend TIME finding out.

I don't consider the normal people "out there". Because I know (or at least used to) that when I show a design or blueprint of something I'm working on to the members of the RPF, I have (had) assurance that a fellow member of the RPF will not take said information, copy my information, and sell it on the RPF. I have, and can not have any such assurance with the people "out there" and I'm fine with that.



And you're delusional in regards to time. This is our hobby, so we already spend the time and know/care about the differences. That doesn't apply to the thousands of normal people who just so happen to be handy & enjoy movie memorabilia. The fact is, they don't CARE if it's your work or the film maker's. They care that it's a good pic, and their buddies will recognize their finished piece. It's essentially the same as a local guitarist playing SRV's version of Voodoo Chile (slight return) at the downtown bar. They copied a copy, had fun, and maybe even got a couple bucks out of the deal.

I'm delusional in regards to time? You're the one who said people would need to "spend epic amounts of their life to make sure they don't reference the group's pieces". I have always found it quite quick and easy to determine if I am looking at an image of an actual prop or a fan-made creation. Maybe that's just me though.
 
:rolleyes A couple things;


  1. I was addressing Straker in a specific attempt to clarify a point of mine that he misunderstood...not you. Why are you "up in my grill?"
  2. With that info, you should be inspired to read my original post in which I clearly stated that the Megatron pics were fully removed from my machine (I have also listed 2 valid reasons for this since, one being morality), that I do not condone recasting, and that my comment was intended to be vague as the issue you're married to was already resolved. (ie Zenith's Shapeways Key.) I have done, and will do no recasting. Period.
  3. We clearly DO attempt to police the entire world. How many "Ebay Recaster Alert" threads do we see here? You can't be ignorant enough to think every one of those is about an RPF member.
  4. Despite your protestations, no, the normal folk I speak of DON'T know the difference, and the effort to find out different involves FAR more time than they are willing to waste.
  5. You are too immersed in your anti-recast rhetoric to have an objective opinion on the reality of the subject.
Now, you should know that I don't come here to fight. I have my own forum if I wish to waste bandwidth on bickering. I was simply putting forth what I feel is a valid concern in regards to the issue at hand. OUR props will be copied by normal people more and more because we provide lots of clear pictures of our work while the movies and TV shows don't. 3D modeling is becoming more common place, and 3D printers are getting better while the service is getting cheaper. This should be the major concern IMHO, not what our fellow hobbyists are openly doing right here. If member "X" crosses the line, and doesn't back down when member "Y" calls him on it, Art and the Fellas handle it, no? Sounds like problem handled to me. But everything we do is right out there, and more easily accessible to the average joe than the real thing. This is where I feel we need to be truly concerned about the advent of 3d printing companies.

If you still feel that my point is irrelevant, then so be it, but I am done arguing with you about what you "know".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread is more than 12 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top