Shapeways and "recasting"

I seem to recall this same type of topic showing up when Pepakura hit. To me using shapeways is legit because I have to actually make the model first, then they print it and thats it. No different from me sculpting something physical and paying someone to mold it.

As for Shapeways offering to let you download 3d models that is no different from Google 3d Warehouse. Ask before use is what it comes down to.




Gotta agree here. I can see absolutely no difference in "you" using blueprints or drawings or pics of something from screen caps as reference to build your prop replica as there is in someone else using your finished piece as reference to build their prop replicas via 3d printing.
As for the Shapeways offer to download the 3d model, you as the owner of the model can turn that option off in the models profile so no one but you can use it.
 
Wow while not targeted at anyone in particular I find this thread offensive. The piece I had printed by shapeways took well over 100 hours of pouring over reference images and
3D modeling over and over the same elements to get the piece right that I had printed by shapeways. I could have made faster by hand if i had wood shop available but I don't. It takes years to become savvy with a particular software package and to think it is cheating or a short cut is short sighted. I compare it to the film academy thinking it was cheating to use computers for special effects. Lasty most prints you get back from 3D printing are pretty rough and you better have a solid set of tradition skills to polish off the piece. Both skill sets deserve respect, the Cinefx on Tron legacy has great coverage on the married of both skill sets.
 
So it seems that the major complaint is replicas being used as reference in themselves. But unless the person in question has access to a 3D scanner (and I would wager that's pretty limited) then the person still has to create the model digitally.

Maybe it's not a traditional skill, but it's still a skill nonetheless. It's not taking the item in question, dropping it in rubber, and making copies without laboring on the master.

To me, using someone else's replica as a reference to make one's own master, that's not recasting. That's just being a lazy researcher.
 
Well, I'm certain Megatron is talking about the tardis key that I made. While i certainly do have access to awesome 3d scanners, I'm also a skilled 3d modeller.

I know Megatron is bringing this up because of this particular item, this topic should be discussed in a general way, and I'm assuming that is what Megatron's intent is by creating this thread. I too have extremely high respect for those creating things physically by traditional sculpting. I can't draw a circle on a piece of paper.

As a side note, I do need to point out that the cost of 3d printing is not extremely high for most items, and disspell any rumors that it can't be used effectively as finished products. For small items it is extremely efficient to use as a production technique.

The detail I'm assuming that Megatron is referring to specifically in this case is the pattern on the back of the tardis key. While this is the item that sparked his initial post, the topic should be discussed in general. I think the fundamental issue is this question: Is it recasting to use another member's item as reference when creating your item from scratch? This would apply in both digital and analog creation. If it's true for regular sculpting, then it should also apply when 3d modeling on the computer. So i ask the community this: If Joey hand sculpts a ring with 7 details on it, and Tom looks at the for sale pictures that Joey posted, and says hey I can make that too, and uses the pictures as reference to sculpt those 7 details into his wax master, is that recasting?

My understanding is that while it may be bad form and looked down upon, it's not against the rules. But I'll leave that up for debate.


As far as fishing for sales, my intent of the two PMs I sent were to spark this discussion, not to get people to buy them. I was just curious why since I've had an item available since last summer and you've been developing it for over a year why only one person has bought it. It was explained to me that 1: perhaps people mistakenly thought the item im question was in fact a physical recast of one of your items, or 2: that people prefer hand cast items over machine created ones.

As for the item in question, I'll change the details in the front and back areas since they're the two you're psuedo-claiming 'rights' to. In light of recent discoveries, they're inaccurate anyway.
 
not to get people to buy them? Really?
So why do you link to your junkyard thread in the pm's?

as for 100's of hours of research and working on the computer..um anyone that is going to make a replica does that.
But then I also spend hours sculpting, casting and finishing the effort is seen in the final piece.

The Pepakura making involves just that- making, building and more. not as easy as a mouse click to order a finished item.
 
Last edited:
So i ask the community this: If Joey hand sculpts a ring with 7 details on it, and Tom looks at the for sale pictures that Joey posted, and says hey I can make that too, and uses the pictures as reference to sculpt those 7 details into his wax master, is that recasting?

My understanding is that while it may be bad form and looked down upon, it's not against the rules. But I'll leave that up for debate.

If there is a prop with unknown details which one member makes up and then you copy those made up details, yes you are undertaking a form of recasting. You are no longer doing your own work, research or extrapolation to recreate a screen seen prop, you are just copying another members ideas. If an area of a prop is unknown, why on earth would you replicate another members ideas? I would say its very bad form and smacks of being too lazy to do your own research on said item. You admit it's bad form and looked down upon, but did it anyway????



As for the item in question, I'll change the details in the front and back areas since they're the two you're psuedo-claiming 'rights' to. In light of recent discoveries, they're inaccurate anyway.

Are you changing the details only because you've been called out? Fine line your treading here.
 
I thought I'd throw in my $.02 - if we are discussing if 3D printing is a legitimate way of creation vs. traditional carving/casting/hand work, I think it certainly is. As pointed out earlier, it is just another skill and method of creating objects.

Another (separate) issue, as Gordon Gekko above points out, is the 'intellectual property' of fan-made details. I don't think anyone is really trying to argue that copying those details directly via any means is acceptable. Sure it takes work, but it isn't an original idea, especially if someone has invented detail on something when there is no master reference.

An associated (and perhaps relevant topic) is using CG 3D master files to create pep, or 3D printing those directly. Isn't that the same form of re-casting..? Or do we draw the line at the 3D source, if the user builds his own files?
 
Not taking sides here but just wanted to point out that the term "recasting" is incorrect if there is no casting involved. The correct term, I believe, is plagiarism.
 
not to get people to buy them? Really?
So why do you link to your junkyard thread in the pm's?
Yes, really. I wanted to know if others were aware the thread existed because I found it strange that there was no activity at all in my thread which was talking about a completed prop and there was a lot of activity in a thread where the same prop had still been in progress for over a year. Both threads have been there since at least last summer and I didn't know why I've had 2 posts total from other people. It just seemed really weird to me and I wanted to know why. If I was trying to promote sales, I would have said "hey buy this" in the PM. Instead, I sent the two PMs with questions saying, "hey how come people are waiting for Megatron's? Am I missing something?" I just wanted to know why. If was promoting, I'da sent a message to everyone, or posted in the thread.

as for 100's of hours of research and working on the computer..um anyone that is going to make a replica does that.
But then I also spend hours sculpting, casting and finishing the effort is seen in the final piece.

The ease of production of new items is irrelevant to this topic. On this note, I'm not sure why you hold CNC produced items at a higher regard over 3d printed items. In both cases you program a computer to build the objects for you. I've created objects through sand casting, silicon casting, cnc turning, cnc routing, laser cutting, and several 3d printing methods. In all the forms of digital fabrication, which include CNC, laser cutting, and 3d printing, you do the modeling work, and program a machine to make it.





If there is a prop with unknown details which one member makes up and then you copy those made up details, yes you are undertaking a form of recasting. You are no longer doing your own work, research or extrapolation to recreate a screen seen prop, you are just copying another members ideas. If an area of a prop is unknown, why on earth would you replicate another members ideas? I would say its very bad form and smacks of being too lazy to do your own research on said item. You admit it's bad form and looked down upon, but did it anyway????

Copying ideas and copying others expressions of those ideas are not the same thing. An idea is not protected by copyright; only the expression of that idea. You're not allowed to make a music player by taking the electronics out from inside of an iPod, put it in a different case, and sell it as a zenixPod. that's infringing on copyright because it is flat out taking the expression of the idea of a music player and selling it. You can't copy someone else's programming code, and paste it into your program and sell that program. I can't take the file that Bimmer used for his GL ring and upload it to Shapeways, order a print, and sell that part. That's infringing on copyright since I'm actually taking the expression of the idea of a music player, actual lines of code, actual data from the CAD object and copying that. Copying an idea would be like Microsoft seeing the iPod and saying hey I can make a music player too, programming it themselves, and creating their own electronics and case and everything, and selling that. They're not stealing Apple's iPod; they're stealing the idea of hey I want a small box that plays music.

Check out this cool article about the popular board game, Settlers of Catan; 3D Printing Settlers of Catan is Probably Not Illegal: Is This a Problem? | Public Knowledge
In summary, the reason anyone is allowed to recreate this game or any other game for that matter, is simply because the rules are not copyrighted; they're ideas. You can't copy and paste the text of the rules as they're written, but you can make the same rules. You can't take the pictures from the tiles, but you can make your own tiles and make your own pictures. It's the expression... the' here's a box of stuff i have that you can't take and say is yours' not the idea that when a 7 is rolled then this piece moves, and when you have 4 woods you can trade them for an ore, or that it takes a wood and a brick to make a road. That's the idea.

In this case, I'm not taking Megatron's object and selling copies of it as my own. I'm taking the idea that hey wouldn't it be cool if there's circles on the back that look like this and are connected like this, and I'm drawing those circles myself. It's not recasting. It's me doing the same thing. Doing the same thing as someone else on the rpf is certainly not against the rules of this forum. At the time it wasn't known at all what was on the back of this particular key, but on the back of a different key there are circles and lines.
Why would I create the detail the same way? Because I like it that way.


Are you changing the details only because you've been called out? Fine line your treading here.
No, let me be clear. I'm changing the details because... they're innacurate. New photos have come to light detailing the front section, as well as new information regarding the back section. I've currently stopped accepting orders for the key and I've set my model on Shapeways to not allow further sales until this topic is resolved. Regarding the original post about tagging Shapeways objects, items which are available on Shapeways and linked from here already show that they're from shapeways. The links say something like Awesome Ring by baltimore on Shapeways, right in the link description. They are tagged as 'being from shapeways.'

If this style of copying is not allowed on the rpf, then we need policies in place detailing this.
 
The Pepakura making involves just that- making, building and more. not as easy as a mouse click to order a finished item.

This confuses me, as far as are we now talking about buying copies from someone's Shapeway's account? he did the work, put the computer model up and is selling copies? Cause I don't see the difference between this and the sculpter putting a master in silicon and selling casts.

In both cases someone here on the forums will be clicking a mouse and buying a finished item.

If this is NOT what you ment, then please explain.
 
Not taking sides here but just wanted to point out that the term "recasting" is incorrect if there is no casting involved. The correct term, I believe, is plagiarism.

recasting does not mean just pouring silicone on an object- that has been defined here long ago
 
I think you are beginning to fall dangerously close to the old recaster argument "It's okay for me to copy another RPF members work because they don't hold original copyright".

And to start (incorrectly) talking about copyright law from the real world doesn't quite fly when we are talking about the "rules" which the RPF operates on. You wanted a community discussion, not a real world discussion.

I also find your defense that you copied another members original interpretation of a prop " because I like it that way" to be extremely weak and intellectually dishonest. Really? You couldn't come up with your own interpretation that you would like better?
 
This confuses me, as far as are we now talking about buying copies from someone's Shapeway's account? he did the work, put the computer model up and is selling copies? Cause I don't see the difference between this and the sculpter putting a master in silicon and selling casts.

In both cases someone here on the forums will be clicking a mouse and buying a finished item.

If this is NOT what you ment, then please explain.

If I am understanding this correctly, Zenix copied some details that were unique to Megatrons sculpt.
 
not to get people to buy them? Really?
So why do you link to your junkyard thread in the pm's?

as for 100's of hours of research and working on the computer..um anyone that is going to make a replica does that.
But then I also spend hours sculpting, casting and finishing the effort is seen in the final piece.

The Pepakura making involves just that- making, building and more. not as easy as a mouse click to order a finished item.

All the work that goes into creating a good, printable 3d model is easily equal to the time that a skilled scratch builder puts into creating something via sculpting/woodworking/etc. Not to mention the traditional work that has to go into finishing a print. The prints themselves are in no way a finished product, just a good start.

Yes there are repositories out there where you can get "finished models" but you are specifically calling out someone who has spent a lot of time creating a model to get printed. And as someone who does a lot of 3d I find your uneducated opinion extremely offensive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, really. I wanted to know if others were aware the thread existed because I found it strange that there was no activity at all in my thread which was talking about a completed prop and there was a lot of activity in a thread where the same prop had still been in progress for over a year. Both threads have been there since at least last summer and I didn't know why I've had 2 posts total from other people. It just seemed really weird to me and I wanted to know why. If I was trying to promote sales, I would have said "hey buy this" in the PM. Instead, I sent the two PMs with questions saying, "hey how come people are waiting for Megatron's? Am I missing something?" I just wanted to know why. If was promoting, I'da sent a message to everyone, or posted in the thread.

is this not your junkyard thread title "Dr Who Tardis Key - $50 why wait? available now!"

 
If I am understanding this correctly, Zenix copied some details that were unique to Megatrons sculpt.
Yeah, I got that, The question was on the click and order aspect. If you are making something original (as apart from the key in question) and put it up for sale, whether you traditionally mold it or have the 3d printer make it, you still are putting it up for sale.
 
You sir are a **** and need to do some research on a method of creation before you put it down. I've been doing 3d for 10 years now, and if you think it is as simple as pressing a mouse button and recieving a piece of finished artwork, you are a massive moron and need to just shut your mouth.

All the work that goes into creating a good, printable 3d model is easily equal to the time that a skilled scratch builder puts into creating something via sculpting/woodworking/etc. Not to mention the traditional work that has to go into finishing a print. The prints themselves are in no way a finished product, just a good start.

Yes there are repositories out there where you can get "finished models" but you are specifically calling out someone who has spent a lot of time creating a model to get printed. And as someone who does a lot of 3d I find your uneducated opinion extremely offensive.

So do you know that 3d printing models was co-invent by a jeweler and prototype industry?
I have taught 3d modeling and other computer graphic course such as photoshop and illustrator at the college leave.

Yes Shapeways is in fact few point click with a mouse to get an object. Google sketchup is push pull object with a mouse to make it 3d.

uneducated opinion really?
 
I'm slightly divided here. I think this isn't recasting, at the most copying an interpretaion of the prop.

I think the real issue is megaton getting angry that he was beat to the punch. It reminds me of the Flynn lives thread where the author has dillydallied forever on the project. but there comes a time to deficate or get off the pot.

I think this isn't as clear cut as pure recasting and we shouldn't be busting out the torches. We should put personal biases aside and use this to clear it up.
 
We should avoid name calling and talk about this in a clear way. Obviously both methods require alot of work but i dont believe that is the issue here.
 
Last edited:
The title of the thread was that yes, far before I PMed anyone. Like six months ago or something. I finished that design last summer. If you read the contents of the PMs (which I'm sure you already have) It's clear that the intent of the PM was to inquire why no one was posting or had bought mine or if anyone had even noticed it. I was curious if something else was going on. One of the two people who replied to me said something along the lines of, "oh, I didn't even notice that thread." I can certainly see how this upset you, and it's not like I messaged everyone. I literally send PMs to two people. You've drawn far more attention to my version by posting this thread that I ever would have gotten. This isn't really the issue at hand.

I'm not making the argument 'neither of us own it so....'. It is not what I'm relying on as the basis of my 'defense' here. I'm simply saying that if someone puts a bump on an object, and I want to put that bump on my object too in the same spot, I'm allowed to. It's against the rules to make a casting of another members work. It's not against the rules to sculpt something that looks the same.

Gordon Gekko, if you're saying I'm misunderstanding copyright law, then I'd like a clarification. If you're saying I'm breaking an RPF rule, then I'd like clarification on that as well. Where are the 'new' recasting rules posted?
 
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