I like it when I see people using some of my ideas, like a modifications to set, a straight forward mechanism or anything else useful to others. I like it even better when people credit me - or simply mention me - when they use my ideas in something they want to share themselves. However, I wouldn't feel offended when they don't, as long as they don't take credit for the specific idea themselves. At the same time I feel obliged to credit those whose ideas I use. What is your opinion? Should builders add references to the ideas they use, mention their designers or even credit them? Or should we accept that - like most things on the internet - anything shared can no longer be regarded as something that can be taken credit for?

When someone uses something from anothers MOC I expect them to give credits.

I like when people mention me but honestly I don't expect they do that, sometimes I even feel surprised when they do.

And I always try to give credit to people that inspire me. When they are reachable (a blog, a youtube channel...) I try to give them feedback. And if I'm using their code I always inform them, even when it is clearly open sourced - I think everybody deserves to feel proud about their work.

For me there is a difference between direct copying a specific idea and being inspired by an idea. I can not recall I ever used an idea directly, but I'm most likely inspired by others, but aren't we all? With other words I find it hard to state where the line is drawn...

Personally I wound't mind to credit or even praise people if I use there idea. Actually I would love to, why not... This should be the case not only using ideas but using complete or parts of a designs too.

Edited October 12, 20168 yr by 2LegoOrNot2Lego...
typo

I've only got one, mostly lousy MOC under my belt so it was easy for me to credit the builders I drew inspiration from. A prolific MOCer, on the other hand, is more likely to end up incorporating too many third-party ideas into his MOCs to keep track of them and give them due credit.

It's an entirely different kettle of fish when someone blatantly copies a unique design and explicitly passes it off as his own.

I think that every single builder no matter who is, who uses another builders idea should at least give a mention or credits to the original designer, it is all about humility and respect to the other builders, people shouldn't feel sad because they needed to use another builders design in their models, why?, because you are showing that you are able to use another builder design to make many other amazing things and which could be potentially better than the original design, it has happened to me for example in the LDD gallery, i have made several models for my own, but i have also seen many other models which have many features that i really like, instead of feeling sad because i couldn't make that before, i take that idea, i make it even better, but at the time of publishing it, i give the credits to the original designer, this makes all the people feel even more comfortable to use my own ideas in their models, and that is the best part, when the people mention you and give you the credits for your ideas, because you did the same for them, this is a beneficial collective activity, which lets many builders to know new ways of building, it also makes the builders to know each other better, helping them to reach their goals and to be known in the communities; so, i really think that giving credits for a design, even if it is completely the same or if it was just inspired, is a good choice and will make everyone happy.

Edited October 12, 20168 yr by ImanolBB

It depends, if you use one of sariel's gearboxes, in which he put quite some work, he deserves to be mentioned.

but if you take just a little idea from someone who spend 5 mins of their time, i don't consider it rude when you don't mention them. But as didumoso said, the builder should not take credit for something if he didn't come up with it. Even if it is just a tiny idea.

It depends.

If someone takes e.g. complete gearbox and puts it their MOC car or take whole axle then yes. It should be mentioned and one should not say "I design this from top to bottom"

On the other hand it would be Pandora's box, if we start claiming "that is mine" about some details, mechanisms, general technical or lego solution etc.

Once, they are hardly an invention. Usually they follow some principle, some engineering/technical thing from non-lego world (typically some very old one, used millions of times for years in hundreds of applications from numerous fields of industries and products).

Second, it would be ridiculous if someone had to "give credits" for e.g. some SNOT trick with bricks they saw somewhere or some clever way to e.g beams connecting. It is way too general to claim anything to anybody. 

Edited October 12, 20168 yr by J_C

This is actually a tricky question. When you credit someone, how do you know they were the first person to ever come up with that idea? lets say that Steve comes up with a great idea. Then Andy sees it, and posts a picture of it. Then Jack sees Andy's post and is inspired, uses the idea and then credits Andy, so now not only has Andy stolen the idea, but Jack is also now unknowingly complicit because he is crediting Andy for Steve's idea. So unless you know for sure they were the original creator then you may be crediting the wrong person, which may do more harm than good. 

A further complication to this is that we are all building and solving essentially the same problems with the same parts to choose from, so it is inevitable that the same ideas will be invented by multiple people. Look at the front of Sariels book published 2012:

 

Look familiar? Here's a picture I posted online on brickshelf and here in 2011:

I have been using these designs for years prior to that. So maybe he saw mine, maybe he came up with it on his own, there's no way to tell. So who should you be crediting?

 

Edited October 12, 20168 yr by allanp

1 minute ago, allanp said:

I have been using these designs for years prior to that. So maybe he saw mine, maybe he came up with it on his own, there's know way to tell. So who should you be crediting?

And those are basically layouts of gearboxes as used in car industry for century and machinery (for longer). That is not an invention at all. 

4 minutes ago, J_C said:

And those are basically layouts of gearboxes as used in car industry for century and machinery (for longer). 

It was just a simplistic example to explain my point. But (off topic) I've never seen a gearbox in real life cars/machinery where all the clutch gears where the same size so i'm inclined to disagree with you 

Edited October 12, 20168 yr by allanp

Just now, allanp said:

It was just a simplistic example to explain my point. But (off topic) I've never seen a gearbox in real life where all the clutch gears where the same size so i'm inclined to disagree with you 

that is why I said basically. If LEGO was made of steel, it would also look different. lets say, layout of most Lego gearboxes is very similar to normal gearboxes with similar purpose.

I think it's a way of showing respect. In my early times I often used ideas from others still nowadays there are sometimes supports from pros needed. And so far I try the mention them!

@allanp your point of view makes me decide that from now on I will be speaking in terms of 'I got this idea from...' or 'this was inspired by...' rather than in terms of 'the original idea comes from...', unless there can be no doubt about the original designer.

Edited October 12, 20168 yr by Didumos69

This question reminds me of a famous essay written by the eminent evolutionary biologist, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, on an issue often debated in marine biology.  Are Portuguese Man-O-War Jellyfish single organisms of colonies of organisms just all cohabitating together?  No need to look all this up (but if you are interested, here is a link: https://medium.com/@TyrannosuarusMaximus/biology-mythkillers-the-portuguese-man-o-war-ebb695c433e1#.45rf1e4vj ). Briefly, to summarize what he concluded with was that some questions are meant to generate answers, and other questions are meant to generate discussion. 

 

This question feels the same.  It has been asked before, and is a great question.  But, we should not expect a concrete answer.  It will generate some really good discussion, and likely some guidelines.  But not a hard and fast rule or answer.

In that spirit, here are some guidelines I think worth mentioning:

 

- Builds are easier to quantify than ideas.  Ideas exist all over the place, and are much more difficult to trace their point of origin.  Given this, I think there must be much more slack of the crediting of ideas.  Creating a solid trace of origin is        difficult for ideas.  If borrowing a whole build, then definitely the source should be mentioned. 

- When things are freely shared, such as Sariel's site, or on our own Axle thread, although credit should still be given (in my opinion) again I think things should be a little more lax.  When the author is posting their information they are giving the information out to the public.  They should expect it to be used.  If credited, great.  And IMO, it should be.  BUT, if it is not, once again, IMO, no fit should be thrown. 

-    All this somewhat needs to be taken with a grain of salt.  As others have pointed out, there are many methods with no certain identifiable point of origin.  If one exists, and is well-known in the community, then great.  But often there are not.  The quote "no need to re-create the wheel" I think applies here.  Just because someone else has done something, IMO, this does not mean that one needs to find a different way of going about doing it.  Improvement, yes..... but if there is something out there good that serves a purpose, use it.  Science progresses not by solely the sharing of ideas; but the sharing of ideas with the assumption of sharing in their use as well. 

- Lastly, I don't think that the sharing of MOCs and being part of a community are completely orthogonal to each other.  That is, they are not distinct, unparalleled  processes.  To share a MOC is to also become a member of a community, replete with an identity and reputation.  If one chooses to borrow ideas, builds, etc without the proper sharing of credit then the community will pick up on this and the sharer will be labeled as such.  Although perhaps not obvious at face value, I think it actually best serves the borrower of ideas/MOCs to share their source of information if obvious, as this will only help build their identity in the community whereas stealing the work of others without giving proper credit will only hamper it.... 

13 minutes ago, Didumos69 said:

@allanp your point of view makes me decide that from now on I will be speaking in terms of 'I got this idea from...' or 'this was inspired by...' rather than in terms of 'the original idea comes from...', unless there can be no doubt about the original designer.

Exactly, it actually should be like that, i will consider this in my future models when i mention someone for the idea, instead of giving the credits, i will put something more like "inspired" or "based" in -Builder name and idea-, i have also realized that all of this is like the music industry, there are many musics which sound almost the same, there are always "plagiarism" critics, but it also happens because the musicians sometimes are unconsciously inspired by other musics, without knowing, and what is even more important than that, because the musicians unconsciously make these musics, it is impossible to know who was the very first person who make a certain music, tune, melody, etc, and looking at this, maybe we all should consider this point, the difference would be to mention from where we got the ideas or if there is a similar build but we weren't  consciously inspired by it.

On September 30, 2016 at 9:18 AM, BrickHat said:

 

I don't know how that quote got attached to my post...please ignore the quote.

 

As for crediting other's work.  I also think that credit should be given, but as someone else said... "How do you know who to credit?"

Also,sometimes I may see something on YouTube, here on EB, even in official set instructions that I like, I will build a little subassembly and put it away for future inspiration. I may later see that subassembly again another MOC, set,whatever and remember it,then I may use this subassembly in a MOC, by this time I have forgotten where I got the idea. What do I do?

i don't sell things, I am not seeking fame for my MOCs, it is just my LEGO hobby.  I am thankful for all the information out there as it helps me enjoy my hobby.

Andy D

Edited October 12, 20168 yr by Andy D
Wrong quote

For me I see the world of giving credit where credit is due kind of as a fraud for this simple reason it not about giving credit but about making things better and when someone with all this credit thinks they have made something the best it ever going to be then no credit should be given to them for this very reason they fail to completely understand what they are doing. The Credit we take for granite as a from of approval is only a conman's game happens all the time every where and on every systemic thought. When you talk about giving credit you also need to talk about its opposite which is theft. The one who play dumb at giving credit are thieves simple as that. Now the thief is not the bad and the credited is not the good and in fact the world says what they think and believe and if you got a really really great Idea its only natural for people to want it for themselves and whats wrong with that. Well if its a bomb then you can see what can go wrong especially of the atomic variety when it out there for the taking. 

If someone copied a bit of my MOC with no modifications or only slight tweaks, I would expect credit to be given. But if they just used an idea (say my RotoShift transmission) to build something, credit would be nice but not essential.

4 hours ago, allanp said:

A further complication to this is that we are all building and solving essentially the same problems with the same parts to choose from, so it is inevitable that the same ideas will be invented by multiple people. Look at the front of Sariel's book published 2012:

I made that picture for the cover, and honestly I can't remember where I got the file.  It is pretty unusual to use those top shifting plates, but this is not the transmission from 8448 or 8466.

Inspiration and duplication are not the same things, and for me intent matters.  For example, it really pisses me off when someone takes one of my renders, removes my watermark, and then re-posts it.  That person is intentionally hiding the fact that it was my work.  Of course, someone selling copies of instructions on eBay that I created is also a problem.  But I think ideas should be freely shared.  It is impossible to credit everyone who inspired you, but I think everyone appreciates it when someone at least tries.  For example, my Bricksafe folder is filled with renders I've made of people's MOCs.  These are never my own MOCs, and I am always careful to list the original builder and even link to them if I can.

We had this discussion before, and maybe before that...

 

Great to read all thoughts on this. Also nice to see a few more distant viewpoints from @nerdsforprez and @Boxerlego. I especially like the holistic view on all this. When you share your builds you enter a community that creates, shares, uses, improves, shares, etc. You enter the march of online civilization.

5 minutes ago, LvdH said:

If they use a 1:1 copy of someone else's construction (e.g using one of Sheepo's gearboxes in your own cars) then I think they should be credited.

For example; 

Not too long ago I saw a video on youtube of someone with a modification of Sheepo's Mustang (different body, rest is all the same) and those kind of creations should be credited since you did not design or modify the chassis.

But when using a concept/idea like one of many paddleshift gearboxes (there have been a lot on here after 42056's release) and modifying it (like reinforcing, adding or removing pieces) in that case I consider it your own design.

I am kind agree with you, if your design is too basic or is like a too "standard" design to be considered an original idea, like a very basic gearbox or axle, you shouldn't need to credit anyone as the design is too basic to be owned by someone, you would say that you made it by yourself, but you also shouldn't take it as your very own idea, i mean you cant say that that design is your because it is too basic (is like if someone says the "wheel" idea is from him, because it is used by too many people and the idea is so simple that it cant be own), but if our idea is very complex or very specific, which mean that it is not easy to be exactly replicated by other people, then you should be able to say that that is your very own idea, and if someone takes that design, and as you said, he makes it 1:1, exactly the same parts and functions, that person should at least say that it was based or inspired in the idea of the original builder.

My view is:

• If you copy someone's idea directly, just say, "I used the (thing) from (builder) in this MOC."
• If you are inspired by someone's idea, say "I was inspired by the (thing) from (builder) in this MOC."
• If multiple people have the same idea that you want to use, or you don't remember where you saw the idea, you shouldn't have to say anything.

So in most cases you should credit the original builder, but you don't always have to.

Edited October 12, 20168 yr by Offroadcreat1ons

People have been blatantly ripping me off for years without any type of credit.. You just use it as motivation to come up with something new..

The problem today in 2016 is that everyone and their mother wants to be an over-night LEGO Technic Rockstar without coming up with something original..

Edited October 13, 20168 yr by Paul Boratko