Free vs Paid Instructions for MOCs

[Milan]

This has always been, and still is, a controversial topic.
Therefore, let's keep the discussion polite, and also centralized here, rather than spreading it across multiple MOC topics.

• Use this topic to discuss free vs paid instructions
• If this discussion starts in another thread, try to divert it here, or tag me to move it
• No personal attacks
• No generalizing or insulting entire countries
• Keep it civil and friendly

[JunkstyleGio]

I do not charge for anything. It's a hobby.

 

[Ksen48]

If the author considers it necessary to recoup his work, then the instructions should be paid, although a realistic price must be indicated based on the features of the model

[Timorzelorzworz]

Those two new ones are for free and everyone

[Lok24]

2 hours ago, Milan said:

This has always been, and still is, a controversial topic.

Where is the problem?

If someone offer it for free it's ok.
If someone else thinks they have to be paid for it' s ok, too.

Where is there any conflict?

 

 

[Stereo]

I don't think twice about paying for instructions if it's something I want to build.  I suppose it helps that I'm rarely building more than one MOC in a month.  Maybe if it was based on a $20 set I'd be less likely but people don't seem to charge for the small mocs anyway.

Edited September 14, 2024 by Stereo

[Oh_Hi_Mao]

3 hours ago, Lok24 said:

Where is the problem?

If someone offer it for free it's ok.
If someone else thinks they have to be paid for it' s ok, too.

Where is there any conflict?

 

 

Some people just like to tell what other people should do with their intellectual property, so there we have it - a conflict! 

[astyanax]

What could be problematic is if someone charges money for a model that contains work of others. 

For example, if one would take the pimped 1:8 supercar as starting point, adds a few more mods to it, then puts premium instructions for it on Rebrickable. 

[M_longer]

23 minutes ago, astyanax said:

What could be problematic is if someone charges money for a model that contains work of others. 

For example, if one would take the pimped 1:8 supercar as starting point, adds a few more mods to it, then puts premium instructions for it on Rebrickable. 

Rebrickable ToS forbid to do it. You can always report such models.
Other problem at Rebrickable  is $h!tload of models made only virtually, without testing them and with high price tag.

[Sokolov Edward]

Apparently my post about paid MOC for the new Mercedes was the reason for this topic. A number of paid alternative assemblies have already been released for it and not a single free one. I asked how justified the release of paid models was. One author managed to answer me - he sold about 100 copies in 3 years on recyclable. I fully admit that people who bought it for 200-250 euros are quite capable of buying several additional instructions for 14 euros. But there is another reality - in which copies of this model will be sold for 30-40 euros and their buyers are unlikely to go and buy alternative models even for a lower price. Alternative models fuel interest in Lego Technic designers - albeit among a small audience and the Lego company could take on the costs of encouraging this activity. But we are unlikely to live up to this and everything will continue as it is. Looking at the discussions on this forum, I only see activity when discussing free models, and only compliments are written to paid ones. The authors of paid MOC have a lot of competition in the form of a bunch of free instructions from Chinese Lego manufacturers, including their models. I would like to appeal to the authors of paid MOC with a proposal to make those models that have not sold in the last year free. Maybe then you will get objective reviews of your creations and they will have at least some life, and not just a picture on Rebrikable and here.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

11 minutes ago, Sokolov Edward said:

I would like to appeal to the authors of paid MOC with a proposal to make those models that have not sold in the last year free.

That's what I did, essentially. My 42128 B model was free for a year (August 21 to Sep 22), and that was when someone used the cabin design + instruction steps in their own instruction without crediting me. I asked for the credits and that person even denied it. According to Rebrickable TOS you can only force someone to credit your model if your model is premium. That was when I set it it premium, and the pretty much main reason I did that for subsequent models. 

 

 

[Sokolov Edward]

16 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

That's what I did, essentially. My 42128 B model was free for a year (August 21 to Sep 22), and that was when someone used the cabin design + instruction steps in their own instruction without crediting me. I asked for the credits and that person even denied it. According to Rebrickable TOS you can only force someone to credit your model if your model is premium. That was when I set it it premium, and the pretty much main reason I did that for subsequent models. 

Copying other people's ideas without attribution unfortunately flourishes everywhere. At the same time, the authors of the MOC also complain that Chinese manufacturers copy them, although they themselves are guilty of the same. On the other hand, the authors of the MOC take Lego solutions and their sets of parts as the basis for their models and this does not bother them at all, although Lego has done a fair amount of work for them and made life easier for potential buyers of the MOC. They do not need to look for many parts separately - it is enough to buy one set.

[M_longer]

9 hours ago, Sokolov Edward said:

I would like to appeal to the authors of paid MOC with a proposal to make those models that have not sold in the last year free.

Not a single one of my MOCs fall into this category. See, I'm making things that people like ;)

[Sokolov Edward]

3 hours ago, M_longer said:

Not a single one of my MOCs fall into this category. See, I'm making things that people like ;)

I looked through your catalog on rebrikable - unfortunately I didn't find anything interesting for myself - not for just assembling, not to mention assembling "on the shelf". In 2 years I bought only one MOC model, which decorates my small collection. I want to buy another MOC model for assembling "on the shelf", but alas - sanctions do not allow it. Of the paid B-models, only one model aroused the desire to at least simply assemble "for fun".

[HorcikDesigns]

Come on... As was said here before, it is ok to offer, it is ok to freely deciede to buy or not to buy, to invest my time into writing sheets of comments. What is good will remain, loads of garbage from people with no self reflect will be forgotten and reuploaded periodically - just like they do with so called "AIart". 

What is not OK is to say others what they must do or not, unless it violates rules and guidelines - like copying without crediting or selling other people's work without their permission. Yes, there it some gray area, where your actions will be judged by others, maybe discussed, but it is also OK - you can judge them too, and agree to disagree is also valid discussion end - come on, it is still a hobby. (yes, some authors try and some have made a serious business out of it. Good for them. Business and hobby are two different worlds. I can still freely deciede to support by commenting or even buing their work or not) 

As a creator of some MOC instructions I can say that making instructions is different type of having "fun" when compared with building. Thinking about new MOC as of a product to be sold is a challenge, but personally it takes some fun and joy out of it. So I encourage people who complain "make it free, your work is not worth a penny, but I want it" to invest their effort into reverse engineering my MOCs. There is always way, even if it is more difficult. And with standardized elements LEGO offers it is not too difficult. 

When I upload something to the internet (MOC BI or just photo), I automatically consider it away - anyone can access it, use it for personal purposes or part of it for their work - it is one of basic principles in design of any product: learn-copy-paste-improve/adapt. When someone use all my work with minimal changes it to generate credit (stolen instructions, reposted photos on IG, etc.), I do not like it, but if I know that I have not done anything to reduce the risk, I can blame just myself. 

To sum it up - it is a very complex topic, and I doubt we will agree on something any time soon. But, please, anyone who is offended by the fact of plain existence of premium instructions, try to accept that when someone want to spread and share joy of their hobby and do not consider the time spent on instructions as extra cost, then they can make it free. When they want to reward themselves for the time spent on the instructions, then they set adecvate (according to them) price to sell it, and buyers can freely deciede if they want to support them, or the price is too high. Simple as brick. 

Edited September 16, 2024 by HorcikDesigns

[TeamThrifty]

On 9/14/2024 at 5:43 PM, Lok24 said:

Where is the problem?

If someone offer it for free it's ok.
If someone else thinks they have to be paid for it' s ok, too.

Where is there any conflict?

Exactly, its as simple as that... not sure where the debate is?

End of thread.

 

30 minutes ago, HorcikDesigns said:

please, anyone who is offended

There's nothing to be offended by. If anyone is, the problem is theirs... You're free to charge or not charge, entirely up to you. I don't see it as a complicated subject at.

[howitzer]

I find it kind a funny in a sad way when someone publishes their new nice moc and then someone (usually new or not very active member) starts asking for instructions, free of course and often in a very entitled fashion, like it's a duty of creator of the moc to provide free instructions. It never ceases to be baffling how some people don't think any further than what they immediately happen to want. Official sets come with instructions so I guess that these people just assume that instructions appear out of thin air when a model is finished or something?

[HorcikDesigns]

28 minutes ago, TeamThrifty said:

Exactly, its as simple as that... not sure where the debate is?

End of thread.

 

There's nothing to be offended by. If anyone is, the problem is theirs... You're free to charge or not charge, entirely up to you. I don't see it as a complicated subject at.

Exactly. Totally agree. But people (all, including authors of premium MOCs and those who complain) like to get offended by anything and put their rights and desires (usually not needs) above everything and sadly never accepting it is only their problem. So I doubt that the end of this debate is near.

Edited September 16, 2024 by HorcikDesigns

[TeamThrifty]

16 minutes ago, HorcikDesigns said:

But people (all, including authors of premium MOCs and those who complain) like to get offended by anything 

They do!! And its the curse of humanity.. Just ignore them and do whats right for you. In all areas of life, including mocs and instructions!! 

[johnnytifosi]

It's nice to see this topic opened since I made a similar comment with @Sokolov Edward 's one somewhere else. Personally, I dislike paid MOCs on principle. Lego is still a hobby and it should offer joy. But unlike other communities where information is shared freely, everything about Lego nowadays seems to have been encompassed by greed, be it reselling, scalping, "investing", selling instructions, and TLG's own policies of offering less and charging more every year. Of course I am not going to preach to anyone how to share their work, but at least I set my own example and offer any MOCs I do for free, simply because it will offer me joy once in a while if somebody posts a photo of the build and a "thank you comment".

I think the issue wouldn't bother me that much normally, but it does because of the elimination of B-models in Technic. This gives one no alternatives but to scour Rebrickable for alternative builds, and then get disappointed. Some examples are the Ford GT set, where 34 of the 40 alternative builds are premium, or the recent G Wagon set for which we see front paged MOCs now, where all 4 builds so far are premium too. Whatever new sets I have bought recently are ones with a decent community around them, and these are usually Creator 3-in-1 sets or the smaller Technic sets. I am somewhat bothered that the forum enables self promotion, and I find it ironic that people have the nerve to claim they can charge for their "own IP" on a model of something they don't have the license for. Let's face it, just like TLG requires a license to release a G Wagon, so does one in order to earn money on a model of a X real car.

Edited September 16, 2024 by johnnytifosi

[Alex Ilea]

1 hour ago, johnnytifosi said:

 Some examples are the Ford GT set, where 34 of the 40 alternative builds are premium, or the recent G Wagon set for which we see front paged.

I find it ironic that people have the nerve to claim they can charge for their "own IP" on a model of something they don't have the license for. Let's face it, just like TLG requires a license to release a G Wagon, so does one in order to earn money on a model of a X real car.

I have personally made alternate models for the Ford GT (Toyota Supra) and the G class (Ford Bronco). Selling alternates allows me to purchase new sets, to buy parts for new models and MOCs, for competitions and to pay for joining lego contests (Buwizz Gathering 2023 and 2024). It's something that has helped me a lot and I can't see why I should change that.

BTW, you can read the comment section on most B models (not mine specifically) and people say that almost all look better than the original set, and that is why eveyone buys stuff, to display it.

I find it interesting that you say that Creator has a "decent comunity". So Technic doesn't just because there is a paywall?

Also, no big brands will ever care if we use their name. They can't sue us because it isn't worth it for them. Imagine F3rr4ri :)) trying to sue someone from rebrickable, and having to prove that they are the original creator, they violated these counts, yada yada... It's almost like if Toyota got sued because their cars are used in certain activities, LOL.

[howitzer]

23 minutes ago, Alex Ilea said:

Also, no big brands will ever care if we use their name. They can't sue us because it isn't worth it for them. Imagine F3rr4ri :)) trying to sue someone from rebrickable, and having to prove that they are the original creator, they violated these counts, yada yada... It's almost like if Toyota got sued because their cars are used in certain activities, LOL.

IANAL but I believe that legally they could sue someone using their brand and design when selling instructions. But they don't, because as you said, it isn't worth it for them to go after someone making a few bucks for something that's in no way competing with their actual business. Then there's the fact that moc makers, whether they sell instructions or not, are doing basically free advertising for whatever brand they're representing in their creation, not to mention the inevitable public backlash if they did try to sue the creators. It's entirely in the best interest of big companies to just ignore instruction-sellers.

[Timorzelorzworz]

2 hours ago, johnnytifosi said:

I find it ironic that people have the nerve to claim they can charge for their "own IP" on a model of something they don't have the license for.

We don't have any licenses and we don't need them. You do not charge for a B-model license, you charge for highly tested premium quality products with premium instructions containing hundreds up to thousand pages. All this isn't done overnight. Some people have no time to make own instructions and sourcing this task out to others, but the others will also be payed for this work. Btw, many B-models keeping the brand (Lamborghini to Lamborghini, Ferrari to Ferrari,...), so the license is already bought with the set.

[langko]

On 9/15/2024 at 2:43 AM, Lok24 said:

Where is the problem?

If someone offer it for free it's ok.
If someone else thinks they have to be paid for it' s ok, too.

Where is there any conflict?

This is my viewpoint as well. As long as someones not reselling someone else's work then I don't care if its free or paid.

If you personally want to offer your models for free then I respect that.
If you put a price on it I respect that as well. Obviously I'll still make a decision whether its worth me buying (just like any regular LEGO set), but it doesn't change the fact that you can sell it for whatever price you think is fair (just like when LEGO price an official set). Just because I might not think its worth that price doesn't mean I'm entitled for you to give it to me for free.
There are lots of paid models on rebrickable that are just digital models without any photos of the real life build... Instead of complaining I just don't buy it and move on.
There are also paid MOCs I've bought where I have been disappointed in the end result. Did I expect better in some cases? Yes, but I'm still grateful they offered the chance to buy the instructions instead of not having them at all. In all those cases I have still learnt something from the building experience and have often used the models as a launching pad for my own modifications. So in the end, for me it was still worth buying those instructions, and I'm happy to support designers for the enormous amount of work it can take to create instructions for such models. 

2 hours ago, johnnytifosi said:

Personally, I dislike paid MOCs on principle. Lego is still a hobby and it should offer joy.

So everything that is either a hobby or offers joy should then be free? What a ridiculous thought... 

[johnnytifosi]

50 minutes ago, Alex Ilea said:

I find it interesting that you say that Creator has a "decent comunity". So Technic doesn't just because there is a paywall? 

Yes.

50 minutes ago, Alex Ilea said:

Also, no big brands will ever care if we use their name. They can't sue us because it isn't worth it for them. Imagine F3rr4ri :)) trying to sue someone from rebrickable, and having to prove that they are the original creator, they violated these counts, yada yada... It's almost like if Toyota got sued because their cars are used in certain activities, LOL. 

Ford not bothering to sue you because you made a few hundred bucks on Lego instructions doesn't make it any less illegal to use their brand to make a product. Of course they won't do it because the backlash a multi-billion dollar company would face for going after a random hobbyist would be a PR disaster.

 

Edited September 16, 2024 by johnnytifosi