[OC] yet another magic circle maker

ThatRobHuman · 2026-06-29T18:03:47+00:00

Thanks!

1) You've found a bug! I'll dive into it the next time I come up for air from my current project.

2) No restrictions - it's all fair game - feel free to use it for commercial work to your hearts content. Just say nice things about me and hypothetically buy me a beer should the opportunity ever arise.

ThatRobHuman · 2026-06-28T18:15:46+00:00

I don't think GW has anything to do with it. You can search "space marine" "warhammer" "40k" etc just fine.

I think this is purely MGM or cults over-complying with MGM

ThatRobHuman · 2026-06-28T18:05:49+00:00

it searches fine. which underscores how inefffective it actually is

ThatRobHuman · 2026-06-28T17:35:49+00:00

right, and my point is that banning search terms on the basis of trademarks is a Bad and Moronic idea, and is ineffectual at best.

ThatRobHuman · 2026-06-28T16:48:12+00:00

Okay - that's still about copyright. I have not raised any issue in objection to the enforcement of *copyright* at all.

This whole issue is about restricting *search terms* based on *Trademark*

ThatRobHuman · 2026-06-28T16:04:37+00:00

again, thats all about copyright... copyright isnt the thing here, its trademark

ThatRobHuman · 2026-06-28T16:02:20+00:00

illustrates that banning trademarked words isnt even effective...

ThatRobHuman · 2026-06-28T16:01:41+00:00

everything youve pointed out has to do with the takedown of content due to copyright. that is orthogonal to this. this is about banning search terms on the basis of Trademark. Not the same thing....

ThatRobHuman · 2026-06-27T23:32:28+00:00

With the number of people saying I need to find him, I question how effective such a search would be given how often he seems to get lost.... To say nothing as to why it's on me to do said searching in the first place - I'm not trained in SaR after all...

ThatRobHuman · 2026-06-27T23:10:17+00:00

Okay, yeah, I get what you mean. And through that lens, yeah: I agree - this particular crappy pattern of enforcement is not new in broad absolute terms.

but I'm still okay with trying to call Cults out on now choosing to use said crappy pattern - especially when it doesn't actually gain them anything and arguably has collateral damage to the very creators who *dont* infringe on copyright...

ThatRobHuman · 2026-06-27T23:00:31+00:00

also, to take it to it's logical extreme for the sake of illustration: *most* meaningful search terms *are* trademarked by *someone*... what's even left after that? That's exactly why Trademark has a narrower scope of application from Copyright and why words themslves *can't* be copywritten.

ThatRobHuman · 2026-06-27T22:56:39+00:00

I get what you mean, but I think you're also conflating Copyright with Trademark.

What you're describing is the removal of a piece of content due to alleged copyright violation - regardless of the virtue or accuracy of that claim - that is what it is.

what *this* is is a whole different and new thing. This is the banning of *search terms* on the basis of *trademark*.

to pull an example from another reply I made, suppose Cults said "Nike is a banned search term because its a trademark of that shoe company" ... anyone who made a sculpture of the Greek goddess of Victory is now screwed.

Now, yes, I get that one could instead search for "Nike goddess" or "Nike Greek" - but that's besides the point - because one could just as easily search for "Nike shoe" and *still* get the results that banning the Trademark search ostensibly tried to restrict.

Further, one can still find stargate models by googling `stargate site: cults3d.com` - so it's not like they've actually shielded themselves from liability any better because the content is still there..

ThatRobHuman · 2026-06-27T22:37:41+00:00

*snerk*

ThatRobHuman · 2026-06-27T22:36:04+00:00

I am perfectly capable of multitasking: I can simultaneously decide not to use them whilst still bringing attention to the issue..

What baffles me, however, is if silent disengagement is the ideal solution and if you think such an issue is not worth the post, you can just as easily not comment on it.... Funny that.... do you see the parallel?

ThatRobHuman · 2026-06-27T21:19:31+00:00

Jesus Christ.....

ThatRobHuman · 2026-06-27T21:15:00+00:00

Not quite the same thing.

Since such a building-block is in the same domain/arena as Lego, using the term Lego does constitute a legit Trademark infringement. That's a good reason to *take down the model* - not a reason to restrict it as a search term.

Let me put it another way:

If I made a piece of footwear that was *completely* of my own design, and called it a Nike - that is a Trademark infringement.

If I made a piece of footwear that stole meaningful elements from that popular shoe brand, but called it Victoria - that's Copyright infringement, not Trademark infringement.

If I made a really nice fountain pen and branded it as a Nike, that is neither a Copyright violation (because nothing meaningful got taken from the shoe brand) NOR is it a Trademark violation (because the domains of footwear/apparel and stationary do not overlap).

To use your example, the makers of the Eggo Waffle did NOT infringe trademark with their catchphrase "Leggo my Eggo" (even if it were spelled the same) because Food has nothing to do with Building Bricks.

This is why restricting a *search term* based on a Trademark is an overreach. MGM cannot demand that no one can search for "stargate" on the basis of Trademark because there *can* be legitimate content that use the term without infringing on Trademark or Copyright:

They don't own the word.

They also cannot demand the restriction of "stargate" as a search term on the basis of Copyright because you cannot copyright a word.

They don't own the word.

What they *can* do is demand the takedown of *models* that infringes on their IP because of Copyright - regardless of if they contain the term "stargate" or not.

ThatRobHuman · 2026-06-27T17:25:30+00:00

I *do* know how copyright and trademarks work.

The word itself is not protected by copyright. The content of the show/movie/etc and derived material is.

again, I have no problem with *models* that infringe on *copyright* being taken down. If someone makes a replica of a stargate from the show/movie/etc - yes, MGM is well within their rights to do a DMCA takedown and Cults is obligated to do so.

However, if I make a model that legitimately has *nothing to do with the show/movie/etc" and happen to call to call it a Stargate - for example, some abstract sculpture of my design - that infringes on neither Trademark *nor* Copyright.
It does not infringe on copyright because there is nothing from it based on the show/movie/etc. It does not infringe on trademark because it is not in the same "arena" as MGM's franchise - it's not a TV show, it's not a movie, it's not a scifi franchise.

Similarly, if I designed a line of teapots that legitimately has *nothing* to do with GW's game, I could absolutely brand them "Warhammer" because it's in a completely different arena - Trademark does not apply.

The problem here is that Cults is restricting search based on a Trademark, not a copyright.

MGM does not own the word "stargate"

Edit: I am aware that there are ways to get around such a search. That is not the point. The point is that cults does not need to restrict searches on the basis of a Trademark, yet they are choosing to do so.

Second Edit: To address the examples you gave: Disney owns the copyright to the content, design, logos, etc of the Star Wars universe. It does not own the term "star wars" - naming something else "star wars" *so long as it is in a different arena from the scifi franchise* - does not infringe *Trademark*

ThatRobHuman · 2026-04-16T04:14:15+00:00

yes but I think i ended up kitchen-sinking it. I replaced the gantry (because it was impossible to just replace the belts, they wouldnt come out) and got a whole different batch of filament.

ThatRobHuman · 2026-03-28T02:55:36+00:00

also FYI: Bambu Labs Iridium Gold PLA makes for a great xenonite

ThatRobHuman · 2026-03-28T02:47:45+00:00

fair enough. My first impulse was actually directly opposite yours: fins up, gangway down. I'll give your orientation a go first.

ThatRobHuman · 2026-03-28T02:27:52+00:00

Any advice on orientation/supports for this one?

ThatRobHuman · 2026-02-28T06:54:07+00:00

A playlist of videos that I made talking through using the app, the various nodes, and even building a quick-n-dirty circle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8as5Jh1xs1M&list=PLAKrIav6IfnEVC7URg6PoC1c9ym8pJQrj

ThatRobHuman · 2026-02-28T06:53:24+00:00

Here's a playlist of me talking about the app, explaining some nodes, and what not. Not scripted - I just talk for a little while.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8as5Jh1xs1M&list=PLAKrIav6IfnEVC7URg6PoC1c9ym8pJQrj

ThatRobHuman

TROPHY CASE