Currently, Prusa is doing a terrible job with the Printables competition, to the point where they could be in legal trouble if someone were to push for it.

A few examples to prove this statement (5th is in my opinion the worst):

1. insect hotel -> canceled due to security concerns. Great work, but why not look into it before you start and provide a design guideline? https://www.printables.com/contest/436-insect-hotels

2. Bathtub toys -> Mentioned explicitly: “Safety is our top priority, so make sure your creations are child-friendly, […]”. As these are bath toys, one might assume that they mean safety standards for young children. https://www.printables.com/contest/428-bathtub-toys

Great. Safety is a top priority. So let’s see how they moderate it. They haven’t… If you scroll through the valid submissions, there are dozens that aren’t safe for children. Prusa is EU, so I would expect them to be familiar with the basic EU regulations for children’s toys when they say we want safety first. There are very strict test requirements that a toy has to meet. The simplest one is a bin/cylinder that a part cannot fit into (choking hazard). Does every design meet this very basic design rule? No. Next comes impact resistance and the like. Does the design meet these requirements? no.

You could say that it’s just not feasible to review every submission, so let’s take a look at the winning entries that they definitely looked at: Rubber Band Submarine. I’m not a toy designer, but I’m pretty sure that an exposed rubber band is not safe for small children, who are the target audience for bath toys.

3. fish tank tweaks: Recommending PLA for prints that are permanently submerged (“It is usually recommended to use ABS or specific food-safe PLA…”). Seriously??? These days they are PLA under these conditions is rubbish within a year. Discoloration and expansion destroy some PLA blends/filaments.

4. soldering aid: Seeing this design as a winning soldering aid raises serious questions as to whether the person involved has any practical experience in assembling electronics. Placing a PCB 2cm in the air with sharp objects around the mounting holes is the opposite of ergonomic and comfortable SMD soldering: https://www.printables.com/model/740818-parametric-stackable-pcb-standoffs-m2-m14-holes

****5. This contest had questionable practices and here’s where things get wild. Now we’re not just talking about knowledge gaps, we’re talking about breaking your own rules, which could be a legal problem. One of the contest rules states: “A valid entry may change its slope, altitude or distance.” Simple. Right? Not for Prusa: https://www.printables.com/model/837104-the-rig-r11-diy-helper-stand-for-testing-electroni

This is a winning entry that can’t do any of those things, and would probably qualify as a generic holder (also not a valid entry).

Another winning entry that wouldn’t be a valid entry if Prusa followed the contest rules: “Skip the organisers: We love a tidy workplace, but today we’re focusing on ergonomic improvements”: https://www.printables.com/model/808502-heat-insert-press

Want a third from the same competition? Here it is: https://www.printables.com/model/808502-heat-insert-press “Specific adaptability: Designs must provide flexibility in the user’s interaction with the tool or aid (height, tilt, distance or orientation adjustments). Simply accommodating different sizes of objects doesn’t quite fit the bill”.

To recapitulate, Prusa broke the rules not once, not twice, but three times within this competition (which, being EU, has some legal requirements on how you can and can’t run competitions) by awarding prizes with monetary value and talking them away from other competitions that followed the rules.

There is more wrong with how this was organized/done, but I think this is damning enough. Never assume evil, so I would kindly call it Prusa being utterly incompetent.****

6. The current XPR challenge. Design a part for a robotics kit. Sounds exciting. First bummer, it’s $115 + tax, but that wouldn’t be noteworthy enough to write this:

6.1 To design for it a.) either buy it (providing a $35 discount if you do so) or b.) try to work with whatever this is: https://www.printables.com/model/576581-xrp-robot-part-of-the-experiential-consortia/files the picture shows a complete model with PCB and sensors (some connectors and wiring are missing) but would be workable. What do they actually deliver? The frame with no electronics or components. Good luck working with that.

6.2 While this may or may not go in the direction of predatory, there is more: “Photo quality - Well lit, in focus and clear photos will help showcase your work and help us choose the best designs.” Quick questions: How do I take good and compelling photos without the $115 robot kit? | Prusa: “This also means that you don’t need to own a 3D printer to enter”. Question: "How do you make photos without a 3D print to show of? the wording is very clear that they mean photos and not computer 3d-Render. Just by looking at these two aspects, this thing has a $115 + tax ticket to improve the “chance” of winning.

6.3 Moral issues: This work is unpaid to begin with. Does Prusa really expect people to spend tens of manhours working on a good design, printing it, taking pictures, writing instructions and text, when they have absolutely no use for it themselves, since this kit has probably only been sold a handful of times to end users. There is only a small chance of wining something (remember exhibit 5 where they didn’t even follow their own rules)?

Last but not least: “Popularity – Share your model to increase its popularity, and prove that users appreciate such a model.” This is fairly common for some events and I always dislike it as this asking for free advertisement. Prusa at least limits it to the model itself while others use a broader approach where it is for the entire project/organization. Regardless such terms always have a negative impact. Just remember all the MakerWorld spam everywhere after they launched with high rewards.