The TV and phone appear to be fine, but you should take out the Switch and DS.

Or alternatively you can modify those not to look like the trademarked/copyrighted stuff. Change color, change position of the buttons and other elements, maybe shape a bit and it should be good.

But that makes it a derivative.

Based off of the GameBoy, I presume?

you can make something similar to a gameboy, something it is obviously inspired by the gameboy, but you cant make something that is derivative of a gameboy or use trademarks

inspiration = ok

derivative = not ok unless you have the rights to the works you are making a derivative of

so there are multiple issues here that you have to navigate:

1) trademark. does the company in question have the design of the console or elements of it trademarked? playstation has a trademark registered on the triangle/circle/square/cross combo, but arguably only as a logo, not as button prompts.

2) derivative. derivative is really quite simple. when you say it's "based on" xyz, what do you mean by based on? a derivative is a work that is made from another work. if i take a picture of a gameboy and trace a fakeboy over it, my fakeboy is a derivative even if it doesnt look like it, because the image i made is derived from another image. if i draw my fakeboy out of my head, with my own memory of what a gameboy looks like, then it's not really derivative because there is nothing on which it is derived.

if you are using the name or likeness of something that someone else owns, you may be infringing on trademarks. if you are using an actual image, sound clip, video, or other piece of media then the thing you produce based on that media is a derivative work.

^Solid advice from Umplix and Ragnar.

the flatscreen TV and smartphone are safe from trademark concerns. As long as you didn't use a copyrighted image or model to copy off of for those, they're also safe from copyright concerns.

Most devices don't have a strong enough design asthetic to have a solid trademark associated with the shape and theme of the device itself, but Nintendo's stuff is often an exception; Because the device itself is often the product logo (especially the switch) they have a strong trademark based on the very shape and look of their devices. The DS is possibly too close to Nintendo Trademark and definitely the Switch is too close to Nintendo Trademark, unfortunately.

If you are able to change both the color scheme and some of the underlying shape of those, it should help. However, as the gentlemen indicated above, the question of derivation still remains; what other objects/images/assets where used in the creation of those models and how were they used, if any?

You did use the correct words.

When Ragnar says "based on" he means both of your examples. Creating a model trying to imitate a reference image or object.

You can use a reference, as long as that reference is not copyrighted. I could use a reference image of my dog, but I could not use an reference image of Super Mario, at least in the case of uploading the model to OpenGameArt.

tracing something is not quite the same as using a reference in my opinion.

if i look at medicinestorms avatar and try to draw something similar, placing a cloud with lightning bolts and an upside pyramid in the same general areas, i have created something inspired by her avatar.

if i take the image of her avatar and redraw over it, turning the clouds into flying pigs, the lighning bolts into pink confetti, and the upside pyramid into a leftsideover pentagon, then i have created a derivative work. even if the new image looks nothing at all like her avatar, and no one could reasonably even guess that i used it to make this new masterpiece, it is a derivative.

I disagree, Ragnar. 

When you trace something, you're still creating an image based off of something. A derivative, by definition, is a piece of art with heavy influence or similarity to existing art, to the point of lacking creativity. Tracing is still trying to imitate the image, and you can't get any more similar than that.

All you're doing by customizing a traced image is making attempting to cover up the fact that you copied someone's work, whether for reasons of practice, innocence, or intentional deception.

Tracing MedicineStorm's avatar would be a derivative from the start.

Haha! It sounds like you are "disagreeing" but saying the same thing; tracing = derivative. I believe the point Ragnar was making is that you can use an object "as a reference" without actually tracing its shape or detail. Looking at my avatar as inspiration for creating an asset featuring an inverted pyramid, lightning, and a cloud... a new work could be created that is not a derivative of my logo so long as my logo was not materially used to copy the shape, texture, proportion, etc. but instead just provides a visual "reference" to inspire.

(Arguably, it is possible to still create a derivate by looking to one asset, and attempting to replicate it without actually overlaying the two or splicing pieces of the original into the new asset, but the point is that making a similar looking asset does not in-and-of-itself constitute derivation... Also my logo is trademarked, so yes it could be used as inspiration, but if the resultant "inspired asset" looked too similar, it would still be IP trouble, just not copyright trouble. :P More on that below.)

When you look at some existing peice of art and use that as inspiration for your own art, I shy away from calling that "using a reference". It may fit the term, but it confuses the discussion. "reference" in this sense applies to both inspiration and derivation, so I recommend defining how the "reference" is being used so the distinction between derivation and inspiration is not lost. 

As to Dream's question "I can't model/draw using references?" I have to give the typical Lawyer Answer™ it depends. As Umplix said, You can use a reference, as long as that reference is not copyrighted... but furthermore, how are you using the reference to create your model/drawing? If by "reference" you mean you looked at it and liked certain features of it and that inspired you to make your own similar asset, then yes, that is fine, even when that "reference" is copyrighted. However, if by "reference" you mean you carefully studied it and imitated minute details, comparing them side-by-side to make sure the two match on some or several features, then no you should not use any copyrighted assets as a "reference", as that constitutes derivation.

Again, this only covers the difference between inspiration vs. derivation of copyrighted works. Trademarks are another beast and they don't care if it is derived or inspired; if it looks so similar that a reasonable person might mistake yours for the officially trademarked asset, then it violates trademark. Most assets are not trademarked, but the Nintendo Switch look-and-theme are. 

@Dream_search_repeat: I failed to address your response.

I took photos of a DS and a switch, for both reference and texturing (and i modify the images to remove logos, and buttons)

The copyrighted object in this scenario is the photograph, not the DS or switch. Fortunately, you are the photographer and I assume you gave yourself permission to make a derivative of your own work, so there is no copyright concern with how that reference was used.

I didn't knew a shape could be copyrighted...

It can't be copyrighted. Not in this sense, anyway. However, they can be trademarked, and that is more of the crux of the issue. I know you already removed them, so it isn't really a problem at this point, but I want to make sure you're satisfied with your understanding of it so you can feel confident in the work you do and that it won't be trouble for you. The TV and smartphone look fine to me, both from a copyright perspective and a trademark perspective (they're too generalized to be mistaken for any one brand) but the DS and Switch should (remain) removed OR altered in shape and/or color scheme to avoid people thinking they're official Nintendo models.

Note that nearly every console company has allowances for how their trademarked consoles or controllers can be depicted by off-brand parties. How else would games be able to show a controller diagaram indicating the button mapping? Every non-sony playstation game company would be sued for trademark violations just for showing a playstation controller in their playstation game. However, those brand usage terms are considered a proprietary license, and are rarely compatible with any of the licenses used on OGA.

TL;DR: You can use such models in your own projects, but they couldn't be hosted on OGA without making them distinct from the trademarked brand... which kind of defeats the purpose of having a model that is supposed to be recognizable as the brand-named device. Sorry :/

Okay, I misunderstood then. I though he was saying it is only a derivative if you actually edit the tracing. I didn't at all mean to say that inspiration was unallowed. I guess the line between derivative and inspiration is quite fuzzy.

Yeah, I really hate how fuzzy it is. Fortunately, I've gotten pretty good at knowing where it is. Unfortunately, I have no good way to convey it to others other than to have them tell me what they did and I can say "yeah that's inspiration" or "nope that's derivation".

to me it seems fairly simple:

inspiration = "i see something cool, i want to try and make something like that"

derivative = "i see something cool, i am going to use it to make something else out of it"