Selling origami--legal or no?

Ben385 · Post by **Ben385** » September 10th, 2010, 7:04 pm

steingar wrote:Yes, it is.

You're just gonna start the circle again.....

Maybe someone should ask a senator to raise this.

bethnor · Post by **bethnor** » September 10th, 2010, 7:41 pm

steingar wrote:This thread is indeed stupid. It started out with someone asking if selling Origami was legal. Yes, it is.

if you thought it was that stupid, perhaps you shouldn't have responded to the necromancer who brought it back after three years.

Argil · Post by **Argil** » September 10th, 2010, 8:34 pm

steingar wrote:This thread is indeed stupid. It started out with someone asking if selling Origami was legal. Yes, it is.

It is not so stupid because it is not legal.

I'm a lawyer in France and I'm sure in France it is not legal, and pretty sure that it is not more legal in other developped countries which statute usually protect the work of mind (bad translation of the french "oeuvres de l'esprit").

The problem is that you have to make the difference between what is legal and how to enforce it.

It is not legal to sell origami (of another designer whithout his authorization) but as long as the financial stakes is not important no one will sue you and you will certainly get away with it.

But the fact that you can easily get away with it does not make it legal.

For example if you commit a perfect crime and get away with it that does not render legal a crime.

andssl · Post by **andssl** » September 10th, 2010, 8:48 pm

Argil, I am lawyer here in Brazil and I can say the same thing. I have tried many times to explain the situation according bern convention, but people here prefer to discuss questions that does not make sense in a juridical way.

andssl · Post by **andssl** » September 10th, 2010, 8:50 pm

Argil, I am lawyer here in Brazil and I can say the same thing. I have tried many times to explain the situation according bern convention, but people here prefer to discuss questions that does not make sense in a juridical way.

Razzmatazz · Post by **Razzmatazz** » September 10th, 2010, 8:59 pm

bethnor wrote:
steingar wrote:This thread is indeed stupid. It started out with someone asking if selling Origami was legal. Yes, it is.
if you thought it was that stupid, perhaps you shouldn't have responded to the necromancer who brought it back after three years.

...and Bingo was his name-ooo.......

andssl · Post by **andssl** » September 10th, 2010, 9:01 pm

Argil, I am lawyer here in Brazil and I can say the same thing. I have tried to explain the question in a juridical way, but the people did not want to hear me.

steingar · Post by **steingar** » September 13th, 2010, 4:25 pm

I truly cannot speak for nations outside the US, though I should like to see the relevant statutes. Something isn't illegal because someone thinks it should be, things are illegal because there is a law against it. I find it a bit hard to believe that there is a law about Origami anywhere, but I suppose I could be mistaken. I know of no such statute in the US, nor am I aware of a legal precedent. Then again, I'm no lawyer, so perhaps there is and I'm just stupid. I've been saying the same thing for a few years and no one has ever supplied a law or precedent, however.

Intellectual property is protected in the US, but there are limits. You can purchase plans for all sorts of things, build and sell them (for big money too) with no worry for copyright infringement. I therefore ask what makes origami plans so special?

As far as reviving a necropost, sorry. However, I wouldn't have seen it if someone hadn't revived it before my own participation.

andssl · Post by **andssl** » September 13th, 2010, 4:49 pm

Steingar, excuse me, but intellectual property law and copyright law are not the same thing.

gachepapier · Post by **gachepapier** » September 13th, 2010, 5:28 pm

andssl wrote:Steingar, excuse me, but intellectual property law and copyright law are not the same thing.

Copyright is one form of protection of intellectual property and Steingar makes the adequate point that it's not been demonstrated here that this set particular set of laws has been used successfully to stop somebody to producing ("build" if you will) and selling origami according to rightfully acquired folding plans.

bethnor · Post by **bethnor** » September 13th, 2010, 6:02 pm

steingar wrote: As far as reviving a necropost, sorry. However, I wouldn't have seen it if someone hadn't revived it before my own participation.

you responded to the person who revived it. it was, after all, only one person. whose profile, rather conspicuously, you cannot view.

in truth, i have no problem if that's what you wish to do, steingar, but i do think it's absurd for you to do it and then complain about how intellectually degenerate you think the thread is.

andssl · Post by **andssl** » September 13th, 2010, 6:09 pm

Gachepapier, I have to clarify: In a juridical way, intellectual property law is a protection different from copyright law. They are diffrents in protection and in rules, undesrtand?

andssl · Post by **andssl** » September 13th, 2010, 6:21 pm

Of course, what I have say does not mean that copyright can not be seen as a kind of intelectual property, but that intelectual property is a term more concerning trademark and patent issues, and not concerning copyright issues. Well, I say this from a Brazilian juridical perspective.

andssl · Post by **andssl** » September 13th, 2010, 6:31 pm

See these two links and you will undestand me:

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what

http://capwiz.com/aipla/issues/bills/

andssl · Post by **andssl** » September 13th, 2010, 6:33 pm

Ah, a last thing. Origami can be viewed both from intellectual property law and copyright law in reson of its many uses and presentations.