Sarah Morris?!!!

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think the real problem here is rich people with entirely too much disposable income to spend on a really bad piece of art. Especially when I just nearly bankrupted myself fixing a broken hand. Seriously? I've never even HAD 50k. Total. In my entire life.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I wouldn't fault Wallpaper* Magazine. How are they to know she's a plagiartist˚?

A real art magazine would recognize it...

[ahudson]

oh boys, are you sure that it's not your jealousy that is taking over at the moment?

Nope... if she'd have used her own CPs, I'd be fine with it. If she had permission, I'd even be encouraging her...

[bethnor]

it's interesting to see the heterogeneity of the responses.

while i know the selling of origami has been something of a contentious issue 'round here, i really do think taking these CP and making $100K off them is a bit beyond the pale.

here's another way of looking at it. say these artists do NOT get justice in the courts. out of frustration, they withdraw all the CP from the web and other formats. where will morris' "origami" art go then?

[angrydemon]

here's another way of looking at it. say these artists do NOT get justice in the courts. out of frustration, they withdraw all the CP from the web and other formats. where will morris' "origami" art go then?

If that were to happen, it would ruin origami for EVERYONE. In fact, it wouldn't affect her that much, because she already has her own brand of pretentious, overpriced art to supplement her overflowing bank account.

A lawsuit might take too long. This has to be stopped NOW. We need to create awareness among influential art figures to ruin her reputation and credibility as an artist. Nobody wants to buy stolen art from a thief. Even her original artwork will be shunned. Everyone will hate her! Than when she's about to lose her mind, we add insult to injury by filling a lawsuit against her and drain her of every single penny she's got! Her life will be completely destroyed!!

That wasn't a joke, I'm dead serious. I hope you don't think I'm pure evil.

I'm not sure if this is a dumb question, but the following passage was extracted from the introduction section of "Origami Insects and Their Kin" by Robert Lang.

(...Less overt influences permeate the rest of the models, for I admit that I get my ideas and techniques from everywhere I can. Or, as Picasso once said. "Good artists borrow; great ones steal."

And I hope you will steal-or at least borrow-from me...)

Would this somehow void any lawsuits should Dr. Lang attempt to file one against Sarah Morris? Or was it never meant to be taken quite so literally?

[Jonnycakes]

It was never meant to be taken so literally. You can steal techniques from artists and that is just fine. As far as origami goes, I steal structures from other people all the time. I don't steal their entire CPs and call them my own, however. Because that would be illegal.

[insaneorigami]

You can steal techniques from artists and that is just fine. As far as origami goes, I steal structures from other people all the time. I don't steal their entire CPs and call them my own, however. Because that would be illegal.

See, you just take part of the Cps. What you are doing is perfectly fine, and I enjoy seeing how you take small parts of other designs, and mix them into your on works. SM is taking entire Cp's, which is what I have a problem with. I am working on designing a dragon right now, and was inspired by SK's Bahamut - I am even using the same basic flap orientation (with huge changes [belly pleats, different legs, head, wings]), all that I am doing is taking the flap arrangment. If I took the CP, changed the shaping, and called it mine, I'd be no better than Morris. You, however, don't do any of that; you just take small parts, and it's great .

EDIT: I just realized that the General Origami Talk has exactly ten fewer posts than the Diagrams and Crease Patterns section (but not for long )

[Bugfolder]

Hi folks,

I thought that, since I'm one of the artists whose work was plagiarized by Ms. Morris, I should comment a bit, if you don't mind.

There's two distinct issues here that folks have commented on. The first is legality. Taking someone else's artwork, coloring parts of it, and then selling it as your own would be considered a copyright infringement in pretty much every country that has copyright laws. And that's not just my opinion; it's also the opinion of several experienced lawyers.

That's why, for example, you couldn't take a black-and-white movie, color it, and then re-sell it with impunity. And, as someone already pointed out, that's why Shepard Fairey got in trouble with his Obama poster.

(Incidentally, from a legal point of view, whether the copied artwork has anything to do with origami has absolutely nothing to do with the legality. Doesn't matter whether it's a CP, a line drawing of the artwork, an architectural drawing, or a photo of a presidential candidate.)

So from the purely legal point of view, what Ms. Morris did for a couple of years was definitely wrong, and I don't think the story is closed on the legal side just yet.

The other aspect of this is whether it is morally or ethically wrong. Unlike legal questions, which can be settled in principle by the courts, there is no absolute authority for moral/ethical questions (at least not one that is universally accepted). But I'll tell you my opinion. If I create a piece of art, whether it is a folded model, a metal sculpture, or a drawing, I think it's wrong for someone to take that art, modify it minimally, and then pass it off as her own original creation -- especially when it is changed so little that anyone who knows the original recognizes it.

A few posts back someone quoted a line I wrote once: "I admit that I get my ideas and techniques from everywhere I can. Or, as Picasso once said. Good artists borrow; great ones steal.'" The key point here is in the first line: "ideas and techniques." Ideas and techniques can't be copyrighted. You can't copyright "perspective" or "reverse folds" or even "circle packing". All artists get ideas and techniques, and then combine them in new ways to create original art. But that's not what she's done. She's copied. Actually, she's *plagiarized*, whose dictionary definition is "passing someone else's work off as your own."

Now, every artist is *influenced* by others. If you look at my box-pleated designs, you'll undoubtedly see echos of my early mentor Neal Elias in there. And similarly I see people using my techniques, and even my bases, for their own designs, and I applaud them (in fact, I'm tickled pink). Similarities and derivations of style are unescapable.

And so, I imagine someone will ask the question, "well, where do you draw the line? How different does something have to be?" I don't think one can easily define a general rule; you have to look at things on a case-by-case basis. My personal test for questionability would be twofold: "was it actually derived from the original?" (thus ruling out independent discovery), and "does it still look like the original?" (thus insuring a reasonable amount of change). Obviously, this is entirely subjective, and reasonable people could disagree over whether any particular artwork was unduly copied from another.

But I think this case is pretty clear-cut, since Ms. Morris followed the lines of the original artwork so slavishly; I consider what she did to be wrong, independent of whatever legal issues there are.

Regards,

Robert

[Joe the white]

Thanks for the clear info Robert. I've been following the copyright conventions from the first meeting, OUSA board meeting notes, etc. I'm glad to see there is a focused community effort going on with OAC.

-Joseph White

[elanman]

.

[Kijjakarn]

I think if we did what Angrydemon told to Ms Morris, she could become mad and did something like in the movie "Law Abiding Citizen" (that's a really good and thrilling movie).

Anyway, I think what she has done is wrong both in morality and legality. Hope she think carefully before doing something!

[bethnor]

if morris has any common sense, this will be settled out of court as quietly as possible. "plagiarist" isn't a label a commercially successful artist needs.

[origamifreak_1.6180339889]

in my opinion, i think that morris left out the creators name on purpose. if people knew that she wasnt the one who drew those lines and they were avaible free on the internet, no one would buy. the reason why people buy them is because they love "her" creative symmetry and the "interperetive names" that "she" gave them such as june bug. this may be a bit harsh but shes what i call a conartist. once again, these are just my opinions

[Bugfolder]

HI all,

There have been some new developments in this matter, which you can read about here:

http://www.langorigami.com/info/sarah_m ... ement.php4

[kareshi]

Good development. Sorry it made it to this point, though. Once she was "outed" she should have taken responsibility.