Origami Lawsuits

[Timoris]

Woah, did not see that one coming.
I love Cooper's hawk!

TL:DR
Origami artists are suing a painter because she used Creased Patterns as inspiration for paintings.
They are claiming Copyright infringement the other party, derivative work.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201105 ... erns.shtml

[bethnor]

old hat.

despite the obvious lack of knowledge of origami in that blogspot, it's not frivolous.

regardless of what one thinks of the attitude of creators, it is in the origami community's best interests to be supportive in their efforts to protect their intellectual property. if not, they may simply decide it's best not to release crease patterns (or even worse, diagrams) at all.

whether one likes it or not, modern origami is getting more and more complex. as it gets more complex, diagrams get less and less likely because of the labor involved in drawing them. people wishing for diagrams of stuff like the ryu-zin, or of the creations of mikiller, sunburst, or any other number of creators, are just holding their breath and wish-thinking. but a crease pattern is not too much to hope for, and there is more and more help coming for people who wish to learn how to collapse them. boo lang et. al's effort and you stand a chance of booing the future of diagrams.

[FlareglooM]

Yup, and I hope the origami artists will win.
*Ranting, ignore, see bethnor's post for the more dignified version*
And goddamn what a bunch of *censored* comments from some people. They piss me off. Those people always make me go like: "If I ever create art (which I hope I will do some day ), FU I won't share. I'll only share with who I trust."
*End of Ranting*

Go origami artists!

[orislater]

@stacy O_O
@timoris there cps are copyrighted and if someone copies them and colors them in to sell as there own work that is wrong (legally and morally)

[Timoris]

It is non competing, and they have been modified. It's the same reason Asylum Films can make movies without getting sued. See Titanic II, Transmorphers, etc.

Another example of this is when an author came out with the Sequel to Catcher in the Rye, yes, the original author did not like it, but one can still release a sequel and the likes under derivative works.

The paintings have been inspired by the CPs, but if you look, the CPs are modified.

As long as the painter does not try and pass off the CPs as her own, there is no copyright infringement.

[orislater]

... and they have been modified

so lets say you designed a moose. you drew a cp and put it on the internet. i downloaded it and changed a few lines, colored it, then sold it for $10,000 dollars as my own. is that fair?

[maddoghoek100]

amazing in its own right that this has transfered to the blog-o-sphere at all. This seems for more clear cut than the case Shepard Fairey just settled with the AP for an undisclosed sum so I can only hope the Dr Lang and the others have the resources to stick it out and win.

[the modern einstein]

This artist has used the crease pattern in almost the same way that Andy Warhol soup can was used for another artwork, which involves the image of this image in the process of shattering, by an artist with no connection with him apart from the image. His copyright holders did not get any money for that, and no case was raised. this is the same sort of issue, and the folders concerned are probably wasting their money on such a court case, even so, in the use of copyrighted material, the artist may have gone too far, and I am slightly more in favor of the artists concerned, due to such a use, that is bordering, but is not over the line of copyright infringement, in my opinion. I personally believe Lang and the other such folders involved should settle, that in the case of one of the artworks being sold, they receive some portion of the profit, so that their work is recognised as the basis for this artwork.

[GJ0KYZ]

I think Lang and the others should persue this case although I doubt they'll win due to non-competetion and fair-use clauses in international IP law. The problem here is that the artist is just lazy and unable to think up something original herself. I mean, look at what's she's done: fill in a CP using a DTP programme; it probably took all of two seconds to do. Compare this with how long those CPs and models took to design, modify and fold. Lang, Friedman and the others deserve full recognition for their hard work and should receive financial compensation if need be.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gj0kyz

[steingar]

I can certainly see this issue from both sides, though I suspect Robert may not prevail I truly hope he does. At issue is not whether the artist was or wasnt' original. The salient issue is in using Robert's artwork and making derivative versions, did she violate his copyright?

I don't like to second guess these things, because at the end of the day it will be up to a judge, who probably knows nothing about crease patterns, Origami, or anything else to decide. I could see it going a number of different ways.

I certainly hope such incidents do not diminish Origami artists' enthusiasm for sharing their work.

[bethnor]

It is non competing, and they have been modified. It's the same reason Asylum Films can make movies without getting sued. See Titanic II, Transmorphers, etc.

Another example of this is when an author came out with the Sequel to Catcher in the Rye, yes, the original author did not like it, but one can still release a sequel and the likes under derivative works.

The paintings have been inspired by the CPs, but if you look, the CPs are modified.

As long as the painter does not try and pass off the CPs as her own, there is no copyright infringement.

none of your analogies are apt.

i've caught parts of transmorphers on syfy. in order for your analogy to work, the movie would have to be about a young man, "nail" who helps the good robots, the "automorobots" who number "optimal secundus," "bumblewasp," "steelskin," and "classical" fight off the evil "deceiveratrons" who are led by "supertron" and "novayell."

the fact of the matter is, though all those d movies on syfy are highly derivative, they are all mish-mashes of science fiction, not just the original movie with the names changed.

the same is true of the sequel of the catcher in the rye. is it the same book with a few names, events changed? or is it just the characters in a brand new spiffy adventure?

i'm no cp expert, but the cp don't look changed at all. they look like the cp just colored in.

have you read any of the previous thread at all? jared makes a good point. the cp are drawings. further, despite the comments in that blog, they are instructions as well, as many folders are able to attest.

you can go ahead and think it's frivolous, but again that means you boo the future of diagramming in origami. is that your intention?

[bethnor]

there's also something worth noting here. toshikazu kawasaki is one of the plaintiffs.

kunihiko kasahara first published origami for the connoisseur in 1985, which was when the origami public first got a taste of how to fold the rose. quite literally when the OP was wearing diapers (even before). by far, he is probably the most ripped-off origami artist in existence. even now, there are websites which charge stunning prices for the simplest kawasaki rose, as well as countless companies which release "rose kits," and not one word of thanks. all during this time, he's said not a word (that i know of).

that he finally has suggests to me that a line was crossed. more power to him, i say.

for anyone to call him greedy is just plain uninformed. to suggest that he aught be ashamed for standing up for his intellectual property after two decades of keeping silent is outright ridiculous.

[Sroge4]

Regardless of whether or not it has legal merit, I'm going to say this: If your going to fill random lines with color for a painting, why steal someone else's random lines?

[BrooksHalten]

I fully support the origami artists. This so called artist simply used their CP's as a coloring book and claims them to be hers? Feh...

[Falcifer]

Regardless of whether or not it has legal merit, I'm going to say this: If your going to fill random lines with color for a painting, why steal someone else's random lines?

I would say that the lines are any but random. The lines are actually very deliberate and precise.

Unfortunately, I don't know how well things will go for Lang et al. Not only due to the lack of precedence with regard to origami copyright, but also due to the lack of understanding from the general public of what crease patterns are and how they work; a lot of people seem to be under the impression that they don't constitute instructions by themselves, which is debatable. Especially when the nature of the creases is defined.

However, I do think that Sarah Morris has a strong case.
It could be argued that the crease patterns are art themselves already, but I wouldn't believe that they were created primarily as works of art, but rather as a guide for creating the model. As Morris says in her letter to Lang, her use of the patterns is quite different, and could be regarded as commenting on the nature of origami and/or the crease patterns. Which would make her use "transformative" rather than "derivative".
It's obviously possible to obtain the original crease pattern (or at least a substantial part of it) from each painting but, considering the nature and price of Morris' paintings, they certainly can't be seen as competition, so I would be surprised if they weren't considered fair use by the court.

I do find it quite reprehensible that Morris refers to the patterns as "found diagrams", especially when she also makes reference to Lang and clearly has knowledge of his work.

Ultimately, though, fair use is something that can only be decided by the court, since it's a case-by-case thing. With that in mind, I do wish Lang, et al. the best of luck with the case.