Fan-made Diagrams with Due Credit Given- Legal or Not?

[Lephantome92]

I'm just wondering. It is as the subject says- if a fan makes and posts online for free diagrams from say reverse engineering and gives (well, "emphasizes" may be a better word) credit to the original designer of the model, would those diagrams be considered legal, or if they didn't specifically ask the original designer, would they be considered illegal? I'm not totally sure, because in my mind it could kind of go both ways.

[kareshi]

I don't see how it's different than making a start-to-finish guide on Youtube.

[Joe the white]

If the diagrams are for your use only (not distributed online or otherwise) it would be fine, but for what you describe it wouldn't fit under that specific useage. It also depends on how the law would define origami and origami diagrams. If its counted as a blueprint for a product, it would probably be considered illegal. If a diagram is interpreted as sheet music, probably not. Robert Lang or the OAC ( http://digitalorigami.com/oac/ ) could probably tell you specifics.

At any rate it would be very disrespectful to the artist to create diagrams for their model without their permission, and the artist may not want diagrams for their model to be given out anyway (it has happened before in such a case as this and it doesn't end well). Its very easy to contact most origami artists these days, so its as easy as a yes or no from them.

Sara Adams is a popular youtube origami video diagram creator and she asks for permission .

Edit: Here is a list of her planned videos and their status, including if she was granted permission or not, and the approval rate is very high. http://www.happyfolding.com/casetracker?project=596

[origami_8]

It is respectful to ask permission first and accept the decision of the author. We had a case here on the Forum where someone asked for permission didn't got it and published the diagrams anyway. Needless to say, that the creator of the original piece wasn't happy at all (he got a tantrum). In the end both the creator as well as the diagrammer left the Origami community angry and many people got hurt during the argument. As far as I know there have been similar cases in the past. From what I've read so far it is not forbidden to publish your reverse engineered diagrams without permission (there aren't any law cases forbidding it), but trust me, it isn't worth it.
Many authors will welcome it if you take away the hard work of diagramming for them, but you have to ask first and accept whatever you get told.

[steingar]

Legally, I don't see the problem. Diagrams are a de novo artwork, and if they didn't exist before there is no duplication of any kind that I can see. Moreover, I don't know of either statute or case law that applies to Origami, as least not in the US. All that said, I am no lawyer and didn't even sleep in a Holiday Inn last night.

There is a much more important caveat to be had, however. The Origami community is vanishingly small, and news like this travels fast and far. Everyone likes good gossip. Thus if someone does this once, they will not likely have the opportunity to do so again. If someone has this done to them, they will not be as sanguine about putting themselves in a position to be further victimized. In either case, the dissemination of potentially wonderful Origami models is compromised, and that's bad for everyone.

[fncll]

Legally, it's a tough case to make, just as reverse engineering a recipe. Ethically, however, it's dubious and I agree with others that if you don't get permission from the creator of the model you should keep the diagrams to yourself...

[PauliusOrigami]

But if there is a CP of a model posted by the author on line, let's say any of kamyias on his site, or brians. I see no difference if any fan creates a diagram from a CP. and i see no reason to be this illegal - author gave a CP online so that everybody (i mean it - everybody) could fold it. making a diagram is just breaking a CP down into smaller steps, so i go for this idea of legality.

[steingar]

Making a diagram from a CP is perfectly legal, the diagrammer is creating de novo artwork. No one can tell you what artwork to create or not create, excepting certain issues of national security and some relating to obscenity.

The issue arises when the diagrammer disseminates the diagrams. There are some monetary benefits to submitting diagrams, something all of you should do. For example, many convention books are expensive to purchase, but free to those who submit designs. Should that benefit go to the designer or the diagrammer? Personally, I myself think the latter, diagramming is way harder than designing, which is why there are so many designers who don't diagram. But that's just me, and I still didn't stay in a Holiday Inn last night.

[Joe the white]

My personal view:

CPs, Diagrams, and the finished Model all go hand in hand in my mind. Traditionally, since the modern revitalization of origami, the way we first learn origami is through diagrams (also the method created by folders in this era). Most origami artists have learned origami from books or online through this method and it is essentially synonymous to ask for diagrams of a model. The CP is an old method (dating back probably to the invention of origami) that has gained more use with the advent of modern super complex pieces, but because it is the unfolded model itself it is basically the DNA (or soul, to be artful) of the model. So, while these are seperate works of art, they're essentially part of the whole process of sharing how to reproduce a model. I believe that the entire works should be copyright to the creator of the model, if not simply because without the model, the CP and Diagram do not exist. If a person were to create diagrams for the model, that would be what I'd consider a collaboration and be treated as such.

My logic based on observations:

With recent cases of various community activity, we can see that posting pirated books on filesharing sites is not legal because they can be taken down due to infringement, recoloring CPs and using it as your own artwork without permission or accrediting the authors is not tolerated and has lead to legal action, and making diagrams for another artist's work without permission has caused our community to lose some excellent folders and cause other artists to cease producing diagrams or CPs of their work. With human nature, people tend to get wrapped up in "if its legal", "if its moral", "if its a sin" to test how far they can go before they cross "the line". With the advent of globalization and the internet the sense of "community" has been degraded in general, but the origami community for the most part is still a tight-knit group of enthusiasts who at heart wish to further the art and share their works, but also want respect and due credit for their work as art (we've had a hard enough time under the stigma of being labled a kindergarten/schoolyard craft, am I right?).

It really is much less about money, and more about respect and credit where it is due. If a person asked to share a diagram with a few friends, or if they could create works based on their CPs, or if they could create diagrams, I'm sure most artists would approve and be happy to share their works. The main reason an artist would be likely to say no is to something commercial or advertising related (basically the main way for the artists to make money at something they enjoy doing), or if it was against their sense of art (which is rather rare in our community, but it exists).

[Lephantome92]

@Joe the white
If I came across as merely trying to be sneaky and how far I can push my luck, I sincerely apologize. I was just curious about other's actions, and whether or not they were appropriate. I would not try and even tiptoe the "moral line" in my actions. I'm sorry if my curiosity came across as anything else.

If I'm not being too curious, when you mention our community losing numerous excellent folders due to various actions, do you mean they left this forum, or just stopped designing origami altogether?

[HankSimon]

This type of discussion comes up every 3 - 5 years or so. When an artist puts his time and effort into creating an artistic sculpture, part of his 'self' goes into it, also. When someone copies this work of art without permission, it can result in bruised egos. I can recall at least 5 people who have left the community and 3 who left Origami, because of a lack of respect of their art.

Currently, I know of some interactions where the artist specifically did not give permission for someone else to diagram their work. I don't know the reasons, but it could have been related to quality of diagrams or lost revenue from planned diagrams.

There's a suggestion that diagramming is harder than designing. They are two completely different skills. I believe that diagramming is more tedious ... and not as rewarding.

In any case, for the most part, the Origami community remains a very giving group. I recommend treading respectfully and gratefully to support it.

[Joe the white]

My first post was directed towards you more than my second, it was my general view of the subject.

Hank Simon is correct though. We have quite a few community members (generally the O-List is the one I see as the largest core community because many authors and convention goers are members, but I include the known community as a whole) who leave or disappear over the years as it is. I've not seen anything by Jake Crowley, Nathan Geller, Charles Esseltine, and a great many others in at least several years. As for references to folders who have had issues relating to this that I can directly recall, Valerie Vann and her Rose Cube and Phu Tran and his Rose are two that are fresh in my mind (I call it the "rose curse"). If you expand it to copyright issues in general, there are many more that can be included.