Origami Piracy

General discussion about Origami, Papers, Diagramming, ...
User avatar
malachi
Senior Member
Posts: 354
Joined: December 18th, 2004, 9:19 pm
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Origami Piracy

Post by malachi »

HankSimon wrote:I notice that you didn't address easements?
I understand how easements apply to real property, but I am not familiar with their application to copyright. Perhaps you can provide some information and examples of easements applied to copyright protected works?
User avatar
marckrsh
Junior Member
Posts: 79
Joined: April 17th, 2006, 10:57 pm
Location: New York, NY USA
Contact:

Re: Origami Piracy

Post by marckrsh »

I am not sure if the real estate term "easements" is utilized in copyright law, but there are lots of similarities in the way rights can be transferred. It is common in the world of origami to grant usage of one's works in convention books and similar compilations. Typically, the origami designer otherwise retains all rights of his work, and the book publisher is allowed to only use the piece in a specific publication. - Marc
User avatar
malachi
Senior Member
Posts: 354
Joined: December 18th, 2004, 9:19 pm
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Origami Piracy

Post by malachi »

Sure, but that seems closer to licensing or someone choosing to give up their copyright in some way. I believe the implication of "easements" has to do with the way that real estate easements can be granted without the land owner's consent and even against their (belatedly) expressed wishes. Hank seems to be suggesting that if a copyright holder does not actively defend their copyright that they might lose it. However, I am not aware of any application of easements to copyright law. I would be curious to learn if there is. Hopefully Hank can elaborate. All of the examples so far have been trademarks, which are a different type of IP.
HankSimon
Buddha
Posts: 1262
Joined: August 12th, 2006, 12:32 am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: Origami Piracy

Post by HankSimon »

No suggestion or implication that you lose your Copyrights. However, as an analogy for the layman, I brought in property rights and trademarks that a broader audience might have some familiarity, b/c we've crossed into Law and left Origami. And, many people don't realize that Law represents a completely different universe that is defended in a court of Law and best discussed with legal experts.

The Diagrams and the Model are separate properties with separate copyrights, which the folks online don't seem to be understanding. In the eyes of the Law, as defended in a Court of Law, the owner of a property is responsible for protecting that property by legal means. If the property is not protected, then that point may be argued in a Court of Law, at which point the owner of the property must now defend against that argument, as well as demonstrate that the property is being protected ... which can result in two different defenses - Defense against the argument and defense proving "physical' protection of the property.

In some states, if I cut across your property, and you put up a fence, then there are circumstances where I can claim that I have a right to cross your property, so you have to remove your fence. Yes, this is crazy, but the cases exist. You will have to show that you have protected your property (with the fence), as well as show how I was wrong to cross your property. And, there are many complicated permutations.

Now, let's say that you build a piece of software [RCE Neural Network for example], which you patent, then publish. If someone uses this and sells it and you are aware of it, then you are obligated to defend it. "Awareness" and discovery with patents is a tricky situation, that patent trolls now exploit. To greatly oversimplify, if one person uses it and you knowingly allow it, then another person uses it ... he can point to the first person, which complicates your defense.

Now, stretching the similarity ... if someone reverse folds a model and posts it online or in a public forum, they may be able to argue in a Court of Law that they have implicit permission to use that model as they like, so they could sell the model without further permission. In addition, other people might do the same, pointing at the first 'infraction'. They may not win, but life gets complicated and expensive for the Original Designer.

Allow me to blow some smoke. I don't know the details of Robert Lang's CP lawsuit, and I don't know if he released them, so I'm hand waving, as well as embellishing. Let's say that someone reverse engineers a model. The diagrams are his, I believe. But, the model is NOT, b/c the Copyright is separate. Now let's also say that his diagrams create a perfect reproduction [Not difficult to believe], so that the CP of the reproduction is the same as the original ... allow me some leeway. I believe that the CP copyright belongs to the Original Designer. And, let's say that the one that reverse engineers colors the CP artistically, saying that this is now stand alone art, not an origami derivation. I believe the Settlement stated that the CP 'pattern' is unique and copyrighted, regardless of the color scheme. And, I believe that if Robert Lang et al. had not actively protected their properties, that a defense of 'implicit permission' might have made a later Court case much more difficult.

A lot more words, not much clearer, more easily summed up as ask a legal expert for legal advice....
User avatar
Brimstone
Buddha
Posts: 1729
Joined: November 23rd, 2004, 3:59 am
Location: Colombia, South America
Contact:

Re: Origami Piracy

Post by Brimstone »

HankSimon wrote:Now, stretching the similarity ... if someone reverse folds a model and posts it online or in a public forum, they may be able to argue in a Court of Law that they have implicit permission to use that model as they like, so they could sell the model without further permission. In addition, other people might do the same, pointing at the first 'infraction'. They may not win, but life gets complicated and expensive for the Original Designer.
Again this is basing the prohibition of displaying the model because of what later could be done with it, but not for the actual action of displaying it, and that is what I don't find a reason for. For all the rest I totally agree.
User avatar
malachi
Senior Member
Posts: 354
Joined: December 18th, 2004, 9:19 pm
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Origami Piracy

Post by malachi »

Hank, I agree, as I said earlier, that anyone who really has a vested interest in any of this should consult an attorney in their jurisdiction, preferably that specializes in intellectual property law.

I also understand the distinction between the copyright protection for a model and for diagrams of that model.

I also agree that all of this is rather complex and confusing, but I think you are making it even more confusing by trying to draw parallels between the laws around real property, trademarks, patents, and copyright. Each of them is very, very different and yes, some of them require active defense, but I am not aware of any legal precedent for someone to lose control of their copyright simply because they chose not to pursue some infringements and not others. There may be precedent for reducing the damages awarded, but I am not an expert.

Most copyright holders for "very valuable" assets (e.g. record companies) will very actively protect their assets because every infringement is potentially lost income, but that is rarely the case with folded models.

I think it's also somewhat misleading to reference the Lang CP case since it was, to the best of my knowledge, settled out of court and therefore has no real bearing on how copyright law may be interpreted in the future vis-a-vis origami models and crease patterns. Not to mention the fact that, supposedly, most of the terms and conditions are confidential.

As an aside, that particular dispute was viewed very differently by some in the artistic community. http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/a ... morris.asp

tl;dr: talk to a lawyer if you actually need to understand how the law might work.
User avatar
Foldtastic
Junior Member
Posts: 99
Joined: October 8th, 2014, 5:34 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Origami Piracy

Post by Foldtastic »

On the legal analysis side, here's some more info:
ahudson wrote:I've been doing some research about the ethics and legality of reverse-engineering, and thought I'd share my results:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi#QID195
http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.c ... 15,00.html

Basically, reverse-engineering is legal, if you're working from a legally obtained object. Any photo is fair game, as long as the photo was legally obtained (sometimes an artist, museum, or gallery will prohibit the use of photography in their exhibit)
However, the reality is that origami is in a difficult to interpret area of copyright law that without legal precedent (I believe I read that on one of the origami copyright conference websites). OUSA's analysis is there to fill the gaps by setting some norms and fitting them (as much as possible) into the current copyright law framework.

I would argue that rule #12 as stated is too broad. I believe that it should at least be edited to allow non-commercial displays of the final form of reverse engineered works as long as the original designer is credited.

I would also argue that a substantial portion of both the designer and folder portions of the origami community feel the same way. For some limited demonstration of this, I'd like to draw your attention to a long thread on this forum: http://snkhan.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1558. This thread is dedicated to posting photos of finished models that were reverse engineered. Most of them have no diagrams published. Dave Brill and HankSimon both posted complementing reverse engineered models (granted the models they were complementing also happened to have earlier published diagrams, but they didn't complain about the other posts). Another example is the origami burr puzzle mentioned earlier in this thread.
User avatar
Brimstone
Buddha
Posts: 1729
Joined: November 23rd, 2004, 3:59 am
Location: Colombia, South America
Contact:

Re: Origami Piracy

Post by Brimstone »

Foldtastic wrote:I would argue that rule #12 as stated is too broad. I believe that it should at least be edited to allow non-commercial displays of the final form of reverse engineered works as long as the original designer is credited.
This makes a lot of sense.
steingar
Senior Member
Posts: 437
Joined: May 27th, 2008, 11:34 pm

Re: Origami Piracy

Post by steingar »

US copyright law runs many many volumes, and is public information, you can look it up. I know of no mention of Origami in US copyright law. Never found it.

What happens if something isn't mentioned explicitly in the law? In our system of justice (inherited from the British) we use precedent. That is, we look to a previous ruling on the subject tho guide us on the one at hand.

Thus we need to look to previous lawsuits concerning Origami. The only one of which I am aware in this country was Robert's, and it was settled out of court. Hence the law is what some unnamed future judge decides it to be.

A word to the wise. Don't sue. Don't get into a court over this. Courts are hugely unpredictable, and you might not get the ruling you want. I know no one who has.
Post Reply