Origami Piracy

[steingar]

I think I need to disagree with some of our esteemed artists. Unfortunately, piracy and unauthorized distribution are a professional risk for those of us who publish books and diagrams. It has always been this way (someone mentioned photocopying publications, and yes that's been around since the Xerox) and is just a bit worse now with the internet.

In a highly specialized medium I am smaller fry still, nonetheless I like to get credit and monetary remuneration just like everyone else. However, if someone gains unauthorized access to some of my material, my snit is going to be mild and short-lived. They've shown me some degree of respect by choosing my materials to pilfer among the galaxy of materials downloadable on the net (I feel worse for my publisher) and I get to snigger when I think that to print my book they'll likely spend as much on ink and paper as to buy the book. No, we shouldn't down-load things we can purchase, but even if you do I'll still diagram models and publish (or at least try to publish) books.

[Foldtastic]

Sorry for reopening what I see is a contentious topic, but I'm talking about a different aspect of it.

I've read origami USA's legal Q&A here: https://origamiusa.org/files/OrigamiUSA ... %20FAQ.pdf

I agree with most of their points, however I disagree with #12. #12 says that in a public exhibition you aren't allowed to display a model you folded via a folding sequence & crease pattern you invented if the final figure is both a) created by someone else, and b) undiagrammed.

This doesn't make sense to me. I feel like the folding sequence & crease pattern is more of the invention than the shape of the folded form. Plus, many iconic objects necessarily look similar (e.g a bug, animal, etc), so many final folded forms will also look similar.

---
On a side note, while I agree that an origami artist has the right not to publish CPs or diagrams of their models if they don't want to, I believe that the publishing of diagrams and CPs (whether free or paid) is one of the things that makes the origami community so special.

[bethnor]

origamiusa is an "official" organization of origami, so its stance on these things are different in general than for the public, because they need the support of designers. i don't think this is expected to bind you, for instance, if you wanted to exhibit such a piece which you "reverse-engineered" on your own, so long as you aren't profiting from it.

[HankSimon]

Even if you reverse-engineered the model, the ethical intent still holds. For this discussion, consider music. If you hear a new song on the radio, and you don't have the sheet music, you are still capable of plagiarizing the piece, playing it by ear. For example, the courts have upheld this idea with "Happy Birthday". Even though the owners typically don't pursue local birthday parties, the rights are blatantly followed on TV and radio, when they avoid using the specific song and words.

If you COPY an existing model, then you are indeed copying it, touching on copyright laws. If is very possible to reproduce a similar model by coincidence, or unconscious influence. In most cases, the ethical thing to do is to ask permission of the original artist to display as 'originally developed by' OR 'as influenced by' then list the creator and model. If permission is refused, that should be honored, too.

Although these rules are documented by OUSA, I believe that they are agreed upon are the international standard by all Origami organizations. Don't hold me to that, but I think Robert Lang is in close contact with most or all Origami organizations worldwide.

These rules are NOT intended to restrict creativity. They do intend to broaden communications. But, they also intend to protect artists from legal, monetary, creative, and emotional harm ... ALL of which have occurred within the passed 50 years, both intentionally and unintentionally.

So, for the sake of creative harmony, please contact the author for permission before displaying a model that looks like an existing one.

Note: We went through more than 6 months of effort and multiple international communications, to get permissions, so that J.C. Nolan could published new diagrams for Mooser's Train, even though the model is more than 40 years old, and the creator is deceased. This was to honor the creator, and the intent of the copyright rules. Although we could have taken shortcuts, I believe this was the right thing to do.

[Brimstone]

That #12 rule mentions "other public forums", what would classify as such?

[bethnor]

the problem, hank, is that is way too broad.

by that reasoning, anyone who is displaying a reverse engineered model on flickr (of which there are dozens, if not hundreds) is in violation.

ppl have to be a little reasonable, here. if a kid wants to display some super complex origami at the local library, as long as a little card states the designer, this shouldn't require a google-translated message to kamiya for permission.

ppl have played classical music at recitals for decades on the same basis. the program says johann sebastian bach. everyone knows that's who composed it, and anyone who thinks the player cooked it up on their own, well, there's no help for that. no need to seek permission from his estate.

[HankSimon]

Look up Origami Lawsuits. Broadness is part of the copyright laws.
Just like the case of "Happy Birthday" which is still in copyright, not all violations will be prosecuted.
Also, providing attribution (in any display) is VERY different, than the original post which Takes credit; I did suggest the option for attribution, Designed By, or Influenced By. Courtesy implies requesting permission, also.
JSB is out of copyright. Try playing an original Disney tune, or displaying your own drawing of Mickey Mouse or the Apple, Inc. Logo on Youtube for a better taste of Copyright Laws.

The origami rules are not theoretical - they are based on real injuries, fights, and contentions to people like Yoshizawa, Lang, Vann, and others who closed off from the Origami community b/c someone stole their models or released diagrams without permission.

Today, most designers err on the side of courtesy, 'apologizing' when they discover that their designs might have been created previously; Not b/c of the Rules... but b/c it shows respect for the Art of Origami ... as opposed to some paperfolding that a kid was doing. Origami has grown up and is not just an activity for children. As such, practitioners can enhance their reputation by creating honorably and respectfully.

[Brimstone]

Hank, do you have any enlightmen words about what would classify as "other public forums"?

[bethnor]

uhh, people DO play disney tunes and what not at school recitals, and i'm sure they also do pop hits at talent shows, and i'm 100% certain those kids are writing beyonce for permission. youtube again is not a good example because its ads bring in a fair amount of revenue.

[HankSimon]

I don't mean to be flippant, but anywhere that is not "Private". I'm sure you heard about the Yoshizawa -Hondo wars, which I believe started out fairly localized, but I'm not sure. From a practical standpoint, when an 'inadvertent' display was discovered and asked to be removed, the display was removed. On the other hand, when people made money, the originator might request a reasonable 'license fee' after the fact. So, anywhere that other people can see your model, outside of private use.

I wasn't part of the committee, and there is an email contact, if there are concrete concerns, but I believe the major points are to be polite, respectful, and follow copyright laws. I don't think most designers are worried about kids who are learning, but in the same light, they don't want to be misrepresented by someone who claims to have reverse engineered, and they don't want someone 'stealing' models, designs, or credit.

I believe Kamiya asked someone to remove a reverse engineered set of diagrams. And, I recall another designer who created a Rose, and was hurt when someone else published unauthorized diagrams ... and so the designer stopped sharing. And, I believe this type of thing has happened more than once.

I'm sure you recall the issue with Robert Lang's CPs being appropriated and colored by an artist who sold them as her own without permission. I don't recall how Robert discovered them, but I think the 'lawsuit' (?) ended amicably after the artist was convinced that she had used copyright materials. But, her pictures were not what I would consider a typical public forum, unless you buy fine art.

Having said that, I do not incriminate myself or admit that I have ever posted photos of models which I have folded .... Unfortunately, many people who have seen my models ... might agree with me

[Brimstone]

... I don't think most designers are worried about kids who are learning, but in the same light, they don't want to be misrepresented by someone who claims to have reverse engineered, and they don't want someone 'stealing' models, designs, or credit...

So the problem would be that one person reverse engineers a model (or thinks she did) and the final model is not as good as the original and that is going to make the original creator look bad?

The other part about " 'stealing' models, designs, or credit" is very clear but not the first part.

[HankSimon]

Specifically, someone reverse engineered one of Robert Lang's Owls, and it was a very amicable interaction, but Robert asked the person to re-label as 'influenced' . On the other hand, decades ago, I believe it was Hondo seems to have stolen models from Yoshizawa and taken credit for them ... a little harder to prove without the existence of the Internet.

Part that I don't think that I've made clear, is that the one that works hard to fold or to reverse engineer a model feels quite a bit of pride of accomplishment, almost as if he has invented something new, when in fact, all he did was copy someone else's idea. In Origami, we're a giving community... You've given me lots of help throughout the years [and I don't always follow up with anything more than a Thank you... sorry ]

But, in the past, a number of designers have felt insulted and shown a lack of respect for the hard creative activities, b/c someone else used their work without permission. As I wrote earlier, I don't recall the details or names, but two cases came to mind - One was the set of diagrams for a rose, which the designer explicitly did NOT want released. So, he no longer gives to the Origami community ... just b/c one person 'stole' his idea w/o permission. And, the other was Satoshi Kamiya, who asked someone to remove diagrams that had been reverse engineered w/o permission. I believe that Sara Adams will not do a Youtube video for a model, unless she can get explicit permission ... trying to follow the spirit and intent of the Rules.

Again, if there's a detailed, concrete question, the email associated with the Rules is the place to go. Robert and others are far more articulate and knowledgeable.

[bethnor]

i remember both incidents. it's the phu tran rose and the lang's nighthunter. the request to get permission to release diagrams of a reverse-engineered model is easily articulated, and one the community can easily help with.

with the policy as stated, however, one can summarize one's opinion as "not my problem."

if designers want to go around flickr flagging down everyone who reverse-engineers one of their models, best of luck them. sounds like a fool's errand to me.

[HankSimon]

I don't disagree, from a practical standpoint. However, If you noticed that someone had appropriated Seth Friedman's Blue Barred Pigeon, or Lang's Cuckoo Clock and used it for personal gain, you might be inclined to mention it on the Forum, as other people have done with other models, and let the original designer decide what action to take, if any.

[Brimstone]

i remember both incidents. it's the phu tran rose and the lang's nighthunter. the request to get permission to release diagrams of a reverse-engineered model is easily articulated, and one the community can easily help with.

And this I can totally understand, but just displaying a picture of the model reverse engineered by you, clearly stating that it is such, doesn't seem such a thing that goes against anyone's rights.

If the preocupation is that someone is going to think, "oh I thought this authors work was better" (because of the model not looking so well), is the same risk (or even bigger) of anyone who purchased the book and folded the model, since the quality of the work depends on the folder, not the author of the model.