The Origami Forum

why hasn't there been more mention of this sarah morris business on here? if she's truly making $40-100K simply by coloring in CP available on the web and not crediting the designer, that's terrible! i could understand if she'd done it with "classic bases," but as a well established artist herself, she should have known better.

I only just found out about it yesterday thanks to Sipho Mabona.
More info on his Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sipmab/4028546321/

i decided to look up some of her works and wow... that is disgraceful =
im sorry i dont see how coloring in a CP can be worth $50k+...

i mean yeah... its on a large scale but she didnt even credit who designed that CP. its just wrong. Shes not even being original because she's using others works but just adding color. i also dont see why coloring in a CP makes you an artist seems like i could make that in Microsoft Paint and just replicate it on canvas. I dont mean to bash her, because some of her other works are nice, so please disregard some of my opinions

that's where i found out about it, too, though mabona just posted more of the story, as the comments suggested this has been going for for awhile. stunningly reprehensible!

i am willing to wager that the excuse is that origami is just a hobby, not an artform, and her manipulations make it true art. terrible!

I just copied my post from flickr here

>I agree with all posts on this topic; What she is doing is pretty damn easy to do, and she's actually making money from it. If *any* single person did that to one *single* crease pattern of mine, than I would completely freak out. I posted the CP for Kamiya's Cerberus, but to be honest, it was not very difficult, and pretty much anyone could do it. Did I sell it? Did I make money from it? No. Did I want to? No. I guess I should have asked, but still.... ....Someone should sue her...

I did a fair bit of emailing Robert, identifying the infringements. As far as I know we've identified 19 of 22. (though a few of them are repeats--multiple grasshoppers, mantises, pitch black creatures).

bethnor wrote:i am willing to wager that the excuse is that origami is just a hobby, not an artform, and her manipulations make it true art. terrible!

I will argue that the CPs she is using in and of themselves are poor art. That said, they are drawings, and thus subject to artistic copyright. It'd probably be cool if she had partnered up with some of those guys...

I've been helping to identify some of the CPs she stole also, maybe some of you guys could help with the last three? This one here is giving me trouble:
http://www.maxhetzler.com/1036.0.html?& ... 041e0e6a25
Maybe you know of some tarantulas or spiders that I missed. There's also one called June Bug that's being difficult, it appears to be a stag beetle design with book symmetry.

Already found that one, Zoraz. June Bug is Nicola Bandoni's Cyclomattus Metallifer.

"Tarantula", "Crystal Origami", and "Kawasaki Cube", and the one that was on the cover of an issue of Wallpaper magazine are still unidentified (to my knowledge).

Ragnorax wrote:seems like i could make that in Microsoft Paint and just replicate it on canvas.

Well, a lot of art these days is like that; anybody could've done it, but they DID it. And they did it first, so they get credit for the idea and anyone else who "copies" them is unoriginal.

So, uh, I guess she'd be the unoriginal one. 'Cause I'm pretty sure Maekawa did that with the 2-coloring of flatfoldable crease patterns...

Sarah Morris says it best herself:
http://oneartworld.com/auctions/with?sale=S27&lot=320

and in the end, her career might follow this route:
http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/s ... c-i-a-1996

As I see it, the most important point here is not the fact that she's doing something 'easy' and making a lot of money from it. That's been something that has happened over and over again in art.
The real issue here is that she has taken and used the intellectual property of other artists for her own profit without seeking permission from them, or even acknowledging them in any way.
Any money that she has made from this theft should be awarded to the original artists of the crease patterns that she stole, and she should be discredited as an artist.

I agree with Jared. Taking Cps from artist without crediting them is breaking copyright laws

oh boys, are you sure that it's not your jealousy that is taking over at the moment? I'm pretty sure a lot of you are just jealous that she's making a lot of money with a really simple idea. taking the copyright law for justification is a very common way to go these days
in fact she's taking a structure (in this case the CP) and making something different and artistic from it. its not important if you like it or not, because the beauty and worth of art is always in the eye of the beholder. a pair of trousers is surely not worth a couple of hundred bucks only because it was designed by a star. this is the same logic.
and be sure, if it was really forbidden, some filthy and cash-hungry lawyer surely would have found a way to get a piece of this cake.
besides... is the CP really the center of the origami model? I mean is the CP the piece of art or is ist the folded model? think a second about that

No Chris, it's nothing to do with it being easy. It is plagiarizing, pure and simple.

The process of folding is actually the ONE THING that is NOT protected by copyright. The CP is a drawing, and as such is art! Most people use it as a simple diagram, but some of us actually take our CPs seriously! The diagrams to fold something are drawn, so they are likewise. The finished piece is art! And the photographs taken of the origami work are their own pieces of art--including all photos taken at any point.

She is not "taking a structure (in this case the CP) and making something different and artistic from it." She is taking someone else's art, slightly modifying it to be more artistic, and calling it her own (based on found origami diagrams).

Okay Chris, if what she's doing is okay, go find a painting, Van Gogh's "Starry Night", Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa", Andy Warhol's "Campbell's Soup", whatever, and just change the colors and sell it as your own.

And it's not "using copyright law to justify." Copyright is in place to protect the intellectual property of artists and authors. It's not "oh it's against the law", it's oh you're an asshole for stealing someone's work and calling it your own, and it's against the law.

The Crease Patterns that she makes don't even look that great - In my honest opinion, I wouldn't be willing to spend a few bucks to get one... ....