Sarah Morris?!!!

[EricGjerde]

So, while I'm not necessarily a big fan of what she's doing, I really have a hard time finding anything wrong with it under (US) copyright law, as I understand it to pertain to artwork.

Origami falls into a kind of grey area in terms of interpretation of protections for CP's, diagrams, models, etc - as pointed out by others, a CP is about the only thing that has a good solid copyright on it, for *that particular version*. Reprinting the same material would be an infringement.

But what she is doing is a rather considerable amount of alteration, in my opinion. It seems like it's the usual "art is theft" re-use, and I have a hard time finding legal fault with it. (again, just my own opinion, etc.)

Realistically I find it rather tacky and tasteless to use material from friendly folks sharing publicly for free in exchange for making works of art being sold at high prices, but that's much more of a moral argument vs. a legal one.

I suppose those of you who are making a fuss over this (which, if it's your own CP, is definitely your choice!) might consider looking into your moral rights under EU law for your work, vs the more US-centric copyright aspects.

Anyway, I suppose I am in the vast minority here but if she used some of my CP's for art purposes I would be highly honored and excited, rather than being angry and looking for a payout. My 2 cents.

-Eric

[wolf]

Here's some hypothetical questions:

- What if Sarah Morris had not named each piece after its associated origami model, but instead gave it a name of her own?
- What if she had only used half of the CP?
- What if she had redrawn the CP, and skewed it into a diagonal?

In my opinion, unless you can explicitly link a CP to a final finished model, it's very difficult to protect both the artistic and intellectual content of the CP. Furthermore, since CPs just give the structure and not the details, when should one consider a CP unique enough that it can be protected?

Perhaps I'll just go draw up a bunch of bird base CPs and slap some copyrights on them, which should then allow me to stake a claim on every model based on a bird base.

[mike352]

I'm surprised that no one's yet mentioned the recent news story of Shepard Fairey and his Obama poster. Looking at the two, the photo and the poster:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03856.html
it is clear that he used the photo as a reference. You could say that all he did was go to Photoshop, outline different sections, and change the colors around, which is probably what he did.

Those supporting him say it's a unique work of art. But of course, he has these copyright lawsuits on his hands. Comparing this situation to Sarah Morris, I would say that Shepard Fairey did more derivative work to arrive at his poster than Sarah did to arrive at her paintings. So, in all fairness it would be reasonable to expect that she could be rightfully sued. And, Fairey didn't gain any money from his poster - maybe publicity, which Morris is charging quite a lot for hers.

I think that her work is rightfully a work of art in and of itself, but I still don't think that excuses her not accrediting the origami artists. When I first saw her June Bug painting, I wondered "who is this origami artist?" and instantly she gained respect in my eyes. And, I'm sure anyone who looks at her paintings and realizes that those lines could form various insects would be quite impressed with her. Just from the paintings would lead one to assume that she had discovered those patterns, since there was no attribution. So, she's stealing the credit away from those who discovered the CPs and taking it for herself. When I heard that she stole them, she immediately lost respect in my eyes.

[Jonnycakes]

In my opinion, unless you can explicitly link a CP to a final finished model, it's very difficult to protect both the artistic and intellectual content of the CP. Furthermore, since CPs just give the structure and not the details, when should one consider a CP unique enough that it can be protected?

Perhaps I'll just go draw up a bunch of bird base CPs and slap some copyrights on them, which should then allow me to stake a claim on every model based on a bird base.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe several of the CPs used by Sarah Morris already have been attributed to specific origami works-in this very forum topic. You would have a hard time calling a CP of a bird base your own-it has been around for decades-at least. Traditional (and more common) bases are commonly used and thus cannot be attributed to one specific person. Once CPs get more complex, even without showing every single fold, get much more unique. Past a certain degree of complexity, every CP has significant differences than just about every other CP

Also, if you remove the color in the CPs altered by Sarah Morris, you have the original CP, unaltered except for maybe a slight difference in the width of the lines. Not only is it clear where the CPs came from, but the entire original CP is actually visible in Morris' paintings!

[wolf]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe several of the CPs used by Sarah Morris already have been attributed to specific origami works-in this very forum topic

Simply because she named her pieces after the models. But I'd wager that with the bases obtained from those CPs, you'll be able to come up with many alternate models.

Past a certain degree of complexity, every CP has significant differences than just about every other CP

But where is that line of complexity? There is currently no objective way to measure this. Furthermore, CPs are not unique - if the crease assignments are not present, there is no way of distinguishing an inside crimp from an outside crimp, for example. In the cutthroat world of patent protection, such seemingly small details can be enough to break an existing patent.

-it has been around for decades-

Intellectual property laws doesn't consider age - which is why people have gotten away with patenting the wheel. Karaoke is another example. Which really just points towards how ridiculous IP laws can be.

[Rdude]

Well, I really don't know about the copyright laws, so I'll leave that up to the more knowledgeable people to discuss, but I just find it kinda funny that she can sell this stuff for so much money. I mean, anyone could splash some colour onto a cp, and hang it on a wall and call it art, but it is an interesting concept notwithstanding. As previous posts have said, alot of modern art is a matter of "oh look, I thought of a really neat, easy concept that looks cool" (I have plans to mount a oven element to a blue cutting board and hang it from my wall, so I don't have anything against modern art). I just think that maybe she should have contacted the artists first, just as a gesture of goodwill, or something.

My 2 bits (forgive the possible grammatical infractions, this didn't distract me from studying long enough to merit editing)

[insaneorigami]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe several of the CPs used by Sarah Morris already have been attributed to specific origami works-in this very forum topic

Simply because she named her pieces after the models. But I'd wager that with the bases obtained from those CPs, you'll be able to come up with many alternate models.

Yes, you could, but the CP was still designed by the author, and not her; that is where I think the trouble is coming from. If I took a base of a model, and modified it into something else, I wouldn't be able to call it my design, because the design process was not performed by me. The same holds true for this. She wouldn't be able to call a model hers, because she did not do the design process. So, though you can re-shape a base, the original artwork still belongs to the author, becuase he designed it. She could change the shaping and call it a June Bug, but she still did not design it, she merely changed the name, and re-shaped it (if she could even collapse it).

[Jonnycakes]

Simply because she named her pieces after the models. But I'd wager that with the bases obtained from those CPs, you'll be able to come up with many alternate models.

I hugely disagree. As I said, past a certain degree of complexity, every CP is significantly unique. These CPs qualify. The CPs are unique in the origami world and I challenge you to make something recognizable from the CPs that Morris used other than their intended result. With some CPs it is possible-like a bird base. These CPs are much more complex and specific than simple bases like that. Also, the names are helpful, but ridiculously far from necessary to identify the source of the CP. Morris's "June Beetle" is Nicola Bandoni's Cyclomattus Metallifer, as Jared pointed out. A beetle, but you cannot find that CP by googling June Beetle. And yes I tried.

But where is that line of complexity? There is currently no objective way to measure this. Furthermore, CPs are not unique - if the crease assignments are not present, there is no way of distinguishing an inside crimp from an outside crimp, for example. In the cutthroat world of patent protection, such seemingly small details can be enough to break an existing patent.

If the crease assignments are not present, past a certain line of complexity for a flat-foldable base, there are generally a small number of different mathematical possibilities. The differences in those cases, 99.99999% of the time are so minuscule as to barely make a difference at all. But you are right. There is no objective way of measuring this. There is also no objective way of measuring how different one painting can be from another to make it unique. If you really get down to it, there is no objective way to judge anything because it is all based on our fundamentally flawed human perception. But alas we still have copyright law, and it all comes down to something of subjectivism. It is just common sense. If a CP has never been independently created but for the author who first created it, you can be pretty damn sure it is unique enough as to warrant a copyright.

[insaneorigami]

Ha! ha ha ha ha ha! Take this, Morris:!
I found this on Lang's website:
http://www.langorigami.com/info/copyright.php4

A quote from his website:
"An origami figure is a creative expression, which is a form of intellectual property that is protected by copyright law in the U.S. and abroad. All rights in a copyrighted work belongs to the composer of the figure. In origami, the folded figure, photographs and other images of the folded work, and printed or electronic instructions for folding the work, are all protected by copyright.
Under copyright law, origami instructions are treated much like a musical composition or a piece of software. Personal use is permitted, but any commercial use or republication requires the express permission of the composer. With respect to instructions, both the composer of the origami figure as well as the diagrammer (if different) possess rights. In addition, the original composer retains rights in derivative works, i.e., modifications of the design. In both law and practice, one must obtain permission from both the composer and the diagrammer before republication or other commercial usage is allowed."

And, as Crease Patterns definitely qualify as instructions......

[origamimasterjared]

Think of a CP the way a non-origami person would. IT IS A DRAWING.

IT IS A DRAWING. A DRAWING. Not a set of instructions, but a drawing.

A drawing is a piece of art.

It also has nothing to do with her naming anything. Many of them she didn't name after the corresponding origami work. For example, "June Bug" is a Cyclomattus Metallifer (a stag beetle) by Nicola Bandoni and Black Beetle is "Escarabajo" (Scarab beetle) by Tito Cuba.

Also, patent and copyright are different, so don't try bringing stuff about patents into the discussion.

Here are some of her works: http://tinyurl.com/yfl85y5

Actually, screw it, I'll post this set (there are many more) right here:

"Grasshopper"
"Pitch Black"
"Weasel"
"Cat"
"Mommoth"
"Pegasus"
"Swan"
"Grasshopper"
"Praying Mantis"
"Tarantula"

If anyone is really interested in seeing the PDF, send me a PM with your email address.

Out of 22:
6 Miyajima Noboru
7 Robert Lang
2 of Phil Schultz's "Pitch Black"
1 Nicola Bandoni
1 Tito Cuba
1 which is similar, but not identical to Manuel Sirgo's "Guacamayo"
2 that appear to be Kawasaki's, but I can't any Kawasaki CPs on the web to check against. (They are called "Crystal Origami" and "Kawasaki Cube")
"Tarantula", which I have been unable to identify.

The cover of the April 2009 issue of Wallpaper* Magazine:

[Joe the white]

Well, looks like theft and piracy in origami isn't limited to our own artists and enthusiasts, but to artists of other forms as well.

It is nice that these CPs inspired her, but theft and disrespect is not tolerable. Besides, her choices of color are horrible. I believe I will never understand such abstract art, but I wish I could artistically color in coloring book pages and auction them for 50k.

[angrydemon]

WHAT THE HELL??!! How long has this been going on?!

She must be the biggest disgrace to art on the face of the earth. It's very clear she only wants money and has no interest in creating true art. No true artist would sell OTHER people's hard work for money, without even giving credit. Ooh! I have an idea! Maybe I should just slap my name on some Harry Potter books and become an overnight billionaire! (I claim that idea as my own. Go find your own get rich quick scheme, you bum)

Somebody ought to expose this fraud before the minions of Satan drag her screaming, thieving face down into the flaming bowels of purgatory...

Let's see how Little Miss Plagiarismo likes it if WE origamists fold one of her crap and sell it for a million dollars!

Any takers? No?

Although, if you consider the kind of crap that CEOs and politicians are pulling today, it's really not that bad...

[HankSimon]

Extrapolating from Robert Lang's site, these appear to be derivative works, so they require contact with the Original designer for commercial use. Of course, even though it is unethical, it may not be illegal, until tested in a court of law.

I wonder why Lang hasn't looked into it ... not worth the effort ?

However, I imagine that Wallpaper magazine is sensitive to copyright issues. http://www.wallpaper.com/contactus and I believe that a polite email with the Subject: Copyright Issue ? and a question about using an image without permission of the original designer... might get a response.

Who is the designer of the CP used on Wallpaper* ?

Thanks,
- Hank Simon

[mike352]

Robert Lang has been looking into it recently. Earlier this week he asked on the Origami List if anyone recognized the June Bug CP. All of this has come to light only very recently, as far as I understand it. You can read more about it in the comments here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sipmab/4028546321/

And just two days ago on the Origami List there was a great posting by lawyer in training Ilan Garibi who's writing a report on how copyright laws apply to origami. His most recent post mentioned Sarah Morris and how the laws pertain to a situation like this. You can read it in the archives of the list,
http://dev.origami.com/email/
but Alex Barber's website seems to be down at the moment. I hesitate to post here Ilan's post without his permission.

[origamimasterjared]

It obviously IS being looked into. Hence a PDF with 22 violations. Robert's been looking into it for a couple months.

I'll take credit for doing most of the identification, with some help from Zoraz, ahudson.

I wouldn't fault Wallpaper* Magazine. How are they to know she's a plagiartist˚?



˚ not a typo