Selling origami--legal or no?

[dinogami]

I am JUST STATING OTHER ways of getting around this.

...aaaaand I believe we have arrived at the core of the matter. What does it say about someone that insists on finding "ways of getting around" an issue that involves ethics and/or laws? To me, at any rate, it automatically smacks of a lack of ethics and/or legality. Seeking a "way around" a law, or a way to avoid seeming unethical, it implies (though does not prove) a general disregard for the purposes (and spirits) of laws and ethics.

[garrasdecaiman]

And again we come to ethics, yes you can sell them and it will be very difficult for anyone to prevent you to do so, and yes the DIAGRAMS are copyrighted, one thing is not the other. Also it is true that if you publish things you have lost the very thing that many of you pledge, absolute control over your creation, so if you were to make a case against someone who sold your creation but with their own work will ultimately to what the jurors believe is ethical, and there will be place to say if you did it just for a couple of bucks or for a large amount, if you give credit as a reproduction or if you pass it off as yours, all must be taken into account before taking a decision, because it is not all black and white.

And I would like to ask if anybody has those colins booklets of origami because I am sure there is at least mr montrolls fly, and apatosaurius or some other long necked dinosaur, and mr langs sunfish and barracuda, and one of mr yoshizawa´s monkeys.

oh well maybe I can try to buy more of those booklets but I wouldn´t show them without prior consent from the authors.
X

[conundrumachinist]

They copyrighted the diagrams not the model I made. So if I sell it for material costs and my sweat, then is it not fair?

My understanding is that both the design AND the diagram (and even photos of the model) are copyrighted. Please refer to

http://www.langorigami.com/info/copyright.php4

[conundrumachinist]

And again we come to ethics, yes you can sell them and it will be very difficult for anyone to prevent you to do so, and yes the DIAGRAMS are copyrighted, one thing is not the other. Also it is true that if you publish things you have lost the very thing that many of you pledge, absolute control over your creation, so if you were to make a case against someone who sold your creation but with their own work will ultimately to what the jurors believe is ethical, and there will be place to say if you did it just for a couple of bucks or for a large amount, if you give credit as a reproduction or if you pass it off as yours, all must be taken into account before taking a decision, because it is not all black and white.

And I would like to ask if anybody has those colins booklets of origami because I am sure there is at least mr montrolls fly, and apatosaurius or some other long necked dinosaur, and mr langs sunfish and barracuda, and one of mr yoshizawa´s monkeys.

oh well maybe I can try to buy more of those booklets but I wouldn´t show them without prior consent from the authors.
X

So the argument now is not about what is right but what you can get away with?

[garrasdecaiman]

Yes of course it is!
There is nothing as a real right and wrong but only as popularly right, and laws are written (usually), with the approval of the major population, and so are moral codes.
In my own belief it would fall under fair usage (as in music), the "commercial" usage of another persons work as long as you do not:
detract paying customers from obtaninig the work from the originator,
try to pass the work as your own,
make amounts of money which are high enough to be worthy of the creator´s preoccupation

Of course many of the terms and limits (high enough, worthy) are vague and subject to consideration, and as mister lang advices, in legal claims should be consulted with an appropriate lawyer.

More than anything I believe on a continuous gradient between right and wrong and not a real divide between the two opposites.

As an endnote I would like to ask what "right" means on an absolute sense Mr or Ms conundrumachinist.
Where do you place the formal line between righteous use of the information diseminated through various means, and abuse of such information.
X

[conundrumachinist]

Yes of course it is!
There is nothing as a real right and wrong but only as popularly right, and laws are written (usually), with the approval of the major population, and so are moral codes.
In my own belief it would fall under fair usage (as in music), the "commercial" usage of another persons work as long as you do not:
detract paying customers from obtaninig the work from the originator,
try to pass the work as your own,
make amounts of money which are high enough to be worthy of the creator´s preoccupation

Of course many of the terms and limits (high enough, worthy) are vague and subject to consideration, and as mister lang advices, in legal claims should be consulted with an appropriate lawyer.

More than anything I believe on a continuous gradient between right and wrong and not a real divide between the two opposites.

As an endnote I would like to ask what "right" means on an absolute sense Mr or Ms conundrumachinist.
Where do you place the formal line between righteous use of the information diseminated through various means, and abuse of such information.
X

I have previously stated my view on what is "right"

I think for me far more important than any legal or ethical "standards" is to respect the views of the designer. So before selling someone else's design try and contact the designer. If he/she doesn't reply or says no then don't proceed.

I also believe owning the book in which the design is published in does not give anyone the right to sell designs from that book for a profit.

Emailing a simple request is going to take less time than folding the model so I don't see why there is any issue.

Ultimately the decision on what is "right" should be left to the designer and not be subject to whatever creative misinterpretations of fair use and copyright laws that others come up with.


And it is Mr.conundrumachinist...

[dinogami]

Yes of course it is!

So...the purpose of writing, enacting, and enforcing laws is not to encourage certain behaviors, but to encourage people to seek loopholes...?

There is nothing as a real right and wrong but only as popularly right, and laws are written (usually), with the approval of the major population, and so are moral codes.

So...a society in which the majority of people encourage things like murder and rape would be just as "right" as a society in which those things are not condoned...? (Yes, it's a straw man argument, but it's going to an extreme to illustrate a point.)

[bethnor]

PLUS READ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I never said I would not ask the permission of the designer. I have ALREADY STATED THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i'm chalking it up to your age, razz. but one day, you will learn, hopefully not to your sorrow, that in real life, you CANNOT have it both ways. you get away with it here because, frankly, "it's just origami."

you CANNOT say "ask the creator (but really you don't have to, if they say no i'll just sell the work at a price i deem reasonable, they can't tell me what to do)."

you CANNOT say "i respect the creator's wishes (but here's a way you can do what they don't want you to do)."

if you want to sell origami regardless of creator wishes, fine. say that and support your opinion. if you think you should respect the creator's wishes, fine. say that and support your opinion. that's dialogue and what this thread is about. what real life won't let you do is SAY BOTH, which is what you are doing . as i said, you get away with it here because "it's just origami," AND THAT'S IT. for better or worse, these points ARE mutually exclusive, and you CAN'T have it both ways.

and SINCE!!!! you feel the need to use CAPS!!!!! and lots OF EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!! please list all the times you sold origami and asked the creator's permission.

i can almost guarantee that you'll need less than one hand.

[garrasdecaiman]

Dinogami you said
"So...a society in which the majority of people encourage things like murder and rape would be just as "right" as a society in which those things are not condoned...? (Yes, it's a straw man argument, but it's going to an extreme to illustrate a point.)"

Yes they would be just as right as you are, I will not go in to anthropological theory but yes, each culture makes their own laws which will correspond to what ir right for them, some circumsice themselves but do not allow to cut or prick their body in any other type of way, some have aldulthood rituals where an 11 year old child is left to fare for themselves in the wilderness, some take drugs in rituals and share them with infants as young as three years old.
And yes there have existed cultures where rape is the way to obtain a female.

As you may see, morality is not as simple as believing yours is the only one, and who is to say women should not wear burkhas, or adulterers not be subject to stoning, or that breast implants and tatoos and peircings are rightful uses of your own body.
Only the culture you live in, female circumcision is illegal in the united states but is the norm in some places in africa and the middle east.

I believe in copyright but not in the draconian copyright that the media companies have pushed the last few years, this has begun to spread in to other zones, and even if I don´t submit to your idea of "right" I can respect that, but please do not try to push your views without good arguments behind them.

[Razzmatazz]

Never sold origami. I make something and it ends up in the garbage, on the floor, or I had made it for someone.

I'll just be clear on this. If I were to sell a model of someone's design,
I WOULD ask them and if their wish me to not then I WOULDN'T. Understand?

[Rdude]

You know guys, I think Razzmatazz is playing devils advocate. Just sayin'

To me this discussion is a complete waste of time. There are extremes on both sides of the issue that seem to be hellbent on clinging to their side of the argument, and then there are the fence sitters, like me, who have made up their minds on the issue, but couldn't care less what anyone else wants to do. In a perfect world, there would be no piracy, and everyone would give everyone else credit where credit was due, but that's just not the way it is, and it never will be, so there is no point in trying to change it. No matter how hard people try, there will always be freeloaders, and people willing to make a dollar off of someone else's work. I have personally sold a couple of models that I designed myself, but if anyone wants to pay me to make them something that someone else has designed, I will not let them pay me for it. Maybe I'm being ethical and virtuous, or maybe I'm just am just holding on to an idea that's obsolete in this capitalist, get ahead or get used system. That's my choice, the rest of you can and will do what you want regardless of my opinion, and I'm totally okay with that.

[Razzmatazz]

You know guys, I think Razzmatazz is playing devils advocate. Just sayin'

To me this discussion is a complete waste of time. There are extremes on both sides of the issue that seem to be hellbent on clinging to their side of the argument, and then there are the fence sitters, like me, who have made up their minds on the issue, but couldn't care less what anyone else wants to do. In a perfect world, there would be no piracy, and everyone would give everyone else credit where credit was due, but that's just not the way it is, and it never will be, so there is no point in trying to change it. No matter how hard people try, there will always be freeloaders, and people willing to make a dollar off of someone else's work. I have personally sold a couple of models that I designed myself, but if anyone wants to pay me to make them something that someone else has designed, I will not let them pay me for it. Maybe I'm being ethical and virtuous, or maybe I'm just am just holding on to an idea that's obsolete in this capitalist, get ahead or get used system. That's my choice, the rest of you can and will do what you want regardless of my opinion, and I'm totally okay with that.

Thank you for pointing out my position and thank you for being one of the first in a while to post something useful. (Yes that means I was not useful )

[insaneorigami]

They copyrighted the diagrams not the model I made. So if I sell it for material costs and my sweat, then is it not fair?

No, it is not fair. You didn't design the model - you re-created it.

Despite a little card saying "designed by ____, folded by me," many people will give you credit for the design. Before I knew the concept of "selling other people's origami is bad," I gave away quite a few pieces of origami (not selling), and even though I told the people "this model was designed by ____," people always gave me credit for it.



Uuunnnless you get permission. In which case it's perfectly fine.


But really, Razzmatzz, is it that difficult to send one little e-mail, asking to sell some origami? And if they say no, then..... Big deal! Design your own origami.

[Razzmatazz]

Uuunnnless you get permission. In which case it's perfectly fine.

But really, Razzmatzz, is it that difficult to send one little e-mail, asking to sell some origami? And if they say no, then..... Big deal! Design your own origami.

OH MY.

Please, please, please, please, pretty please. READ my other responses too. This is the third time in which I ahve to point out what I have said previously:

"I'll just be clear on this. If I were to sell a model of someone's design,
I WOULD ask them and if their wish me to not then I WOULDN'T. Understand?"

And another one which I am too lazy to copy and paste. BUT STOP repeating what other people have said to me because I have already provided responses to them. Gosh this thread is a broken record.

[steingar]

This thread is indeed stupid. It started out with someone asking if selling Origami was legal. Yes, it is.