Kawasaki Rose Copyright Question

[origami.me]

Hi, I was wondering if anyone knew if the standard Kawasaki Rose was copyrighted and if it was ok to teach people how to fold it at something like an origami workshop.

A quick search on Google found tons of diagrams and videos across a bunch of websites so I'm assuming it's ok but I wanted to be sure.

Thanks in advance for any help.

[steingar]

In the United States of America you will not violate someone's copyright by teaching one of their models in a classroom setting at an event held by a not for profit entity.

[Gerardo]

This is what the US copyright law says of one of their factor for claiming fair use:

...the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes...

Here's the source: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

So in an informal free-of-charge gathering you can easily claim fair use. If you earn money from the workshop then it isn't likely. Regarding conventions, I'd say the question here is wether a convention, where there's money involved, has a "nonprofit educational purpose" or a commercial nature. At a first glance I'd say it does have a commercial nature.

About your first question origami.me, it's very likely that the Kawasaki rose is copyrighted since it's of modern times. The copyright should belong to Toshikazu Kawasaki. He might have donated his rose to the public domain, but I doubt it.

[origami_8]

As far as I'm aware Mr Kawasaki is very protective of his design and does not easily give permission to teach it. Still in an informal setting where no money is involved the fair use applies and you can teach it anyway.

[origami.me]

Thank you for the information everyone, it's very helpful.

[Soccer1235]

How about if I want to "sell" them, but not really, as I want to use the roses to get money to put in a charity, and I am not keeping a single cent? Would I have to ask his permission, and how would I contact him if I needed to?

[Gerardo]

Soccer1235, I replied your thread about the subject: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=13984

Thank you for the information everyone, it's very helpful.

That's what the forum is for .

[steingar]

This whole "I have to have permission to teach someone's model" wreaks of such unbelievable arrogance that I am truly gobsmacked. My colleagues spend much more time, creativity, treasure and effort generating their scientific findings than Kawasaki or any other folder will spend designing an Origami. I could teach any of my colleagues to fold the Kawasaki rose in a couple hours. Kawasaki could never do the sorts of painstaking and technically complex scientific pursuits that characterize my field of endeavor though he tried a lifetime.

Yet if my colleagues found I was using their work in my classroom instruction they would be flattered. I've never met anyone who gave a damn whether they were cited in class or not, such attribution means nothing to students. Its just a bunch ego run rampant and nothing more. It does creators no good, and the art form of Origami even less.

[roodborst]

Not sure what your line if work is? But in most fields of work you can not use someones elses finding without permission or at least naming the source because of either copyright or patent. For me personally, I would be honored if someone wanted too teach my model. That said, designing origami is time consuming and making good diagrams is even more so. So if was making a living on origami I would not like it if other people used my models. Maybe someone can teach the model and then if students want more too fold he can recommend a book by the same author for them too buy. That way the teaching of the model becomes free advertising for someones books. I would not know why the author would object too that.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G930F met Tapatalk

[steingar]

Not sure what your line if work is? But in most fields of work you can not use someones elses finding without permission or at least naming the source because of either copyright or patent.

In the US you have to neither seek permission nor cite so long as you are teaching for a nonprofit institution in a classroom setting.

[Gerardo]

This whole "I have to have permission to teach someone's model" wreaks of such unbelievable arrogance that I am truly gobsmacked.

Sorry you feel that way steingar.

[steingar]

This whole "I have to have permission to teach someone's model" wreaks of such unbelievable arrogance that I am truly gobsmacked.

Sorry you feel that way steingar.

I truly do. I thought about when I decided to use some my colleague's research findings in my Developmental Genetics class. It was a module about the Clock and Wavefront mModel of Somitogenic patterning. Just by naming the topic in question I think you can tell that this is technically complex stuff. It took several people quite a few years to work this stuff out. But I thought my colleague's findings were novel, and made a reasonably understandable unit for my students. Like I said, my colleague was flattered. By the way, I didn't ask for permission, and I didn't have to tell her I was teaching it. Just came up in conversation.

I think about that, and then I think about the attitudes I see here. It just makes my blood boil.

[Ponadr]

This whole "I have to have permission to teach someone's model" wreaks of such unbelievable arrogance that I am truly gobsmacked. My colleagues spend much more time, creativity, treasure and effort generating their scientific findings than Kawasaki or any other folder will spend designing an Origami.

Not all origami designers design for the purpose of teaching or making money. I can think of a few justified situations in which someone would say "I have to have permission to teach someone's model." One example would be if an origami designer created a model that he didn't want to be released to the public, but was willing to teach a close friend. And also, I don't think your analogy to the scientific community is fully accurate, especially in this case. Science is grounded on "spreading the knowledge" while art can be more individualistic. If I can recall correctly, Eric Joisel designs most of his models on the idea that they cannot be and shouldn't be copied.

[bethnor]

steingar--however you feel about the subject and whatever the resolution is, i'm pretty sure kawasaki is a published mathematician. i think many designers are mathematicians and physicists and origami is just on the side. so i would bet good money kawasaki would know exactly what you're talking about, and one shouldn't pretend that he doesn't have that perspective.

[HankSimon]

Kawasaki's Theorem is a foundation of good Origami Design. I may be exaggerating a bit, but everyone who folds a piece of paper with 2 or more folds, so that it is flat, is applying this theorem.

Black & White use of copyright is different than ethical and respectful treatment of talented artists who create [ release and distribute by any method] their elegant models. Since the 1960s, the history of modern Origami is littered with hurt feelings and many unreleased models, because someone chose a disrespectful shortcut to get what they want without full consideration of the designer's feelings .... figuratively, but effectively spitting in the artist's face. Even if someone creates a new and desirable model in only 5 minutes, that's still based on thousands of hours of experience, paraphrasing Picasso.

Imagine that your 5 yo daughter draws a picture, and another little girl copies it, takes up to the teacher, and gets a gold star and recognition for it ... while the original artist watches from the back room and cries. Imagine this same artist creates a beautiful, abstract, geometric pattern, which is copied w/o permission and shown to other people, one of these people coloring the unique pattern, selling it as abstract art w/o attribution ... resulting in a dejected artist that no longer releases or creates original work. This is part of the history in the origami world, when desire and entitlement outweigh respect for the artist. It may not be rational, it may seem easy to hand wave, debate, and argue it away, but it remains a fact. When you show disrespect for the feelings and experience of an artist, there will be loss.