The Origami Forum

If you see a picture of an origami model and subsequently create a model that looks identical (but may be structurally or at least procedurally different) how much ownership do you have to the design?

Now, what about if the design is truly identical, same structure, same procedure (other than in fine-tuning)?

Was it created by you? Inspired by the original? Inspired by a photo of the original?

For example, say you created...an owl, identical to that of Eric Joisel or someone (I don't know of him having an owl). If you wanted to could you release diagrams? After all, it is your model--or is it?

I'd say that if you are deliberately trying to copy someone else's design, you're already treading on thin ice. Starting from a photo of someone's work implies that you are trying to duplicate, to greater or lesser extent, that design. If you end up with almost exactly the same design, then I'd consider that an extremely good job of "reverse engineering" and the model would still be the original designer's. If it is structurally the same, but procedurally different, it still would be the original designer's. If it is structurally different but visually the same...I'm not sure. That's a case that can be argued both ways, and I can see the merits of both sides.

If you are inspired by someone else's model, but take full credit without reference to them, then you risk hurting their feelings and damaging the good will of sharing. This has happened in the past.

If you fold a common object, like a Grand Piano, a Praying Mantis, or an elephant, but come up with a new twist, showing originality ... and you give credit to similar models, the creators may be complimented.

My opinion is to go through the work of diagramming whatever you do. Then privately ask the originator for their opinion and permission. Some people don't mind release of similar models with a little clear reference. And some folks don't have the time to diagram all of their wonderful models, and take pleasure when others do their art justice.

Of course, other folks want their diagrams and models just right ... or they make a living with their models ... so they don't want the diagrams released. So it is always best to ask.

In all cases, I think it is a bad idea to take ownership, especially for money, without getting clear and specific permission from the creators.

My two cents,

- Hank

If that model that you come up with is the only creative endeavour you can achieve in your entire life, then you should fight tooth and nail for total ownership of the design.

Otherwise, just shrug it off as a learning experience, then move on to come up with something more original. And then publish first before anyone else.

HankSimon wrote:...If you fold a common object, like a Grand Piano, a Praying Mantis, or an elephant, but come up with a new twist, showing originality...

If you fold the model, then fold it again and this time delibrately make a twist, then it is a variation, and you can claim ownership to your result as a variation, not as a full model (unless you make a big enough twist)

If that model that you come up with is the only creative endeavour you can achieve in your entire life, then you should fight tooth and nail for total ownership of the design.

I disagree. The model is either yours or it's not. You can't argue yourself into ownership of something that is clearly someone else's under any circumstance.

silentmagesoul: I think that wolf was being ironic with that statement. It was a setup for her real point which appeared in her second statement. (I also think it was a veiled jab at a former member of this forum, but maybe I'm reading too much into it...)

No jabs intended, just a personal philosophy. It's a question of what kind of intellectual property rights model you're following - are you just protecting the 'look and feel', or also the source code?

In either case, the only good way of establishing ownership for a model is to diagram and publish, preferably in print - just showing the final finished model isn't hard evidence that you came up with that design first.

Right, now obviously in good taste I would try to contact the "original creator", and let him know. I feel, however that he should have no right to prevent diagrams from being released, as the model and folding sequence were 100% devised by me (or whomever). Would the model have come about without me seeing his? Maybe not, but I would say it is entirely my own, but inspired by a photo of his. If I were to diagram it as "Eric Joisel's Owl" that might make him mad, as well as doing injustice to me for having come up with the entire thing on my own.

Also, what's to differentiate whether it was intentional? Eric Joisel's Rat and Dave Brill's Dragon share a crease pattern. Montroll's Fox, Dan Robinson's Wolf, and Mark Leonard's Wolf are all the same model.

For example (this one's real) I created a Millenium Falcon model at one point, that was pretty cool, so I searched online for others, and discovered that it looked identical to Phil Schulz's. I emailed him about it, and then found out that his wasn't even from a square. Now, suppose we really did have the same model, and that he was touchy about it and that I did decide to draw diagrams...

Another real one: Cheng Chit and I came up with models of six intersecting 5-point stars in the same week or so. Because of the simplicity of the modules, ours were identical except for the dimensions of the rectangles used (I think he cut an A4 rectangle into sixths or eighths, while I used a 2x1)

And I definitely have a lot of my own stuff to diagram before I get to anyone else's (and O, how I hate diagramming)...

Although it appears that you've summed up the discussion, I would still like to voice my opinion:

1. If the model looks similair but the base is different, I think there's no doubt that the model is _yours_. However, it would be nice to give credit for the inspiration.

2. If the model also shares the CP, then I'm afraid that because you indeed only reversed engeneered it, I would say that IMHO, you _can_ publish diagrammes, but you _must_ aknowledge the original creator. I think that as a creator, if you're showcasing your work in the public, you must take such scenario in consideration. On any rate, I don't think that you need the permission of the original creator (since he didn't publish how to recreate the model), but again, the acknowledgement is mandatory.

That's my 0.02$.

If i were to reverse engineer someone elses model, then posion them with a diabolical plan involving sharpened paper and sodium cyanide in a totally undetectable manner, and then published an all-singing all-dancing book consisting entirely of diagrams acquired in this manner, do you think anyone'd guess?

Yes.

hermanntrude wrote:If i were to reverse engineer someone elses model, then posion them with a diabolical plan involving sharpened paper and sodium cyanide in a totally undetectable manner, and then published an all-singing all-dancing book consisting entirely of diagrams acquired in this manner, do you think anyone'd guess?

but seriously,
evrything is inspired unless you are born and raised in a vacuum.

to thedeadsmellbad: have you met anyone that was born and raised in a vacuum? I bet they would have astonishing abstract origami designs if you were to suck a piece of paper into the vacuum