Selling origami--legal or no?

[dinogami]

"Legal" and "ethical" are two very different things...

[Argil]

I agree with Dinogami : what would you think if someone was folding and selling a model you worked several day on it to design, without asking you for beeing allowed to ?

[TheRealChris]

that would be pretty cool, because its a big compliment to my work. the person could have taken another model but thought mine was good for selling. that's a big compliment, and I would surely not be angry about it

[bethnor]

that's a big compliment, and I would surely not be angry about it

except that few to no creators seem to share that opinion.

whether or not they should feel that way is a different story.

i think the dating of the last post in this thread is worth noting.

lastly, most creators seem quite reasonable when asked. at least, that's how, i assume they manage to sell all those bejeweled origami at OUSA conventions.

[andssl]

The great problem is that Law has not a precice answer to this question in origami copyright field. In this case we must make an analogy with music.

If someone folds a model and sells it, it is like to perform a music with profit intent.

Considering international law, Berne Convention determines a several provisions about the copyright protection in many countries. Article 9 says:

"Article 9
Right of Reproduction:
1. Generally; 2. Possible exceptions; 3. Sound and visual recordings

(1) Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form.

(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

(3) Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention."

See the text of convention here:

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/bern ... P140_25350

Then, without permission, selling origami models in this context is not allowed.

[Argil]

its a big compliment to my work.

It would be a big compliment if quoted "designed by TheRealChris and folded by X" but if nothing like that was quoted ? and without asking you before ?

[steingar]

The great problem is that Law has not a precice answer to this question in origami copyright field. In this case we must make an analogy with music.

If someone folds a model and sells it, it is like to perform a music with profit intent.

Considering international law, Berne Convention determines a several provisions about the copyright protection in many countries. Article 9 says:

"Article 9
Right of Reproduction:
1. Generally; 2. Possible exceptions; 3. Sound and visual recordings

(1) Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form.

(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

(3) Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention."

See the text of convention here:

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/bern ... P140_25350

Then, without permission, selling origami models in this context is not allowed.

But I prefer the convention for aviation, in which you are allowed to sell something you built from plans without violating copyright. I have no doubt there are others like music, and others like aviation. It will be up to a judge to decide which is more applicable.

The salient thing is that in the United States, we are a nation of free men and women. Nothing is illegal until and unless the government makes it specifically so. If the courts have done so for Origami I would be interested to see the precedent or statutes, I doubt strongly they exist.

[jogibaer]

I think it would be legal, if you bought the diagramms. Everyone compares it to music so: If you buy sheet music and perform something for money I don't know any case where this was illegal: For example: My friend plays for money on a keyboard every week in a shopping mall and performs also movie-music for which he hasn't got the sheet music but which he had heard and he didn't got any problems in the past. So I think it would be legal to sell origami invented by others.

[dinogami]

Everyone compares it to music so: If you buy sheet music and perform something for money I don't know any case where this was illegal: For example: My friend plays for money on a keyboard every week in a shopping mall and performs also movie-music for which he hasn't got the sheet music but which he had heard and he didn't got any problems in the past. So I think it would be legal to sell origami invented by others.

Actually, when a symphony, band, or other musical group plays a piece written by another person -- and presuming that the piece is not under copyright (that is, it is pre-1923), they do have to either get permission and/or pay a fee. Music librarians for symphonies and academic institutions deal with these fees all the time, and they can be substantial just to get a hold of all the sheet music for different instruments for a particular piece. I doubt that any lawyers or police make a habit of going after a street busker because the potential payoff is miniscule, but when a larger, wealthier, higher-profile person or group violates laws like this, there have been instances of legal action.

But as I said before, just because one might not get caught, or might not get prosecuted, does not make an action legal. And it most certainly doesn't make the action ethical.

[andssl]

Excuse me for saying that, but in legal field we can not chose a convention in the way tha was presented. Convention here is not a contract by free men, but a international treaty whose aim is to regulate a subject in an eaqual manner among several countries. Bern Convention is applied to several countries and each country has a copyright law (USA, Japan, Brazil, France, and so on). I gave a juridical answer to this, not a moral or other kind of answer.

[TheRealChris]

except that few to no creators seem to share that opinion.

and again: it's all about money and not a tiny bit about respect. that's our world: people get jealous when somebody reaches something that he doesn't. I mean, "don't fold it" is quite different to "don't sell it"... yepp... money rules the world... and it controlling the point of view.
they say: "don't fold my stuff and sell it, thats disrespectfull"
they mean: "you bugger just made bucks and I didn't"

[steingar]

Actually, when a symphony, band, or other musical group plays a piece written by another person -- and presuming that the piece is not under copyright (that is, it is pre-1923), they do have to either get permission and/or pay a fee. Music librarians for symphonies and academic institutions deal with these fees all the time, and they can be substantial just to get a hold of all the sheet music for different instruments for a particular piece. I doubt that any lawyers or police make a habit of going after a street busker because the potential payoff is miniscule, but when a larger, wealthier, higher-profile person or group violates laws like this, there have been instances of legal action.

But as I said before, just because one might not get caught, or might not get prosecuted, does not make an action legal. And it most certainly doesn't make the action ethical.

First, if you are instructing for a non-profit organization in a classroom setting, you more or less have carte blanche and do not have to worry much about copyright violations. If you don't believe me read the statutes.

Second, if there is no specific law and no legal precedent, then the activity is indeed legal until it has been determined to be not so. You are correct, legal and ethical are distinct things. But keep in mind in your ethics discussion that Origami is a fringe craft, virtually unknown to most. Someone who can market his or her models is in the act of spreading Origami to those who might not otherwise be exposed to it. In spending so much energy worrying about nonexistent copyright violations we loose sight of the positive value there is in the spread of such artwork into the general public.

[dinogami]

First, if you are instructing for a non-profit organization in a classroom setting, you more or less have carte blanche and do not have to worry much about copyright violations. If you don't believe me read the statutes.

Correct if it's used for teaching purposes, but many academic music groups sell tickets for events at which they perform...it's the making money part without permission that's a no-no.

Second, if there is no specific law and no legal precedent, then the activity is indeed legal until it has been determined to be not so. You are correct, legal and ethical are distinct things. But keep in mind in your ethics discussion that Origami is a fringe craft, virtually unknown to most. Someone who can market his or her models is in the act of spreading Origami to those who might not otherwise be exposed to it. In spending so much energy worrying about nonexistent copyright violations we loose sight of the positive value there is in the spread of such artwork into the general public.

I'm not positive that those ends justify the means... So it would be OK for me to make thousands of dollars selling models invented by others when those inventors get nothing...all in the name of spreading the word of origami? Not that I would necessarily get thousands...would tens be ethical? Hundreds? Where does that line get drawn?

[bethnor]

and again: it's all about money and not a tiny bit about respect.

i don't see the problem with that stance. i think most people who create anything want intellectual control over their creation. art or not, respect or not.

i also don't see what the big deal is about asking them permission. the worst that could happen is that they say no. if someone decides to sell an ancient dragon or whatever, it's almost nothing to me. but it seems the general public is just as accepting of traditional models.

i mean, there are several on line businesses that sell traditional origami at prices that i personally find quite excessive. i imagine they turn quite a profit, considering the resources and time (selling a traditional crane is a lot less work than selling an ancient dragon). why go through the hassle of creating an uncomfortable situation when you can totally circumvent that?

[TheRealChris]

want intellectual control over their creation

yeah, and its because of the intellectual control when its ok to fold something, and its ok to give it as a gift but it*s not ok to SELL it. all because of the intellectual control... I see