Origami Lawsuits

[Timoris]

See? This is all wanted, discussion leading to understandment.

I am split and I think it can go both ways.
The way I see it, it is derivative (Or transformative) like the Campbell's Soup Can painting, Postcards of the Statue of liberty or t-shirts with one-Liners from well known movies.

Look at Red Letter Media and their Star Wars reviews. A lot of clips where used in each hour and a half long Destructo-ganza of the new trilogy yet LucasFilm did not receive a dime from them.

The Paintings are As much about interpreting Origami (and whatever an Art Student would need to write and essay about the paintings) as it is Art.

Although, the paintings are the CPs and if it did happen to me I would be angered and we all know Robert Lang has been public about his rules for using his CPs, why the painter did not just ask, I do not know.

As for my opinion about the paintings themselves? Cheap. I mean come on! At least created your own fake CPs. Although if you are trying to make a comment, well that's something else.

Still, cheap.

Campbell's Soup cheap.

ADDED: Wait... this is two years old

[redheadorigami]

Because she didnt do it without consent, OR even naming the designer, she should be sued.
And the paintings are pretty retarded.

[steingar]

I do find it quite reprehensible that Morris refers to the patterns as "found diagrams", especially when she also makes reference to Lang and clearly has knowledge of his work.

I think that she might be using it in the artistic vernacular of "found art" or objet trouvé, which is making art out of non-art things found in the environment.

Ultimately, though, fair use is something that can only be decided by the court, since it's a case-by-case thing. With that in mind, I do wish Lang, et al. the best of luck with the case.

I agree. Intellectual property is complex. I recall a case to which I was peripherally a party. There was a signed contract, the work was completed by the plaintiff and signed off by the defendant. There was no question that the contract stipulated payment and that the agreed upon work was completed satisfactorily, but no payment was ever made. The judge found for the defendants.

[cjbnc]

I think that she might be using it in the artistic vernacular of "found art" or objet trouvé, which is making art out of non-art things found in the environment.

I believe you are correct. I also believe that Dr. Lang's comment that he has done displays of his own CP's as art prior to her use disqualifies this interpretation, as it is no longer a non-art thing. The crux seems to be whether a judge/jury will decide that this is non-art made to art and therefore transformative and covered by fair use, or if it is existing art that has been colorized to make new art, which is derivative and subject to copyright law.

[fold-it-all]

Take note of the first reply, it's so funny!

"The question is, who will fold first?"

[the modern einstein]

we have just determined, and parroted just about all there is to know about this case; how about we wait till the final decision of the jury to see what comes out of the case before we comment further. anyone who finds the result- please post it, so there is more to talk about.

[steingar]

I believe that Dr. Lang's comment that he has done displays of his own CP's as art prior to her use disqualifies this interpretation, as it is no longer a non-art thing. The crux seems to be whether a judge/jury will decide that this is non-art made to art and therefore transformative and covered by fair use, or if it is existing art that has been colorized to make new art, which is derivative and subject to copyright law.

That could be a tough sell, since Robert's displays have always been with crease patterns accompanying the finished model. The primary display was the model, with the crease pattern illustrating how it was made, and not really an artwork of itself. At least, that would be my interpretation.

That said, the artist won't know that, no one will tell her, and it might wash with a judge. Hard to say what will or won't wash with a judge. A pity they can't just settle for some cash, but I'll bet Robert's lawyer costs more than the paintings in question.

[Joe the white]

I see Crease Patterns as art. They're commonly framed or presented in artistic fashion at conventions (such as Brian Chan's "Attack of the Kraken"). To me, they're origami as much as the finished piece.

Another side to this, is that some of Robert's crease patterns were taken directly from Origami Design Secrets, which would also involve copyright infringement with A.K. Peters publishing, would it not? The majority of her "works" are still viable crease patterns that I'd consider as piracy.

[bethnor]

That said, the artist won't know that, no one will tell her, and it might wash with a judge. Hard to say what will or won't wash with a judge. A pity they can't just settle for some cash, but I'll bet Robert's lawyer costs more than the paintings in question.

i don't know about that, since morris apparently made $40-100K per painting.

[steingar]

That said, the artist won't know that, no one will tell her, and it might wash with a judge. Hard to say what will or won't wash with a judge. A pity they can't just settle for some cash, but I'll bet Robert's lawyer costs more than the paintings in question.

i don't know about that, since morris apparently made $40-100K per painting.

Then I would really be surprised if this whole thing isn't settled out of court with some cash. I'd rather part with a known wad of cash than face the uncertainty of a courtroom. If so, no judgement and no precedent.

Than again, that's just me...

[ahudson]

That could be a tough sell, since Robert's displays have always been with crease patterns accompanying the finished model. The primary display was the model, with the crease pattern illustrating how it was made, and not really an artwork of itself. At least, that would be my interpretation.

I dunno-- Robert stated on the o-list that he had been exhibiting his CPs as stand-alone art before Sarah Morris started using them for paintings.

Responding to another comment from Falcifier, if you look at the blurbs for her exhibitions, there is no mention of any satirical critique or philosophical transformation of the subject, which I think would be necessary for a fair use ruling when such a large portion of the artwork is used with so little added to it.

This is one case in a number of similar ones recently-- artists appropriating existing content as the basis of their artwork, then being sued by the creator of said content. Some artists (especially those that do photo collages or music remixes) insist that appropriation is artistically necessary, but I've seen equally convincing arguments that it's better to create one's own source content.

[Falcifer]

In response to the discussion about the term "found origami", I was equating it to term "found photograph" which I'm more familiar with. Apparently, I completely misunderstood the meaning.

there is no mention of any satirical critique or philosophical transformation of the subject, which I think would be necessary for a fair use ruling when such a large portion of the artwork is used with so little added to it.

That's a fair point, but if it's her defence, then it'll be up to a judge to decide whether it's necessary.

There are a few sites where the following sentence is included in the description of her work;

Morris is primarily interested in how origami in popular culture, particularly film, is often used to signify an impending event.

You could infer from this line, that the paintings themselves do the same thing.

[Son0fHobs]

I haven't scrutinized over the whole post, but this topic needs to be addressed in a bit different light.

1. Fair Use. As in part of the trademark Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
2. Holding designs tight decreases innovation.
(If you don't have time, check out this article and watch the video at bottom: http://bit.ly/nh7Fak )

Overly tight copyright is poor for the original designer, other designers, the origami community, and the public in general.

Lets work backwards:

1. The public: Less enjoyment of work and origami in general. Less educated about origami (it's very underappreciated in the US, at least in all of my experience), its value, and how to appreciate it. (who would buy a Picasso for millions "off the shelf" without knowing who he was, and the significance behind the painting?)

2. The community: Barriers to "entry." Enthusiasts are limited in what they can fold, and traditional origami only goes so far. Possibilities for income are very limited until you can design your own, and that's a very long way away for most.

3. Other designers - They have to start from scratch. Can't build from others' designs, learn from others' techniques. Unless their willing to do so purely out of "sport" with no financial incentive.

4. Original Designer: Less public education means less appreciation, exposure, and branding.

I tell people I like to fold origami and they look at me with a blank stare (this probably doesn't happen in Japan, but I'm in the US). Only once I've shown them my work to they begin to get it. But even then, it's not until I've told them that the entire "Last Waltz" was folded from a single sheet of paper, one side black one white, does their amazement really begin to show. Yet some models aren't easily appreciated with a single sentence of explanation. I've had friends look at "Ancent Dragon," or "Pegasus" by Anibal Voyer and although impressed, imply that I have too much time on my hands, as if it's being wasted.

If they don't get it, they're not likely to buy it let alone be inspired to learn how to fold it.

Making intellectual property open source benefits the economy.
-> http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 05189.html
-> http://games.ign.com/articles/114/1141494p1.html

**Year by year in depth analysis of just how much open source and sharing of intellectual property helps our economy: http://www.ccianet.org/fairusestudy


Face it. Sharing knowledge is here to stay. It's better to get used to it, adapt, and make the most of it, rather than hurt yourself fighting it.

I have a lot, lot more to say, and the practical implications to the origami community and how designers should better handle each aspect, but another time.

Actually, when I do write that article, does anyone know of a good origami blog/site to post it?
Thanks!

[steingar]

Actually, after just a bit of reading, I suspect Robert will prevail in any lawsuit. A judge will be very unpredictable when it comes to the IP issues, nor can I blame him or her. They are sufficiently complex that we here can reach no clear consensus. However, Ms. Morris ignored Robert when he brought this issue up with her. She had ample means to contact him and try and resolve the issue, and opted not to do so. She knew who Robert was as she had appropriated his crease patterns. She did not act in good faith. Any judge will understand that just fine.

[Argonaut]

1. The public: Less enjoyment of work and origami in general. Less educated about origami (it's very underappreciated in the US, at least in all of my experience), its value, and how to appreciate it. (who would buy a Picasso for millions "off the shelf" without knowing who he was, and the significance behind the painting?)

2. The community: Barriers to "entry." Enthusiasts are limited in what they can fold, and traditional origami only goes so far. Possibilities for income are very limited until you can design your own, and that's a very long way away for most.

3. Other designers - They have to start from scratch. Can't build from others' designs, learn from others' techniques. Unless their willing to do so purely out of "sport" with no financial incentive.

4. Original Designer: Less public education means less appreciation, exposure, and branding.

I tell people I like to fold origami and they look at me with a blank stare (this probably doesn't happen in Japan, but I'm in the US). Only once I've shown them my work to they begin to get it. But even then, it's not until I've told them that the entire "Last Waltz" was folded from a single sheet of paper, one side black one white, does their amazement really begin to show. Yet some models aren't easily appreciated with a single sentence of explanation. I've had friends look at "Ancent Dragon," or "Pegasus" by Anibal Voyer and although impressed, imply that I have too much time on my hands, as if it's being wasted.

If they don't get it, they're not likely to buy it let alone be inspired to learn how to fold it.

While in theory sharing intellectual rights in general might be beneficial in general, I don't think it would be in this specific case, and I don't think it should be at the expense of Robert Lang. He openly declared that you can use and even sell these crease patterns, but only if you inform him and give him some credit and a cut. To ignore this is to abuse him, and most likely he will stop giving us these crease patterns.

Furthermore, I don't see how selling paintings of crease patterns without acknowledging the original creator or the piece it becomes will allow people to understand the significance of it or increase public education of origami much at all. If anything, when people stop showing their crease patterns for fear of it being stolen it will decrease public education of origami as well as damaging the origami community as a whole. That means that siding against Robert Lang in this specific instance would be bad for the public, the designers, and the origami community.

All in all no one would think it would be fair if someone stole a book and started selling it before the original author did. In the same way, stealing crease patterns and other intellectual property is wrong.