Selling origami--legal or no?

[HankSimon]

>>>Chris wrote ... it's about money not respect

I'd like to address that point - Most of us appreciate the models of others for the enjoyment we get, rather than the potential profit we'd make by selling them. The addresses the smaller number of folks who seek profit.

However, there is clear past evidence that a model designer will no longer share creations, when models or diagrams are used without permission. I cannot persuade those who need t make a buck, but I hope to encourage this community to continue to respect and support model designers who you appreciate it.

It is not a matter of dollars and cents, but one of common courtesy and common sense.

My two cents

- Hank Simon

[bethnor]

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.

again, so what?

in the history of mankind, name one inventor/creator/whatever that has been more than pleased to let everyone else profit from their invention/creation/whatever.

it's a very short list, i guarantee.

again, it's nothing to me if people are hell-bent on selling models, but i don't see why we should create potential conflict when there are so many other avenues.

[Razzmatazz]

This is different, I can understand where you are coming from BEthnor, but this is paper folding; not the next big time invention. It's not like Thomas Edison profiting form another man's discovery.

I believe if you sell them with little tags reading who designed it and saying that it was sold at a price of the materials and labour you can get away with it.

[Adam]

I'm surprised this topic hasn't been locked yet.

Anyway, here are my €0,01568 (that's $0,02 for those using another currency):

This is a very grey area. Imagine that I bought Michael LaFosse's books and folded several of the models. I then post it on Flickr or some other web gallery. Some gent from a marketing department spots my models and wants to commission me to fold another one for him. In this case, it would be, in my view, more ethical to refer this man to LaFosse himself, since LaFosse designed the model and he actually makes a living from Origami. It would be unfair to in a sense exploit his work at his cost. In Economical terms, this is a zero-sum game: Either I would sell it, or Michael would.*** Of course, I could simply ask for permission, but if it would be a million Euro deal, I doubt Michael would be pleased to hear that, even though he works hard, he didn't receive that kind of money.

On the other hand, what Razzmatazz said doesn't sound unreasonable. If I would sell a model at the cost of the materials to some person (let's call him John), then there would be hardly any difference between me folding the model, and John folding the model. I could've simply borrowed my book to John, and then John would fold it himself at the same material costs. The only difference is the distribution of 'utility'; Either I get the satisfaction of folding it or John, but it's another zero-sum game.
The problem with this situation, however, is that it could again be said that instead of selling it to John, I should refer him to Michael LaFosse or tell him to buy the book. Michael again missed out on revenue due to me lending the book, or selling the model.
Lending the book would probably not be seen as some kind of wrong-doing, but can we truly say that I'd be doing the right thing from a legal and ethical point of view? I wouldn't expect Michael to be truly upset about this scenario, but what if he would be..? It's impossible to tell for me.



*** It's not truly a zero-sum game, since it's possible that the model would not have been discovered if it hadn't been for my gallery, but to simplify the described situation, let's assume it's a zero-sum game.

[bethnor]

This is different, I can understand where you are coming from BEthnor, but this is paper folding; not the next big time invention. It's not like Thomas Edison profiting form another man's discovery.

why does the invention have to be thomas edison's light bulb?

if your crazy next door neighbor invents a big toe nail cheese picker, is he going to give it to you so you can make a profit from it?

if a composer makes a 5 second radio jingle, is he going to give it to you so you can profit from it?

so the question is the same: how many inventors/creators/artists create something so that other people can profit from it?

the list will be very short.

so why is origami different? if origami is not any different, then why are we trying to demonize creators who want intellectual control over their creations, whether it be for financial or artistic reasons?

again, i really don't see what the big deal is with asking the creator. the worst they will say is no. i bet you 90% of the general population would be thrilled to pay $5 for a traditional crane folded from some kind of yuzen or aizome washi, if you're hellbent on selling the stuff.

[Dave Brill]

The Real Chris said:

..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"

and

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

Statements like this infuriate me. What a sad, cynical and ungenerous opinion of origami creators and artists The Real Chris has! I’m so glad that it is very far from reality.

I have been involved in origami for more than 50 years, and the philosophy which I have absorbed is one of sharing and cross-fertilisation, not of profiteering, jealousy and greed. In the origami world which I am proud to inhabit, origami designers and authors share their work, through websites, books, and by teaching openly and willingly at conventions and local meetings. Of course they are unhappy when their generosity is abused by others who sell their work without permission, even for small money.

Several key designers have already stated that they will stop releasing new work if their trust is abused and their work is traded without authorisation.

It is so easy to contact designers to seek their permission for commercial use of their work. Origami Authors and Creators group (http://digitalorigami.com/oac/#) exists to help in this way: if you can’t contact the designer, this group may be able to help.

Whatever the legalities, please ASK before selling others’ work! If you can’t contact them or their permission is not given, please don’t go ahead with your commercial project. If you don’t do so, you put at risk the availability of new designs in future.

The official views on this topic of leading origami associations and creators can be found here:

Origami USA
http://www.origami-usa.org/copyright

JOAS
http://origami.gr.jp/IPrights/index.html

BOS
http://www.britishorigami.info/society/copyright.php

Robert Lang
http://www.langorigami.com/info/faq.php4

Joseph Wu
http://www.origami.as/copyright.html


Yours

Dave Brill
http://www.brilliantorigami.com/Home.html

[Pop pop]

I dont sell origami but i give it away

[TheRealChris]

oh... there he is again... the BIG DAVE... that doesn't need to discuss and only needs to blame. its fairly easy for a big name like "David Brill" to quit the discussion and start talking rubbish.
Dave you're old enough to have a REAL discussion. what you're doing here only shows a sad picture of a disappointed character... always pointing at me with your "this is the bad boy" finger.
oh wait... your're the big one, and I'm only the tiny nobody... maybe this makes me automatically the liar.
again a very poor behaviour of a very big name. I saw this too often to take it serious...
although you'd like to paint me blue and chase me through the streets you're not really thinking about my point of view. and besides: maybe I'm the only one that has the courage to talk out the truth. the truth that you like so much to ignore.

and once more: if somebody sells a folded model that was designed by somebody else, he sells his time, his material and most of all "his talent". I never saw somebody selling a model and telling that it was his/her design. but this would make no difference to the big dave... but it IS a difference. spending my time and my talent to reproduce something IS worth getting money for it. the problem here is the weighting.
make the calculation for your own... take the points
design
time to fold
talent to fold
material
and give numbers to rate how important it is. and a designer would surely give a lot of points for the design. but maybe somebody else would say that its a lot more worth to spend time and talent. this is was some may call "point of view".
here in this copyright-dont sell other peoples designs-discussion there's another point to look at
notoriety of the participants
a discussion with David Brill, Joseph Wu and whoever will surely be different from a discussion with the little chris from nowhere in germany. people seem to think that famous people automatically gain status though their popularity. but they don't... they are just normal people with another profession.

so go on Dave... find another quotes of the bad chris and post them here. it makes no difference to me because you never really tried to discuss with me. maybe the little boys feel something like intimidated shame on front of a big name. but I'm really to old now for this kind of nonsense. I said it somewhen before: Its a very poor way to black out the good points and keep the bad points just to be able to hold up the "look this is the bad guy"-sign.

Several key designers have already stated that they will stop releasing new work if their trust is abused and their work is traded without authorisation.

I really like to play with my 6 year old nephew. when he was younger he usually changed the rules of a game to win. for instance when playing cards he changed the winning conditions to his own benefit. when he grew up older I stopped accapting that, because I thought he was old enough to understand that's not fair to the players. it ended up with sentences like "if you don't play after my conditions, I don't play with you anymore". thats exactly the same logic.

Dave, I really admire your work, because you are a big artist and I'm not. so your models would always look better folded by you then folded by me. so where does this fear come from? or better: what do your fear? loss of popularity? loss of money? what is it?

[BrooksHalten]

I've never done it, but I guess you could sell them the paper (unfolded) and say, "Order now and I'll fold it into a model for easy and compact carrying!"

But seriously, if you contact the creator and he gives the thumbs up, I guess it's alright, then.

[Dave Brill]

oh... there he is again... the BIG DAVE... that doesn't need to discuss and only needs to blame. its fairly easy for a big name like "David Brill" to quit the discussion and start talking rubbish.
Dave you're old enough to have a REAL discussion. what you're doing here only shows a sad picture of a disappointed character... always pointing at me with your "this is the bad boy" finger.
oh wait... your're the big one, and I'm only the tiny nobody... maybe this makes me automatically the liar.
again a very poor behaviour of a very big name. I saw this too often to take it serious...

You have your point of view. Please look again at the official statements of leading creators and organisations, and also the views of the other contributors of this topic, and you'll see that yours is a minority viewpoint.

I stand by and emphasise my previous comments.

[bethnor]

O_O

wow, someone here really wants to sell origami.

I really like to play with my 6 year old nephew. when he was younger he usually changed the rules of a game to win. for instance when playing cards he changed the winning conditions to his own benefit. when he grew up older I stopped accapting that, because I thought he was old enough to understand that's not fair to the players. it ended up with sentences like "if you don't play after my conditions, I don't play with you anymore". thats exactly the same logic.

that's really an unfair distortion. i again invite you to name one artist/inventor/whatever that creates something so that you can profit. you can also portray creators however you wish, but if they refuse to release diagrams of their models, then the bottom line is that the community suffers.

[PhillipORigami]

Just like a few people said, this topic should really be locked.

[origamimasterjared]

Just like a few people said, this topic should really be locked.

NO. It should NOT be locked. Yes, it's boring to read a back-and-forth in which neither side seems willing to budge. But it is good to have a healthy discussion, even if everyone is set in their ways. Heck even an unhealthy one has its uses. For instance, reading this, one would learn that Dave Brill would prefer at least being contacted before someone uses his designs for a commercial/monetary purpose, whereas Chris Weinert couldn't care less. This is good to know.

And the "you want my stuff, you play by my rules" philosophy is absolutely fair. If you tell someone (be it a company, organization, family, or individual) that you will work with them only if they meet your conditions, and they refuse, then it is your choice not to offer them your service. If you work with someone, and they disrespect you/violate your terms/principles/whatever, or you simply are not interested in working with them again, that is your choice. Who wins and loses in such a situation can be disputed, but it is your choice. The moral victory may outweigh the "profit" (not necessarily monetary, could be goodwill, popularity, etc.). In the origami author's case, an author may choose to not release any more diagrams, or even CPs, because he feels slighted by his audience.

Likewise, someone who seeks your services has the choice to do whatever they want. Just as you have the choice to break the law every day, you have the choice to break your contract or piss off the people you are working with…So long as you are willing to accept the consequences. The consequence of alienating an artist may be as mild as a "please don't do that" or as severe as a refusal to ever publish anything again, or even a lawsuit.


In short, keep the discussion alive. There are various opinions on the matter. Ask the author if you can.

[qtrollip]

I'm quite certain that there is not money to be made by making diagrams. In fact, anyone who thinks that even publishing a whole book of your own diagrams can get you money is under a false impression. Most of the money that is paid for a book goes for the publishing and printing. The profit for the author is peanuts, and probably a loss if compared to the time it took to draw/compile.
And what is the target. It`s not a novel, how many people will actually buy the book. (Seeing that half the people on this forum download it illegally anyway). So, years of work for selling a few hundred book for nada.

So origami diagram authors do NOT make diagrams for money. So why, if they are being kind enough to make the diagrams, would someone else try to take advantage of it and make money from it. The diagrams come pretty much out of goodwill, so why then not just instead of selling the origami piece, give it away out of goodwill. Why exploit it.

If you want to make money from selling non-original origami, rather get a real job.

Why is it that those who moan the most, are also the ones who have the least experience designing or diagramming. Maybe you should try for hours on end to `perfect`a design and then spend tens of hours of your free time (for those of us who actually do work) to diagram it and then publish it for free on a website that YOU have to pay for. All this just so others can keep complaining.

Sorry, but either I`m missing something or common sense has left the building in this forum.

[bethnor]

jared--i agree the discussion is useful, but a little dispassion is called for, i think.

i mean, the last post from mr. weingert makes it sound like mr. brill eats little children. i just don't understand what's the big deal if a creator doesn't want you to seel a model. sell a crane or a box for $2.00 and you've made a huge profit.

If you want to make money from selling non-original origami, rather get a real job... and get a life while you`re at it.

i'm not sure this was called for, either.

btw, i don't really care if people want to make posts like that. i just don't think it's very flattering.