

Lawsuit between origami enthusiasts unfolds - annapowellsmith
http://www.scpr.org/programs/madeleine-brand/2012/06/11/26899/lawsuit-between-origami-enthusiasts-unfolds/

======
aston
This debate reminds me of the battle over an 8-bit remix of the cover of Miles
Davis' "Kind of Blue" [1]. The discussion here at that time [2] was strongly
in favor of the person doing the repurposing, with folks bemoaning the fact
that the original photographer would (ab)use the legal system for such a
trivial matter.

Why is everyone now on the side of the original content creator, despite the
fact that (unlike "Kind of Blue") Lang's crease patterns aren't culturally
revered, nor were they ever reserved for commercial use?

[1] <http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/>

[2] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2687950>

~~~
protomyth
I can only answer for myself, but in the case of the 8-bit remixes, I felt
they were like a parody of the original and should be protected on that basis.
Plus, they did do a transformation that made them original.

Looking at this case, it really doesn't look like she did much of anything.
They are not a new medium and seem quite like a small alteration. If it was a
painting of the final origami then I would be all for the defense (change in
medium always struck me as good enough), but it isn't.

~~~
wiredfool
They paid the mechanical royalties on the score for the music. It's absolutely
allowed on that basis.

The whole kerfuffle was with the cover art, which was not licensed, and Jay
Meisel has said the he would not license. It's unclear if he would have
prevailed in court, but that was potentially far more expensive for both
parties than the settlement that wound up happening.

~~~
protomyth
I was referring to the cover art, not the music. In my mind it was a parody of
the original and should have been fine. The new cover art fit the
transformative definition.

------
xsmasher
The posted article doesn't have examples of the copied art, but this page
does:
[http://www.langorigami.com/copyright/sarah_morris_copyright_...](http://www.langorigami.com/copyright/sarah_morris_copyright_infringement.php)

It's not a matter of similarity, or independent creation - The painter Sarah
Morris directly copied the original artist's work, removed the lines and
colored in the voids.

Since there's no question that copying took place, the case will hinge on
whether the copying was "fair use" - that's where the issue of whether the
copying was "transformative" comes in.

~~~
egypturnash
It's especially interesting given that Lang has exhibited his crease patterns
- though not as standalone images, judging from what he shows; he's very aware
that it's a precursor to a model.

Morris is copying his crease patterns and treating them as an end in
themselves; the way she turns them into abstract color fields is very
different from what Lang has done with them. Although on the other hand I will
quite happily bag on people like Shepard Fairey (the Obey Giant dude) for
tracing images without attribution.

I dunno, I've got some of Lang's books in my library, he is amazing and I
totally respect him as an artist, but I think that Morris is doing something
interesting here too. Citing her sources would help a lot though.

------
lotharbot
For reference, Robert Lang is not just some origami guy who happens to use
computers; he's one of the foremost origami-math guys [0] and one of the
pioneers in computer-designed origami.

In his books, he typically has both detailed step-by-step instructions for
each model, as well as an "overview" image that shows where all of the creases
will end up on the original sheet of paper (seen in image 3 and 7 at the top
of the article, as well as example [1]); it's paintings of some of these
overview images that are in question. He seems to treat both those overview
images and the final products as art, not mere "instructions", in prior
interviews (they are actually quite useless as instructions.)

This will be a critical point in the case: do the crease overview images count
as art? If so, Lang has a certain amount of say-so in how they are used.

[0] he authored the proof of completeness of the Huzita-Hatori axioms:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huzita%E2%80%93Hatori_axioms> [1]
<http://cabinetmagazine.org/issues/17/Scorpion.jpg>

~~~
ChuckMcM
I think Lang is going to lose, and here is why.

The artist looked at his crease patterns and painted them. His work created
color symmetries in a field of symmetries. The colors bring their own message
to the art. Had he taken a couple of Lang's folded animals (or folded one
himself or had it folded) then set it on a table with some fruit or even by
itself, painted it as 'still' art, the artist has created new art.

When you paint a scene in the park, and you paint in the people who are
sitting around enjoying the park, you don't have to get signed releases from
them to paint them into your painting, even if someone who was at the park
might recognize themselves or someone they know by a particular geometry that
person has and what they were wearing that day.

My belief is that no jury in the world is going to look at Lang's actual
folded stuff, and see this abstract pattern stuff, and say there was
infringement.

~~~
danso
In the US, you can take a recognizable photo and benefit from its exhibition
as well.

------
SoftwareMaven
Going through the actual complaint (<http://bayoaklaw.com/FAC.pdf>) shows 20
complaints from various origami artists. Each one is obviously taken from the
origami designs, but each one is significantly transformed by the painter. I
would call this fair use.

Our cultural heritage is being strangled enough due to overly strict
copyright. We don't need to add to it.

~~~
lotharbot
Sections 27-28 outline an important part of the complaint:

[fragmented quote] Morris has claimed in interviews and promotional materials
that the Origami series is based on "found diagrams,” "found designs,” and
"traditional origami diagrams.” ..... Morris has created confusion as to the
authorship of Plaintiffs’ Works [/quote]

Copyright law explicitly grants rights holders the right to be _credited_ for
their work. So even if the concept of "transformativeness" [0] holds (which
I'm not convinced of), I suspect Morris' failure to credit the original
authors will be ruled as a violation of copyright.

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformativeness>

------
ForrestN
As a person who spends all day looking at contemporary art as my job, everyone
in my field considers this lawsuit totally insane. The way Sarah Morris's
audience (and she has a very big one) approaches her work has absolutely
nothing to do with the way Lang's work is approached. Unless origami masters
are using terms like "endgame", "the death of painting," or "the history of
abstraction."

Fine art is really about invisible distinctions between existing objects, the
difference between Duchamp's urinal and any other urinal. Contextualizing
something in a contemporary art museum, even a much more direct appropriation
than this, radically transforms it. In my view, applying intellectual property
violations to contemporary artworks is at least as insane as any of the
software patent shenanigans we have seen. No one is happening upon Morris's
work and thinking she is a great origami designer.

~~~
jamesbritt
Who decides when something is fine art?

Why would that give someone a pass on copyright law that would, were the copy
not deemed fine art, get someone in a mess of legal trouble?

I see a weird connection here with claims of exemptions to copyright
violations from people saying that the avi file they have is really just a
very large integer.

~~~
jlgreco
As iffy as the "is it art" question can be, I think it is safe to assume that
if it is on display as art, as these paintings were, then it is art. Being on
display makes it clear the intent was for it to be art, which should be enough
to answer any legal questions in which "artness" is a factor.

~~~
ForrestN
Yes. At the margins, it's a complicated argument. But many people and
institutions have purchased Morris's work for hundreds of thousands of
dollars, and she has shown all over the world.

------
vijayr
Robert Lang's work is jaw dropping - Here is his TED talk
[http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_lang_folds_way_new_origami.h...](http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_lang_folds_way_new_origami.html)

~~~
ajtaylor
Just... wow! I had no idea origami had progressed that far. The animals are so
life-like, it's a bit creepy. All the practical applications of the folding
principals are very interesting.

------
Dove
Not strictly between origami artists, though; between an origami artist (Lang)
and a painter. She painted his crease patterns, well-recognizable, with one or
two changes that my eye parses as annoyingly illegal.

If you're not into origami, you may think a crease pattern is just an
unintended byproduct -- what you happen to get when you unfold a model. This
isn't the case, as the article explains. These things are carefully designed,
and are the heart of the engineering process. Models in books or on display
sometimes come with diagrams of the pattern. Receiving a model as a gift, one
may very well unfold it flat to look at the crease pattern and see how it was
done.

So I guess this is sort of like finding a pretty geometric pattern in
someone's source code (that they put there!), and painting it.

I think it's too much of a shortcut to just take his crease patterns without
attribution. She's an artist; she can learn the art and make her own. It's not
as though it's a unique insight on her part that the useful patterns are
beautiful in an abstract, geometric way. We (origami enthusiasts) all think
they are. The paintings are beautiful and intriguing, but the art that makes
them so isn't hers; it's Lang's.

I'm all for remixing and free information, but . . . I think at a minimum,
attribution would be polite.

~~~
minimalist
To be fair, the piece makes no mention of both of the artists as 'origami
artists'. The title depicts them as 'origami enthusiasts'. To be fair I
initially had a bit of a problem with the description, but then I read the
materials concerning Lang's claim and I will agree that the artist somewhat of
a origami admirer (so the title is correct).

Though, I absolutely agree that at a minimum, permission and attribution would
be polite. I can't imagine on what ground the painter thinks they are standing
on, as the 'inspiration' is so overwhelmingly overt. But as an origami
'enthusiast' myself, I'll watch this with an interested and slightly sad eye.

------
silentscope
She should have mentioned his name as source material. I don't think royalties
or anything were in order, but his name should've been there as a matter of
courtesy.

------
btilly
This is a fascinating case.

There is no question in my mind that the resulting origami is art. There is no
question in my mind that the paintings are art. The question is whether the
crease pattern is fundamentally a copyrightable work, or a set of mechanical
instructions. Software copyright exists in a similar space, and I'd be
interested to hear a real lawyer comment on the parallels.

------
smoyer
While the article has parallels in software copyright, I +1'd this post
because it has the best title ever.

~~~
planetguy
Some stories exist just to give pleasure to headline writers.

I'm not planning to commit murder, but if I ever do I'm going to decapitate
the corpse and stash the headless body in a topless bar.

------
sageikosa
Reminds me of Andy Warhol's use of soup cans, except the subject of the art is
itself an "art".

~~~
ilcavero
Agreed, and if Roy Lichtenstein got away with his comic book reproductions I
don't see how this lawsuit can be supported

------
orthecreedence
I feel like legally, Lang will probably lose. Morris made paintings of
patterns than were meant to be transformed, in essence turning the scaffolding
of a piece of art into a piece of art itself. My guess is that this is enough
for the work to be considered her own.

From a non-legal standpoint, it's pretty sleazy to take someone's design,
paint over it exactly (with some color modifications) and not give that person
any amount of credit. Did she transform it? Perhaps. But she didn't just get
inspiration from it, she literally used the design, verbatim, as her own. I
take issue with this.

I'm all for people using each other's work and art progressing as a whole, but
I also think it's bad form to not give credit where it's due. I definitely
think this is a case where it's due.

I'm interested to see what the courts think, although something tells me it
won't get to court.

------
milfot
I think it is instructive to look at Duchamp in this context. In a very clear
sense, the transformative with regard to art lies in changing it's meaning.
However, this can be a very subtle thing. And it may be that the subtlety is
not realised or played out in the way the artist intends, or in the way that
the viewer receives it. This could then boil down to a matter of quality, or
strength. It is not even that simple. If Duchamp's early forays into
'readymades' had been slapped with lawsuits, we may never have had 'the
fountain'.

------
gmcrews
I see no difference in a visual representation of a crease pattern and a
photograph of one. So I would treat the suit just like any case where a
photographer believes an artist has made a derivative work from his
photograph. Usually, an abstract painter would not be concerned with such
things, and so maybe that is why she is having a problem understanding the
crease pattern author's complaint.

------
grannyg00se
She took someone else's artwork and coloured inside the lines like paint by
numbers. I'm not really sure what the legal ramifications are, but it
definitely seems like a cheap and possibly fraudulent way to make art.

Can I really just take someone else's artwork, change the colours around, and
then call it my own and sell it in a gallery?

~~~
wazoox
Duchamp put his signature on an urinal in 1917. Magritte replaced people on
"the balcony" with coffins in 1950. I don't even need to mention "las meninas"
by Picasso, or Warhol paintings, etc. For 100 years, it's been standard
practice for artists to copy, parody and work from others' works.

------
anxiousape
They could have included a photo of this origami piece the whole article is
all about. Oh wait...

------
jere
>Reporter Sanden Totten takes us inside a dispute between and origami maker
and a painter.

How hard is it to proofread the introduction to an article?

------
theaeolist
ceci n'est pas une origami

------
ktizo
Someone should break into the gallery in pink-panther style, fold up one of
the paintings along the crease lines, then sign it and number it with their
own telephone number and leave it on display in the middle of the floor. That
would definitely count as transformative art.

