Lawsuit between origami enthusiasts unfolds

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

by annapowellsmith • 14 years ago

70 40 14 years ago

scpr.org

smoyer• 14 years ago

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

planetguy• 14 years ago

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.

Dove• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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.

xsmasher• 14 years ago

The posted article doesn't have examples of the copied art, but this page does: http://www.langorigami.com/copyright/sarah_morris_copyright_...

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• 14 years ago

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.

jtchang• 14 years ago

Those paintings are great. I like both artists and think this is definitely in the court of fair use.

Pinckney• 14 years ago

It looks like Lang's crease patterns are the output of his TreeMaker software. While they're derived from Lang's stick figure constructions in the software, Morris probably could have created very similar patterns using the same software without the infringement.

vijayr• 14 years ago

Robert Lang's work is jaw dropping - Here is his TED talk http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_lang_folds_way_new_origami.h...

ajtaylor• 14 years ago

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.

lotharbot2• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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

sageikosa• 14 years ago

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

ilcavero• 14 years ago

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

silentscope• 14 years ago

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.

aston• 14 years ago

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

protomyth2• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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.

lmm• 14 years ago

>Lang's crease patterns aren't culturally revered, nor were they ever reserved for commercial use

I think you just answered your own question. The fair use argument is a lot stronger for something that's culturally iconic (and it means no-one's going to mistake the remix for an original work), and we have a lot more sympathy for someone who just wants recognition for their work than for someone trying to maximize their profits.

SoftwareMaven2• 14 years ago

I think it's because of a subtle bias for whichever side was generated by computers. In this case, the origami designs are made using software, so they "should" be protected.

xstuffd• 14 years ago

Take a look at the "transformations." Seriously, at least give credit where credit is due. This is flagrant, and isn't about "the evils of copyright." Don't be lazy, do your research!

ars• 14 years ago

> Why is everyone now on the side of the original content creator

They are? I'm not. It's pretty clear fair use to me - you can't fold the painting, it's not intended for that.

btilly• 14 years ago

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.

theaeolist• 14 years ago

ceci n'est pas une origami

SoftwareMaven2• 14 years ago

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.

lotharbot2• 14 years ago

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

jere• 14 years ago

>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?

gmcrews• 14 years ago

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.

ForrestN2• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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.

ktizo• 14 years ago

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.

grannyg00se• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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.

orthecreedence• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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'.

anxiousape• 14 years ago

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

Lawsuit between origami enthusiasts unfolds

Related Stories