"Ffarewell, Love, and all thy lawes for ever / Thy bayted hookes shall tangill me no more"

[larryhammer]

Now here's a story of interest to several of us here -- a lawsuit over the question of how transformative a work derivative of a copyrighted work must be to be protected under copyright law. Myself, I'm interested in that aspect, but what reach catches my eye is that it's origami artist Robert Lang suing abstract artist Sarah Morris over paintings based on his crease patterns. Lang's core argument:

“If an independent third party recognizes my work in it — I don’t think that’s very transformative.”

Which is not exactly how to phrase it as a legal argument, but then, he's not a lawyer.

It will be interesting, in a couple directions, to see how this plays out. (via)

FWIW, I have the book with the moose pattern, but have never successfully folded it -- it requires either better paper at the size needed or larger paper of the quality needed. Which doesn't stop me from wanting the instructions for the Irish elk also pictured in the article.

---L.

Comments

[kate_nepveu]

Yeah, though I've no opinion on the underlying case, that's not what transformative means.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

No kidding. Otherwise the only "transformative" works are the ones we would, under normal conditions, refer to as "original." (In other words, we're always being inspired by the things we've seen/read/watched/listened to/etc.)

I showed this to my sister, who is a lawyer decently familiar with IP law, and set off a five-minute rant about how people Don't Understand Copyright and Trademark. :-) There was wailing. And gnashing of teeth.

[larryhammer]

I can imagine.

---L.

[kate_nepveu]

Also, nit? Even unauthorized derivative works are protected by copyright law, as long as they bring *something* new to the table--suppose the artworks here are found to be infringing, that doesn't mean I can go and sell a bunch of prints of them.

Instead the questions are: (1) is the work derivative? If yes, (2) is it nevertheless not infringing because it is fair use?

[thistleingrey.livejournal.com]

Ah, can't they settle with attribution? I'd guess Lang is thinking in terms of patents for how an engine is put together and so on--also not the same as copyright, obvs. I have no idea whether one may submit a successful patent application for a complex crease pattern.

[kate_nepveu]

Of course they could settle--I was referring to a subtlety in the way our host had phrased the issue.

[thistleingrey.livejournal.com]

Yes, sorry--I tried to edit because my comment was meant to be top level, not attached to yours, but by then you'd replied.

[larryhammer]

True. I was writing carelessly there.

---L.

[kate_nepveu]

It is a very small nit to pick.