Commons:Deletion requests/Origami by Archivaldo

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Origami by Archivaldo

All are derivativework, original authors didn't gave their works under free licence. ----MGuf (d) 18:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Designs of origami models are expressly sold with the intention that people make models from them. Origami artists reserve the right to commercial creation of models and in the actual designs themselves. This sort of thing must occur in other areas fairly frequently as well so really the question is do people have the right to display a photo of a model they legally make themselves from a commercial design? They are not copies of an original model but the output of craft from a design. Dmcq (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these models are originals by their authors;
"Designs of origami models are expressly sold with the intention that people make models from them": perhaps, but it's not with free licence, it's still copyrighted. If an actual painter make a coloring book, you can draw it, but it's still copyrighted. ----MGuf (d) 11:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No artwork from the original artist as in a colouring book is used. I don't know where you got that any of them were originals by their authors but of course any such without permission should go. Dmcq (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be some created by other people but the seem to say they were made for the person taking the photo so it reduces to the previous case of a person legally folding a model. Dmcq (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a problem with the reference for "it's still copyright", I agree the folding design instructions are copyright but we're talking about the folded model. 19:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked Robert Lang who is an origami artist and he directed me to [1] which was written by a lawyer for Origami USA and gives the situation fairly comprehensively. Yes the models are copyright and we can't put pictures in without permission. Lots of origami artists are probably quite happy with pictures being shown but we need permission and we shouldn't assume it is automatic - so withdrawing my objections. Dmcq (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant bits from Origami USA: Origami Copyright Analysis+FAQ are I believe:

10. May I display in origami shows and other public forums an origami figure I folded using instructions or diagrams provided by the owner of such instructions who is also the owner of the copyright to the figure itself?

Normally, yes, as there is implied consent by the owner of the instruction or diagrams for the person doing the folding to own the resulting figure. If the owner has specifically reserved public display rights to himself or herself in a lawful contract or license to the folding person, then the display right is not accorded to the person doing the folding.

11. May I use an origami figure I folded using instructions or diagrams provided by the owner of such instructions in a commercial setting, for example, in an advertisement?

Not without explicit permission from the owner of the instructions for this usage

Since the photos are allowed to be used commercially under the copyrights Commons supports this pretty much scuppers our using photos without permission. Dmcq (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've gone through the OTRS system on one model not on the list. I'll ask Robert Lang about File:Hercules beetle.jpg which is a really nice model. I just don't know what on earth to do with something like File:Cisne de Yoshizawa.jpg though, Akira Yoshizawa is dead now but some model by him really would be good as he started up modern origami. Is a legally got model by the original artist subject to the same restrictions about commercial photos by the owner of the model, it would be much easier to find an original model? Some of the models above were given to the photographer by the artists. Otherwise I guess there must be some people who have the rights according to law now that have to be found to give permission. At least he only died seven years ago, the whole business of copyright is a nightmare with it lasting so long. Dmcq (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hold on a minute

While I won't dispute the legal interpretation linked to above, it seems very curious to me (I am myself a paperfolder and I regularly release my work under Creative Commons licenses.) If origami artists own the copyright to any models made using their instructions, why do chefs not own the copyright to any pictures taken of meals prepared using their recipes? Has copyright law really become so infectious that we cannot follow diagrams anymore, and must come up with our own?

Does Mitsonobu Sonobe own the copyright to this? You won't find it in any book, but it's certainly his module. I don't think he does; I think I do, and that I have the freedom to release my work under a Creative Commons license if I so choose. --Ardonik(talk) 17:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not the taste of the meal is on Commons, while what we can see with an origami model is what the creator wanted to show.

And for many model above, we don't know who really made the fold, original creator, or another paperfolder.

----MGuf (d) 18:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the cases of models for which the folder is unknown, I do agree with you that appropriate care needs to be taken regarding the originator before uploading the photo to the commons. That's analogous to uploading a photo of a gallery painting, which is a well-understood process already.

My primary concern is for those photos where the uploader is the original folder; broadly painting the "derived work" brush on such works leads to unsettling conclusions, like a Japanese origami master implicitly owning the copyright on every photo ever taken, worldwide, of a model he designed and happened to publish N years ago, regardless of who took the photo and who folded the model. If I am to understand your point of view, a food photographer manages to avoid this dilemma because her camera does not capture the taste of the recipe. But that analogy doesn't make sense to me; after all, I can no more understand how to fold a Sonobe horse by looking at that photograph than I can understand the taste of a meal by seeing its picture. For me, these photos don't capture the essence--the taste--of the original diagrams; I can't intuit the latter from just looking at the former.

How far are we to take this interpretation of the law?

Are all folded traditional models to be considered exact reproductions or derived works of whatever instructions were used to fold them?
Are all folded modular models (like mine) to be considered exact reproductions or derived works of the original instructions, even when those instructions covered just a single unit?

It seems to me that we're going above and beyond the call of duty to expand copyright law in a very bad, unreasonable way, drastically limiting the sorts of origami pictures that can be uploaded to the Commons even when they are already under a Free license. However, I will defer to the opinion of experts on this matter. --Ardonik(talk) 04:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the copyright applies to where there is a major contribution to the design, so even though Sonobe designed a unit it is only structurally part of the whole design, not in the artistic design sense of copyright. Traditional models wouldn't be covered anyway as they would be out of copyright so a Chinese junk model for instance has no restrictions. It is all rather disappointing, I've just ignored the problem for the last few weeks to see where it is all going. I wouldn't mind if copyright only extended a reasonable time like 25 years but it lasts so long it is ridiculous. Dmcq (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, and would go further: the creeping scope, perpetual influence, and frequent abuse of copyright law are fostering a culture of doubt which will eventually make self-publishers reluctant to self-publish. It takes just about nothing to allege infringement against another author, and laws are being rewritten to assume sincerity on the part of the accuser and place the burden of proof on the accused. I fear a future in which I could find myself needing to consult legal advice before putting my own work online.

Request Can we meet halfway on this and leave User:Archivaldo's self-folded "own work" photos out of the deletion request? --Ardonik(talk) 18:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid they're the least okay according to what that lawyer said. The designer has to implicitly or expressly give permission for any commercial use and selling you a book of instructions doesn't give you that commercial right. Implicit right might be got to the image if the designer sold or gave you a model, I'm not sure about that. And it is a commercial right to the image that's needed as commons images may be used commercially. Dmcq (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The day will come, some time from now, when some paperfolding user will be asked to remove work that he himself folded, photographed, and uploaded here, and this very deletion request will be cited as the precedent. What's more, any origami model that is not strictly ancient or self-designed—and believe me when I say that the latter are quite rare—may be subjected at any time to similar censure.

If any admins reading this wish to delete Archivaldo's photos at this point, go ahead. I won't oppose the action any longer except to point out that there is a fork in the road here, and it appears that we're about to embark on the wrong path. --Ardonik(talk) 17:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Archivaldo's origami photos, I believe there is a real issue on some of them. He has claimed all of them as his own work, which seems to infringe upon the rights of content holders; however, some of his works include origami that he claims as his own but is really derived from other paperfolders' works, and—even worse!!!—origami that is derived from the designs of copyrighted characters, which constitutes illegal utilization of copyrighted material. The character origami do not need to be put up for discussion in the first place; rather, I would like to have them subjected to speedy deletion with no need for discussion. They are clear violations of copyright law as they are derivative works of the characters which they portray (who include Kermit the Frog, Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Foghorn Leghorn, Sylvester the Cat, and Wile E. Coyote). — Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Wednesday, July 11, 2012, 02:04 UTC.

Just passed by this recently and would like to put my two pennies in; in agreement with Dmcq and Seth Allen above, I believe the photos of folded non-traditional/published models are copyrighted by the original designer, by no means should they be placed in the Commons with public domain license thus should be taken down. If certain photos of originally folded model were taken and given explicit permission by the original artist to release, they would be OK to be uploaded in articles where fair use would permit non-commercial use only (original copyright held by original creators). In the cases of copyrighted character models, they shall certainly be deleted straight away. Noroi (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Each piece of origami probably has its own copyright, just like a sculpture in bronze, or they are DWs of earlier copyrighted works. Permission, possibly two permissions, would be required for each. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Origami by Archivaldo

Origami by Archivaldo

Navigation menu

Search