Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawsuit between origami enthusiasts unfolds

scpr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: Lawsuit between origami enthusiasts unfolds

#31

Post by jlgreco »

jamesbritt wrote: post #29
ForrestN wrote: post #26

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 in…

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.

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.

Re: Lawsuit between origami enthusiasts unfolds

#32

Post by wiredfool »

protomyth wrote: post #15
aston wrote: post #11

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 "Kin…

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 fo…

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.

Re: Lawsuit between origami enthusiasts unfolds

#33

Post by protomyth »

wiredfool wrote: post #32
protomyth wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

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.

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.

Re: Lawsuit between origami enthusiasts unfolds

#34

Post by ars »

aston wrote: post #11

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 "Kin…

> 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.

Re: Lawsuit between origami enthusiasts unfolds

#36

Post by 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.

Re: Lawsuit between origami enthusiasts unfolds

#37

Post by 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?

Re: Lawsuit between origami enthusiasts unfolds

#38

Post by 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.

Re: Lawsuit between origami enthusiasts unfolds

#39

Post by 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'.

Re: Lawsuit between origami enthusiasts unfolds

#40

Post by wazoox »

grannyg00se wrote: post #37

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?

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.
Post reply on HN