On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Rob Hudson <caveat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi -
>
> Was browsing for origami bunnies and came across a piece of stock/royalty
> free vector art that shows origami rabbit models from different designers
> (uncredited).
>
> http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-origami-paper-rabbits-collection-detailed-vector-rabbit-image35242108
>
> Is this legal? How does this fall under use?
The usual I-am-not-a-lawyer caveats apply; but by my understanding
after a lot of research and conversations with those who are is:
It is not, and does not.
An original origami *piece* (the 3D folded object, not just the
diagrams) is copyrighted, just as a piece of sculpture is copyrighted.
One of the rights that goes along with the basic copyright (the right
to control the making of copies) is that of creating "derivative
works," and a drawing of a sculpture is derivative.
So if the vector art is recognizable as being a representation of
("substantially similar" to) the original piece, then it is a
derivative work, and is protected under the original creator's
copyright.
However, just try to convince the myriad folk selling such artwork on
the stock art/photo sites, Etsy, etc., of this concept. And the effort
to track down such things, and complain officially to the service
providers, is simply too much for most creators. The Origami Authors
and Creators group (http://digitalorigami.com/oac) attempts to track
down the most egregious examples, but it's a frustratingly endless
uphill battle.
I don't know why people are capable of understanding that some kinds
of art (e.g. paintings, photos) are intellectual property that should
be respected, but not origami. Then again, people make bootleg copies
of *everything*, I don't know why the origami-related behavior should
be any more surprising, perhaps that it's just because it belongs to
people I know...
Anne
