4 ms·
Going through the actual complaint (http://bayoaklaw.com/FAC.pdf http://bayoaklaw.com/FAC.pdf) shows 20 complaints from various origami artists. Each one is obv
by SoftwareMaven 14y ago
Going through the actual complaint (http://bayoaklaw.com/FAC.pdf 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.
- lotharbot 14y agoSections 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformativeness