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 "Kind of Blue") Lang's crease patterns aren't culturally revered, nor were they ever reserved for commercial use?
>Lang's crease patterns aren't culturally revered, nor were they ever reserved for commercial use
I think you just answered your own question. The fair use argument is a lot stronger for something that's culturally iconic (and it means no-one's going to mistake the remix for an original work), and we have a lot more sympathy for someone who just wants recognition for their work than for someone trying to maximize their profits.
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 for the defense (change in medium always struck me as good enough), but it isn't.
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.
I think it's because of a subtle bias for whichever side was generated by computers. In this case, the origami designs are made using software, so they "should" be protected.
Take a look at the "transformations." Seriously, at least
give credit where credit is due. This is flagrant, and isn't about "the evils of copyright." Don't be lazy, do your research!
Why is everyone now on the side of the original content creator, despite the fact that (unlike "Kind of Blue") Lang's crease patterns aren't culturally revered, nor were they ever reserved for commercial use?
[1] http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/
[2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2687950