Anna said: "...it is possible to use a completely different folding sequence to come to a structurally identical model. So is this still the same model? I mean the outcome may be similar, but the path to get there isn't. The question gets even more complicated when I fold a model from a picture only without a CP or any other clues. I've done that before so it is clearly possible. But then I also had the case that even if it looks the same, it is structurally not the same because I started with a differently shaped paper (square instead of rectangle)".
I wanted to also share my opinion. Matthew shared his own answer which I enjoyed very much and agree with it. Now, I also believe that copyright can help us understand this issue better. Just in case, well I'm not a lawyer, I've just been reading about intellectual property for around the last five years. First, an artwork is copyrighted as the final piece; the method to get there is irrelevant to its protection. Second, an artwork based on a prior artwork is called a "derivation" in copyright. Derivations depend on the authorization from the artist of the original piece. When you fold from a CP or fold by reverse-engineering from a picture then "it's based in a prior artwork". So I'd say you are right Anna when you attribute that fold to the original creator, and you are also right when you ask for authorization to publish diagrams in order to teach your own method for folding someone else's model. Anna also said: "...sometimes for really simple models someone folds a single fold differently and calls it his own model" (sic). There's always the possibility that the person independently created a model with just a single fold different from another model. In that case, I will say that YES they are two different models, even though they are so alike. Now, if one was based on the other, then it simply isn't an original model. That's what I wanted to say about it. Cheers! Gerardo gerardo(a)neorigami.com
