




Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 01:22:24 -0300
From: Aimee Miura <aimeem@ohana.com>
Subject: Convention Packet, Kimono, Throwing Star, etc.

I _knew_ I should have waited 'till tomorrow to post that notice.. my
packet came today, and was even reasonably unmangled.. Sorry about that..
I'm very happy with it so I won't grumble any more.. :)

I wanted to mention some models from Makoto Yamaguchi's
Origami Encyclopedia (Origami Jiten) (c) 1990, 324 pages,
paperbound, in Japanese, ISBN 4-7916-0648-5

For the person looking for the kimono, there's a back view of one on p.
306. (Sorry, I don't have these messages available to quote..)

For the person looking for the shuriken, there's one made out of two
pieces of paper on p. 188 (I think that's the one you want) and another
made out of four pieces of paper on p. 186.

Also, there's a pair of pants that work with the dollar bill shirt (p.
254) and a necktie that is just about the right size if you make it from
about a 1" square (p. 317).

That's all for now.
Contritely,
Aimee





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 07:18:11 -0300
From: Richard Kennedy <KENNEDRA@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Skulls

There is quite a simple skull mask in Kunihiko Kasahara's "Creative
Origami".

Richard K.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 10:21:10 -0300
From: Lisa.Hodsdon/School/hmco@Owl.nstn.CA
Subject: Re: Arrival of Convention '95 packet...still waiting

For anyone still waiting:
I got impatient and called OUSA. They ran out of supplies part way through
sending
out the packages and had to wait until they got more in. I was told that they
sent
the last ones out on Monday 8/14. When I got mine (last Friday), the package
said that it was shipped on the 15th. For those in the States, anyway, a little
more
patience should be all you need.

Lisa Hodsdon
(Can anyone explain the significance of the question mark on the cover of the
annual collection?)





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 11:31:38 -0300
From: marmonk@eskimo.com (Mark Morden)
Subject: Re: An ethical question

[snip]

>Whether you can copy (by any means) copyrighted material is not
>dependant on whether you do it for profit: the point of the copyright
>is whether your copies intentionally or effectively prevent the
>copyright holder from receiving remuneration for use of their property.
>
>For example, if you photocopy and distribute copies of part of a book,
>even for non-profit purposes, because you don't want to buy multiple
>copies of the book (or even can't buy them, because it is out of print),
>you are still violating the author's copyright. To put it more
>specifically, why should I buy a copy of Ansill's book, if I can get
>your diagrams on the 'Net for free?
>
[snip]
>
>So, especially in the case of books in print, such as Ansill's,
>I would say you're on pretty shakey ground, ethically and legally.
>
[snip]
>
>--valerie
>Compuserve: Valerie Vann 75070,304
>Internet: 75070.304@compuserve.com
>Internet: valerivann@aol.com
>
>
>

What about this particular case where Ansill's book is no longer in print.
Making available redrawn diagrams (where the original is credited) would
allow those of us who missed the book in print and are now searching used
book stores desperately trying to find a copy a chance to fold some of these
really cool dragons.

My understanding of the copyright law is you can't reproduce the original
work, i.e. photocopy the book and hand out copies.  However, if you were to
redraw the diagrams and credit the creator that would not be a violation.
(of course I could be rationalizing this because I would really like to see
Ansill's diagrams in some form or other.)

Mark Morden == marmonk@mail.eskimo.com
--------------------------------------------------------
I believe in Christianity as I belive in the rising sun;
not because I see it but by it I see all else.
                                           C.S. Lewis





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 11:37:13 -0300
From: Doug Philips <dwp+@transarc.com>
Subject: Ordering from BOS...

This is a non-rhetorical question for NON-British BOS order-ers:

        (Nothing that I could find in the BOS "literature" says how to deal with
foriegn currency when placing an order, so...)

        If you do not live in Britain, or rather, if your bank/country
currency is not the British Pound _AND_ you have successfully ordered stuff
from the BOS supply source/centre/etc., could you please post how you did it?
I am sure I'm not the only interested party!

Thanks,
        -Doug





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 14:53:35 -0300
From: REEDS@zodiac.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Arrival of Convention '95 packet...still waiting

My packet arrived last week in reasonably good shape (and I'm just across the
river from OUSA about 25 miles as crane flies). The T shirt is great.
Karen Reeds 8/25/95 reeds@zodiac.rutgers.edu





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 16:45:00 -0300
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.COM>
Subject: Re: An ethical question

<<What about this particular case where Ansill's book is no longer in print.
Making available redrawn diagrams (where the original is credited) would
allow those of us who missed the book in print ...>>

The copyright does not terminate just because a published work is out of print
     or
no longer available. There is no provision in the law for the eventuality
that you can't buy a legal copy even though you are willing to do so. One
reason for this is obviously that unauthorized copying reduces the demand
for reprints, in the case of printed material.

With respect to drafting, electronically or otherwise, a close reproduction of
copyrighted drawings or diagrams: I believe you would be on shakey ground
if your diagrams were very close to the originals: same views, no. of steps
etc., as copyright violations have been maintained for excessive "quotes"
from music and printed material and similar situations.

Personally, I wouldn't "publish", including putting on the Net, any diagrams I
have drawn for models with published diagrams already, without written
permission from the copyright holder. I only do it it cases of reverse
     engineering,
where as far as I can determine, only a photo or description of the model is
available, and I have developed my diagrams from that.

IMHO...

--valerie





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 16:56:20 -0300
From: Nick Robinson <nick@tritec.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Elias' peacock

Some of you may know of Elias' *superb* peacock. I drew full diagrams for it
some years ago, hoping to include it in a book that never happened. I still have
them (somewhere) & will let you all know when they turn up. There's about 8
pages & I worked out my own method from Elias' original *single* page.

Nick Robinson

            ***** "Origami isn't just for squares!" *****
                       my wife doesn't agree!!!
          http://sonja.acad.cai.cam.ac.uk/alex/nickdata.html





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 17:09:54 -0300
From: Nick Robinson <nick@tritec.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Re: Skulls

I've made a skull, as yet undiagrammed. I'll have a bash but it's mainly 3D &
therefore hard work! Pete Ford also made one which has appeared somewhere or
other. He sent one to Robert Lang who returned it with a working lower jaw!!

Nick Robinson

            ***** "Origami isn't just for squares!" *****
                       my wife doesn't agree!!!
          http://sonja.acad.cai.cam.ac.uk/alex/nickdata.html





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 17:23:07 -0300
From: Nick Robinson <nick@tritec.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Throwing Star

> the Throwing Star is truly a public domain item.

It is, AFAIK a traditional design, well known around the world. I would imagine
it has been published elsewhere. I would proceed, adding the rider "this fold is
believed to be in the public domain, apologies if not & please let me know!"

Nick Robinson

            ***** "Origami isn't just for squares!" *****
                       my wife doesn't agree!!!
          http://sonja.acad.cai.cam.ac.uk/alex/nickdata.html





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 17:27:05 -0300
From: Nick Robinson <nick@tritec.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: An ethical question

> This summer I had some spare time and access to a PC with CorelDRAW, so
> I decided to try to diagram some models for the first time.

Good news - it's a practical way of producing accurate diags. Try to create a
style of your own - it *can* be done. Take the extra time to define different
width of lines for creases, edges etc & don't be afraid to bend lines to create
a 3D effect here & there. Spend as much time as you can on the final picture,
since it is usually this that decides whether someone will bother to fold it or
not. Sadly, the final 3D picture is no easier to create by computer than
freehand :(

> It was the diagrams of a "European Winged Dragon"

Get in contact with OUSA & ask for work that needs diagramming - you may as well
practise with unpublished work & thus release it to the rest of us. If they
haven't the BOS can find you some that need doing! Bob Neale told me he had a
mountain of unpublished work that would never have seen the light of day but for
a nearby folder who offered to diagram them. Perhaps Robert Lang has a modest
design in need of a computer :)

> Is it ethically correct to offer these diagrams for free

Yes, providing you contact the creator first. Works that have been in books may
be tied up with the company concerned, which is another reason why you shouldn't
use your free time this way.

Nick Robinson

            ***** "Origami isn't just for squares!" *****
                       my wife doesn't agree!!!
          http://sonja.acad.cai.cam.ac.uk/alex/nickdata.html





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 18:20:37 -0300
From: Douglas Zander <dzander@solaria.sol.net>
Subject: reverse engineering ethical?

Hello all,

   I am wondering how ethical "reverse engineering" is?  If someone wanted
 the dragon that is currently being discussed, could another person simply
 fold one for him and send it to this person, with the intention that it
 will be unfolded and the method of folding be figured out?  We can get into
 some discussion about this, but I believe if the second person is able to
 "reverse engineer" a finished model then what would be so bad about that?
--
 Douglas Zander          | editor of GAMES Player's Zine (GPZ)
 dzander@solaria.sol.net | an ezine for subscribers of GAMES Magazine (tm)





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 18:24:11 -0300
From: GURKEWITZ@wcsub.ctstateu.edu
Subject: RE: Ordering from BOS...

I have successfully ordered from the BOS using a US dollar check.
They have a little catalog (brochure) which explains all the charges.
The only think they don't say is what the exchange rate is and I found
it out by listening to National Business Report, public tv.

Rona





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 21:11:22 -0300
From: Glenn Reynolds <GDR@wapet.com.au>
Subject: Re: An ethical question

Mark raises a good point. You can quote someone in an article as long as you
cite them. This seems to be the most similar case to redrawing a diagram and
crediting the author. Which is of course what all the origami authors do
when they publish other people's diagrams. They make a profit, too.

>My understanding of the copyright law is you can't reproduce the original
>work, i.e. photocopy the book and hand out copies.  However, if you were to
>redraw the diagrams and credit the creator that would not be a violation.
>(of course I could be rationalizing this because I would really like to see
>Ansill's diagrams in some form or other.)





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 21:24:07 -0300
From: Sheldon Ackerman <ackerman@dorsai.dorsai.org>
Subject: Re: An ethical question

>
>
> Mark raises a good point. You can quote someone in an article as long as you
> cite them. This seems to be the most similar case to redrawing a diagram and
> crediting the author. Which is of course what all the origami authors do
> when they publish other people's diagrams. They make a profit, too.

Sure you can quote someone. But how much of him can you quote? Can you quote
the >>complete<< article? Isn't that what you are doing when you are
redrawing ALL the steps to a model? On the other hand, I'd say that if you
are at your friend's house and you see the diagrams to a particular model
that you like, you'd certainly be permitted to copy those diagrams for your
own use.
This is getting to complicated for me :-)

--
Sheldon Ackerman
ackerman@dorsai.dorsai.org
sheldon.ackerman@nycps.nycenet.edu





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 21:27:53 -0300
From: Gordon Crane <craneg@DGS.dgsys.com>
Subject: model of scuba diver

Does anybody know of a model of a scuba diver?  Or have the instructions
to fold a scuba diver?  Thanks for any help.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 23:17:20 -0300
From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@pipeline.com>
Subject: reverse engineering ethical?

On Thu, 24 Aug 1995 Douglas Zander <dzander@solaria.sol.net> said:

>Hello all,
>
>   I am wondering how ethical "reverse engineering" is?  If someone wanted
the
>dragon that is currently being discussed, could another person simply fold
one
>for him and send it to this person, with the intention that it will be
unfolded
>and the method of folding be figured out?  We can get into some discussion

>about this, but I believe if the second person is able to "reverse
engineer" a
>finished model then what would be so bad about that? --

In the software industry, there wil always be those people with the
advanced capabilty to decompile or reverse engineer a program. This would
of course enable the person to utilize the mined code for  his/her own
puposes. The only thing that software vendors can say is *don't do it.*

In origami, there are probably relitively more people who are capable of
reverse engineering a model. If we do not abuse this power, origami book
publishers will continue to be lax about all of this model sharing that is
going on. I personally think that it can be good publicity for a book,
provided that the source is given.

There was a case in which models were sent to an author, who reverse
engineered the models, and published them (with inferior diagrams,
nonetheless). Abusive cases like this could put a kabosh on the openess of
the origami community.

Marc





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 23:42:43 -0300
From: Glenn Reynolds <GDR@wapet.com.au>
Subject: Re: An ethical question

I wrote
>> You can quote someone in an article as long as...

Sheldon wrote
>Sure you can quote someone. But how much of him can you quote? Can you ...

As long as it's just the one model and not the whole book, it should be ok.
Any (bush) lawyers out there?

Glenn





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 01:15:05 -0300
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Ethical question and reverse engineering

Just a few more comments on this, then I am going to log out of this
discussion before the rest of the list tars and feathers us all
or banishes us to "alt.dumb.barristers.and.legal.hacks.dross"
:-)

I agree that a complete set of diagrams is hardly analogous to a quote.
And a quote is usually connected to a great deal of original material by
the quoter, eg a review, refutation, response, etc.

With regard to many points about copying: photo copying is not the
sole form of copying usually prohibited by a current copyright. Read the
copyright of the material in question. It will usually include
electronic storage on any media, etc etc. Tracing drawings, patterns (eg
for woodworking projects, clothing, etc.), for any but personal use, and
especially for distribution of any sort, free or not, is usually a no no.

If you learn how to make a model, and then develop your own diagrams to
describe the process by which YOU make it, this is quite different from
a more or less routine electronic, or hand copying of an existing set
of diagrams. In any case, I would not personally feel confortable
distributing diagrams I had copied from a published source, even if the
primary motive was making them widely available to others for free,
without the copyright holder's permission.

Re: the Ansill Mythical Beings book: If I'm not mistaken, it was still
on OUSA Supply Center's June 1995 Book List. (ie available for purchase)

Reverse Engineering: If I actually had a model made by its designer,
or by someone who learned it in one of the customary routes, I would not
consider it a candidate for "reverse engineering". I reverse engineer
things that I have only seen a photo of, heard a description of, etc.
and for which I can find no diagrams of any sort. Examples would be
the "Enigma Cube" and Kawasaki Rose Crystallization pictured (but NOT
DIAGRAMMED) in Jackson's Encyclopedia. (For the latter I posted a
minimal diagram/fold map to the archives). These I regard as solutions
to a puzzle, and the drawings are entirely original. I have no idea
how Kawasaki actually did it, though I assumed it was related to his
single rose; and as for the Enigma Cube (a modular construction), it
turned out my first "solution", while the end product looks identical
to the photo, is constructed of a different number of a totally
different module. Unlike origami of natural creatures, in Modular
Origami there is often more than one way to get the same geometric
result. (Its possible to make identical Omega Stars from both the
preliminary and the waterbomb base, for example.)

At any rate, the reverse engineering I'm talking about is figuring out
a PROCESS to make an object. And the PROCESS (as distinguished from the
PHYSICAL MODEL itself, or DIAGRAMS by others which describe the process),
is precisely that aspect of origami that, according to general consensus,
IS NOT COPYRIGHTable. (You can PATENT it, but very few origami PROCESSes
are patented.)

Finally, I concur that

1) there are lots of diagrams that need drawing
of un-diagrammed works (I like diagramming my own things by hand, but
consider doing the finals in CAD sheer drudgery...)

2) the whole issue of the diagrams that started this might be resolvable
by contacting the creators of the models.

.not trying to have the "last word", just declaring this MY last.. ;-)

--valerie
Compuserve: Valerie Vann 75070,304
Internet: 75070.304@compuserve.com
Internet: valerivann@aol.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 03:09:10 -0300
From: lina@trilogy.NET
Subject: Re: Arrival of Convention '95 packet...still waiti

as a newbie (this is my first subscription to any group) could you tell
me what this 'convention 95' package is and how to get it?

lina





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 11:55:50 -0300
From: Rjlang@aol.COM
Subject: Computerized dgmming (was: An ethical question)

> I decided to try to diagram some models [by computer] for the first time.
> ...
> Sadly, the final 3D picture is no easier to create by computer than
> freehand :(

Sometimes it is. In "Peter's Snowflake," a modular compound of 5 tetrahedra
that was published in the last BOS convention program (among other places),
the final drawing is a 3-D perspective view of the fully assembled modular.
There was no way I could have drawn it remotely accurately freehand, so I
modeled it in Mathematica, exported the image in Illustrator 1.1 format, then
opened it in Aldus Freehand and changed the lines and fills to match the rest
of the diagrams.

Also, for those who use FreeHand or Illustrator, the program KPT Vector
Effects (from HSC Software) is a set of plug-in tools that makes it much
easier to take 2-D plan view drawings and convert them to 3-D perspective
within FreeHand or Illustrator.

Robert





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 11:56:29 -0300
From: JENNIFER K PHILLIPS <J.K.PHILLIPS@LaRC.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re:  reverse engineering ethical?

hello all,

        as far as reverse engineering goes
        it's illegal in the engineering profession
        i know because a friend of mine used to work as a tech
        in an engineering firm (over the summer)
        part of his job was reverse engineering the competitors product
        which he found amusing since it was illegal
        but in this case if it's for the person use of a folder
        i dont' have a problem with it
        but then again i'm no expert

thanks for letting me listen in....
jennifer

[j.k.phillips@larc.nasa.gov]





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 12:46:45 -0300
From: Rjlang@aol.com
Subject: Re: An ethical question

> Mark raises a good point. You can quote someone in an article as long as
you
> cite them. This seems to be the most similar case to redrawing a diagram
and
> crediting the author. Which is of course what all the origami authors do
> when they publish other people's diagrams.

Yes, and we ask permission of the model's designer beforehand (most of us,
anyhow) and give the designer a free copy of the publication. One should
_always_ ask if there is any uncertainty about it.

Robert





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 13:04:54 -0300
From: John Olsson <d91johol@und.ida.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Ethical question and reverse engineering

Hello again! :)

Since I started this discussion with my little question, I think I should
allso end it! :)

Now, could anyone PLEASE mail me an adress at which I could contact the
person who designed this "European Winged Dragon"?
(I can't remember the name at the moment, *blush*)

And I would like to point out that I *didn't* COPY the diagrams, but I instaead
diagrammed the models while I was folding them, and thus constructing my own
version of the diagrams. I also added as much 3D as possible, figured out
easier ways of folding the model etc.

BTW. I *will not* publish the diagrams on the net, etc until I get permission
from the person(s) who designed the model(s) first.

One more thing, can someone please mail me the answers to these questions?

* How I should contact OUSA Supply Center? EG. Mail-address.
* Can they ship overseas?
* Can I pay without using a creditcard?
* Can I buy books from OUSA without beeing a member?

Thank you for ALL of your oppinions! :)

John Olsson





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 14:05:59 -0300
From: GURKEWITZ@WCSUB.CTSTATEU.EDU
Subject: RE: reverse engineering ethical?

I think there is a distinction to be made between have a model, taking
it apart and reverse engineering it, and what Valerie does, that is
looking at a picture and reverse engineering it. Valerie is likely to
come up with a different fold than the original model used for the
picture.
I feel just looking at a model and figuring out a way to make it is
ok
I also thought that the thrust of OUSA's lawyer's opinions is that
origami models are not tangible works of art and completed models
cannot be copyrighted. Works of art can be copyrighted.

Maybe this has been discussed before, because we're talking about
ethical vs legal.

Rona





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 14:20:16 -0300
From: michaelb@adobe.com (Michael Bourgoin)
Subject: Re:  reverse engineering ethical?

>hello all,
>
>        as far as reverse engineering goes
>        it's illegal in the engineering profession
>        i know because a friend of mine used to work as a tech
>        in an engineering firm (over the summer)
>        part of his job was reverse engineering the competitors product
>        which he found amusing since it was illegal
>        but in this case if it's for the person use of a folder
>        i dont' have a problem with it
>        but then again i'm no expert
>
>thanks for letting me listen in....
>jennifer
>
>[j.k.phillips@larc.nasa.gov]
I've been following this thread for a while, and while I'm not a lawyer
(nor do I play one on TV). I must point out that reverse engineering is
_not_ illegal and is in fact a common practice in the computer industry. I
cite as examples the the many non-Intel clones of the 386/486 chipsets (AMD
and NEC among others). These chips are not Intel-licensees, as I understand
it, but rather they were reverse engineered. Similarly, there were several
clones of MSDOS, the one that comes to mind is "DR-DOS" that was purchased
by Novell. All of these were reverse engineered. Reverse engineering in
this context has a fairly narrow definition that involves treating the
system being reverse engineered as a "black box" and reproducing its
function by working back from its input/output responses. Some hold that
one can even examine the chip or code being reverse engineered as long as
what is produced doesn't "duplicate" the code or circuits (the artifact not
the function) exactly or substantially. Now, how this maps to Origami
diagram copyright issues is beyond me. The opinion in graphic arts
(photography and images) currently seems to be that if one changes in
excess of 10% of a graphic item, it is not deemed duplication in the
copyright sense.

michaelb
* The above are my own opinions and not necessarily those of Adobe Systems, Inc.
* None of the above should be considered legal advice. Your mileage may vary.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 14:47:55 -0300
From: Doug Philips <dwp+@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: Throwing Star

In message <423@tritec.demon.co.uk> Nick Robinson wrote:
+> the Throwing Star is truly a public domain item.
+
+It is, AFAIK a traditional design, well known around the world. I would
+imagine it has been published elsewhere. I would proceed, adding the rider
+"this fold is believed to be in the public domain, apologies if not & please
+let me know!"

I can't seem to find this model anywhere myself, as I was intrigued by its
various names to look.  Does anyone want to attempt English/written-only
directions to the list?

-Doug





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 16:02:52 -0300
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re:  reverse engineering

<<reverse engineering in the engineering business is illegal>>

Well, it depends on what you mean by "reverse engineering", which was being
used somewhat loosely here. If you run a disassembler on somebody's computer
code, that's a no no. If you write original program code that does essentially
the same thing, you may get away with it: Witness Microsoft-Apple-Xerox Park
and the great Graphical Computer Interface controversy.

Or if you do what the makers of computer CPU chips do (eg. the folks who
make non-Intel 486 chips, etc.), you'll probably do OK too. This involves
locking a bunch of chip designers up with DETAILED specifications for what
the chip is supposed to do, and then they independently come up with a chip
design that meets those spec. Voila! A CPU chip that acts, walks, quacks, etc
like an Intel chip, but isn't.

This resembles what I was referring to in regard to reverse engineering
modular origami, by figuring out a fold and assembly sequence that will
yield the desired geometric result.

Besides, reverse engineering applies to processes and inventions, which are
protected by patents and trade secret status, not copyright. Then there are
mathematical algorithms, which are neither patentable nor copyrightable.
Arguably, an origami model producing process is a geometric algorithm,
similar to the directions (process) for constructing a polyhedron...

And, of course there are numerous cases even of "natural" origami models
that look virtually identical, but were independently invented by different
folks. Some have ignited an exchange of charges of "copying". Peter Engel
describes some of the worst of these in "Zen to ..."

--valerie
Valerie Vann
Compuserve: 75070,304
or Internet:75070.304@compuserve.com
         OR: valerivann@aol.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 17:08:06 -0300
From: William Anstine <cptcobel@yrkpa.kias.com>
Subject: Re: Throwing Star

I can probably "Generic Cadd" some diagrams.. the ones I have use 2
halves of an 8.5x11 inch paper to make the star.  There is another, in
Takahama's Origami Toys, I believe, which I could also try and
replicate.. though I"m not sure of the implications of the latter, as the
former was taught to me in the 5th grade..

On Fri, 25 Aug 1995, Doug Philips wrote:

> In message <423@tritec.demon.co.uk> Nick Robinson wrote:
> +> the Throwing Star is truly a public domain item.
> +
> +It is, AFAIK a traditional design, well known around the world. I would
> +imagine it has been published elsewhere. I would proceed, adding the rider
> +"this fold is believed to be in the public domain, apologies if not & please
> +let me know!"
>
> I can't seem to find this model anywhere myself, as I was intrigued by its
> various names to look.  Does anyone want to attempt English/written-only
> directions to the list?
>
> -Doug





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 17:56:04 -0300
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@tritec.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Australian Origami Organisations

> Has anyone got any details of such organisations?

There used to be a magazine called ATOM - Australias True Origami
Magazine which ran for 6 issues until November '86 & was followed by
Folding Sheets - I only have one issue of that & feel iot was the first/last! I
     don't think there's been much happening formally since then, although
     there are several expatriates folding there including Gill Hood from GB
     and Sanny Ang from Singapore.
he BOS membership list contains 11 Aussie members.

The leading light in Australian folding is undoubtedly Steven Casey, still
     active AFAIK and a talented creator of many superb folds. His address is
     on its e-mail way to you.

Nick Robinson

            ***** "Origami isn't just for squares!" *****
                       my wife doesn't agree!!!
          http://sonja.acad.cai.cam.ac.uk/alex/nickdata.html





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 07:55:15 -0300
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@tritec.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Throwing Star text

>  Does anyone want to attempt English/written-only directions

I'll try....

1) Cut a square in half and fold each half in half to give 2 4*1 strips
(or quarter fold 2 squares, etc. etc.)

2) fold the short edges together marking the half-way point, unfold.
Repeat with t'other sheet.

3) fold two diagonally opposite corners at 45 degrees to meet the
opposite long edge. Repeat with the other strip, but fold to mirror the
first (a left & a right hand unit will eventually ensue - it's a bit
like Neales superb skeletal dodecahedron unit))

4) argghhh!!! the original short edges now lie alongside long edges.
fold each half of that long edge, starting at the centre crease, to meet
the centre crease. It leaves a triangle sticking out the other side.
Repeat at the other end (mirrored so the flaps oppose each other) &
twice on the other sheet.

Units complete

5) Turn one unit over and place the other on top of it at 90 degrees
rotation to it. The triangular flaps of the lower unit (formed in step
3) valley inwards along the original short edge and tuck into pockets on
the upper unit. Turn the whole thang over & tuck the other two
triangular flaps within. It should now be locked & completed.

If you can manage that you've done well, but it is 11.30 at night & my
brain's a bit frazzled!

Nick Robinson

            ***** "Origami isn't just for squares!" *****
                       my wife doesn't agree!!!
          http://sonja.acad.cai.cam.ac.uk/alex/nickdata.html





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 07:59:56 -0300
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: reverse engineering ethical?

<<he thrust of OUSA's lawyer's opinions is that
origami models are not tangible works of art and completed models
cannot be copyrighted. Works of art can be copyrighted.>>

No, I think it is that it is the PROCESS (ides,directions, how-to) of a model
that's not copyrightable, while the diagrams and of course books about
the model(s) are. That is, the written embodyment ("physical manifestation"
and drawings ("diagrams") ARE copyrightable; just the IDEA, if you will, of
the PROCESS that the diagrams and book describe is not.

And there is some argument about whether the
concrete physical MODEL is a work of art (hence copyrightable) or not,
because some consider that if someone else can make a virtually exact copy
by following directions, it isn't a work of art. Though this is less in
dispute for complex natural models that are essentially one-of-a-kind
"paper sculptures". Modular origami and simpler models that usually are
not individualized by the folder (wet fold shaping, "judgement" folds,
effect of different materials) are more subject, I think, to being
considered the product of an exactly descriable process, or a geometric
algorithm, and not copyrightable.

But since even "fine artists" and
sculptors now produce works that are highly geometric, and "museum repros"
are considered to need copyright permission to make, even this is a gray
area. In general, a good case for "work of art" could probably be made for
any specific individual physical origami model, IMHO.

Anyway, the "computer copies" of the diagrams that started this were
apparently of the "safer" kind after all, i.e. they weren't just copies
of the original diagrams, they were a "rediagramming" worked out while
folding the model, with "improvements", etc. We probably all do that.

Though I would definitely get the designers permission before distributing
them in any public forum, if only to give some cover to the forums
themselves. (Bear in mind that the list archives reside on a university
computer in the Netherlands and the listserver on another in Canada...)
There is an increasing tendency to attach
copyright violation liability to the operators and/or owners of BBS,
on-line services, and educational systems who allow, passively or actively,
copyrighted material to be uploaded to their systems.

.yes.yes..yes.. I know... I said I was logging out of this...whew!

--valerie
Compuserve: Valerie Vann 75070,304
Internet: 75070.304@compuserve.com
Internet: valerivann@aol.com

<< There has Been
   An Alarming Increase
   In the Number of Things
   I Know Nothing About... >>





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 08:01:17 -0300
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@tritec.demon.co.uk>
Subject: CAD for final diagram?

Robert mentions using a separate package to create the graphic for final
diagrams - do any of you PC users know of a reasonably compact package
that will do the same? For instance, create a 3D polyhedron & export it
into a drawing package?

Nick Robinson

            ***** "Origami isn't just for squares!" *****
                       my wife doesn't agree!!!
          http://sonja.acad.cai.cam.ac.uk/alex/nickdata.html





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 08:02:39 -0300
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@tritec.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Maying Soong, "Chinese Paper Folding"

>       Maying Soong, "Chinese Paper Folding".

> Does anybody have a copy of this book?

Two copies in fact, soft & hard. The book was apparently published in
'64  by the quaintly Communist "Worlds Work" press. The diagrams are
quite nice for the era.

Nick Robinson

            ***** "Origami isn't just for squares!" *****
                       my wife doesn't agree!!!
          http://sonja.acad.cai.cam.ac.uk/alex/nickdata.html





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 08:03:56 -0300
From: vedder@polyhedra.tiac.net (Vedder Wright)
Subject: Doll's clothespins. Where???

I am looking for a source of doll's clothespins. I do a lot of modular
origami work, and got a chance to try these recently at a friend's house. I
can scarcely imagine a better tool for holding tricky little pieces
together before final assembly.  Unfortunately, the friend was given these
and didn't know the source.

Any hints on sources would be greatly appreciated, either by mail-order or
from stores around the Boston area. I have called around to a number of toy
stores, and this is not as easy as you might think.

Vedder





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 08:06:21 -0300
From: rmoes@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (Robert Moes)
Subject: re: Ordering from BOS...

In reply to Doug Philips question:

     If you do not live in Britain, or rather, if your bank/country
>currency is not the British Pound _AND_ you have successfully ordered stuff
>from the BOS supply source/centre/etc., could you please post how you did it?

I belonged to BOS in the 80's, and they were always very accommodating.  I
have done this in two ways:

1) I had my bank draw up a conventional money order in dollars, and just
figured what seemed to be a reasonable exchange rate from a bank or daily
newspaper.  When I've done it this way, I tended to round up an extra
dollar or two, just in case.  Even when I lived in Utah, I was able to find
a bank that could draw up money from a Chase Manhattan Bank account in New
York--this way it wouldn't take BOS 6 months to get their check cashed &
credited.

2) Eventually though, I looked into sending International Money Orders,
which certain banks can make out in exact pounds sterling.  The bank fee
can be substantial--I think the most I paid was $10 extra, so you want to
make sure you have a big enough order to justify doing it this way.
Probably a lot of effort, but at least I felt like I got some peace of
mind....

Find a good bank, and ask them for advice about sending money
overseas--there may be other ways now available.

--Rob





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 08:07:45 -0300
From: Lonnie Riley <lonnier@tenmail.mincom.oz.au>
Subject: Re: Australian Origami Organisations

Thanks for your reply....

According to Nick Robinson:
>
> > Has anyone got any details of such organisations?
>
> There used to be a magazine called ATOM - Australias True Origami
> Magazine which ran for 6 issues until November '86 & was followed by
> Folding Sheets - I only have one issue of that & feel iot was the first/last!
     I don't think there's been much happening formally since then, although
     there are several expatriates folding there including Gill Hood from GB
     and Sanny Ang from Singapore.
> he BOS membership list contains 11 Aussie members.
>
> The leading light in Australian folding is undoubtedly Steven Casey, still
     active AFAIK and a talented creator of many superb folds. His address is
     on its e-mail way to you.
>
> Nick Robinson
>
>             ***** "Origami isn't just for squares!" *****
>                        my wife doesn't agree!!!
>           http://sonja.acad.cai.cam.ac.uk/alex/nickdata.html





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 08:09:08 -0300
From: Glenn Reynolds <GDR@wapet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Australian Origami Socs

> Has anyone got any details of such organisations?
 >>although there are several expatriates folding there including Gill Hood
from GB >>and Sanny Ang from Singapore.

I spoke to Sanny Ang on the weekend. In between paper planes, he said the
Australian Origami Soc was run by Clare Chamberlain, but that she had
gone/returned to England. As such, there is no more Origami Soc. I guess we
 should start one. Who's keen? Whadda we do? How much does it cost?

Glenn Reynolds





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 08:10:21 -0300
From: Glenn Reynolds <GDR@wapet.com.au>
Subject: Books

Anyone know this book?

The book plays like a flip-movie. Each page is in nine squares, representing
nine models. As you flip the pages, you see the paper folding method for all
models. It's in Japanese, and the shopkeeper spoke no English so I don't
know who wrote it, but I believe it's called Origami (in hiragana) Animals,
or Anima, (in katakana).

I also bought Momotani's dinosaur book on the weekend. Hours of fun. For
each model.

gdr





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 10:57:39 -0300
From: Doug Philips <dwp+@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: Throwing Star text

In message <429@tritec.demon.co.uk> Nick Robinson wrote:
In some other message, I (Doug Philips) wrote:
+>  Does anyone want to attempt English/written-only directions
+
+I'll try....
+
+If you can manage that you've done well, but it is 11.30 at night & my
+brain's a bit frazzled!

I tried it, no problem!  Thanks!

I also received PostScript diagrams from Soylent Green (Rob Hudson) for one
made from 8.5x11 paper, which has a different assembly.  The 8.5x11 model ends
up much thicker though (which is good from a weaponry standpoint, but worse
from a folding neatly standpoint)!  Maybe Rob will put his diagrams on the FTP
site for everyone to enjoy (Hint Hint!).

This is great, now I have two ways to make this model, depending on whether I
have square or "regular" paper at my disposal!

Thanks to both of you!

I haven't been able to the find the Takahama book locally yet...

-Doug





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 15:38:46 -0300
From: Rjlang@aol.COM
Subject: Re: CAD for final diagram?

> Robert mentions using a separate package to create the graphic for final
> diagrams - do any of you PC users know of a reasonably compact package
> that will do the same? For instance, create a 3D polyhedron & export it
> into a drawing package?

Both Mathematica (the program I used to model the polyhedron) and Macromedia
(formerly Aldus) Freehand (the program I used to draw the diagrams) run on
both Mac and PC. Mathematica runs on just about everything under the sun. For
that matter, it runs on Suns, too.

If I may throw in an unsolicited plug here, for anyone doing serious
mathematical modeling of origami, Mathematica is the swiss army knife of
software tools. I've used it for numerous quick-and-dirty analyses of folding
proportions, for visualizing 3-D models, for computing folding sequences, for
designing modulars, and for preflighting design algorithms before committing
them to C code. It is incredibly versatile and I highly recommend it.

Robert





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 16:48:43 -0300
From: Marc Kirschenbaum <contract@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: CAD for final diagram?

On Mon, 28 Aug 1995 Rjlang@aol.com said:

>> Robert mentions using a separate package to create the graphic for final

>> diagrams - do any of you PC users know of a reasonably compact package
>> that will do the same? For instance, create a 3D polyhedron & export it

>> into a drawing package?
>
Another neat trick (which might even be cheaper than Mathematica), would be
to use a flatbed scanner. If you leave the top of the scanner open, 3-d
objects can be scanned reasonably well. The image can be imported into most
drawing programs to be cleaned up; I usually trace over the resulting
image.

Marc





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 17:18:17 -0300
From: casida@ere.umontreal.ca (Casida Mark)
Subject: Re: Mathematica

Hi,

It occurs to me that a few words explaining what Mathematica is might
be in order for those who have never used it.  Mathematica is at root
a program for manipulating mathematical symbols according to the
rules of mathematical logic.  Thus the idea is that you can for example
give it a derivative to do and it will give you the answer as a
formula.  If the formula is too ugly, you can then ask the program
to simplify the answer.  You can then try to check the answer by
asking the program to integrate the answer to see if you get back
the original function (up to an additive constant) etc.  As well
as these functions, the program can evaluate formulae in the sense
of giving numbers and it can make graphs.  If you work with math
a lot, it is a very nice tool.  Unfortunately I seem to recall that
the cost for PCs is in the thousand dollar range.  So ... it is
nice if you work somewhere that already has the program ;-)

                             ... Mark
--
*-------------------------------------------------------*
|          Mark E. Casida                               |
|          e-mail: casida@chimcn.umontreal.ca           |





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 17:49:16 -0300
From: Jennifer K Phillips <j.k.phillips@larc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Mathematica

i've used mathematica a lot
and i like it a lot
as for price...
through my university it's about $350 for a student version
and about $500 for the regular version
for both the Mac and IBM machines

later
jennifer





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 18:19:03 -0300
From: GURKEWITZ@WCSUB.CTSTATEU.EDU
Subject: RE: reverse engineering ethical?

I disagree with Valerie.

OUSA's lawyers say completed origami models are not copyrightable
(as are works of art)
They may be patentable.
Diagrams may be copyright protected.

Rona





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 18:22:53 -0300
From: Lonnie Riley <lonnier@tenmail.mincom.oz.au>
Subject: Re: Australian Origami Socs

Can we find out who lives where in Australia. I live in Brisbane and have often
thought about starting a folding group. However I don't know if I want to
be tied up with the business side of running a group....

According to Glenn Reynolds:
>
>
>
> > Has anyone got any details of such organisations?
>  >>although there are several expatriates folding there including Gill Hood
> from GB >>and Sanny Ang from Singapore.
>
> I spoke to Sanny Ang on the weekend. In between paper planes, he said the
> Australian Origami Soc was run by Clare Chamberlain, but that she had
> gone/returned to England. As such, there is no more Origami Soc. I guess we
>  should start one. Who's keen? Whadda we do? How much does it cost?
>
>
> Glenn Reynolds





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 18:27:47 -0300
From: Gretchen Klotz <gren@lclark.edu>
Subject: Loose Ends Is Great!

RC and I had a wonderful excursion to Loose Ends last Thursday, and came
back with lotsa stuff -- swatch books, samples (full sheets and "small"
pieces ~1' square), more catalogs.  We left a bunch of models for all the
fun folks who happen to work there (RC kept asking if they were hiring).
And, most importantly, they are SERIOUSLY considering offering some of
their papers in 6" and 10" accurately cut squares!!!

RC's one-word summary was: "Wwooooowww!"

The owners are in Germany right now, so we'll probably go down and meet
with them when they return (and hopefully help clean out their scrap boxes
again!).  I'll certainly keep everyone posted.  I haven't had a chance to
fold anything with the samples I brought home, but will let you all know
how everything holds up (and what doesn't viz. cracks, tears,
sproinginess, etc.).  FYI, they are the exclusive owners of the Yuzen
plates they have, so you won't find their patterns anywhere else.  They
are *lovely*.  RC said it felt a *little* heavier than standard washi, and
we both think it'll fold quite nicely.

They were even interested in having us do some folding 1) for their trade
show displays, 2) for photos in the catalog (only if they start producing
the square paper!), and 3) for them to offer for sale.  Whee!  And they'll
pay for it.  $-)

The folks at Loose Ends will also be contacting OUSA to learn more about
what is going on nationally.

Thanks again to everyone who ordered their catalog and either mentioned
origami, square paper and/or my name.  Please continue to do so, and to
thank them for their consideration.  We're on our way!

- Gretchen





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 21:42:40 -0300
From: Glenn Reynolds <GDR@wapet.com.au>
Subject: Aus Ori Orgs

I'm in Perth for another month or two minimum. Being a contractor, I
sometimes work in Queensland, Vic, NSW, WA. I'd like to start something
somewhere in Australia. What we need is more than one person in each state.

If there is anyone out there versed in the art of newsgroup cross-posting,
can they think of a strategy to inform the general Australian web-public
about starting an association?

Although the Internet sems like a good place to start, it obviously isn't
everything.

Nick from BOS will no doubt have suggestions  - hint :-)

Regards

Glenn Reynolds - Perth for two more months





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 23:12:31 -0300
From: DBSH47B@prodigy.com (MRS. JANET J HAMILTON)
Subject: Re: Looking For

-- [ From: Janet Hamilton * EMC.Ver #2.10P ] --

> Has anyone seen the Throwing Star published commercially anywhere
other
> than Toshie Takahama's HAPPY ORIGAMI?
>
> Someone is developing a lesson on team management using this model
and
> need to show it published is several commercial published books to
support
> the idea that it is truely a public domain item.

I had actually taken a management course several years ago at AT&T that
used the Throwing Star in an exersize.  Of course, since this was a
management course for computer professionals, they called the model
"Airborne Data Diskettes".  If I remember correctly, we were broken up
into two "factories" and each person given a job description, such as
manager, materials handler, quality control, materials purchasing,
module A maker, module B maker, and assembler.  We also had a very
picky customer that rejected all product that was not perfect.  The
object was to make a better profit than the other factory.  We did 3
production runs.  On the first, we had to stick to our plans and job
descriptions.  On the second, the managers were allowed to change
things as they saw fit (assign more people to quality control, etc),
and on the third run the workers were allowed to suggest and change the
processes, stop production if incoming raw materials were inferior,
etc.

If you still need diagrams, I could search my office and see if I still
have them.  I would assume that it's a public domain model if the AT&T
training center was using it.

Janet Hamilton





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 23:44:49 -0300
From: William Anstine <cptcobel@yrkpa.kias.com>
Subject: Re: Throwing Star text

Those diagrams (version 1.0) at least, should be up there....

Thrstar.ps

>
> I also received PostScript diagrams from Soylent Green (Rob Hudson) for one
> made from 8.5x11 paper, which has a different assembly.  The 8.5x11 model ends
> up much thicker though (which is good from a weaponry standpoint, but worse
> from a folding neatly standpoint)!  Maybe Rob will put his diagrams on the FTP
> site for everyone to enjoy (Hint Hint!).
>
> This is great, now I have two ways to make this model, depending on whether I
> have square or "regular" paper at my disposal!
>
> Thanks to both of you!
>
> I haven't been able to the find the Takahama book locally yet...
>
> -Doug





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 23:56:16 -0300
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: origami copyrightable  contin

Rona wrote:
<< I disagree with Valerie.
<< OUSA's lawyers say completed origami models are not copyrightable
<< (as are works of art)
<< They may be patentable.
<< Diagrams may be copyright protected.
>>

About that latter there has been no dispute; I've been saying for the
last dozen messages (and a number in previous discussions of the
copyright issue both here and in other venues): Origami diagrams are
unquestionably copyrightable, and in fact, you will find the copyright
notice on those published by OUSA in the convention annuals, sometimes
both by OUSA, and/or by the original diagrammer.

As to the former, I think that once again there is a failure to
distiguish between the MODEL, meaning the concrete paper thing you
produce, and the DESIGN/IDEA/PROCESS that the MODEL is the result of.
The MODEL (each and every physical one of them) is copyrightable as an
art work (sculpture; medium=paper).

The DESIGN is NOT, though as a
PROCESS, it may be patentable, and some origami designs have indeed been
patented, in the USA and Japan. And the DIAGRAMS which are a tangible
documentation or description of the DESIGN are themselves copyrightable
as graphic or art works, thought the DESIGN itself is not.

Now as to the position "of OUSA's lawyers", I quote the following from
the 1995 Convention Annual [since it is copyrighted, if you want all of it
you'll have to buy your own copy :-) ]:

quote: [comments added thus]

"Copyright protection is available for 'original works of authorship
fixed in a tangible medium of expression'".
[eg. PAPER= tangible medium in an ORIGAMI MODEL/SCULPTURE]

"Copyright protection covers both published and unpublished works. The fact
that a previously published work is out of print does not affect its
copyright."
[RE: books and diagrams...]

"Among the types of works which are subject to copyright protection are...
pictorial works, graphic works, ... sculptures..."
[eg PAPER SCULPTURES]

"Copyright protection does not include ideas, procedures, processes,
systems, concepts, principles or discoveries..."
[eg the DESIGN or IDEA]

"Our attorney advises that an origami DESIGN [emphasis added] is not
tangible. It is not 'fixed in a tangible medium of expression' and since
you cannot copyright an idea or procedure, you cannot copyright an
origami design. YOU CAN HOWEVER, COPYRIGHT THE DIAGRAMS AND THE
COMPLETED MODEL."  [emphasis added]

Unquote.

--valerie
Compuserve: Valerie Vann 75070,304
Internet: 75070.304@compuserve.com
Internet: valerivann@aol.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 00:01:35 -0300
From: Maumoy@aol.com
Subject: Re: Doll's clothespins. Where???

Vedder, look for the clothespins at Frank's or Total Crafts.  One of the
airlines used to give them to their first class passengers to clip their
napkins to their ties!

Marcia Mau





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 00:12:15 -0300
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Looking For  throwing STAR

<<I would assume that it's a public domain model if the AT&T
training center was using it.>>

Not necessarily, maybe just different lawyers... :-)
Better check to see if the course materials were copyrighted...

Surely if this thing is one of the common children's models known
in Japan, England, USA etc. it's got to be somewhere published
listed as "Traditional". Now that we've got a verbal description
of how to make one posted here, let's all get busy making one and
then searching our libraries for it, hopefully with a "traditional"
attribution.

V'Ann: what was your time frame on this? are we too late to do you
any good?

--valerie





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 00:19:31 -0300
From: GURKEWITZ@WCSUB.CTSTATEU.EDU
Subject: RE: origami copyrightable  contin

Valerie,
   I apologize, I did not get the 1995 Annual Collection and to
me what you quote seems to be a change from what Michael Shall and
the committee responsible for figuring out the copyright policy
communicated to me. I was told that origami models were not considered
works of art, according to a lawyer, and so were not copyrighted.

    Now, how does one copyright a completed model?

Rona





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 00:23:43 -0300
From: Imagiro@aol.com
Subject: Re: Doll's clothespins. Where???

> I am looking for a source of doll's clothespins.

Instead of toy stores try craft stores.  I don't know the Boston area but you
might try a listing for Michael's or Ben Franklin Crafts.  Both are national
chains with a large variety of merchandise.  Even if they don't have exactly
what your looking for they may have a decent substitute.  (And some of them
even carry origami paper.)

I hope this helps.

Heidi Florenzen





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 00:32:39 -0300
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Throwing Star text how-to

Well, I've just followed Nick Robinsons text instructions for
a Throwing Star, and have to confess I've never seen this
gizmo before in my life! it wasn't among my playground
gangs paper tricks (though the talking fox/ cootie catcher
and other stuff was...) Pretty nifty little thing, I can
see how it would make a good quality control, mass production
manufacturing exercise, though. It's structurally sort of
related to the cellophane/paper tape crowns we did make at
school; same triagularly twisted strip idea...

I don't think I've seen it in a book either, but I'm
rooting through all my "basic" and early stuff like
Campbell to make sure.

Nick, is this something you picked up at school?

--valerie





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 01:31:49 -0300
From: chall@scsn.net (Carol Hall)
Subject: Re: Doll's clothespins. Where???

>I am looking for a source of doll's clothespins. I do a lot of modular

These are very handy for certain models!  I use them also to hold little
flaps while wet folded models are drying.  I found mine at Eckerd's Drug
Store in the office supply section - they were labeled paper clips(!) and
came in a clear plastic box.

Carol Hall





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.CA>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 09:07:32 -0300
From: vann@tredgar.cardiff.COM (VAnn Cornelius)
Subject: reverse engineering

Once I learned a letter fold in a far away place and sent copies of it
to the LA group.  They reverse engineered it (being engineers). The fun
thing was that they came up with five ways to make it and non of the
ways they did it was the way I made it.

They are a fun group.

V'Ann
vann@cardiff.com
<This is the third time I'm mailing this note.  I don't get error
messages but I haven't seen it come back to my screen in a
group message set.  I wonder where they are going.  >
