




Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 23:34:38 -0300 (ADT)
From: jdharris@post.cis.smu.edu (Jerry D. Harris)
Subject: Re: "It's *just* paper".

>So?  Many models have diagrams that involve judgement folds.  You often have
>to make several models before you can decide where you want those folds to
>lie.  Yoshizawa's models, for example, are like that.  When I took Michael
>LaFosse's intro wet folding class at last year's convention, Michael claimed
>that the lack of landmark's was Yoshizawa's genius, forcing each folder to
>discover and create their own versions of the models...

        While I couldn't ever bring myself to say that Yoshizawa isn't a
master folder, and that I don't admire him (I do, very much!), I have never
believed the hype that he has created over 50,000 models.  He's invented a
lot, for certain:  definitely more than me, and possibly more than anyone
else in history, but the 50,000 number is derived from identical models in
different poses.  If that's the case, then I can easily beat his number by
claiming I have invented an infinite number of models.  Even if I had
invented only one overall design for, say, an average tetrapod, one can
position each leg in an essentially infinite number of variations.  This
does not make each one a separate model; they only make it one model with
some variation.  If I fold Montroll's "Pegasus" with the wings down at the
sides instead of in the up "flight" position, then has it ceased to be
Montroll's "Pegasus?"  Not IMHO, no.

        I suppose that this really beggars the question:  when does one
model cease to be one person's invention and become another's?  What
criteria are used to make this assesment? I remember someone once saying
that it doesn't take an immense deal of creative ability to turn an origami
robin into an origami sparrow by altering a few details of the wing, tail,
and head (although I'm almost certain that everyone _begins_ their creative
excursion into origami by making such simplistic modifications to other
people's models -- I certainly did!) but it does take some more originality
to make the origami robin into an origami octopus.  Now, I would definitely
say that the octopus is an original creation, despite the fact that it uses
a similar base up to point X (don't most origami models start with a few
folds in common?!?)  The line certainly gets blurry when one contemplates
the robin -> sparrow scenario.  I think I would be tempted to say it's an
original creation, simply because the creator _did_ have to put some
originality into it.

        Anyway, I'm simply curious as to other people's perceptions of this
nuance of origami.  How different is it from other arts, like painting:
with painting, no matter how many times one paints the same subject, each
painting is going to be different simply because it's a statistically
infinitesimal probability that everything about one painting (the pose, the
lighting, the stroke order and technique, entropy on the brush, etc., etc.)
would be an individual -- each one is a separate creation.  Does the same
hold for origami?  If so, then what is the point of anyone ever publishing
an "original" model since only their very first one was that particular
creation, and every subsequent new attempt is a separate model?

        And, while we're on the subject, does anyone know where directions
for the infamous "Pig" model claimed by both Yoshizawa and Cerceda (the one
discussed in Engel's book) can be found?  I'd love to see how to make that
model:  one of the best origami pigs I've seen!  8-)

Jerry D. Harris                       (214) 768-2750
Dept. of Geological Sciences          FAX:  (214) 768-2701
Southern Methodist University         jdharris@post.smu.edu
Box 750395                            (CompuServe:  73132,3372)
Dallas  TX  75275-0395

"This was my first word of the discovery, and it told of the identification
of early shells, bones of ganoids and placoderms, remnants of
labyrinthodonts and thecodonts, great mosasaur skull fragments, dinosaur
vertebrae and armor plates, pterodactyl teeth and wing bones, Archaeopteryx
debris, Miocene sharks' teeth, primitive bird skulls, and other bones of
archaic mammals such as paleotheres, Xiphodons, Eohippi, Oreodons, and
titanotheres...the hallowed stratum had lain in its present, dried, dead,
and inaccessible state for at least thirty million years."
          -- H.P. Lovecraft, _At the Mountains of Madness_ (1931)





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 23:57:05 -0300 (ADT)
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@hpc.uh.edu>
Subject: Re: "It's *just* paper".

>>>>> "DP" == Doug Philips <dwp+@transarc.com> writes:

(Original attribution lost)

DP> + +"But you just read it out of a book!"  ;)

DP> So?  Many models have diagrams that involve judgement folds.

Outside of judgment folds, there is one other thing I can do to change
people's minds when they say this.  I pull out Kawahata's _Origami Fantasy_
and show then the Ankylosaurus with it's hundreds of steps of precreasing
before the folding even starts.  Sometimes I hand them a sheet of paper.
That usually does the trick.  (The book is in Japanese, BTW, and anyone who
wants to fold dinosaurs shouldn't be without it.  The Pegasus in there is
extraordinary, too.)

Someone once tried to commission me to do a unicorn.  From that book.  On
the spot.  Admittedly, the unicorn isn't the most complex model in the book
at a mere 125 steps.  She told me it was for s good cause (for a sick
friend) but I just couldn't see having someone stand over me while I beat
my head against a wall with a big sheet of paper and a Japanese dictionary.
--
      Jason L. Tibbitts III - tibbs@uh.edu - 713/743-8684 - 221SR1
System Manager:  University of Houston High Performance Computing Center
                1994 PC800 "Kuroneko"      DoD# 1723





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 00:58:51 -0300 (ADT)
From: marckrsh@nyc.pipeline.com (Marc Kirschenbaum)
Subject: Re: Selling models; [Q] for pros...

On May 07, 1996 22:15:15, 'Herb Coleman <dolphn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>' wrote:

>
>I agree that it is ok in America to sell the models that you fol; even if

>you are not the original designer.  In this country, millions of people
>make a living out of doin things for people that they could very well do
>themselves.  I feel that I have paid Montrol, Lang , et al by buying
>thier books (or geting my library to do so). The thing about an origami
>design,is that once the instructions are out then the models become
>public domain, much like cakes made from recipies.  Now if you publish a
>book about how to make the models, then you owe the original author.
>

Origami has a low enough profile that you can get away with selling other
people's designs without anyone finding out. My view on origami books (and
similar books such as recipe books), is that it is the author's intent to
provide the ideas contained for the sole use of the purchaser of the book.
In essence, you are buying the licence to fold the models for yourself. As
soon as you start selling your models, you are effectively cutting into the
author's sales. In the case of a recipe book, holding a bake sale using the
recipes contained might not seem illegal, but it is. Unfortunately, it is
extremely difficult to police such occurrences, so we will continue to buy
at bake sales food from stolen recipes, and listen to music played at
weddings that have not owed up to the composer's royalties. As soon as you
start to do things at a grander scale, such as opening a restaurant with
the recipes, having a hit record with someone else's music, or publishing a
book with someone else's designs, all of a sudden what we are doing gets
labeled as stealing. I do not think the degree of enforcement should lower
our respect for the people who put the effort into creating the models.

>Just my .02..or is it?
Minus the money you owe to the person who originated your idea (if this is
your idea, please disregard).

Marc





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 01:20:29 -0300 (ADT)
From: marckrsh@nyc.pipeline.com (Marc Kirschenbaum)
Subject: Re: "It's *just* paper".

On May 07, 1996 23:34:38, 'jdharris@post.cis.smu.edu (Jerry D. Harris)'
wrote:

>
>I suppose that this really beggars the question:  when does one
>model cease to be one person's invention and become another's?  What
>criteria are used to make this assesment? I remember someone once saying
>that it doesn't take an immense deal of creative ability to turn an
origami
>robin into an origami sparrow by altering a few details of the wing, tail,

>and head (although I'm almost certain that everyone _begins_ their
creative
>excursion into origami by making such simplistic modifications to other
>people's models -- I certainly did!) but it does take some more
originality
>to make the origami robin into an origami octopus.  Now, I would
definitely
>say that the octopus is an original creation, despite the fact that it
uses
>a similar base up to point X (don't most origami models start with a few
>folds in common?!?)  The line certainly gets blurry when one contemplates
>the robin -> sparrow scenario.  I think I would be tempted to say it's an
>original creation, simply because the creator _did_ have to put some
>originality into it.

I agree that it is difficult to discern the point at which a model becomes
original, when modified by another person. Fortunately, this seems to be a
moot issue, as most serious creators seem to be concerned with being as
original as possible. This is one of the reasons why I lean towards
creating complex models; the chances of duplication by another creator are
much slimmer. As to people modifying other creations in creative ways, I
feel there is often a high level of artistry in the interpretation of
other's works. Such people are often appreciative of the artistry of the
original creator, and will credit appropriately.

Marc





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 06:07:22 -0300 (ADT)
From: Hamilton Edmund Link <hamlink@cs.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: Selling models; [Q] for pros...

> >I agree that it is ok in America to sell the models that you fol; even if
> >you are not the original designer.  In this country, millions of people
> >make a living out of doin things for people that they could very well do
> >themselves.  I feel that I have paid Montrol, Lang , et al by buying
> >thier books (or geting my library to do so). The thing about an origami
> >design,is that once the instructions are out then the models become
> >public domain, much like cakes made from recipies.  Now if you publish a
> >book about how to make the models, then you owe the original author.

> Origami has a low enough profile that you can get away with selling other
> people's designs without anyone finding out. My view on origami books (and
> similar books such as recipe books), is that it is the author's intent to
> provide the ideas contained for the sole use of the purchaser of the book.
> In essence, you are buying the licence to fold the models for yourself. As
> soon as you start selling your models, you are effectively cutting into the
> author's sales. In the case of a recipe book, holding a bake sale using the
> recipes contained might not seem illegal, but it is. Unfortunately, it is
> extremely difficult to police such occurrences, so we will continue to buy
> at bake sales food from stolen recipes, and listen to music played at
> weddings that have not owed up to the composer's royalties. As soon as you
> start to do things at a grander scale, such as opening a restaurant with
> the recipes, having a hit record with someone else's music, or publishing a
> book with someone else's designs, all of a sudden what we are doing gets
> labeled as stealing. I do not think the degree of enforcement should lower
> our respect for the people who put the effort into creating the models.

I don't think you can really say that one who sells origami creations is
cutting into anyone elses sales.  I have yet to see competition in the
pre-folded origami market (in the US -- I suppose I could imagine such a
thing in Japan).  I could see more easily claiming someone elses design as
your own when publishing an origami book.  At that point you are profiting
directly from someone else's work.  When you sell a piece of origami, you
are putting your own work into creating what you sell.  It is the same
difference exhibited by your example of the bake sale and the restaurant,
or playing Paul Simon's songs on the street for change in contrast to
coming out with your own competing album.

there's my 2 cents
hamlink





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 07:20:59 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steve Arlow <yorick@conch.aa.msen.com>
Subject: Re: Selling models; [Q] for pros...

Marc writes:
>
>Origami has a low enough profile that you can get away with selling other
>people's designs without anyone finding out. My view on origami books (and
>similar books such as recipe books), is that it is the author's intent to
>provide the ideas contained for the sole use of the purchaser of the book.
>In essence, you are buying the licence to fold the models for yourself. As
>soon as you start selling your models, you are effectively cutting into the
>author's sales. In the case of a recipe book, holding a bake sale using the
>recipes contained might not seem illegal, but it is. Unfortunately, it is
>extremely difficult to police such occurrences, so we will continue to buy
>at bake sales food from stolen recipes, and listen to music played at
>weddings that have not owed up to the composer's royalties. As soon as you
>start to do things at a grander scale, such as opening a restaurant with
>the recipes, having a hit record with someone else's music, or publishing a
>book with someone else's designs, all of a sudden what we are doing gets
>labeled as stealing. I do not think the degree of enforcement should lower
>our respect for the people who put the effort into creating the models.

I think that your analogy falls apart under close examination.
There is a fundamental difference between playing copyrighted
music without paying royalties, and selling food from a
copyrighted recipe.

In the former case, you are duplicating the primary product for
personal gain, even if your interpretation/execution of the music
is somewhat different from the original.  Anyone listening to a
tape of the performance then has access to the primary product
without paying royalties.

In the latter case, that of a recipe, you are not duplicating the
primary product, even if you follow the recipe to the letter and
use the recommended brand-name ingredients, etc..  The people
who buy and consume your food will have no way of making the food
themselves, or obtaining the primary product (the recipe),
without going out and buying the recipe book themselves, and
thereby paying royalties to the creator.

Now, the primary product in origami is the design of the model,
not an instance of the model.  For non-trivial folds, it is
possible for an experienced folder to reverse-engineer it and
produce his/her own diagrams, thereby obtaining the primary
product without paying royalties.  But the nuber of people who
can do that are comparatively few, and they are NOT typically
the people who are in the market to purchase origami models.
The people who *buy* origami models are overwhelmingly those
who can not or do not want to learn how to fold the model
themselves.  So how does the sale of the model detract from
the sales of the design?

The designer can go into the business of selling finished
models, and might not want the competition from other folders,
just as a recipe-creator might want to open a restaraunt, and
not want competition with other chefs.  But in this case, the
diagram/recipe should never have been published to begin with.
Consider: master chefs all keep their recipes closely guarded
secrets.

A more difficult issue is that of teaching.  Suppose I teach
a small group how to fold one of Peter Engle's simpler models.
I do this by demonstration and conversation, and do not copy
the diagrams.  Now, the group is learning the model without
ever paying royalties on the design.  Is this piracy?  If so,
it is a good argument for selling origami designs
individually, as previously discussed, so that a teacher can
pay royalties by buying a copy of an individual model for each
student, without having to buy them each a copy of every book
which contains one or more of the models being taught.

  -- Steve Arlow

--
 "Your dog stuffs his tongue up your nose.   |  Steve Arlow, Yorick Software
  It's a good omen.  You press on."          |  39336 Polo Club Dr. #103,
     -- Bernie E. Mireault, in _The JAM..._  |  Farmington Hills, MI  48335
            (.sig contest has been won)      |  http://www.msen.com/~yorick





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 10:30:59 -0300 (ADT)
From: casida@ere.umontreal.ca (Casida Mark)
Subject: Re: origami math

Hi,  I would just like to point out that there is (was?) a Dover book
aimed at teaching plane geometry in underdeveloped countries (the author
is Indian) through folding paper rather than through the use of compass
and straightedge.  (I have never understood this reasoning, but then I
don't know the relative costs of paper, rulers, and compasses in India.)
Unfortunately I have forgotten the title.  Is anyone else able to help
me out.

                                     ... Mark

P.S. This is not an origami book, but does very much concern the math
     of paper folding.  But don't forget to get some advice from Tom Hull !

>
> My name is Hamilton Link.  I am a CIS major/Math minor at the university
> of Oregon.  I have been folding since I was about eight years old, and so
> I thought it would be interesting to analize some of the mathematics of
> folding the sqare and possibly do a small application based on my
> findings.
>
> I have a couple of ideas, but I would appreciate it if any of you could
> refer me to any good books on origami that dealt with the mathemactics of
> it.  (any favorite books on origami would also be nice -- i'm always
> looking to expand my personal library!)  Also if you have seen any
> articles (I have a couple from mathematical journals) that would be
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> hamilton
>
>

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





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 12:31:20 -0300 (ADT)
From: Brett <BrettAndJill@OIA.Net>
Subject: Re: origami math

At 07:39 PM 5/7/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>My name is Hamilton Link.  I am a CIS major/Math minor at the university
>of Oregon.  I have been folding since I was about eight years old, and so
>I thought it would be interesting to analize some of the mathematics of
>folding the sqare and possibly do a small application based on my
>findings.
>
>I have a couple of ideas, but I would appreciate it if any of you could
>refer me to any good books on origami that dealt with the mathemactics of
>it.  (any favorite books on origami would also be nice -- i'm always
>looking to expand my personal library!)  Also if you have seen any
>articles (I have a couple from mathematical journals) that would be
>appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>hamilton

If you can find them (they are out of print) Origami Omnibus, and Origami
for the Conniseur have pretty good sections on geometric theorems for
producing certain precresing patterns ie. thirds fifths.  Origami Omnibus
seems to go a little further with it.  Check your library.  Also the Fuse
book "Unit Origami" is very good but does not go into much mathematical
detail.  Get the book anyway though, if you like modulars it is a MUST.

Brett
BrettAndJill@OIA.Net





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 12:38:58 -0300 (ADT)
From: Brett <BrettAndJill@OIA.Net>
Subject: Re: Selling models;

>And finally, what about the version I just devised, a blintzed-
>frog-base method of folding the five-headed Neale Dragon, which
>includes a few new modifications: a quadruple octagonal open-sink,
>new flaps to be folded down on the correct side, etc.?
>
>Opinions on all of these scenarios, from anyone on the list,
>would be appreciated.
>
>  -- Steve Arlow

Hey man,

Give yourself some credit.  Look in the front of Origami Insects, I think
that you said you have the book.  Robert says that he gets a lot of
inspiration from other folders ideas.  I think your five headed dragon and
those other creations you made are YOURS to credit YOURSELF with.  Heres a
good example using the same Robert Neale dragonbase.

In Prehistoric Origami (Montroll) there is a model of a little winged lizard
(Khuneosaurus) sp?  It is basically Neale's dragon with a more formed head
and modifcations to the wings.  For the longest time I thought that the
basic form was from Montroll himself (this may be a parallel invention by
Mr. Montroll and Mr. Neale), but then I saw instructions for Robert Neales
dragon (which are MUCH harder to come by).  The Khuneosaurus is certainly
more refined, but still the basic base to produce a different model.  Set me
straight here who was the first to come up with that particular base ?

Also most folders who produce books ENCOURAGE you to break down their models
in efforts to gain more of an undestanding, and to produce your own creations.

Brett
BrettAndJill@OIA.Net





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 13:13:44 -0300 (ADT)
From: slider@ims.mariposa.ca.us (Pat Slider)
Subject: Re: origami math

>Hi,  I would just like to point out that there is (was?) a Dover book
>aimed at teaching plane geometry in underdeveloped countries (the author
>is Indian) through folding paper rather than through the use of compass
>and straightedge.  (I have never understood this reasoning, but then I
>don't know the relative costs of paper, rulers, and compasses in India.)
>Unfortunately I have forgotten the title.  Is anyone else able to help
>me out.
>
>                                     ... Mark

This must be the Sundara T. Row book "Geometric Exercises in Paperfolding"....
Here are some excerpts from the archives (thanks to Alex Bateman's page)
that describe it fairly well. The archives are a great resource for book
reviews!

I wonder if there are any other origami books that have been around for as
long as this one?

pat slider.

                        *********************************

Date: Mon, 31 May 93 04:03:26 ADT
From: Comet
Subject: The Geometry of Paper-Folding (Math)

Jeremy Shaffer (spelling?) is working on a thesis on this topic.
T. sundara row wrote a book "Geometric Exercises in Paper Folding", $3.95,
which I believe is offerred from the Friends of the Origami Center of America.
{ISBN 0-486-21594-6, republished by Dover Publications, Inc. in 1966,
originally published by The Open Court Publishing Company in 1905,
with introduction written in Madras, India, in 1893.}

.
.
.

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 93 00:56:01 ADT
From: andataco!vann@UCSD.EDU (V'Ann Cornelius)
Subject: Re:  The Geometry of Paper-Folding (Math)

.
.
.

about the geometry book by sundara row
The book contents reads:
the square
the equilateral triangle
squares and rectangles
the pentagon
the hexagon
the octagon
the nonagon
the decagon and dodecagon
the pentedecagon
series
polygons,
general principles
the conic sections
Miscellaneous curves.

The author notes that his intent is 'to revive old (geometry) lessons
and to have a peep into modern developments which although very interesting and
instructive, have been ignored by university teachers.'

He has numbered his paragraphes totaling 285 observations. His writing style
includes diagrams, and notation.

I am not a mathematician so it hasn't
helped me, but those who are matematicians and who can appreciate a page with
equations that included nested radical 2's and alphabet letters written to
the fifth power followed by a phrase... 'of course this is inadmissible,
...' Well,  ....maybe this will help the understanding of fractals or
the geometry of folding paper.

-v'ann-





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 13:24:07 -0300 (ADT)
From: Gretchen Klotz <gren@agora.rdrop.com>
Subject: Re: Selling models;

On Tue, 7 May 1996, Sheila Davis wrote:

>         Almost.  According to OUSA, ethically you shouldn't sell
>         a figure at all without getting permission.  If you ignore
>         this though, then legally, if you don't get permission, you
>         shouldn't use the designer's name.  I think the issue here,
>         though, is using the designer's name for profit--similar to
>         "these are Calvin Klein jeans" vs. "these are jeans".  The
>         former is more valuable because of the designer's name.  Now,
>         realistically I think you'd be hard pressed to find a
>         buyer at a craft show or such who will scoop up a "Fuse
>         model" over another just because of the name.  But legally,
>         that's the issue.

I would add a category with the above example.  Using the designer's name
in an unclear manner could result in someone thinking "these are Calvin
Klein's (personal) jeans" or "Calvin Klein designed and sewed this actual
pair of jeans."  A LaFosse model folded by LaFosse would (should!) fetch a
higher price than the same LaFosse model folded by someone else.  From
myriad discussions of this topic, it is my understanding that misleading
customers to believe they are purchasing something "more" by virtue of
association is the illegal part.  Crediting the designer with the design
is fine, as long as you don't imply that the designer did the actual
folding.  And the reverse is also true: crediting yourself with the
folding is fine, as long as you don't imply that the design is your
original idea.

>         Personally, I would suspect most origami designers would
>         be quite happy with your solution--charge for your artistry,
>         but give the original designer credit.  The guidelines
>         are just the picky details.

Ditto.

- Gretchen

--
gren@agora.rdrop.com         http://www.ogi.edu/~gren/





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 13:49:38 -0300 (ADT)
From: Gretchen Klotz <gren@agora.rdrop.com>
Subject: Origami Analogies (was Re: Selling models; [Q] for pros...)

On Tue, 7 May 1996, Herb Coleman wrote:

> The thing about an origami
> design,is that once the instructions are out then the models become
> public domain, much like cakes made from recipies.

I like this recipe/cookbook analogy!  The comparison I have used most
often is patterns for clothing (quilts, sweaters, other textiles).  Can
anyone else think of other areas in which, like origami:

        * one person creates a design
        * only the published instructions are copyrightable
        * many people can purchase those instructions
        * the instructions can be used by the purchaser for
          personal *and* profitable purposes (perhaps with
          additonal legal procedures or remuneration for
          commercial use or licensing)

(Have I omitted any criteria?  I think these all apply to cookbooks,
origami and textiles; I'm sure those of you who think otherwise won't
hesitate to correct me!)

I'm interested to know what other arts/crafts/endeavors parallel the model
(ducking!) above.  Perhaps they will inform us (and OUSA) in navigating
the legal/ethical morass in which we find ourselves.

- Gretchen

--
gren@agora.rdrop.com         http://www.ogi.edu/~gren/





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 14:34:41 -0300 (ADT)
From: kevin !! <prank@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Selling Origami

        My original comments were, of course, opinions.

        90% of my origami is for pleasure; the other 10% is for
masochistic punishment (thank you, Mr. Lang, et al).  I give most of my
origami away (there is a small percentage, close to, say, 10% that I
would be embarrassed to show in public...).
        I would feel better selling a model to a complete stranger than to
someone I knew or had to work with.  I try to make origami accessible; if
I don't think I have the time, effort, or skill to make a model, I tell
the person where they can find the model in a publication, if possible.
Charging for knowing where to fold is less exciting to me than having the
person try it her/himself.
        Origami is one field where I appreciate more evangelists and fewer
capitalists.  Just an opinion.
        On the other hand, if I fold a model for a specific
purpose, I often take much greater care to pick "good" paper, not just
"regular" origami paper, and take greater care to ensure that extra folds
don't show or that corners are sharper (or rounder, depending on the
model).  I may even try to protect it with a box or spray.  In this case I
am often given materials, and then some, for the models or compensation
with a product made by the recipient of the model.  This also is more
exciting than money, and I have often been given things money cannot buy.
I guess we just take our profits where we will.
        Just a thought.

--Kevin





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 14:59:45 -0300 (ADT)
From: Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com
Subject: Re: origami math

(I sent this, but it didn't appear on the list. Forgive me if I am now
repeating myself.)

Mark Casida commented:
>>Hi,  I would just like to point out that there is (was?) a Dover book
aimed at teaching plane geometry in underdeveloped countries (the author
is Indian) through folding paper rather than through the use of compass
and straightedge.  <<

Could this be T. Sundara Row's _Geometric Exercises in Paper Folding_?
(Written in 1893; revised by WW Beman and DE Smith; Open Court's
4th edition (c)1958; my copy is too old to have an ISBN.) It's the sort
of thing Dover might reprint. If so, I don't recommend it to the average
paper folder. It's very mathematical. It's *not* origami in the usual
sense.

>>(I have never understood this reasoning, but then I don't know the
relative costs of paper, rulers, and compasses in India.)<<

If you're refering to Row's book, then the time frame may make
my following comments meaningless . . .

In the states, many teachers use paper folding and geometry computer
 software *in addition to* compass and straightedge constructions. Sad
to say, there are some schools where compasses are not used for safety
reasons. (I suppose it would only take one student throwing a compass
across the room to convince me not to hand them out again.) With the
rising cost of paper in the states, schools that can't afford to provide
compasses and rulers may not have paper to spare either, but at least
when the paper walks away in a bookbag or gets broken, you're out a
few cents and not a couple dollars. If you buy the cheapest compass, you
 don't get precise circles unless you spend a lot of time training students
to use them very carefully.

And, sometimes, the reasoning is simply that "if I say it's going to help
the underserved, I can get funding for the time to write my book and be
 assured that it will be published." (Again, true in the states, can't vouch
for elsewhere.)

I'm not really as pessimistic about eduction as that made me
sound. I *am* interested in seeing how others have used
paper folding to teach Euclidean geometry. (I'm working on
a high school geometry text as we speak.)

Lisa
Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 15:12:08 -0300 (ADT)
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Origami Analogies (was Re: Selling models; [Q] for pros...)

<<only the published instructions are copyrightable>>

In the case of origami (or even a quilt or other form
of textile art, including clothing), the diagrams or other
directions, provided they are published in a tangible
form (ie not just oral), including electronic, audio,
printing, etc. are copyrightable. AND: the model itself
IS copyrightable, that is, the PHYSICAL model, which is
a work of art or intellectual property expressed in a
concrete tangible form, just as other forms of sculpture
are copyrightable. Its only the idea/concept/recipe/algorithm/
forumula/directions PER SE that are NOT copyrightable.
(You can, however, PATENT the process/directions, though
there's little point, especially if you're going to publish
the directions.)

However, folders tend to agree that copyrighting the individual
models is of little practical use, though many of us do it
anyway, mainly as a means of dating and "laying claim to",
so to speak, having invented the niftly little gizmo.

Diagrams, "published" or otherwise, are always copyrightable,
and under USA law are technically copyrighted as soon as
they assume "tangible" form.

--valerie
Valerie Vann
75070.304@compuserve.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 15:15:54 -0300 (ADT)
From: hull@hypatia.math.uri.edu
Subject: Re: Selling models;

Hello, dear friends,

        It seems to me that many of the comments regarding creator's
rights and the selling of origami have gone way off the mark.
The important thing to realise, I think, is that this issue is
VERY controversial.  Everyone has their own opinions about what it
"right".  Thus, any attempt at nailing down a fair policy for these
matters, as Origami USA has done, is never going to satisfy everyone
and will probably deviate from what USA law dictates.  Why?
Because of the special situation that origami has - people
like to *share* folds that they've learned ... and give them away ...
and even sell them.  Further, the origami comminuty is very
closely knit, with a big emphasis on sharing.  No matter where
in the world you are, origamists like to share their work.
        Because of this analogies can be helpful, but are useless
in the end.  Origami is similar to cookbooks and music, but I see
it as very unique as a culture.
        The origami community is a square peg, and USA law is a
round hole.  They don't fit together very well, and this makes the
task of writing down a clear policy concerning the ethics of
origami creation/selling nigh impossible.
        But Origami USA is a responsible organization, and thus we
must have a written policy which we think is as fair as possible which
can serve as a guide to our members.  If you keep this in mind
when you read OUSA's policy, I think it'll become much more
clear why it's written the way it is.
        This note has already gotten longer than I wished, but I feel
the need to respond to a few points previously raised:

Re: giving creators credit vs using their name for profit
        There have been accusations that OUSA's policy is contradictory
in this matter - that people should always credit the original
creator but that they should never use the creator's name to sell
origami.
        The policy is not contradictory.  There is a big difference
between using Robert Lang's name to sell origami models and mentioning
his name as a footnote to give credit.  The difference is the
degree that his name is used.  Using Robert's name to draw people
in and get them to buy the product falls into the first category.
But having a little card attatched to the model with "Folded by Sting,
Invented by Robert Lang" is clearly not using Lang's name to sell
the model!
        Yes, there is the argument over where you cross the line -
when does printing someone's name turn into advertising?  But, again,
this is something that can't ever be pinpointed.  In practice,
we all know the difference, but no written policy will capture all
the different possibilities.
        Thus OUSA's policy does what it can: The creator should *always*
be credited.  But a creator's name cannot be used for profit without
permission.

Re: nit-picky details
        Similarly, scenarios which are so specific (like, I created
a flying Dutchman based on Patricia Crawford's original but with
two extra heads and using techniques from Montroll's Apatosaurus)
are never going to satisfactorily covered in a single written policy.
Hopefully the guidelines will help people decide what is right
and wrong, but ultimately it is **YOU**, the folder, who has
to make up his/her own mind and decide what is ethically right.
All ethical law/policy is always open to interpretation, and origami
is no different.  But at some point the responsibility falls upon
the shoulders of the folder to decide what is right or wrong.

Re: creator's rights/permission
        Maybe I'm wrong, but seems to me that a number of commentators
on this thread actually believe that they shouldn't get the permission
of the creator when selling models.  Yes, I agree that getting
permission is a pain and sometimes impossible when the creator
is unknown or foreign.  But what, I ask, is the alternative?
Should creators have *no rights* over their creations?  If I decide
that I don't want ANYONE to fold and sell my creations without giving me
a cut, do I have the right to make that request?  Apparently
many people on this list believe that I don't have that right,
and I think that's a VERY dangerous attitude to have.
        For suppose that I am such a creator - the thought of other
people making money on my creations makes my skin crawl.  What is
my alternative?  Well, if I don't want people profitting from
my origami, then I shouldn't diagram my models, should I?  Indeed,
I should hide all my work to keep people from taking advantage of it!
        My point is that respect should ALWAYS to go the original
creator.  It is only though an attitude of courtesy and respect that
will allow the origami community to remain the friendly place that
it is today and keep it from turning into a world of paranoia, where
people hide their work and no one shares.  Creators rights should
always be respected.
        And if you don't know who the original creator is?  Then
you should make EVERY EFFORT to find out before you start selling
their work!

        Fortunately, there is no branch of the US legal system called
"origami law".  Luckily origamists don't sue each other and leave it
or "who got permission from whom".  I'd like to keep lawyers out
of this, and the only way to do that is to be as open and honest
as you can, always acknowleging the creator or even people
who inspired you.
        I really didn't mean to go on this long!  I'm sorry!

-------------- Tom "just fishing" Hull
               hull@math.uri.edu

Note: the above opinions are Tom's own and are not meant to refect
the opinions of OUSA's board of directors.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 15:35:42 -0300 (ADT)
From: John Smith <jon.pure@paston.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Model For Sell

At 18:14 06/05/96 -0300, you wrote:
>Origami is regarded as an art. Art is being sold all over the world.
>I wonder if someone ever sold his origami models or know someone who did it?
>Why not making money out of this wonderful art?
>
>Alon Hazay
>Israel
>Email: hazay@ibm.net
>
>*** THE SKY IS THE LIMIT ***

I feel very sad when I read this kind of E-Mail. For 30 years I have had the
privilege of giving and sharing our beautiful art with many wonderful people
all over the world. As Michael Shall said Origami is about sharing. Oh
please don't turn this great gift we all enjoy into a commercial venture.
Surely I can't be alone in this view. What would happen to all of the
volunteers who make conventions such a success if commerce comes in?  How
many folders would be happy to share their creations if someone was busy
making money?

John.
John Smith
Norwich
England
e-mail  jon.pure@paston.co.uk





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 15:42:05 -0300 (ADT)
From: Eric Andersen <Eric_Andersen@brown.edu>
Subject: Re: Origami Analogies (was Re: Selling models; [Q] for pros...)

At 03:12 PM 5/8/96 -0300, Valerie Vann wrote:
><<only the published instructions are copyrightable>>

 AND: the model itself
>IS copyrightable, that is, the PHYSICAL model, which is
>a work of art or intellectual property expressed in a
>concrete tangible form, just as other forms of sculpture
>are copyrightable. Its only the idea/concept/recipe/algorithm/
>forumula/directions PER SE that are NOT copyrightable.
>...
>However, folders tend to agree that copyrighting the individual
>models is of little practical use, though many of us do it
>anyway, mainly as a means of dating and "laying claim to",
>so to speak, having invented the niftly little gizmo.
>

So does this mean that making a Montroll model is technically illegal (if he
has copyrighted the model), just like copying a famous sculpture by a
contemporary artist would be? What exactly does it mean for someone to have
an actual model copyrighted? Does it mean you're not allowed to fold it
without the creator's permission? And then why would anyone copyright a
model and then publish the diagrams in a book?

-Eric  :-P

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
      A                   A
     /|\            \    /|\
    / | \            \\ / | \ /7\            /-\.
   /__|__\            \/__|__\/            a miniature
   \  |  /             \_/ \_/               Kawahata
    \ | /             Flapping                stegosaurus
     \|/                bird
      V                       Eric Andersen   origami@brown.edu
  Bird Base      http://www.netspace.org/~ema/origami.html
     Robert Lang models online! Coming soon: Origami Fantasy Page!





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 15:54:26 -0300 (ADT)
From: unhinged@yrkpa.kias.com
Subject: Chinese detainee art followup

I have an appointment to speak with one of the remaining artists at the
prison on Friday, with a translator.  Hoping to glean some more info
about the technique.  At present, nobody knows how long any of the Golden
Venturees will be here in the country.

Anyone have any suggestions for questions to ask, ways to go about
interviewing the artist?  I'm going to have to rely on memory (pencil and
paper might make the artist nervous), but am allowed to bring in
photographs to show them behind the glass.

During my first visit, I was allowed back in the Wing, but this time I'm
going to have to do it the old fashioned way- telephone through glass
enclosure.

Rob





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 15:54:37 -0300 (ADT)
From: Eric Andersen <Eric_Andersen@brown.edu>
Subject: Eric's Origami Page has moved

 Hi! I just wanted to let you all know that my origami pages have officially
moved. People have written to me concerning the techhouse server being down,
and since the techhouse server won't exist over the summer, I've decided to
get an account with Netspace, a local provider for Brown students. The new
URL is:

http://www.netspace.org/~ema/origami.html

I'm in the middle of finals right now, but after the 16th I'll have plenty
of time to finish up my pages and do some more folding. I plan to put up an
_Origami Hearts_ (by Francis Ow) Page and an _Origami Fantasy_ (Fumiaki
Kawahata) Page, among other things. It may take me a while to fold some of
the models, but they should be up some time during the summer. Also, if Tom
Hull has any time that week he and I are going to attempt to make a level 7
or 8 flower tower...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
      A                   A
     /|\            \    /|\
    / | \            \\ / | \ /7\            /-\.
   /__|__\            \/__|__\/            a miniature
   \  |  /             \_/ \_/               Kawahata
    \ | /             Flapping                stegosaurus
     \|/                bird
      V                       Eric Andersen   origami@brown.edu
  Bird Base      http://www.netspace.org/~ema/origami.html
     Robert Lang models online! Coming soon: Origami Fantasy Page!





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 16:01:03 -0300 (ADT)
From: unhinged@yrkpa.kias.com
Subject: Re: Model For Sell

>
> I feel very sad when I read this kind of E-Mail. For 30 years I have had the
> privilege of giving and sharing our beautiful art with many wonderful people
> all over the world. As Michael Shall said Origami is about sharing. Oh
> please don't turn this great gift we all enjoy into a commercial venture.
> Surely I can't be alone in this view. What would happen to all of the
> volunteers who make conventions such a success if commerce comes in?  How
> many folders would be happy to share their creations if someone was busy
> making money?
>

Well, I wouldn't promote selling as the primary reason for the art :) but
I am in fairly frequent contact with Mark Kennedy, and he is more than
happy to describe his technique (and show me his workshop) for the
earrings he makes.  He also hosts a club meeting every month.

The point I'm trying to make is: if there is a high demand for certain
types of "finished work" (e.g. coated specially decorated origami,
earrings), then "selling it" allows the creator to both proliferate the
art form while gaining some recompense for his / her time, and to
"re-invest" the money into new books and paper.

My father, for example, builds radio-controlled airplanes for other
people, charges a modest fee, and puts the money back into the hobby.  He
also finds time to volunteer to teach others how to fly their planes, and
does a lot of "Free" work for the club he is a member of.

        What I *do* object to are these little shops that have origami
art, made by people who have no connection to the "origami world" and are
unwilling to share their techniques or discuss how their art is made.
Nothing irks me worse.

Rob





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 16:11:01 -0300 (ADT)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Where did tthe Old-timers learn their Folding?

In her letter dated 7th May, Kristine Tomlinson highlights several very
interesting matters. I value her contribution, and if I do not immediately
take them all up, it is only because there are not enough hours in the day,
especially if I am expected to do any  research before launching forth. But I
should like to say a little about where people like Robert Harbin and Lillian
Oppenheimer learnt their paperfolding, because there seems to be a
misconception that paperfolding actually started only in the 1950s.

The short answer is that they learnt to fold paper as children, either in the
home or in the school playground. Gershon Legman learnt to fold planes at
school. Robert Harbin learnt to fold as a boy in South Africa. I do't think I
have any definite evidence that Lillian Oppenheimer learnt at school, but it
is most likely All children learnt to fold simple paper hats and ships, boxes
and darts. In the Western World there was a constant reservoir of some
twenty, thirty or perhaps more traditional folds which circulated in the
manner of folklore. We can trace some of them back to the 18th Century, and
we think we have evidence for the waterbomb in England in 1614. The German
educator Friedrich Froebel spoke of his folding as a child in the late 18th
Century, and many traditional folds were included in books produced for the
Froebelian kindergarten schools between 1880 and 1920. In addition, from
about 1870, paperfolding began to be included in collections of pastimes for
both children and adults. One of the first monographs on paperfolding was
"Fun with Paperfolding" published in 1928 by W.D.Murray and F.J.Rigney.
Lillian Oppenheimer used this book to entertain her young daughter Molly,
when she was sick, and many other paperfolders traced their interest in
paperfolding as adults back to this book. Margaret Campbell's "Paper Toy
Making" appeared in England in 19360 or 1937, and it remained in print until
the 1960's. In 1953, Robert Harbin's interest in paperfolding was sparked
into life when he visited his wife in hospital and found some injured airmen
folding from this book. Another book was "Fun with Paper" by Joseph Leeming,
published in the United States in 1939. It may still be in print. Murray and
Rigney, and Margaret Campbell's books were both reprinted by Dover.

Of course, all these books were primitive by modern standards. They did not
use the modern system of symbols and were hard to understand. For the most
part they included only the traditional models, though occasionally an author
included a crude  idea of his own. It was not until the impact of Yoshizawa
in the 1950's, that the idea of "Creative Folding" was taken up by Robert
Harbin. In turn Lillian Oppenhimer read Harbn's book and her own emerging
interest in paperfolding leapt into flame. Before that, creating new models
was very limited. Jack Skillman was an early exception, but sadly, we know
little of his early work.

Perhaps 1956, when Robert Harbin published "Paper Magic" was the start of the
new era; perhaps it was the formation of the Origami Center in 1958. Perhaps
the sudden inflow of English-language  books on Japanese Origami, starting in
the mid 1950s contributed. But really, there were many contributing factors
which came together quite miraculously to cause a great explosion of
paperfolding, and in particular, of creative paperfolding from about 1958. We
are all part of that movement.

 But Paperfolding/Origami, call it what you will, has a long history in both
 Europe and Japan, and Legman, Harbin, Lillian Oppenheimer and the rest did
not suddenly create it out of nothing.

David





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 16:57:10 -0300 (ADT)
From: casida@ere.umontreal.ca (Casida Mark)
Subject: Re: origami math

> Could this be T. Sundara Row's _Geometric Exercises in Paper Folding_?
> (Written in 1893; revised by WW Beman and DE Smith; Open Court's
> 4th edition (c)1958; my copy is too old to have an ISBN.)

Yes!  That's it.  No, it is not origami in the usual sense and it is
very mathematical.  But if you like mathematics and paper folding then
this can give you some insight into how different constructions from
plane geometry can be folded.

                                     ... Mark

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





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 17:20:27 -0300 (ADT)
From: Jeannine Mosely <j9@concentra.com>
Subject: Re: Chinese detainee art followup

Rob,

I just wanted to tell you how grateful I am for your visits to the
Chinese detainees and your stories about them.  I admire your courage
in visiting the prison very much.  Good luck on your next visit.

I made the triangle module that was diagrammed on the list, and I have
some questions about it.  It begins with a 2x1 rectangle.  The top
corners are folded down to touch the middle of the bottom (long) edge.
Now we have a 45-45-90 triangle.  But suppose we start with a square
and fold it on the diagonal.  Then we would also have a 45-45-90
triangle and we could proceed with same sequence of folds to get a
module that is functionally equivalent to the module you described.
Why not start with a square?  Or for that matter, why not start with a
triangle?

        -- jeannine mosely





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 17:22:02 -0300 (ADT)
From: OrigamiCMM@aol.com
Subject: Re: Model For Sell

In a message dated 96-05-08 14:36:28 EDT, you write:

<< I feel very sad when I read this kind of E-Mail. For 30 years I have had
the
>privilege of giving and sharing our beautiful art with many wonderful people
>all over the world. As Michael Shall said Origami is about sharing. Oh
>please don't turn this great gift we all enjoy into a commercial venture.
>Surely I can't be alone in this view. What would happen to all of the
>volunteers who make conventions such a success if commerce comes in?  How
>many folders would be happy to share their creations if someone was busy
>making money?

>John.
>John Smith
>Norwich
>England
>e-mail  jon.pure@paston.co.uk

I feel the same way as John.  The only way someone should ever make money on
origami is creating your own models, and publishing them, or selling the
books.  I mean, to most people origami is just a hobby, people shouldn't sell
a model to someone, even if is their own.  Origami is for fun and papercuts.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Christopher Miller
ORIGAMICMM@aol.com   or
CM317@aol.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 17:26:40 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steve Arlow <yorick@conch.aa.msen.com>
Subject: Re: Origami Analogies (was Re: Selling models; [Q] for pros...)

Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com> writes:
>
><<only the published instructions are copyrightable>>
>
>In the case of origami (or even a quilt or other form
>of textile art, including clothing), the diagrams or other
>directions, provided they are published in a tangible
>form (ie not just oral), including electronic, audio,
>printing, etc. are copyrightable. AND: the model itself
>IS copyrightable, that is, the PHYSICAL model, which is
>a work of art or intellectual property expressed in a
>concrete tangible form, just as other forms of sculpture
>are copyrightable. Its only the idea/concept/recipe/algorithm/
>forumula/directions PER SE that are NOT copyrightable.
>(You can, however, PATENT the process/directions, though
>there's little point, especially if you're going to publish
>the directions.)

What?!?  I hardly know where to begin.  I guess I'll start
at the end.  IANAL, but I *do* make my living off of
intellectual property, so I know a thing or two about the
subject.  One can patent an invention.  The process of
folding a particular model, and/or the finished model
itself, could conceivably be patented under US and
international law.  But the *directions* could not be.

Valerie Vann writes that there is little point in patenting
the process if you are going to publish the directions;
this might be true, but not the way she seems to mean it.
In order to recieve a patent, you must make full and public
disclosure of the invention, such that another practitioner
in your field could reproduce the invention from your
disclosure alone.  From the standpoint of an origami model,
this means that the patent application would have to
contain diagrams and instructions sufficient for any
competent folder to be able to reproduce the model.  These
instructions would then be publicly available through the
patent office -- which could, I suppose, damage the
marketability of published diagrams, because they would be
freely available to anyone with a copy of the patent.

But who on earth would want to buy the diagrams to a
patented model?!?  They would be forbidden by law to
fold it, they could only look at the diagrams and say,
"gee, wow".

Continuing backwards, she says that
>                   Its only the idea/concept/recipe/algorithm/
>forumula/directions PER SE that are NOT copyrightable.

This is not true.  Ideas, concepts, and algorithms (as opposed
to specific implementations thereof) cannot be copyrighted.
But a recipe, or directions, can be and usually are
copyrightable.  Don't cookbooks normally have a copyright notice
in the indicia?

A specific sculpture may be copyrighted.  But when John
Montroll publishes a (copyrighted) book containing the plans
for his models, he gives implicit (and often explicit)
permission for the purchaser to actually follow the directions
and fold the models.  Otherwise it would be like a recipe book
from which one is not allowed to cook any of the dishes.  If
Montroll were instead simply displaying his models in a gallery,
and "publishing" replicas recreating the original folds, he
might have a claim to have copyright on the model itself.  But
he does not do that; instead he sells books of instructions.

  -- Steve Arlow

--
 "Your dog stuffs his tongue up your nose.   |  Steve Arlow, Yorick Software
  It's a good omen.  You press on."          |  39336 Polo Club Dr. #103,
     -- Bernie E. Mireault, in _The JAM..._  |  Farmington Hills, MI  48335
            (.sig contest has been won)      |  http://www.msen.com/~yorick
