




Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 18:01:09 -0300 (ADT)
From: Sheila Davis <sew@hpfisew.fc.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Origami Analogies

Steve Arlow writes:
> What?!?  I hardly know where to begin.

        Sigh.  This comes up every few months.  Perhaps it should be
        in the FAQ?

        Valerie Vann is exactly correct in her description of
        copyrights as they pertain to origami.

> 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.
>
        Yes.  Semantic difference.  What could be patented
        is the method for folding the model (assuming you
        met other patent requirements).

> 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".
>
        Exactly.  Theoretically you could pay the patent holder
        for the right to use the patented method, but in the
        case of origami, I don't think it would fly.

> 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?
>
        Only the precise expression of the recipe or directions is
        copyrighted.  You can quite legally make a list of ingredients
        from a copyrighted recipe, describe the same method for
        preparation (but use your own words) and publish it.  This
        comes up on rec.food.cooking.* all the time.

> 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.
>
        Yes.
Regards,

  Sheila Davis        Hewlett-Packard IC Business Division
 sew@hpfisew.fc.hp.com          Fort Collins, Colorado





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 18:07:43 -0300 (ADT)
From: Allen Parry <parry@eskimo.com>
Subject: Chicago...where does one shop?

I am about to go to Chicago next week and I was wondering if someone could
tell me the best places to go for Origami books?  Also, I'd like to
explore the used book stores for any finds.  Thanks.

Allen Parry
parry@eskimo.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 18:23:25 -0300 (ADT)
From: juancarlos <jlondono@calima.ciat.cgiar.org>
Subject: UPGRADING My ORIGAMI HOMEPAGE (in spanish)

Hi friends in origami

I'm upgrading my Origami homepage and I'll like to include links with yours
(if you have one) please let me know if I can obtain your permission and
please give me your URL.

Sincerely

Juancarlos





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 18:39:15 -0300 (ADT)
From: "Ashley G. Perrien" <perr2232@kutztown.edu>
Subject: Re: Selling models;

Since I partly started this thread (with the help of several others whose
names have escaped me) I guess I'll add some personal insights.

>       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.
>
I don't know about the others who've contributed but personally I'm not
trying to avoid getting permission. Many people have asked about my
origami that I leave lying around and asked how much I'd charge for it.
When I started getting several requests I got the idea to set up a table
and start selling them. That's when I posted the question. It was an
honest question, I wasn't trying to decieve anyone, wasn't trying to get
out of anything or anything like that. I simply wanted to know the
general attitudes of those out there on the subject.

>       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!
>
I don't think it's a bad thing if people sold what I had created. If I
put the diagrams out there, I expect people to use them. If they want to
sell the models, fine. Mention that it's my design but they wouldn't need
my permission. I'd also ask them not to distribute the diagrams if they
had to be payed for. If you're views are different, fine, I accept that.
However, I don't see anything terribly wrong with someone profitting from
my work provided I'm given credit.

Just my drop in the bucket, no offense intended.

AshleyP





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 19:40:47 -0300 (ADT)
From: slider@ims.mariposa.ca.us (Pat Slider)
Subject: Re: Selling models;

Perhaps the creator of a model should make his own wishes clear when he
publishes a model, perhaps adding a line to the copyright page in a book
somehow? Some legalise stating "Model diagrams are for personal use only",
or "For permission to sell finished models write a letter to....", or
"Finished models may be distributed or sold as long as...."

Even if there isn't a copyright law to back up the designer, at least the
folder would know what the author would prefer...and perhaps such a line
would at least make someone think about the issue (if they read copyright
pages :->).

pat slider





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 20:26:19 -0300 (ADT)
From: Gordon Crane <gordonc@mnsinc.com>
Subject: Origami Omnibus

Alas, the following much reevered books are available: Origami Omnibus:
Paperfolding for Everybody,(Kashara), Paperback version, 25.00 English
Pounds, ISBN 0 87040 699,  and Origami for the Connoisseur, (Kasahara &
Takahama), Paperback version, 18 English Pounds 95 Pence, ISBN 0 87040 670,
are very much available from Kodansha Europe Ltd., Gillingham House, 38/44,
Gillingham Street SW1V, London England, Telephone 0716300588.  Unfortunately,
Kondansha United States does not carry these two books nor plans to. I have
an established account with Kondansha United States and have gone around and
around with them trying to get these two boooks re-marketed here but with no
success.  They have told me if I want these two books I must go through
their Kondansha Europe Ltd. Office.  Any complaints can be telephoned to the
Kondansha Office 1-800-6318571.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 23:18:20 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steve Arlow <yorick@conch.aa.msen.com>
Subject: Re: Origami Analogies

Sheila Davis <sew@hpfisew.fc.hp.com> writes:
>Steve Arlow writes:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>        Yes.  Semantic difference.  What could be patented
>        is the method for folding the model (assuming you
>        met other patent requirements).

Pet peeve:

"Semantics" is the study of meaning.  If we are to have a
serious conversation, we need to understand and agree upon the
meanings of the words we are using.  A "semantic difference"
is not unimportant.

>> 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?
>>
>        Only the precise expression of the recipe or directions is
>        copyrighted.  You can quite legally make a list of ingredients
>        from a copyrighted recipe, describe the same method for
>        preparation (but use your own words) and publish it.

Yes.  By making the "specific implementation" distinction on the
line above, I meant to imply that by "recipe, or directions" I was
referring to specific expressions thereof.  Otherwise, they would
just be algorithms (which are not by any means limited to
computers).

After all, if by "directions" I had meant any equivalent
instructions for performing the same task, the bookshelves in the
computer section of my local bookstore would not be lined with
rewritten software manuals with hundreds of pages of verbiage and
virtually no useful content.  (Who buys these things, anyway?
Someone must be buying them.  Perhaps I am in the wrong business,
and should start doing trivial rewrites of shrink-wrap software
documentation....  :-/  But I digress....)

  -- 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 23:28:16 -0300 (ADT)
From: reeds@openix.com (Reeds Family)
Subject: Re: Chinese detainee art followup

Please ask about the ways the modules are built into such large, solid
looking bodies --do they use any sort of armature.

Find out more about the origins of the module in China (where exactly?) and
how it's used there.More about the guy who introduced the others--was he
always good at making things? What happened to him? Did they start
specialiing, dividing up steps of production, some doing cutting, some
rolling, some folding, some assembling, some gluing? HOw long to make a
spread-eagle, say, from start to finish?

What kinds of paper did they like best for  module? different sizes of
rectangles?

How are the pineapples put together?

Are any of the artists who did get poltiical asylum continuing to make the
modules? Any news on the fate those deported back to China?

Do they still need $ for supplies? Any other concrete form of help possible?

Thanks,
Karen

>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 23:32:06 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steve Arlow <yorick@conch.aa.msen.com>
Subject: Re: Selling models;

Brett writes:
>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.

Well, the group I belong to (AASO) has a few very creative
folders with original designs.  As such, I try to be very humble
about any designs which are largely based on someone else's work.

>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 ?

Hmm, thanks for pointing that out!  You are right, of course, and
no specific credit is given.  If anyone knows which came first,
or if it was a parallel invention, I too would be curious to know.

  -- 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 23:43:10 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steve Arlow <yorick@conch.aa.msen.com>
Subject: Re: Model For Sell

Christopher Miller writes:
>[Referring to John Smith]
>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.

Well, what would *you* do if a crowd of people gathered around
you, asking to buy the models you were showing off?  :)  I mean,
I was not about to just give them all away, not when they
represented many hours of folding time.  But neither could I just
deny these folks, who had such excited looks in their eyes.  :)

Selling models was not what I had set out to do, so I never even
considered the ethics until this thread came up.  (And I
understand that the topic has come up before, but for a few months
I had unsubscribed from this high-volume list, until I got procmail
installed -- at which point I wound up archiving most of it unread.
Only now do I have a bit more time for email (and folding!).  So
even though I first joined origami-l about two years ago, it is
only recently that I have actively rejoined the list.)

  -- 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 23:55:46 -0300 (ADT)
From: Joseph Wu <jwu@cs.ubc.ca>
Subject: Re: Selling models; [Q] for pros...

On Wed, 8 May 1996, Hamilton Edmund Link wrote:

> 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.

*Sigh* And I had so hoped to be able to stay out of this one.

What Marc is saying, and I concur, is that the creator has certain rights
to his creativity. The music industry has hit upon what appears to be a good
model that I have long thought that we should try to emulate.  Unfortunately,
it will probably be impractical for a long time to come. When you buy a piece
of music (whether it be a recording or a transcription), you have only
bought the right to use it for yourself. Additional royalties are required
for public performance (playing the recording, or playing it yourself)
WHETHER OR NOT you are charging money for that performance. The point is
that the musician retains creative control over his/her piece at all times.
Once you start doing things that take the piece out of the creator's
creative control, you must get permission, and you should pay what is asked
for. Of course, all that most creators (in the origami world) want is credit
where credit is due.

So let's not hear any more of that nonsense that published models are "in
the public domain" or that because "you are putting your own work into
creating what you sell" it's okay to sell it without permission. The
origami market is small enough as it is. Authors usually make very little
money on the books they sell (as far as I know). They make their designs
available to the public because they want to share their ideas and to give
others the opportunity to enjoy their creativity. Let's not take advantage
of their generousity!

Sorry if I sound a little overbearing in all of this. It's a subject that
touches a nerve. And, no, that's NOT why I've not finished my book yet...
I'm just a very lazy diagrammer...

Joseph Wu  <jwu@cs.ubc.ca>  <http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/jwu/origami.html>
Approach life like a voyage on a schooner. Enjoy the view. Explore the vessel.
Make friends with the Captain. Fish a little. And then get off when you get
Home.                                                     --Max Lucado





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 00:23:53 -0300 (ADT)
From: DBSH47B@prodigy.com (MRS. JANET J HAMILTON)
Subject: Re: Chicago...where does one shop?

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

> I am about to go to Chicago next week and I was wondering if someone
could
> tell me the best places to go for Origami books?  Also, I'd like to
> explore the used book stores for any finds.  Thanks.

I've never been to the places below - they have been mentioned by
others on the list:

Toguri's on Belmont between Clark and the CTA station has books and
paper.

Star Market on Clark, north of Aiko's, has some paper.  Both within
walking distance of Aiko's.

Aiko's Art Material Import Inc
3347 North Clark St.
Chicago, IL 60657
(312) 404-5600
A store of imported Japanese paper. An extensive selection of
paper types and patterns. Small supply of origami books and
pre-packaged papers.

Morning Glory,  a chain of Korean stationery stores.
Branches in the metropolitan LA, NY/NJ, Chicago, Seattle,
DC (Annandale, VA), Hawaii and Toronto areas.

Paper Source
232 West Chicago St.
Chicago, IL 60610
(312) 337-0798
The best art paper store you will find. Extensive selection of
all sorts of art and patterned papers. Upper level has a large
collection of rubber stamps and supplies. Located about a mile
west of North Michigan Avenue. Just below the Chicago Avenue El
stop, on the Ravenswood line.

Janet Hamilton
dbsh47b@prodigy.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 01:12:51 -0300 (ADT)
From: marckrsh@nyc.pipeline.com (Marc Kirschenbaum)
Subject: Re: Selling models; [Q] for pros...

On May 08, 1996 07:20:59, 'Steve Arlow <yorick@conch.aa.msen.com>' wrote:

>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?
>

I have always felt with origami there are two primary products, both the
design (distributed in the form of classes or diagrams), and a finished
instance of the model. I do agree with you that many origamists would not
be interested in purchasing something someone else folded, but the majority
of the people in the art buying market would find a folded model to be a
more desirable product than the corresponding diagrams. However, there is
an overlap in these markets, and when fighting for the consumer's dollar,
selling models would be a detraction from the sales of the book.

For example, if a crafts fair was in progress, and Robert Lang had an
origami book sales booth set up, I do not think he would be to happy to
find me selling his models without permission down the hall. My guess is
that there would be a number of people ho would be willing to have a go at
his book, but might balk out, when they found oout they could have his
models already folded at a reasonable price.

Perhaps the economic damage to Robert would be trivial (or it might even
enhance sales to have folded examples present at the show), but this is my
guess as to how an origami lawer would defend poor Robert (I am aware that
in reality, Robert is not protected from my blatant stealing by the law). I
think the reality should be that the value of creation should be protected,
and this is why I would not want to risk loosing a freindship with Robert
just to make some extra money.

>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.

I think this is becase there is much more money to be made with good
recipies than good origami models. When origami models become a valuable
commodity, my guess is that either the law will become more protective of
origami designers, or those origami designers will become reluctant to sell
their books. Hopefully, origami will gain the artistic respect it deserves;
I also hope we can also retain the level of trust in openly distributing
diagrams that we sometimes seem to take for granted.

Marc





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 01:28:32 -0300 (ADT)
From: DBSH47B@prodigy.com (MRS. JANET J HAMILTON)
Subject: Re: Chinese detainee art followup

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

> >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.

I would be interested to know if they have any information on the
history of this module.  Was the design passed down from generation to
generation, and if so, by whom (mother, father, grandparent, learned on
the playground)?  Was it learned from a book, and if so, what book or
at least how old is the book?  Maybe this could hel pus find out more
about the origin and evolution of Chinese paperfolding in general.

Janet Hamilton
dbsh47b@prodigy.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 01:32:04 -0300 (ADT)
From: DBSH47B@prodigy.com (MRS. JANET J HAMILTON)
Subject: Using published models

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

I want to add a couple more questions to the discussion of selling
origami models, but with a different twist.  I have never sold any
models.  I usually approach diagrams as a puzzle to solve, not as
something requiring my artistic interpretation.  True works of origami
art would not survive long in my house - between the cat, the kids, the
NJ humidity and temperature fluctuations.  I would find mass producing
models for commercial profit to be tedious.  I have, however, mass
produced models for certain non-profit uses.  I had folded heart boxes
(my only published original design) for a friend's wedding, cranes for
a church dinner, and flowers for centerpeices for the same dinner.

Now, the one case was an original model, the other involved traditional
models.  But would there be issues with my folding another creator's
design in mass quantities for favors at a wedding/shower/dinner, if I
were not receiving any compensation?  Or if I were receiving
compensation for the cost of the paper?

I would think that the question of someone reverse engineering the
model and thus not buying the creators book might still apply.  It
seems that the strictest interpretation of copyright law would indicate
that the models could only be made for personal use, and not given away
at all.  In fact, one might go so far as to say that public display of
the models might be enough to allow someone to reverse engineer them,
and thus would also be inappropriate without consent.

I know that common sense and respect for the author and creator are the
most important things to consider, but I am interested in getting other
opinions on this dilemma.  I would like to see more specific
information on the copyright page for origmi books - what specific uses
the author allows for disallows.

Janet Hamilton
dbsh47b@prodogiy.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 01:38:20 -0300 (ADT)
From: schary@vnet.IBM.COM
Subject: Using published models

*** Reply to note of 05/09/96 14:32
From: Sreenath Chary
    IBM Australia,FF11,
    2 Coonara Avenue,West Pennant Hills,NSW 2125
Subject: Help on ALligator model in Engels-Folding the universe
Hello,
  I recently purchased the book by Peter Engel....what a marvellous book
and fantastic photos of the models! I have now tried the alligator about
3 times, but I cannot 'open it out' to make it look 3D like in the
photo. If I try opening it out, the top of the model has this gaping
hole, and the tail cannot be opened out because of the crimps. Can
somebody help?

Thanks,

Regards,
Sreenath
VNET ID: SYDVM1(SREENATH)  (Ph : 61-2-354-7495)





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 02:07:10 -0300 (ADT)
From: marckrsh@nyc.pipeline.com (Marc Kirschenbaum)
Subject: Re: Selling models;

On May 07, 1996 22:29:57, 'Steve Arlow <yorick@conch.aa.msen.com>' wrote:

>Well, typically I either teach or trade.  I can't draw, though I
>often hang out with people who can, so I trade origami for drawings
>and sketches and such.  Once, though, when I was at an SF convention,
>I got an "oooh! I have to have that, how much do you want for
>it?", I charged $2 for (IIRC) a Montroll fox made out of cheap 5"
>gold foil.  Soon enough I was surrounded by a small crowd, and I
>sold several other models...
>
>This is why I want to put a few better pieces up for auction,
>that will tell me what the *real* market value is.
>

This can be very hard to determine. You can sell the same piece of artwork
at a museum for a lot more money at a museum than a crafts fair, simply
because the venue suggests a certain level of price. If you can manage to
sell your work away from a crafts fair atmosphere, the craft stigma on
origami os often removed, and higher prices are more easily commanded.
Another big factor is who folded the piece.  People seem to be much more
excited to pay more money for a piece folded by the creator, than for a
piece folded by someone else (even if the folding is of a higher caliber).
I realize in origami both the creator and the folder are probably unknowns
in the art world, but the idea that a creators work is much more valuable
seems to carry over. One of the models I had sold for $100, I had found out
was a difficult sell at a crafts fair for $5 (folded by someone else). I
felt kind of insulted by the whole transaction, especially after finding
out the cost of materials cost nearly $5!

>Now, here is a good one for you:  What do I do when the model
>comes from a book with only japanese text, and I have no idea
>who the creator is?  I suppose I can simply ask here, and
>hope that someone will know.  But what if no-one here knows,
>or if I can't adequately explain, say, just which peacock I
>am referring to, or whatever.  How do I seek permission then?
>

If you are selling on a small scale, you of course can get away with it. It
would be a very embarassing situation if you were to sell the model at an
origami, and the creator would turn out to be one of the attendees. If you
are planning about getting serious in selling your origami, Origami USA
strongly encourages obtainig the creator's permission. With models of
foriegn origin, it is possible to get the necessary text translated
(Japanese bookstores seem like a good resource), and the origami comminity
on a whole seems to be knowlagable enough to determine the identity of the
creator in question. If this seems like a lot of trouble, picking a
substitute model seems like the only sensible solution.

Marc





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 02:22:33 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steve Arlow <yorick@conch.aa.msen.com>
Subject: Re: Selling models; [Q] for pros...

Joseph Wu <jwu@cs.ubc.ca> writes:
>On Wed, 8 May 1996, Hamilton Edmund Link wrote:
>
>> I don't think you can really say that one who sells origami creations is
>> cutting into anyone elses sales.  [...]
>>                        [...]        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.
>
>*Sigh* And I had so hoped to be able to stay out of this one.
>
>What Marc is saying, and I concur, is that the creator has certain rights
>to his creativity. The music industry has hit upon what appears to be a good
>model that I have long thought that we should try to emulate.  Unfortunately,
>it will probably be impractical for a long time to come. When you buy a piece
>of music (whether it be a recording or a transcription), you have only
>bought the right to use it for yourself. Additional royalties are required
>for public performance (playing the recording, or playing it yourself)
>WHETHER OR NOT you are charging money for that performance. The point is
>that the musician retains creative control over his/her piece at all times.
          ^^^^^^^^ or composer, for that matter

>So let's not hear any more of that nonsense that published models are "in
>the public domain" or that because "you are putting your own work into
>creating what you sell" it's okay to sell it without permission.

This is certainly true; published models are not "in the public
domain", nor is "putting your own work in..." adequate
justification for a right to sell folded models.  And neither
do profit or quantity matter in determining whether a copyright
violation has occurred, except in certain circumstances where a
single copy for personal use is permitted.

But neither does the "Music" analogy hold water.  Music is either
a recording, a score, or a performance.  And performing music
yourself is no less a violation of the creator's rights than if a
recording of that performance is made and distributed.  So by this
"musical" analogy, you had better not be folding someone else's
model in a public place!

Moreover, the typical distribution of music is in recorded form
(copyright does not allow transcription of a recording, BTW),
which does not give explicit instructions on how another musician
can duplicate the recording.  This is analagous to selling only
finished models and the same copyright would by analogy prohibit
the reverse-engineering of the model to determine how it is
folded.  When music is sold as sheet-music and instructions, it
is invariably accompanied by terms of performance and a bunch of
ASCAP and/or BMI verbiage (IANAM).  Books of origami designs have
no such language -- at least, none of the books that I've seen --
and there is no ASCAP or Harry Fox Agency for the origami world.
Finally, copyright law draws a clear distinction between music
and other copyrightable works.

So the form, sale, and distribution of Origami is all very
different from that of music, and I don't think that music makes
for a very good analogy from which to extrapolate.

If we were to look stricly at U. S. Copyright Law, [1] the
essential question would be this:  Is the origami model, as
designed by the creator,

  (A)  A sculptural work of art, or

  (B)  An algorithm for the process of folding a piece of paper
       into a particular shape?

If it is (A), then an accurate reproduction of the sculpture (with
or without the use/existance of diagrams) is covered by the
creator's copyright.  In this case, you cannot fold more than a
single copy of a model for your own personal use without express
permission from the copyright holder.

Whether the publication of detailed instructions without any
language restricting their implementation constitutes tacit
permission or waiver of specific copyright protections through
willful negligence would be a question for the courts to decide,
but in general the case-law on copyright defaults towards the
copyright-holder -- as opposed to patent and trademark law,
where the reverse is generally true.  (It is rather hard to lose
one's copyright protection through non-enforcement, while it is
very easy to lose patent or trademark protection through non-
enforcement.)

If it is (B), however, then only the design diagrams -- and in
fact, the *specific expression* of the design, would be covered
by the creator's copyright.  In this case, you could draw your
own diagrams, perhaps re-ordering a few folds, and write your own
text, describing how to make Lang's Stag Beetle; re-name the
model, and publish it in your own book, under your own name,
without giving any kind of credit or royalty to Robert Lang.

Unless Lang [2] had somehow protected the model under trademark
or patent law, he would have no recourse at all.  Whether Lang
could successfully argue that the "pirated" design diagrams
constitute a derivative work from his original diagrams would
again be a matter for the courts to decide, but I would not be
at all optimistic, because in scenario (B) the design is just
like a (generic) recipe.

Neither of these scenarios seems desirable, but then, as I
said in the preface to this discussion, this only considers the
legal aspects.  Rules of professional ethics need not be in
accordance with the law, and in fact are often directly in
opposition to them -- look at the ethical standards for doctors,
for example, which often require them to violate the law;
likewise journalists, and so on.

Therefore, this discussion of how copyright law applies to
origami need not *necessarily* have any bearing on what OUSA
determines to be the ethical standards for folders.

No answers here, only more questions.

  -- Steve Arlow

[1]  See Circular 40 of the U. S. Copyright Office, which can
     be found at
     <a href="gopher://marvel.loc.gov/00/.ftppub/copyright/circs/circ40">
     Visual Arts (Circular 40)
     </a>

[2]  I am trying to pick a different creator to use as
     an example in each letter, lest anyone think I'm
     picking on them.  -- SEA

--
 "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: Thu, 9 May 1996 02:41:10 -0300 (ADT)
From: Vincent & Veronique <osele@worldnet.fr>
Subject: Elementary fold

Hi,

After our thread on Fold Hierarchy, I have created a page on simple
Folds. Even if it will not help good folders, it could help beginner
to have the origami's terminology (I hope that).
It's on:
  http://www.worldnet.fr/~osele/plibase.htm

On this elementary folds, I have a question about Crimp. For a
friend, a Crimp is 2 folds that are connected together on one side of
the paper. I'm not sure, and I will prefer to say that it is 2 _near_
folds, one mountain with one valley (that can be connected but not
mandatory).
What do you think of that?

Vincent...

 _______                                                     _____
|       | Osele Vincent                   Membre du MFPP    /|    |
|       | osele@worldnet.fr                                /_|    |
|       | http://www.wordlnet.fr/~osele/origami.htm       |       |
|_______| -----------------> ORIGAMI -------------------> |_______|





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 02:44:32 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steve Arlow <yorick@conch.aa.msen.com>
Subject: Re: Selling models;

Marc writes:
>On May 07, 1996 22:29:57, 'Steve Arlow <yorick@conch.aa.msen.com>' wrote:
>>               [...]    Once, though, when I was at an SF convention,
>>I got an "oooh! I have to have that, how much do you want for
>>it?", I charged $2 for (IIRC) a Montroll fox made out of cheap 5"
>>gold foil.  Soon enough I was surrounded by a small crowd, and I
>>sold several other models...
>>
>>This is why I want to put a few better pieces up for auction,
>>that will tell me what the *real* market value is.
>
>This can be very hard to determine. You can sell the same piece of artwork
>at a museum for a lot more money at a museum than a crafts fair, simply
>because the venue suggests a certain level of price.   [...]

In other words, the market value in "which market"?  I was
referring to the market in which the above anecdote took place.

As much as I enjoy folding paper, it is *never* going to make me
anything like the kind of money I make professionally.  So I
really am not personally interested in trying to sell folds to
art galleries and such.  I do realize, however, that others might
want to sell origami in the fine-art market.

>>Now, here is a good one for you:  What do I do when the model
>>comes from a book with only japanese text, and I have no idea
>>who the creator is?  [...]
>
>                                              [...]    With models of
>foriegn origin, it is possible to get the necessary text translated
>(Japanese bookstores seem like a good resource), and the origami comminity
>on a whole seems to be knowlagable enough to determine the identity of the
>creator in question.

Now that I think about it, I have enough translation resources
available to me if I really need them, that I doubt that it would
be a problem.  I will retract the question.  :)

  -- 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: Thu, 9 May 1996 04:32:09 -0300 (ADT)
From: stevew@empnet.com
Subject: Re: Origami Analogies (was Re: Selling models; [Q] for pros...)

On Wed, 8 May 1996, Gretchen Klotz <gren@agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
>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/
>
>
>
Here are some examples that come to my mind given this criteria:

        * 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)

Home improvement books ("Build Your Own Patio")
Sewing patterns
Jewelry making books (most of which state they promote *fun* and *profit*)
'Kit' cars
Macrame books (this shows my age!)
Candle making books (see Jewelry reference)

I'm certainly no legal expert but it seems beyond ridiculous to think that it
is legal to create something based on an openly published design but that the
builder / folder / creator must make some kind of internal covenant never to
sell the object.  Anyone who authors a book explaining how to make something
is not being realistic if they don't recognize that someone may want to make
money off of their labors.

If this truly becomes a strong issue, perhaps craft books will experiment
with some version of the 'shareware' honor system.  Those who feel morally
obligated can salve their overactive consciences with a contribution to the
author; those who feel otherwise may abstain.

No judgments, just my $ .02 (possibly less).

P.S. - I've never charged for any of my pieces.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 04:40:45 -0300 (ADT)
From: stevew@empnet.com
Subject: Re: Model For Sell

On Wed, 8 May 1996, unhinged@yrkpa.kias.com wrote:
>
>
>>
>> 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
>
        I agree with you completely in the sense that Origami has so many
spiritual sides to it and is such a gentle yet powerful art form that it is
pure snobbery to refuse to share techniques or to discuss the art form.  It
is a pretty clear broadcast that the individual has missed the point by a
mile.

Steve





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 11:29:42 -0300 (ADT)
From: unhinged@yrkpa.kias.com
Subject: Re: Chinese detainee art followup

I can answer a couple of your quesitons.

OIne of the "Chief artists" (who I call "Xang Gui"  in my paper) was sent
back, fate unkonwn.  A couple of the others have been sent back as well,
word has come back that they were severely beaten. Sources aren't
always reliable for specific or timely information about them.

It doesn't look good.  Since I don't want to make the artist
uncomfortable, I probably won't be bringing pencil and paper in(might
look like a reporteR).  So I'll have to proceed strictly on memory.  I'l
report back on the results.

On Wed, 8 May 1996, Reeds Family wrote:

> Please ask about the ways the modules are built into such large, solid
> looking bodies --do they use any sort of armature.
>
> Find out more about the origins of the module in China (where exactly?) and
> how it's used there.More about the guy who introduced the others--was he
> always good at making things? What happened to him? Did they start
> specialiing, dividing up steps of production, some doing cutting, some
> rolling, some folding, some assembling, some gluing? HOw long to make a
> spread-eagle, say, from start to finish?
>
> What kinds of paper did they like best for  module? different sizes of
> rectangles?
>
> How are the pineapples put together?
>
> Are any of the artists who did get poltiical asylum continuing to make the
> modules? Any news on the fate those deported back to China?
>
> Do they still need $ for supplies? Any other concrete form of help possible?
>
> Thanks,
> Karen
>
>
> >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: Thu, 9 May 1996 11:33:15 -0300 (ADT)
From: Brett <BrettAndJill@OIA.Net>
Subject: Re: Selling models;

At 06:12 PM 5/8/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Perhaps the creator of a model should make his own wishes clear when he
>publishes a model, perhaps adding a line to the copyright page in a book
>somehow? Some legalise stating "Model diagrams are for personal use only",
>or "For permission to sell finished models write a letter to....", or
>"Finished models may be distributed or sold as long as...."
>
>Even if there isn't a copyright law to back up the designer, at least the
>folder would know what the author would prefer...and perhaps such a line
>would at least make someone think about the issue (if they read copyright
>pages :->).
>
>pat slider

That is a nice idea. Only it might actually get lawyers involved to draw up
the statements (shudder) ;)

Brett
BrettAndJill@OIA.Net





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 11:33:43 -0300 (ADT)
From: Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com
Subject: Re: origami math

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 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 not very interesting.

>>(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: Thu, 9 May 1996 11:52:56 -0300 (ADT)
From: bob@maggie.pentek.com (Bob)
Subject: Re: Jeremy Shafer

Hi All,

A few weeks ago a thread was started about an Escher-esque model of hands
folding themselves by Jeremy Shafer.  At the time Charles Knuffke mentioned
that he may be able to post info about back issues of BARF.  Just wondering
if it I missed the post, and how do I order back issues.  Particularly the
one with the folding hands.

Thanks,
Bob
bob@pentek.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 11:53:10 -0300 (ADT)
From: Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com
Subject: Repeat message [Was: Re: origami math]

Sorry about the repeated message. Sometimes I receive email
mailed to the list moments after it was mailed. Other times, it
takes a full 24 hours.

Yesterday seems to have included both of those times.

Happy computing!
Lisa





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 11:56:28 -0300 (ADT)
From: Kristine Tomlinson <ktomlinson@platinum.com>
Subject: Need help with translation

    Hi everyone,

    Can anyone help with the Japanese word for the traditional offering
    table model (blintz base)?  Isao Honda's book calls it a "Sambo";
    Hideaka(?) Sakata's book calls it a "Sanbo".  Which is correct?

    Also, somewhat less origami-related ...

    I had a chop (stamp) made for signing my models.  The carver also did
    the translation, but he's primarily an artist, so we had difficulty
    communicating.

    So, I didn't get to ask him why some chops are red characters on white,
    while others are white characters on red.  Most Japanese ink paintings
    I've seen have one of each (and then maybe publisher's and censor's
    stamps).  Do any of you know if there's any meaning to the choice, or
    know of sources you can point me to?  The artist is Chinese, but I
    think the usage is consistent between China and Japan.

    BTW, I'm having smaller rubber stamps made from it for use on
    differently sized models, boxes, and so on.  Rubber stamps and regular
    ink work better on kami than the traditional materials which work best
    on rice paper and can smear.  In the future, I may have it made into an
    embossed stamp for use on gold foil "poem papers" I attach to hanging
    models.

    Thanks in advance,

    Kristine
    ktomlinson@trinzic.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 13:32:07 -0300 (ADT)
From: GURKEWITZ@WCSUB.CTSTATEU.EDU
Subject: Re: Chinese detainee art followup

     I went to the exhibit in NY yesterday. The exhibit is moving to
Phildelphia Friday. I got a book with a diagram of a module and
quite a few B+W pictures. Ordered a video that will be available
soon.
     The exhibit was very interesting, especially for people interested
in modular folding. They were selling models from the exhibit, all of
them as far as I can tell from what was left. The models will be delivered
after the exhibit in Philadelphia is over.
      The module in the book is credited to someone. The pieces are not
signed. The book says that over 7000 models have been sold and have
raised over $100,000 . I'm not sure what this means with respect to
a market in modular origami.

Rona





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 14:42:18 -0300 (ADT)
From: Iron Will Dawes <wdawes@cs.nmsu.edu>
Subject: "sambo" ka "sanbo" ka

  Here's one of the side effects of using a syllabary. The word is
pronounced "sambo". However, it is romanized "sanbo" (and written with
the hiragana character for "n"). Take your pick; a Japanese-speaker
would recognize either.
                              -Will





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 15:08:38 -0300 (ADT)
From: "Shi-Yew Chen (a.k.a. Sy)" <sychen@leatherback.nist.gov>
Subject: Re: Need help with translation

At 11:56 AM 5/9/96 -0300, Kristine wrote:
>    Can anyone help with the Japanese word for the traditional offering
>    table model (blintz base)?  Isao Honda's book calls it a "Sambo";
>    Hideaka(?) Sakata's book calls it a "Sanbo".  Which is correct?
>

I don't have any of above books. I think "Sanbo" is more correct.
For romanization I would prefer using "Sanbou" instead of "Sanbo".
Its kanji meaning is 3 sided offering stand. Is above model three-sided?
I gusss traditional one should be 3-sided.

I enclose its hiragana and kanji form as following ASCII picture in case you
are curious.

for hiragana:

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

for Kanji

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

|-------------------------------------------------------\
|  _  Sy Chen <chens@iia.org or sychen@enh.nist.gov>    |\
| |_| Folding Page http://www.iia.org/~chens/pprfld.htm --\





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 15:22:55 -0300 (ADT)
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Origami Analogies (was Re: Selling models; [Q] for pros...)

[Eric says: So does this mean that making a Montroll model
 is technically illegal?

Emphatically NO!

Copyrighting the model means the same as copyrighting a
sculpture or painting. You're copyrighting the physical
(tangible) expression of an artistic idea, which essentially
means that it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to make a copy. That's
why most folders - as I said - consider copyrighting the
individual models no more useful than simply signing it.

It has no effect whatever on someone else making "a copy",
even if they use "the same" materials, it won't be "the same"
as the the actual physical model you copyrighted.

In real life, the only copyrightable aspects of origami for
which copyright serves any useful purpose are diagrams (it is
the "art work" or drawings, not the IDEA or PROCESS, that are
being copyrighted; they could be drawings of your dog as far
as the copyright protection goes), video or audio tapes, written
directions, computer graphics and digital forms of diagrams,
videos, audios, which all come under the
copyright protection in the same way other art works, written,
audio, video etc. works do.

Maybe a closer analogy would be that you can't copyright a
dance performance. You CAN copyright a written description
or coding of the choreography, the music, a video of the
performance, etc.

As Tom Hull commented, the copyright laws and origami make
an odd couple - even more so perhaps than the digital world.

--valerie
Valerie Vann
75070.304@compuserve.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 15:27:08 -0300 (ADT)
From: "Ashley G. Perrien" <perr2232@kutztown.edu>
Subject: Joseph Wu's Book

On Wed, 8 May 1996, Joseph Wu wrote:

> Sorry if I sound a little overbearing in all of this. It's a subject that
> touches a nerve. And, no, that's NOT why I've not finished my book yet...
> I'm just a very lazy diagrammer...
>
You're writing a book??? Of the stuff on your homepage????
ALLRIGHT!!!!!!! When can I reserve my copy?

Ashley P
