




From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 09:23:18 -0700
Subject: Re: A Book Question
Importance: Normal

<I have a friend who lent an Origami book  to someone years ago and never
<got it back.  She would love to get a new copy of it if it is still in
<print.  The problem is that she doesn't remember the name or the author
<of the book.  Here is a partial list of models that she remembers ad
<being in the book.
<
<A letter fold (possibly from A4) that when complete is a rectangle shape
<with two diagonal corners turned in,  a Box pleated sports car, a
<mustache and a Santa Claus.
<
<Any ideas?

"The Complete Origami Course" by Paul Jackson. The car is the "bugatti".

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t:604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331   e: josephwu@ultranet.ca





From: "Bedrick, Scott" <Scott.Bedrick@PFIZER.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 09:42:17 -0400
Subject: A Book Question

I have a friend who lent an Origami book  to someone years ago and never
got it back.  She would love to get a new copy of it if it is still in
print.  The problem is that she doesn't remember the name or the author
of the book.  Here is a partial list of models that she remembers ad
being in the book.

A letter fold (possibly from A4) that when complete is a rectangle shape
with two diagonal corners turned in,  a Box pleated sports car, a
mustache and a Santa Claus.

Any ideas?





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 10:01:34 -0400
Subject: Re: New Books

Perry Bailey wrote:

+explaining the extraordinary low price.  Though I do have the original
+and if any one needed a picture from the books color plates, I could
+scan it in and e-mail it to them.

C'mon, that's (flagrant) violation of copyright.  Lets keep this
list legal, please.

This message is as good as any to use as a spring board, I'm not picking on
Perry in particular...

A while ago I started a message in reply to Valerie Vann's message
about "oh neat, I want the diagrams" frustration.

As far as I am aware, the origami community in the west, and certainly
in the states, has grown up with a nearly compulsive sharing, not just
of models, but also of diagrams.  )Perhaps it could not have flourished
without such compulsiveness.)  As a result, it seems that many in the
origami community have come not only to expect free, or at least "at
copy cost" access to diagrams, but also to expect diagrams for any
finished model they see.  And as Valerie has noted, this is often just
a grubbing demand for more booty.  I exagerate to make a point, but it
is less of an exaggeration than it seems.

The fact is that most diagrams are published at a loss.  Neither
Montroll nor Lang are folding on a private secluded tropical island, and
neither are most other authors, let alone origami diagram authors.
Even considering the legalities, its hard enough to find books as it is
without discouraging publishers, creators and authors by ripping off
their work.  But how much an author does or doesn't make isn't really
relevant.  I am gratefully amazed at how much gets published at the expense
of the creators.  (Actually, there can be no moral argument on the unfair
distribution of wealth if there isn't any wealth to distribute, not even
publishers make much of it, at least not from origami books).

Models and diagrams _are_ the work, and the property of their creators
(or copyright holders).  And theirs to share under what ever terms they
see fit.  How many origami books are in the public domain?  Odd, isn't
it, that origami books today have copyrights?  Why those selfish
origami masters....  (that's irony)

In the frenzy of sharing it seems that a simple truth has gotten lost.
No folder has a _right_ to any diagrams or photos, however poor or lazy or
however "challenged" they may be.  That there has been a history of
violating copyright laws, or nods given to violators, does not confer
rights upon the violators.  Two wrongs, ten wrongs, or a thousand do
not make a right.  Valid use can only be granted by the lawful
copyright holder.

If you've read this far, you might think I am a heartless bastard
protecting the wealth of robber barons (I exaggerate... maybe!).  But
I'm not.  I am extremely grateful to all the authors who have and do
share their work, either as exhibits, photos, diagrams or however...
And no amount of "appreciation" on my part gives me the moral or legal
right to take someone else's work and use it without their permission.
I am enriched in many ways, some hard to put into words, by the sharing
that creators have done, but that does not entitle me to take
their work without permission.  Further, that some creators are willing
to put their work up on free access FTP/Web/online sites does not
dimish the work they have done, nor does it give away rights to other
works, either of theirs or other creators.  If you wish to make and
give away soap, you are free to do so, but I am not free to steal it
from the corner grocery store because you are giving it away.  I think it
is far to easy to forget just how valuable those resources are, and
instead equate easy of access with cheap/little value.

The question is when is it time for the origami community to grow up
and start acting responsibly?  That means not abusing other people's
work as well as standing up and objecting when others do.

-Doug





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 11:27:48 -0700
Subject: Re: Books
Importance: Normal

<-Origami is strictly considered a craft, rather than an art.

Hardly. Have you not seen the works by people like Lang, Yoshizawa, Joisel,
LaFosse, etc? There is a craft aspect to origami, but there is also art. To deny
that is to deny the "heart" of origami.

<-I wonder if a pay per view website would ever be used by anyone? Along the
<lines of $1 per month, and the money used to pay for bandwidth, etc, a kind
<of online magazine. What does everyone think of this? Would you all
<subcribe, or would only one of you do so and e mail the diagrams to
<everyone else :) Seems like a cool thing to do, if such trip ups can be
<avoided, and if enough models can be added - the village site is GREAT for
<free, but the range of diagrams is a little...unusual! Also, pdf is not
<available to everyone (a lot of folks, yes...but...)

This is already in production, but not exactly as you suggest. Wait and see! We
should be up by the end of the summer.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t:604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331   e: josephwu@ultranet.ca





From: Bernie Cosell <bernie@FANTASYFARM.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 11:54:51 -0500
Subject: Re: New Books
Priority: normal

On 12 May 98 at 10:01, Doug Philips wrote:

> As far as I am aware, the origami community in the west, and certainly
> in the states, has grown up with a nearly compulsive sharing, not just
> of models, but also of diagrams....
> ... As a result, it seems that many in the
> origami community have come not only to expect free, or at least "at
> copy cost" access to diagrams, but also to expect diagrams for any
> finished model they see.

 [...]

> The question is when is it time for the origami community to grow up
> and start acting responsibly?  That means not abusing other people's
> work as well as standing up and objecting when others do.

And I wonder if the origami community is ready for the next stage of copyright
honoring: which is realizing that an origami model of <something> is a derived
work of that <something> and so if the <something> is copyrighted you need
permssion to *make*the*model* in the first place.  [including Paramount Pictures
space vehicles and Disney cartoon characters and such]

   /Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell                     Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com     Pearisburg, VA
    -->  Too many people, too few sheep  <--





From: Sheldon Ackerman <ackerman@DORSAI.ORG>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 11:58:08 -0400
Subject: Origami sighting

In Andrew Vachss' new novel (should that be Vachss's), Safe House
we learn that Max is into origami as well. Here is one paragraph:

Max's face went into repose. But his hands were busy, fingers flying now. He
was creating more sculptures, duplicates of the ones he'd already made, as
precise as a cookie-cutter. If I hadn't seen him do this before, when he
made an entire origami chess set for his daughter, Flower, I would have been
astounded. Even so, I had to shake my head in wonderment....

--
---
Sheldon Ackerman.......http://www.dorsai.org/~ackerman/
ackerman@dorsai.org
sheldon_ackerman@fc1.nycenet.edu





From: Sah5234 <Sah5234@AOL.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:14:17 -0400 (
Subject: Re: ORIGAMI PAPER THAT GLOWS

hey, I have made Yoda and the X-Wing but not the Tie Fighter.  I would like to
know where to find the Tie Fighter if there is one.  Thanks!

Stephen





From: RGS467 <RGS467@AOL.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:16:59 -0400 (
Subject: FLAME-BAIT (was Re: New Books)

In a message dated 98-05-12 11:21:10 EDT, you write:

<< ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU >>
Point taken, D'gou.... You can climb down off that soap box now.

In jest,   Russell.





From: Nigel Pottle <fowlerj1@CADVISION.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:47:25 -0600
Subject: Re: A Book Question

This sounds like Paul Jackson's Origami 1-2-3, also known as The Complete
Origami Course. It does certainly have a moustache and a box pleated
Bugatti, a letter fold, and I do believe a Santa Claus. I don't have a copy
- I borrow it from the public library when I'm desperate.

Nigel Pottle (fowlerj1@cbe.ab.ca)

----------
> From: Bedrick, Scott <Scott.Bedrick@PFIZER.COM>
> To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: A Book Question
> Date: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 7:42 AM
>
> I have a friend who lent an Origami book  to someone years ago and never
> got it back.  She would love to get a new copy of it if it is still in
> print.
> A letter fold (possibly from A4) that when complete is a rectangle shape
> with two diagonal corners turned in,  a Box pleated sports car, a
> mustache and a Santa Claus.
>
> Any ideas?





From: Steve Woodmansee <stevew@EMPNET.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 13:47:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Introduction From Hillsboro, Oregon

<snip> "I don't remember the name, but I remember my origami bible at the
time was a pocket-book sized paperback with a good selection of folds."

Sounds like it might have been one Harbin's books...?

Steve Woodmansee
stevew@empnet.com





From: Eric Andersen <ema@NETSPACE.ORG>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 14:23:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Books

On Tue, 12 May 1998, Dr. Stephen O'Hanlon wrote:

> -Origami is strictly considered a craft, rather than an art.

I wouldn't make this assumption. There are some on this list who have had
their works displayed in museums (Michael LaFosse comes to mind), and
others (including myself) have been commissioned to fold models for trade
shows and similar displays. When I am getting paid $100 or more per model,
I consider my finished models to be valuable pieces of art.

-Eric :-P
new (additional) email address: origami@netspace.org

/=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\
\   Eric Andersen                                       /
/    Mathematics and Music          ~  ~ __o            \
\     math@brown.edu              ~  ~ _-\<'_           /
/      ema@netspace.org        ~    ~ (_)/ (_)          \
\=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/
      *** http://www.netspace.org/users/ema/ ***





From: Lisa Hodsdon <Lisa_Hodsdon@HMCO.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 14:37:47 -0400
Subject: Art/Craft [was Re: Books]

I've been having the art/craft conversation elsewhere,
so I can't let this pass without comment.

Dr S.G.O'Hanlon (fishgoth@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
>Origami is strictly considered a craft, rather than an art.
>Hence a model is technically something that can be reproduced
>from scratch without infringing copyright.

Strictly or not, certainly *some* origami is art. The art pieces
are those that *can't* be reproduced*. Perhaps this is the
case because diagrams are not available. Perhaps this is the
case because the folder has added their own touches that
raise the model above what can be made with existing
diagrams.

As I see it, origami artists have the right to be annoyed by the
insistence of admirers that they should be able to get diagrams
of anything they like. When a model is on the art side of the
art/craft divide, diagramming becomes extremely difficult (if not
impossible) and uncomfortable. Uncomfortable, because in no
other medium is the artist expected to provide instructions to
his/her admirers for how to recreate the artwork. Somehow
I don't think *copyright* is an issue in the art/craft debate.

On the other hand, when members of the origami community go to
the effort of creating diagrams and getting books published, they
certainly deserve our book-buying support. Writing & publishing
origami books probably will never be very lucrative, but it will be less
so---meaning fewer books will be published meaning fewer diagrams
will be made available---if we photocopy library books rather than
buying the ones that are in print.

Lisa
Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com

*Disclaimer: I make no claim that this is a completely correct (or
the only correct) way to determine whether a model is art.





From: Andy Carpenter <Andy.Carpenter@MCI.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:00:26 -0600
Subject: Anyone interested in proof reading diagrams for a sheep?
Importance: Normal

All

Recently I designed and diagramed a model of a sheep. Before I post the
diagrams to the Origami Interest Group I would like someone (if anyone is
interested) to review the diagrams and provide me feedback.

I can provide the diagrams in .vst (visio), .ps or .pdf format. Please email
me privately if interested and I will forward the diagrams back to you
electronically. My email is Andy.Carpenter@mci.com.

P.S This is the first model I have ever produced and was inspired by the
photograph of one of Yoshizawa's sheep in Paul Jackson's "The Encyclopedia
of Origami & Papercraft Techniques". I make no pretense that my model is in
the same league as this but for a first time model I have to admit to being
immensely proud of myself.





From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:18:24 -0400
Subject: Re: New Books

Bernie is right (as usual <GR> :-)
about the Walt Disney mouse characters:

Even if the web site owner has the model creator's
permission to distribute the diagrams of the Mickey
and Minnie Mouse on the Web, Disney Corp. would probably
have something negative to say about it.

Disney is super sensitive about reproduction of their
materials; they may even have the Mickey Mouse etc names
trademarked (more probably than not, in fact). They
routinely troll the Web, print, clothing, etc etc markets,
for violations of their rights, which are *extensive*.

Another supersensitive copyright/trademark holder is
the manufacturer of LEGO toys. And some European toy
manufacturers such as Lehmann (makers of the big LGB
toy trains) won't even allow *DEALERS* to display the
trademark except under the most tightly controlled
conditions  (as an authorized dealer), nor would they
allow its use on a fan club newsletter unless the club
agreed to print no other company's advertizing.

So don't assume you won't hear from the Disney legal
department just because you're running a personal not-for-profit
web site....

However, with the book in question, the publisher (Dover?)
was probably trying to keep cost of the re-issue to an
minimum, and the color plates were the first to go. But that
doesn't extinguish their copyright to the plates.

A legal alternative to copying the color plates from the
earlier edition (though Bernie might argue with me on this
point), would be for a bunch of folders to fold all the
models, take their own photos, and post those photos on
a web site.

Valerie





From: Bernie Cosell <bernie@FANTASYFARM.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:53:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Books
Priority: normal

On 12 May 98 at 17:43, Dr. Stephen O'Hanlon wrote:

I know other folk have commented on the, but I feel the need for a meta-comment
on this point:

> A few points to add to the argument :
>
> -Origami is strictly considered a craft, rather than an art. Hence a model
> is technically something that can be reproduced from scratch without
> infringing copyright.

If you can find a court-decision to that effect, I'd like to hear about it.  I
just skimmed [admittedly cursorily] the copyright law and I didn't see a
mention of the term "craft".  The problem, if there is one, would involve
originality [that is, you can hardly copyright an octagonal box, although I
suspect you could copyright a particular -pattern- produced by the interlocking
and folding].  If you can elaborate a bit more both on the legal underpinnings
of the 'craft' distinction and its application to origami, I'd appreciate it.

Note that the situation is different if one has "directions".  Diagrams are
intended to have models made from them, and so for-sure there's no copyright
there in "executing" a diagram [but on the other hand, you need the permission
of the copyright holder of whatever-it-is you're diagramming before you can
make it!!]

> ...  However, diagrams and books ARE subject to copyright;
> the distribution of these without the permission of their creator (or
> whoever enforces the copyright) is illegal. So that if someone produces
> diagrams for a Montroll Model that are not directly copied from his book,
> but rather are subject to another's interpretataion, then this is not
> strictly a breach of copyright.

IT would not infrige the copyright on the diagrams, but might well infringe the
diagram on the -model-.

> -I guess that the actual procedure of folding a model could be patented. As
> a result, I have applied for the patent for the bird base, and will only
> charge $1 per attempt, should this patent be granted, or 50 cents for
> members on this reading list ;-)

Sounds great.. how many hundred years of prior-art would you like us'uns to
pony up? :o)

> -I wonder if a pay per view website would ever be used by anyone? Along the
> lines of $1 per month, and the money used to pay for bandwidth, etc, a kind
> of online magazine. What does everyone think of this? Would you all
> subcribe, or would only one of you do so and e mail the diagrams to
> everyone else :) Seems like a cool thing to do, if such trip ups can be
> avoided, and if enough models can be added - the village site is GREAT for
> free, but the range of diagrams is a little...unusual! Also, pdf is not
> available to everyone (a lot of folks, yes...but...)

This is a mixed bag [and for many the heartbreak of the Internet].  I subscribe
to the New York Times [via their pay-for-play website] and the WSJ also has a
pay-for-play website.  I've ordered [and paid for] articles from on-line
newspaper archives.  So there's a least one sucker contributing -some- money to
the world of pay-to-web...  BUT: overall, I think it is a VERY tricky and
difficult world to try to make money in, for two reasons:

  1) there's a *HUGE* [unbelievably huge!] amount of information out there
     available for free, and so it is a tough row to hoe to convince folk
     that your stuff is special enough to merit paying for.
  2) there are a -lot- of folk on the internet [not just we origamians] that
     have a rather self-serving view of copyright, and so you should *expect*
     that your stuff is going to turn up hither and yon  [allowing copyright
     holders to deal with this problem is part of what the new UCC-2B will
     be dealing with]

I'm not sure about an online magazine [I suspect that Joseph has thought about
this], but one possibility for the origami world would be to mimic what many
newpapers do these days: instead of having the diagram archives freely
available, you could have a "pay to download" site with just pictures of the
models.  [If Valerie had done this, should could probably have retired on the
proceeds from the Magic-Rose Cube..:o)]

  /Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell                     Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com     Pearisburg, VA
    -->  Too many people, too few sheep  <--





From: Maldon7929 <Maldon7929@AOL.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 16:54:49 -0400 (
Subject: Re: Intro from Hillsboro

Hello Charles,

There is an Origami group in the Portland area called POPS (Portland Oregon
Paper Shapers).   If you are interested contact Stasia van Buskirk:
vanbuskirk@bergen.nclack.k12.or.us.  They meet on the third Sunday of the
month.

Maldon Wilson

P.S. Do check into the selection of books at Powells on West Burnside in
Portland.  Since they carry used books you may find some real treasures.





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 17:18:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Origami Photos

Valerie Vann wrote:

> A legal alternative to copying the color plates from the
> earlier edition (though Bernie might argue with me on this
> point), would be for a bunch of folders to fold all the
> models, take their own photos, and post those photos on
> a web site.

I think that is a great idea!  I hesitate to throw my hat into the virtual
ring, but if I do get around to it before the convention, I'll post the URL's
for the photos.  It would be cool to do this for a lot of other books to.
Actually, it would be tres cool to have good photos of models linked into
V'Ann's database...  The text descriptions are helpful, but really give no clue
when it comes to deciding if you should try to find a copy of a book in order
to get a look at the diagrams/photos for a model.

-D'gou
--
end
<a href="http://www.pgh.net/~dwp">Doug's Fun Page</a>





From: "Dr. Stephen O'Hanlon" <fishgoth@DIAL.PIPEX.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 17:43:27 +0100
Subject: Re: Books

A few points to add to the argument :

-Origami is strictly considered a craft, rather than an art. Hence a model
is technically something that can be reproduced from scratch without
infringing copyright. However, diagrams and books ARE subject to copyright;
the distribution of these without the permission of their creator (or
whoever enforces the copyright) is illegal. So that if someone produces
diagrams for a Montroll Model that are not directly copied from his book,
but rather are subject to another's interpretataion, then this is not
strictly a breach of copyright. However, photocopying and scanning, in my
opinion, ARE direct copying, and even if they are subject to extreme change
by PSP or whatever, copyright is still breached.

-I guess that the actual procedure of folding a model could be patented. As
a result, I have applied for the patent for the bird base, and will only
charge $1 per attempt, should this patent be granted, or 50 cents for
members on this reading list ;-)
profit. This is probably quite close to the mark...most people would not be
able to get to grips to a Lang or Montroll book without giving simpler
books first, therefore would not buy them (or would not buy a second
one...). There are hundreds of books such as Origami for cretins, or Paper
folding for the Hamfisted, so any new ones would be lost in a sea of such
(usually) rubbish. It seems that most books would end up as labors of love,
with the occasional pocket money for producing such ones.

-I wonder if a pay per view website would ever be used by anyone? Along the
lines of $1 per month, and the money used to pay for bandwidth, etc, a kind
of online magazine. What does everyone think of this? Would you all
subcribe, or would only one of you do so and e mail the diagrams to
everyone else :) Seems like a cool thing to do, if such trip ups can be
avoided, and if enough models can be added - the village site is GREAT for
free, but the range of diagrams is a little...unusual! Also, pdf is not
available to everyone (a lot of folks, yes...but...)

A few ideas...

Dr S.G.O'Hanlon





From: Marc Kirschenbaum <contract@PIPELINE.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 17:54:36 -0400
Subject: Origami copyright (was Re: New Books)

Hi all,

I see the origami copyright discussion has been brought up again, albeit
this time with a slight twist on trademark law. Years ago, OrigamiUSA hired
a lawer to investigate how well origami was protected by law. Not too
surprizingly, the word "origami" is not mentioned in any of the law books
(although I have not kept up with the recent amendments), so the lawer had
to make some judjement calls as to how much protection origami would
receive. In short, the only thing that is protected is the diagrams that
might be attributed to a particular model (note, not the process involved).
It would be perfectly legal to redraw the diagrams (note, not scan or
photocopy), and sell them as your own. OrigamiUSA and other organizations
are aware of how moraly wrong this is, and  go beyond the law by providing
protection to people who share diagrams and models under their auspices.
Trademark law is a whole other thing (i.e., the "Mickey Mouse" name), and
that receives a lot of protection. In fact, the trademark holder is
required to defend it in order to retain it. I too find this to be a shame,
as some wonderful icons will not as easily get to be realized through
origami. Sorry, you will not be seeing a model of "Darth Vader" anytime
soon. However, in the next Annual Collection (OrigamiUSA), you will see an
excellent "Lord Vadar," who bears a striking resemblance.

Marc





From: Sebastian Marius Kirsch <skirsch@T-ONLINE.DE>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:19:01 +0200
Subject: Re: OftC

On Mon, 11 May 1998, Chr1sM wrote:
> If there aren't we should convince the publishers to re print it,
> because they would make boatloads of money if they did so, seeing as so
> many ppls want it.

"boatloads of money"? Any publisher who wants to reprint OFTC should
probably be happy if he can get his expenses back. Sorry, but it is a sad
fact that the market for origami books is very limited, even more so for
books with above-average models or "impractical" models. This is even more
important in countries other than the USA, because the market is usually
much smaller. In Germany, most origami books go out of print after a few
years, and are seldom re-published.

Yours, Sebastian                                       skirsch@t-online.de
                        /or/ sebastian_kirsch@kl.maus.de (no mail > 16KB!)





From: "Dr. Stephen O'Hanlon" <fishgoth@DIAL.PIPEX.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 20:02:14 +0100
Subject: Re: Books

>
> <-Origami is strictly considered a craft, rather than an art.
>
> Hardly. Have you not seen the works by people like Lang, Yoshizawa,
Joisel,
> LaFosse, etc? There is a craft aspect to origami, but there is also art.
To deny
> that is to deny the "heart" of origami.

Yes, I have, both in newletters, and on the web (esp on Your/J Wus
homepage) and I'm also having some of my own original work displayed next
month as part of a Japanese art exhibition. I was refering to general
terms; origami is in my opinions, one of the highest art forms, especially
compared to some of my oil painting :-)  however...look in any book shop,
and origami is (sadly) refered to as a craft. In terms of copyright laws, I
could copy (say) the dragon off the front of your page, exhibit it, and
state that I had merely used a similar technique to fold it. What would the
lawyers say? Well, unless you PAINT onto the paper, it is not considered to
be a unique work of art!
Shame, I know, but thats the way it is :-(
From what I gather, many other 'crafts' fit into this description - one can
only copyright the instructions, not that finished product.

> This is already in production, but not exactly as you suggest. Wait and
see! We
> should be up by the end of the summer.

Do tell!
By the way, on the Origami.net pages, it states that they may be used free
for origami related material. Would it be OK for me to use it to store
origami .gif and .jpg diagrams, but to use a geocities site to link to
them, ie for contents, history, etc...?

Dr S.G. O'Hanlon





From: Richard Davies <richardd@REDAC.CO.UK>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 21:23:09 +0100
Subject: Re: New Books

> > And I wonder if the origami community is ready for the next stage of
     copyright
> > honoring: which is realizing that an origami model of <something> is a
     derived
> > work of that <something> and so if the <something> is copyrighted you need
> > permssion to *make*the*model* in the first place.  [including Paramount
     Pictures
> > space vehicles and Disney cartoon characters and such]
>
> Bernie is right (as usual <GR> :-)
> about the Walt Disney mouse characters:
>
> Even if the web site owner has the model creator's
> permission to distribute the diagrams of the Mickey
> and Minnie Mouse on the Web, Disney Corp. would probably
> have something negative to say about it.

Whilst Disney can prohibit publication of diagrams for Mickey Mouse etc, I
     doubt very
much that you need their permission to '*make*the*model* in the first place'.
     This would
be just like drawing Mickey, but using different media. Drawing Mickey (for
     personal use
only) is certainly not illegal as I own Disney published books which teach
     drawing him
and other Disney characters.

Rich

Richard Davies                  Tel:    01454  207800  x8703
Leading Software Engineer       Fax:    01454  207803
Zuken-Redac Ltd                 E-Mail: richardd@redac.co.uk





From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@MTAYR.HEARTLAND.NET>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 21:48:11 -0500
Subject: Re: A Book Question Long Answer

>A letter fold (possibly from A4) that when complete is a rectangle shape
>with two diagonal corners turned in,  a Box pleated sports car, a
>mustache and a Santa Claus.
>
>Any ideas?

Yup,
"The Complete Origami Course" By Paul Jackson   ISBN 0-8317-2792-6

Contains By Category:

Valley/mountain designs

Chinese Glider
Multibox
Swan
Christmas Decoration
Fan
Back-to-front Serviette
Letterfold (as described)
Flying Eagle
Pistol
Japanese Box
Robot
Santa Claus
Mouse
Bracelet
Weave Patterns
Goldfish

Squash fold Designs

Puppy
Crown
Flower
False nose and moustache
Strawberry

Inside outside Reverse fold designs

Four Feeding Birds
Snail
Butterfly Ring
Monkeys
Reverse fold alphabet
Six pointed Star
Fallen Leaves

Petal fold Designs

Two Flapping Birds
Moustache
Pentagonal flower

Pre-crease designs

Bookmark
Cubic box
Bugatti (sports car, box folded)

Sink fold Designs

Three Boats
Hyperbolic parabola
Ten-pointed star

Projects

Sprung Frame
Heads
Yacht
Octagonal flower and stem
Keys on a ring
Mouse
Cassette Case
Star Dish
Spectacles
Sleigh

This is the complete index of folds in the book, I hope it helps

Perry

Paper, scissors, stone.....
Origami, Kirigami, bludgeon....
pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net
http://www.afgsoft.com/perry/





From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@MTAYR.HEARTLAND.NET>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 22:06:25 -0500
Subject: Copyright

If any one is really interested in rehashing all the past messages about
     copyright violation, please read the archives.  Most of us have better
     things to do with our lives.
Thank you

Perry

Paper, scissors, stone.....
Origami, Kirigami, bludgeon....
pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net
http://www.afgsoft.com/perry/





From: Vulcano <vulcano@BR.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 22:22:14 -0300
Subject: OftC

>Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 23:26:59
>To: <origami@mitvma.mit.edu>
>From: Vulcano <vulcano@br.homeshopping.com.br>
>Subject: OftC
>
>
>Hi,
>
>Sasuga Japanese Bookstore is offering this book on its online catalogue.
The price is $ 18.00. The new home-page address is www.sasugabooks.com. They
can look for books in Japan if they don't have them in stock. I use to buy a
lot from them and I never had any problem.
>
>I live in Brazil and here Origami Books are very hard to be found.
>
>Lilian Sant'Anna
>vulcano@br.homeshopping.com.br
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>X-From_: owner-origami@MITVMA.MIT.EDU  Mon May 11 20:18:06 1998
>>Return-Path: <owner-origami@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
>>Date:         Mon, 11 May 1998 19:06:58 EDT
>>Reply-To: Origami List <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
>>Sender: Origami Mailing List <Origami@MIT.Edu>
>>From: Chr1sM <Chr1sM@AOL.COM>
>>Subject:      OftC
>>To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>>
>>Hello, I'm sure this has been asked before, but I must ask again.
>>Are there any plans to re release OftC?  If there aren't we should convince
>>the publishers to re print it, because they would make boatloads of money if
>>they did so, seeing as so many ppls want it.
>>
>>Chris Miller
>>chr1sm@aol.com
>>Formerly chris@ori.net but I changed it.





From: Bernie Cosell <bernie@FANTASYFARM.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 23:02:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Origami copyright (was Re: New Books)
Priority: normal

On 12 May 98 at 17:54, Marc Kirschenbaum wrote:

> I see the origami copyright discussion has been brought up again, albeit
> this time with a slight twist on trademark law. Years ago, OrigamiUSA hired
> a lawer to investigate how well origami was protected by law. Not too
> surprizingly, the word "origami" is not mentioned in any of the law books
> (although I have not kept up with the recent amendments), so the lawer had
> to make some judjement calls as to how much protection origami would
> receive. In short, the only thing that is protected is the diagrams that
> might be attributed to a particular model (note, not the process involved).
> It would be perfectly legal to redraw the diagrams (note, not scan or
> photocopy), and sell them as your own.

Do you [or any of the OriUSA folk involved] know why the lawyer chose that
construction and if he cited any case law to support the claim, one way or the
other?  I'm curious because I don't see why origami models should enjoy any
less copyright protection than any other form of art.  Why isn't an origami
model considered a 'sculpture' [which woudl be a work of art, fixed in a
tangible medium, etc]?  [NB: I understand, as I mentioned, that many origami
designs are not copyrightable [e.g., "a six-sided box", or "a dodecahedron"],
but I don't see why/how one could dismiss the _entire_ medium as being not
worthy of any protection... [especially since I don't really see any sort of
medium-specific exemptions or the like in the statutes, and so why would he
construe the copyright laws as excluding works constructed from paper using
origami techniques versus any other way of fixing works in a tangible medium?]

   /Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell                     Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com     Pearisburg, VA
    -->  Too many people, too few sheep  <--





From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@MTAYR.HEARTLAND.NET>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 23:03:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Origami copyright (was Re: New Books)

Why isn't an origami
model considered a 'sculpture' [which woudl be a work of art, fixed in a
tangible medium, etc]?  [NB: I understand, as I mentioned, that many =
origami
designs are not copyrightable [e.g., "a six-sided box", or "a =
dodecahedron"],
but I don't see why/how one could dismiss the _entire_ medium as being =
not
worthy of any protection... [especially since I don't really see any =
sort of
medium-specific exemptions or the like in the statutes, and so why would =
he
construe the copyright laws as excluding works constructed from paper =
using
origami techniques versus any other way of fixing works in a tangible =
medium?]

A real simple answer is, how many people at craft fairs sell rag or mop =
dolls,  they are highly creative and a fixed medium, not our medium =
granted but still there, go look up in your library for books on rag =
dolls, if they cater to crafters at all you will find a whole lot of =
books all showing how to make the same thing.  A craft is defined as "an =
art, a skill, or an ability, especially in hand work."  Just to =
summarize Webster.  So basically we can see a clear pattern here, a =
craft is anything that can be documented (diagramed) and reproduced by =
other skilled crafts persons.  Yet There are rag dolls that sell for a =
great deal of money, because of the skill of the craftsman.  As also =
Joseph and every other person on this list who is good enough to get a =
contract for their work is paid.  Most of the people who right craft =
books, get a one time fee for their work, that is all, only a very few =
ever receive royalties.  This is not just Origami, but every other craft =
out there.  Ever see an incensed needle pointer yell or berate some one =
for copying the instructions?  Most craft book companies in a very real =
way expect a part of their sales to come from people who have gotten one =
design out of a book and then hunt down and buy the book.  Didn't you =
ever wonder why the books name is printed at the top of each page?  Is =
there any one on this server who has never bought a book because someone =
gave them a photocopy of a model from the book?  Moderation in all =
things, yes copyright has been infringed, but did it cause the publisher =
to make a new sale?  one he might not have gotten other wise?  No I am =
not saying two wrongs make a right, I am saying, let he who is without =
photocopied Diagrams, start the next flame war on this topic.

Perry

Paper, scissors, stone.....
Origami, Kirigami, bludgeon....
pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net
http://www.afgsoft.com/perry/





From: D Pun <debpun@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 23:40:44 -0400 (
Subject: Use of foil in a bistro.

Dear all:

G'day! I am trying to find several creative ways in folding aluminum
foil so the customers can take their undevoured portions of dinner home.
Yes, the doggie bag. I have come up with a duck shape and a purse shape.
Can you folks think up some other shapes so I can "wow" the patrons at
our homely bistro?
The food is laid out on the wax paper first, then the wax paper is over
the aluminum foil. There is no container in which I place the food into
initally. Our standard course of fare is duck, fish, poussin (baby
chickhen), veal, lamb, pork, pasta, or NY Strip steak.
Sounds like a weird puzzle, eh?

Thank you for any suggestions, no matter how fantastical!
Debbie Pun
debpun@hotmail.com

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





From: Tricia Tait <tait@EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 23:51:45 -0400
Subject: Re: OftC

Hello-

Is it another book you are thinking of? I called Sasuga and was told that OftC
     was
out of
print. I wish it weren't so!

Regards,
Tricia Tait

Vulcano wrote:

> >Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 23:26:59
> >To: <origami@mitvma.mit.edu>
> >From: Vulcano <vulcano@br.homeshopping.com.br>
> >Subject: OftC
> >
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >Sasuga Japanese Bookstore is offering this book on its online catalogue.
> The price is $ 18.00. The new home-page address is www.sasugabooks.com. They
> can look for books in Japan if they don't have them in stock. I use to buy a
> lot from them and I never had any problem.
> >
> >I live in Brazil and here Origami Books are very hard to be found.
> >
> >Lilian Sant'Anna
> >vulcano@br.homeshopping.com.br
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>X-From_: owner-origami@MITVMA.MIT.EDU  Mon May 11 20:18:06 1998
> >>Return-Path: <owner-origami@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
> >>Date:         Mon, 11 May 1998 19:06:58 EDT
> >>Reply-To: Origami List <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
> >>Sender: Origami Mailing List <Origami@MIT.Edu>
> >>From: Chr1sM <Chr1sM@AOL.COM>
> >>Subject:      OftC
> >>To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> >>
> >>Hello, I'm sure this has been asked before, but I must ask again.
> >>Are there any plans to re release OftC?  If there aren't we should convince
> >>the publishers to re print it, because they would make boatloads of money if
> >>they did so, seeing as so many ppls want it.
> >>
> >>Chris Miller
> >>chr1sm@aol.com
> >>Formerly chris@ori.net but I changed it.





From: =?iso-8859-1?B?VEhPUktJTEQgU9hOREVSR8VSRA==?= <thokiyenn@GET2NET.DK>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 00:05:20 +0200
Subject: Re: Origami in Bonn?

Hi Helena

>Hi! Can someone tell me
>Is there a good place to buy origami paper in Bonn, Germany?
>Are there folders here?
>Thanks!
>Helena

You can order Paper from ORIGAMI DEUTSCHLAND
E-mail Address:  salzundpfeffer@t-online.de
They have a surply business VIEReck-Verlag
 with wide range of paper and books
They can also tell whether there are folders in Bonn
They are having a 10 year anniversary Kongress in June
I am Invited, and proud of it.

Greetings Thoki 98

=========================================
 Thoki Yenn - IDEAS UN-LIMITED
 Tranehavegard 1, st, 101
 DK-2450 Copenhagen SV.
 Denmark
 Phone & Fax: 00 45 33 24 61 13
 e-mail: thokiyenn@get2net.dk
 have a look at
 http://www.bornholmershoppen.dk/videorig.html





From: Robby/Laura/Lisa <morassi@ZEN.IT>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 02:09:56 +0200
Subject: Re: Origami Talk Test Chat Scheduled

Russell,
At 22.04 11/5/1998 EDT, you wrote:

>There has been some expressed interest in starting a realtime origami chat
>forum.

Regretfully I'll not be able to join that forum on Thursday, but later why
don't we simply arrange for a normal IRC chat ? It's faster than a WWW
chat, needs no registration, no Java-based browser, no other formality, and
can be set up by anyone in seconds. The only thing needed is an IRC client
program (e. g. mIRC for Windows which can be found on several FTP sites),
some preliminary practice, and an agreement about (1) day and time (2) who
will "open" the channel (3) how will this be named (Origami, I guess....)
(4) optionally, a password which can be distributed on the list to avoid
interference by casual visitors.

By the way, could you please avoid HTML tags in your postings ? It's not
good practice, as many might not have an HTML-compliant mail reader (e. g.
me ....:-). Disabling this feature in your mail program shouldn't be too
difficult. and you can have a look here for further info's:

http://www.ping.be/houghi/nohtml/

Bye,
Roberto





From: DGS - Kevin Kinney PhD <kkinney@CAROLINAS.ORG>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 08:03:22 -0500
Subject: Re: OftC

>On Mon, 11 May 1998, Chr1sM wrote:
>> If there aren't we should convince the publishers to re print it,
>> because they would make boatloads of money if they did so, seeing as so
>> many ppls want it.
>
>"boatloads of money"? Any publisher who wants to reprint OFTC should
>probably be happy if he can get his expenses back. Sorry, but it is a sad
>fact that the market for origami books is very limited, even more so for
>books with above-average models or "impractical" models.

Quite true.  Here's another thought:  What about seeing if an academic
publisher could be convinced to obtain the rights and publish it.  Such
houses look at a much more limited run than popular presses, I believe.
The downside is that academic books tend to be a bit on the pricy side,
relative to their popular counterparts, but are more likely to be
interested in a small run such as would be practical for OftC, or other
highly specialized books...

Kevin

Kevin Kinney
kkinney@carolinas.org





From: Carlos Alberto Furuti <furuti@AHAND.UNICAMP.BR>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:21:02 -0300
Subject: Re: OftC

>>From: Tricia Tait <tait@EARTHLINK.NET>
>>Is it another book you are thinking of? I called Sasuga and was told that
     OftC was
>>out of
>>print. I wish it weren't so!

Yes, I also checked and did not find it in the catalog. I was looking
for a good gift. Wish Japan Publications got back in time!

>>> >From: Vulcano <vulcano@br.homeshopping.com.br>
...
>>> >I live in Brazil and here Origami Books are very hard to be found.

Well, it depends whether you know where to look in Brazil. I purchased
both OftC and O.Omnibus (another treasured, o-o-p book) in the same
bookstore eons ago. Of course not every shop here sells origami books
(or know what they are...) but on average it is as easy finding a Montroll's
as a Stephen Jay Gould's (and probably easier than J.R.R. Tolkien). I
even got a Sembazuru Orikata (fac-simile edition, of course) :)

        Sincerely,
                Carlos
        furuti@ahand.unicamp.br www.ahand.unicamp.br/~furuti





From: "James B. Raasch" <jbraas01@STARBASE.SPD.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:43:14 -0400
Subject: Re: A Book Question

> A letter fold (possibly from A4) that when complete is a rectangle shape
> with two diagonal corners turned in,  a Box pleated sports car, a
> mustache and a Santa Claus.
>
> Any ideas?
>
It almost sounds like _Origami_Omnibus_ by Kunihiko Kasahara.  I recall the
sports car and the mustache vividly, as those are quite the "non-standard"
models.

The book itself (at least the printing I have) is about an inch and a half
thick, with a red cover.  There is a picture on the cover, where one of the
most conspicuous pieces is a Panda.

If this is the book, don't get your hopes up, as I believe that it is out of
print.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
J.B. Raasch





From: Carlos Alberto Furuti <furuti@AHAND.UNICAMP.BR>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:47:19 -0300
Subject: Re: Viva! Origami (was Re: book review?)

Most people searching for V!O seem mostly interested on the famous demon.
Here are some tips for you:

1 ORU issue #11 published a photograph and FULL instructions for a
wingless, tailless version. It is still quite impressive, and the face,
horns and fingers look identical as the "full" version. Although ORU
is dead for the moment, Sasuga still has back issues.

2 The nearest I can call a publicly-available, legal, ethically ok source
of diagrams (well, almost) for the FULL demon: www.ask.or.jp/~origami/t/
People/MAEK0/Bunko/Animal/index-e.html includes a crease pattern
(unfortunately, even the larger image is rather small). Believe me,
after transferring the pattern proportions to a square of paper it
IS possible folding the model.  After all, 90% of V!O instructions
for the demon is a long sequence of precreases just for getting the
right proportions. In a long step, everything magically collapses
into a many-pointed diamond with two flaps (to-be hands). The text
says what part of body which point should turn into, and that's the
last diagram!

Readers should be aware that diagrams in V!O are somewhat "unfinished"
compared to, say, Montroll's or Lang's. The book has three demons:
- winged, no fingers
- fingered, wingless, no tail
- with fingers, tail, wings and all
The reader is expected to learn along the book models and fill in the gaps.
For instance, in the "full" demon diagrams there are no instructions on
how to flex the finger joints, how to transform a triangular flap into
the arrow-shaped tail, or how to extract the ears (some people call them
shoulder horns) from inside the wing flaps.

Maekawa-san and Kasahara-san seem to urge the reader to study crease
patterns and learn how to transform, say, a wingless into a winged demon.

        Sincerely,
                Carlos
        furuti@ahand.unicamp.br www.ahand.unicamp.br/~furuti





From: Ariel <ariel@DATAPHONE.SE>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 16:19:27 +0200
Subject: Competition: find a logotype for Origami Sweden

Hi to all !!!

                   There is a small association for Origami in Sweden that
started some months ago. I am a member of it. The
association needs a logotype for itself and its magazine.

                    One option we have so far is to use a folded mask of a
Viking, but the model belongs to someone from Spain
which we have no idea how to contact for permission (I don't even know his
name)...and in these stormy waters of copyrights,
threats, law suits, more threats and frenetical, aggresive, overheated and
hysterical copyright discussions...well...we would rather
prefer to use a logo of someone that would give us an explicitely written
permission to use the image/model/logo/whatever.

                    So this is it: the association would gladly receive by
email bitmaps (gifs, jpgs, whatever) of images that
you think it could be great to use as a logotype for an Origami Association
from Sweden. ( so far no one came with folded
meat-balls...hi hi hi hi ).

                    But it doesn't need to be a foldable thing...just a nice
logotype.

                   I mentioned the word "competition" so...this word usually
comes together with other word: "prize".  Well...you can get as a prize a
"photocopy" of a book of your choice....hi hi hi hi hi hi....neeeeeee just
kidding....

                The association is completely non-profit and very
small....so we are very short of funds. If the winner creates foldings, then
we could publish a couple of his/hers model in the magazine in exchange.
Otherwise maybe purchase for him/her as a present an origami book, provided
it is not too expensive, which I would have to pay from my own pocket money.

                 Well, if you have any proposal, send it by email to: Dino
Andreozzi <dion@hem.passagen.se>

                 If you do not have a scanner to scan your drawing, and it
is too difficult to draw with any drawing program, then send it by mail to:

                 Origami Sverige c/o Dino Andreozzi
                 Tre Kallors vag 17 nb,
                 145 65 Norsborg,
                 SWEDEN

Thanks ( and good luck)





From: "Katherine J. Meyer" <kathy@SILENTWORLD.COM>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 17:55:20 -0500
Subject: Spotted Butterflies

Hi Diana Wolf

I love your idea of the butterflies that grow spots outside!

I have been all over town looking for that  UV Nail Polish, no one knows
what I
am talking about.  Please, if you could tell me the Brand name and where

you got it?

Thanks Diana, what a great idea!

Kathy <*))))><





From: Eric Eros <eros@MOHAWK.ENGR.SGI.COM>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 09:40:47 -0700
Subject: Re: Commitee for urging Mr Robert Lang......

Perhaps if someone REALLY REALLY wants an author to diagram his or her
creation they should offer to help the author diagram the model?

--
Eric Eros





From: Steve Woodmansee <stevew@EMPNET.COM>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:04:53 -0700
Subject: A Philosophical Copyright Question

Greetings folding community:

This is not meant to take an adamant position on the copyright issue; merely to
     raise some questions that have distracted me from Montroll's bee lately.
     Of course, the archives are full of wave after wave of discussion on this
     topic ad nauseum, and I am

1.      I'd be happy to send money to a resource center, clearing house,
     publisher or agent on behalf of an author who has produced a diagram I'd
     like to have but no such arrangements exist that I am aware of.

2.      Many classic books oft referred to within this list are long out of
     print.  How will new folders or those (like myself) unfortunate enough to
     be without these classic publications have access to them?  Not all
     libraries may have access to these or

3.      Books containing diagrams that are available at one's local library may
     provide an alternative, but apparently it would be considered sinful to
     copy any of the diagrams from one's library book.  (Then why do libraries
     invariably have a copy machin

4.      I suppose it's possible that all this legal wrangling may heighten
     awareness of the obligation we have to provide appropriate remuneration
     for diagrams we want to take into our possession through whatever means,
     however, I believe if we followed t

5.      Have OUSA or any of the other origami organizations ever been
     approached with the idea of finding some way to make diagrams from
     out-of-print books available, while not violating copyright laws?  Any
     lawyer/folders out there?

6.      During a class on newsletters I attended several years ago a similar
     topic was raised.  The rule of thumb given in the answer was "An idea
     cannot be copyrighted; only the execution of it."  So the irony of this is
     that while scanning or xeroxing a

These are just my observations, I certainly don't mean to be argumentative or
     to take issue with Doug and Valerie's comments on this topic, along with
     all the others who've participated in the many discussions of it
     throughout the years.  Still, your thou

                Origami:  "Welcome to the fold"

                        Steve Woodmansee

                        stevew@empnet.com

                    Bend, Oregon

            <bold>http://www.empnet.com/woodmansee

</bold>





From: Eric Eros <eros@MOHAWK.ENGR.SGI.COM>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:27:38 -0700
Subject: Re: A Philosophical Copyright Question

A straightforward approach is to write the publisher and ask for permission
to copy the pages in question, giving as your reason that the book is out of
print.

If you would like to be nice to the publisher and author you can volunteer,
if given permission, to pay according to an equation such as:

to the author, 7 1/2 % the price of the book, times the number of models
copied, divided by the number of models in the book

to the publisher, 1/3 the price of the book, times the number of pages
copied, divided by the number of pages in the book

Or, you could write to both the author and publisher, asking what they
would like to be paid, should the publisher give you permission to copy.

--
Eric Eros





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:56:23 -0700
Subject: NO: Contacting people (Robert Lang, in this case)
Importance: Normal

<HEY ROBERT, ARE YOU HEARING?
<ARE YOU READY TO BE BOMBED BY REQUESTS?
<
<Seriously speaking, we all know how tedious and unrewarding is
<diagramming and sharing a model. If Robert is not reading in the list I
<believe his email is rjlang@aol.com so someone could ask him for news.

Robert is still a member of this list. Whether or not he is reading his mail is
another matter. I don't know what Robert thinks on this matter, but I do have a
problem with bombarding someone with email, and also with freely giving out
contact information for someone in a mass forum. To me it smacks of writing
someone's phone number upon a washroom stall with a message, "for a good time,
call..." Besides, the contact info is already quite easily accessible. If
someone wants it, they can find it. No need to broadcast it, right?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t:604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331   e: josephwu@ultranet.ca





From: Carlos Alberto Furuti <furuti@AHAND.UNICAMP.BR>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 12:08:36 -0300
Subject: T.rex & allosaur(sp?) skeletons

It was nice hearing about different support options for Yoshino-san's model.
Here's my contribution: the first time I folded it from ordinary copier
paper, cut into 7cm squares (my second attempt will use a more manageable
size, maybe 5cm). I simply attached a piece of thread to two points in
the spine, near the ribs and at the base of tail. The idea of a T.rex
hanging like a mobile may sound funny, but it did look impressive. It
also easily kept the back+tail straight as in modern museum reconstructions.

I mentioned a "committee urging Robert Lang to publish his Allosaur skeleton"
as a joke, but several members looked interested. Robert used to read
and contribute to this list frequently, but I don't remember any recent
post from him. Maybe busy on a new book??? HEY ROBERT, ARE YOU HEARING?
ARE YOU READY TO BE BOMBED BY REQUESTS?

Seriously speaking, we all know how tedious and unrewarding is
diagramming and sharing a model. If Robert is not reading in the list I
believe his email is rjlang@aol.com so someone could ask him for news.

        Sincerely,
                Carlos
        furuti@ahand.unicamp.br www.ahand.unicamp.br/~furuti





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 12:28:41 -0700
Subject: Bad renditions of models (RE: NO: Contacting people)
Importance: Normal

<P.S. Talking about art, I wonder how does an author feel when an
<inaccurate or badly folded model is widely publicized
<as *his/her* creation, especially to a public which mostly
<does not understand that in origami every specimen is a particular
<*interpretation* of a model, subject to the folder's skill and
<personality (or lack of).

This happened to me once. I was not particularly pleased. This person had been
selling bad renditions of one of my models. Indeed, they were only barely
recognisable as being one of my designs. He gave me one of them at a convention
as a way of making up for not having asked me in the first place. It's a hard
thing to deal with. On the one hand, I was angry that he had done this without
permission and was making money on it (granted, at $2 per model, it wasn't worth
arguing about). On the other hand, he was obviously eager and excited by what he
had done, and was thrilled by his new experiences with origami. I ended up just
saying "thank you" and then walked off before I said something that would have
hurt his feelings. It wasn't worth it.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t:604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331   e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
