




From: Dennis Walker <TheWalkers@INAME.COM>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 18:10:31 +0000
Subject: Fabric folding

Hello everyone,

    I just thought I would tell you that I recently managed (finally) to
stiffen some fabric enough to make it hold creases (just). I used what I
presume is a liquid starch. The bottle doesn't say what is in it but it
does say that it is 'Safe and Non-Toxic'. It is called 'Hi-Tack Fabric
Stiffener' and is made by a company called Impex.

    My first project was a Fuse Box made with red and green cottons. It
worked very well. Even the local patchwork shop liked it!

    The only problem is that my wife, who has been sewing patchworks for
about 10 years, is now suddenly very protective of her material hoard
and is forcing me to buy my own, even though she has scraps left from a
large number of past projects. Ah well, so much for sharing hobbies!

    I hope eventually to make one of Tomoko Fuse's quilts using fabric.

Dennis





From: "James M. Sakoda" <James_Sakoda@BROWN.EDU>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 22:03:45 -0500
Subject: Re: sheet metal origami

>I suppose it can't be called origami if it's not paper, but if you think of
>it as thick foil, I guess it's okay. I took a stab at sheet-metal folding
>(10'x10', 1/8" steel) some years back. While I had some success with simpler
>folds, it was clear that either I would have to squander my life's savings
>on materials trying to perfect a technique, or find some one else who had
>attempted the effort, and learn from their knowledge, god forbid--maybe even
>find a book or paper on it somewhere. Until finding this list, I'd had few
>oppotunities to discuss serious folding, so I appeal to all of you wonderful
>folders out there; if you know of any origami-metal-sculpture resources, I
>would appreciate hearing about them. Also: thanks for the varied input about
>the giraffe fold!!! Guess there're a couple new books on my 'to buy'
>list. -c

        Metal of any thickness can be folded, but not unfolded neatly.  You
should stick to foil paper--paper backed aluminum foil, since the paper
provides the necessary flexibility, and metal the metallid look and
strength.  If the outside is metallic then it can be folded to look
metallic and not like paper.  I have a standing crane which stands about 15
inches tall folded from foil paper.  A lot of folding goes into the think
legs and neck, but when made large enough the foot does not hold the weight
for very long.  I added six inch square sheets in the two opposite corners
which formed the feet.  This gave them enough strength to stand up
indefinitely.  It looks metallic and can be used as a display piece.
Folding directions for it can be found in Modern Origami, republished ub
1997 by Dover.  I still have copies on hand to send to anyone in the US for
a check for $13.  It will be autographed and sent prioriy mail.  Send the
order to James M. Sakoda, 411 County Road, Barrington, RI 02806.
        Since the instructions were written I have learned to strengthened
the ankles by spreading out the folded foot section, pushing it in from
below  and refolding it.  This causes the leg to move from the end to a
position closer to the center, giving it more stanbility.  One can
understand why nature provided humans with heels.
        The foil paper that I used was thin foil paper finely emb ossed
commonly available as Xmas wrapping paper. They are no longer available,
although some foil paper do appear at Xmas time.  I still have some that I
stashed away when they began to dsappear.   James M. Sakoda





From: Dennis Walker <TheWalkers@INAME.COM>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 23:14:42 +0000
Subject: Spreadsheet

Hello,

    You may remember a few weeks ago I posted an e-mail saying that I
had started a spreadsheet to calculate paper sizes for the polygons in
Origami Omnibus.

    Well, version 2 is now available with paper sizes for a lot of
Tomoko Fuse's quilt designs and some of the odder values from Origami
Design.

    Even better, the spreadsheet can be downloaded from Jorm Oksanen's
web-site
www.sci.fi/~tenu/origami.html
(Thanks Jorma!)

    Please let me know if the spreadsheet is either
    a) useful to you
    b) full of mistakes
or c) missing bits.
                                        Have fun,
                                                        Dennis Walker





From: DLister891@AOL.COM
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 05:18:03 -0500 (
Subject: Sheet Metal Origami

Christopher Holt writes concerning with his masochystic craving to fold sheet
metal: "I suppose it can't be called Origami" if it's not paper, but if you
think of metal foil, I guess it's okay."

Well, if you are literal in your definitions, then "origami", no more than
"paperfolding", includes the folding of shet metal. But according to that line
of thought you would also have to exclude napkin, handkerchief and cloth
folding and the folding of leather purses. The problem is to find another
comprehensive term that will include folding in all of these generally
accepted  media.

I have tried to argue that the folding process, whatever the material used, is
an interesting study, from flowers to mountains. Even I, however, would find
myself hard-pressed to argue that mountain-folding came within the province of
what we call "Origami". Nevertheless, as an instance of the folding process it
is most interesting.

In the February issue of Scientific American, Ian Stewart picked up the The
article on "Folding of Uniform Plane Tessellations" by Tibor Tarnai of
Budapest, which he presented at the Seond International Meeting of Scientific
Origami and which appears in "Origami Science and Art", the printed
proceeedings of the meeting. Sheet metal would be very suitable for his
buckling experiments.

As for actual origami-type folding with sheet metal, I really think that it
has more curiosity value than anything else, although models folded from sheet
metal can have a  certain elegance and beauty all of their own. I find this is
more so than with metal foil, which tends to keep its surplus creases too
prominently. Over the years I have come across several instances where folders
have sought to give their models more permanence than is usuallly provided by
paper in this way. The last instance was at the Origami Deutschland Convention
in Freising in June 1998.

I may say that I have also come across cases where "folders" have moulded
their models in set concrete. I remember in particular a permanent pajarita
created in this way. Well, it may be allright if you want to set up a monument
to a pajarita, but I don't think it's folding.

David Lister.





From: RPlsmn@AOL.COM
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 09:14:45 -0500 (
Subject: Re: Sheet Metal Origami

I once folded a decorative box from the sheet metal of a soda can that was the
bee's knees of ashtrays in Jamesville NY            RPLSMN





From: Christopher Holt <Ella-mae@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:47:51 -0800
Subject: Re: DLister&sheetmetalorigami

I share your view on a global definition of what can be called origami. What
attracted me at first to origami was how a simple process such as creating a
mountain fold could turn into an extraordinarily complex final model if it
was repeated sufficiently. Once an initiate, one can see the process
everywhere, and origami becomes a metaphor for something greater, such as
biologic or geologic processes. Also, the aesthetics of the origami model in
general, the lines of origami models, are enticing, and look quite elegant
in large sheet metal. I think that the "Origami Science and Art" proceedings
sound like something I might find fascinating, and was wondering if you
could sort of point me in the proper direction to find them. Thanks for your
perspective. All the best-c





From: Martha Winslow-Cole <afolder@AVANA.NET>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:33:22 -0500
Subject: Re: sheet metal origami

About 30 years ago, I was given a roll of copper.  I made eight small birds, all
about an inch high, from it.  I was planning to make a centerpiece for a table
and hoped to make more birds as I came across more models.  At the time, I did
not have access to very many models.  I think all the models were made from bird
bases.  Several had minor cuts (what did I know in those days about purity?).
The ones with cuts were a nightingale (to turn the wings up), the owl (to make
"ears"), a swallow (to separate and cross the legs), and another bird, I think a
robin (also to make the wings).  One bird, a peacock, was a two piece model (the
tail being basically a fan).  The others were  a pheasant, a crane, and a chick.

The roll of copper I used, which I still have somewhere, is only about 8 inches
high.  I do not know how thick it is, but it is not very thick.  Anyway, as I
recall, I made each model out of paper first, took it apart, and studied the
crease pattern.  Then with a scoring tool of some sort, I think it was a
dissecting needle, I scored the metal with the crease pattern pattern and then
collapsed the pattern into the model, trying as much as possible to minimize the
need for subsequent folding.  I used forceps and other assorted implements to
pinch, poke, and finesse the stiff copper into final shape.  My advice to anyone
who wants to fold metal models is to pick models that can be easily collapsed
from a crease pattern and to figure out how to minimize the number of times you
may need to fold back and forth on the same line to avoid cracking the metal.
You should probably pick a metal that is rather malleable, so it won't crack the
first or second time you bend a fold back on itself.  Of course it should be as
thin as possible, particularly if you want to make small models.  I'm sure it
would be easier to collapse and add details to larger models, if the metal
wasn't too thick.  The models I made were quite small.  I recall that it was
difficult to make the more detailed finishing folds, not only because of the
thickness of the copper, but also because it was hard to grasp, bend, and get
into the small areas.

If you want to try folding actual metal and can find some decent metal, go for
it!  I was rather pleased with the results of my efforts.  In fact, I took them
with me to display at the first FOCA (now OUSA) convention I attended - don't
remember the year but it was the last one held at the museum.  The shiny copper
has darkened over the years so the birds don't have the luster they used to
have.  I did try to clean them with some success when I took them to the
convention, but now I think it would be nice it they eventually acquire a nice
green patina.  Someday I would like to make a pair of earrings or a charm
bracelet from the copper I have left.

Martha Winslow-Cole (formerly Mitchen)





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1999 20:00:47 -0800
Subject: Oops :-)

There were a few glitches at my homepage. Should all be fixed now. Added
book information to the pictures, if available.

Matthias
http://www.bboxbbs.ch/home/tanjit





From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@OPENCOMINC.COM>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 01:43:28 -0600
Subject: Re: $ bill mouse (was Re: Heart-y request)

Dolphin G. wrote:

> Ouch.  "Dollar bill mice" hits a raw nerve.  A few months ago I created
> a mouse from a paper with the proportions of a dollar bill (as seen in
> John Montroll's "Origami Sculptures").  I was very pleased with it until
> I tried folding it from a real dollar and finding that it was impossibly
> thick!  I wonder if anyone else has ever had this experience?

There is some green play money available in some toys stores that works very
well as it is as thick if not thicker than the real thing.  Looks like $
bill mice are another of those things that every one makes one of sooner or
later, I did one last year came out with a squirrel from the same base,
gonna hafta diagram them some day.

Perry

--
pbailey@opencominc.com
http://www.afgsoft.com/perry/  <---- Origami Web Page with Diagrams!
ICQ 23622644





From: Martin <mrcinc@SILCOM.COM>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:01:14 -0800
Subject: Re: sheet metal origami

Martha Winslow-Cole wrote: About 30 years ago, I was given a roll of copper ...

If anyone is interested -- I can buy a batch of copper and/or aluminum sheets
     and
cut them into 12" squares and supply them at cost to anyone who is interested.
Perhaps we can start a friendly competition whereby each participant would make
     one
or more things out of the sheet metal and take photos -- we can then put the
     photos
up on an appropriate web site (there are many available at no cost) and vote
     for a
winner. If there is sufficient interest and at least twenty or thirty models --
     I
would be happy to publish a book on the subject and split a 10% royalty with all
participants in direct proportion to the number of models supplied and the
     number of
legitimate votes their models generate.
The rules for the making of the models would be there are no rules.
Let me know by private email if you are interested. From the recent postings --
there should be at least a few interested folders.

Have fun.
--
Martin R. Carbone
1227 De La Vina St.
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-965-5574 Fax: 805-965-2414

WEBSITES: http://www.papershops.com <<or>>
http://www.modelshops.com <<or>> http://www.silcom.com/~mrcinc





From: Christopher Holt <Ella-mae@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:29:41 -0800
Subject: re; sheetmetal again

Martha's experience sounds like a reasonably-scaled version of my own, where
I used a chisel and had to score the sheets, collapsing the whole model at
once. I also made a crane from a three-foot square of aluminum that made a
great decorative stand for a marble chess-set. The jewelry idea is great,
can't believe it's not common as dirt, as it seems like a natural. The one
thing I remember most from my experiences was how sharp the edges of the
models turned out. I had to buff corners and edges forever!





From: DORIGAMI@AOL.COM
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 15:51:27 -0500 (
Subject: Re: Heart-y request (Floewer in Pot)

Can any one remember sort of what year the flower in the pot was in an
Origamian.......I have almost all of them and will start a search of the early
ones to see if I can find the one mentioned by David Lister.  Any one have any
clues for me....This sounds so interesting.  Dorigami





From: "MARGARET M. BARBER" <mbarber@WELCHLINK.WELCH.JHU.EDU>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 16:05:44 -0500
Subject: Dates of the WCOG meeting

I'm sorry, I seem to have lost the piece of paper on which the dates of
the WCOG meeting in Seattle Washington were written.  Could someone please
respond to me privately with the dates?  I thought the meeting was
sometime in August. Thanks!
Peg Barber
mbarber@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu





From: "MARGARET M. BARBER" <mbarber@WELCHLINK.WELCH.JHU.EDU>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 16:09:46 -0500
Subject: Another find in my origami library

I've done it again!  Found an extra copy of ORU # 7.  This is the one with
the blue frog on the cover zapping a fly.  John Montrol is featured in
this edition.  I would like to get $34.00 + $3.50 for shipping to anyone
in the U.S.  Please e-mail me privately if you're interested.

Peg Barber
mbarber@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu





From: hecht <hecht@MCI2000.COM>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 16:35:06 -0800
Subject: New diagram available ($ flower)

I've placed diagrams for my "$ Flower" model on my site:

The URL is:  http://www.serve.com/hecht/origami/origami.htm

The model was inspired by and adapted from Herman Lau's Flower-in-a-Pot, so
perhaps it will tide some people over until those diagrams can be found and
made available.

I'd appreciate feedback regarding:
    A.  problems browsing the site
    B.  clarity of the diagrams (graphical and textual)
    C.  errors and oversights

--steve hecht





From: Stephen Canon <Stephen_Canon@BROWN.EDU>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 16:46:57 -0500
Subject: Re: sheet metal origami

At 12-19 AM 27U02U99 -0800, you wrote:
>I suppose it can't be called origami if it's not paper, but if you think of
>it as thick foil, I guess it's okay. I took a stab at sheet-metal folding
>(10'x10', 1/8" steel) some years back.

I've had this idea several times myself - though I've only considered doing
it with modular folds.  They seem like they would lend themselves better to
this technique (fewer, less intricate folds, and you tend not to have to
re-fold so many creases).  One idea that I've had is to make tom hull's
five intersecting tetrahedra out of a couple different metals.  Anyone want
to give it a go?

- Stephen Canon
Stephen_Canon@brown.edu





From: madawson <madawson@SPRYNET.COM>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 16:49:17 -0800
Subject: Re: Sheet Metal Origami

A company called "Anthropologie" was selling jewelry ( a bracelet ) made
from beads that were origami models folded from thin strips of sheet silver
threaded on silver wire with a wire clasp.  They have a mail order catalog
and may still be available ( try for an 800 #  listing or
anthropologie.com).

MASD

-----Original Message-----
From: RPlsmn@AOL.COM <RPlsmn@AOL.COM>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sunday, February 28, 1999 6:15 AM
Subject: Re: Sheet Metal Origami

>I once folded a decorative box from the sheet metal of a soda can that was
the
>bee's knees of ashtrays in Jamesville NY            RPLSMN





From: Dorothy Engleman <FoldingCA@WEBTV.NET>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 17:32:58 -0800
Subject: Re: Heart-y request

Elizabeth George wrote:

"Is this the same 'flower-in-pot' that makes an appearance in Folding
California? That is such a cute model! Does the illustrious Herman have
other $ folds? A book? Any and all info welcome... Tks."

Yes, Elizabeth, Herman Lau's magnificent dollar bill Flower-in-Pot
graces Folding California, along with his charming dollar bill Mice.

Herman is a member of the list and will hopefully heed our pleas to
publish his dollar bill masterpieces soon.





From: "Dolphin G." <dolphing@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:37:17 -0800 (
Subject: $ bill mouse (was Re: Heart-y request)

>Yes, Elizabeth, Herman Lau's magnificent dollar bill Flower-in-Pot
>graces Folding California, along with his charming dollar bill Mice.

Ouch.  "Dollar bill mice" hits a raw nerve.  A few months ago I created
a mouse from a paper with the proportions of a dollar bill (as seen in
John Montroll's "Origami Sculptures").  I was very pleased with it until
I tried folding it from a real dollar and finding that it was impossibly
thick!  I wonder if anyone else has ever had this experience?

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





From: Christopher Holt <Ella-mae@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:14:57 -0800
Subject: $mouse

I'm unaware of a Montroll mouse from $ proportioned paper. It's not in
Origami Sculptures, but I'd love to find out where it is. Engel's $ crab is
a nice fold, too (for the moderately psychotic, that is). I've only heard of
Herman Lau since joininig this list, what has he written? $ folds are always
fun.





From: Teresa Hathaway <terry@HATHAWAY.DUNGEON.COM>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:30:46 +0000
Subject: First Book

        The first origami "book" I ever purchased was "Essential Origami" by the
 Biddles.  Had to have it for the Dragon on the cover.   I've folded this
 three piece dragon many many times and taught most of my nieces and
 nephews.
         The model takes two pieces of paper the same size and one piece 1/4 of
 the size.  I usually divide a piece of paper in to quarters and then one
 quarter into quarters again.  This always leaves a quarter piece and if
you
 can follow this, three quarters of a quarter piece left over.  So one of
my
 nephews, Jacob, observed that following this method you could keep folding
 smaller and smaller dragons on into infinity.
        So I tried it.  From one 10 inch sheet of paper I folded:  1 - 4 inch
 dragon; 3 - 2 inch dragons; 3 - 1 inch dragons and 5 - 1/2 inch dragons.
I
 still have 7-1/4 inch squares but I give up, these are just too small for
 me.  Guess I'll never see infinity.





From: Deg Farrelly <DEG.FARRELLY@ASU.EDU>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:42:07 -0700
Subject: Folding metal

> Martha Winslow-Cole (formerly Mitchen) wrote:
>
<< ... figure out how to minimize the number of times you
        may need to fold back and forth on the same line to avoid
cracking the metal. >>

        Years ago I had the idea to fold a crane from a sheet of silver
rolled in a mill. (Tho, alas, I never did it)

        In the metal working (jewelry) classes I took in college (back
in the Dark Ages) I learned that the way to restore malleability to a
piece of silver was to heat it.  This annealing process is usually done
with a torch.... but I thought it could also be done in an enameling
kiln, with less risk of melting the model - a real risk if one is
working with paper thin material.

        Just some additional thoughts on this topic.

> deg farrelly
> 1601 West Sunnyside Drive, #115
> Phoenix, Arizona  85029
> Phone:  602.943.8175





From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@OPENCOMINC.COM>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 02:03:14 -0600
Subject: Model of the month

Hi folks!

just posted the model of the month to my web page, it was
designed by one of my students back when I was a student teacher
in high school (someone had to write a curriculum and none of the
teachers knew how) I think Colleen was in 7th grade at the
time.   I hope you enjoy the model.  It is a sylized version of
the american eagle, I found it to resemble the eagle on the old
WWII postage stamps.

Perry
--
pbailey@opencominc.com
http://www.afgsoft.com/perry/  <---- Origami Web Page with
Diagrams!
ICQ 23622644





From: Michael LaFosse <info@ORIGAMIDO.COM>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 09:08:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Another find in my origami library

MARGARET M. BARBER wrote:

> I've done it again!  Found an extra copy of ORU # 7.  This is the one with
> the blue frog on the cover zapping a fly.

Look again. On the cover of ORU #7, the frog is swallowing a snake, and in the
upper left corner of the cover you will see that turn about is fair play:
there is an origami snake eating a frog! Great cover, one of the best from
ORU.

Michael G. LaFosse





From: good man <jess2800@WEBTV.NET>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 11:35:58 -0500
Subject: Re: New diagrams: envelope

Hi Matthias ;
Just checkd out your new envelope diagram, and while I was there I
viewed your photos of "other people'designs". I was unable to get your
"wn designs. but thank you fpr a pleasant and constructive browse.
I wonder if you would be so kind as to tell me where I might find
diagrams for Tomoko Fuse's "Snail".
                                    J..





From: "Dolphin G." <dolphing@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 11:52:18 -0800 (
Subject: Re: $mouse

>I'm unaware of a Montroll mouse from $ proportioned paper. It's not in
>Origami Sculptures, but I'd love to find out where it is. Engel's $
crab is
>a nice fold, too (for the moderately psychotic, that is). I've only
heard of
>Herman Lau since joininig this list, what has he written? $ folds are
always
>fun.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear on that.  I meant to say that Montroll's
method for proportioning a paper into a dollar bill is diagramed in
"Origami Sculptures" for the walrus.  The  mouse was my own design.
(Actually, it looks very similar to the mouse in "North American Animals
in Origami", which is made from a square.  That might be because I based
my model on how Montroll's looked, not a real mouse.  I didn't have any
real mice or pictures available.)

Dolphin

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





From: Christopher Holt <Ella-mae@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 11:59:14 -0800
Subject: Re: Dolphin G $ mouse

Ah! That  Montroll mouse is indeed one of the prettiest models in the books
I own. Although it is folded from an equilateral triangle, I really like the
proportions of Lang's Gerbil in The Complete Book of Origami (the one with
the flapping gull--another beauty, and the action-fold musicians) as well.





From: Jose Tomas Buitrago Molina <buitrago@EIEE.UNIVALLE.EDU.CO>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 13:28:16 -0500
Subject: New Diagrams.

Hello.
I updated my origami page with new Colombian diagrams.
http://eiee.univalle.edu.co/~buitrago/diagramas/modelos.html

There are an airplane, a double flasher, an alphabet and many more...

Enjoy them!

     Jos Tomas Buitrago Molina
     buitrago@eiee.univalle.edu.co
     http://eiee.univalle.edu.co/~buitrago

     "Origami y Robtica"





From: Marcus Hanson <hecatomb@CARROLLSWEB.COM>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 13:28:41 -0600
Subject: Re: $ bill mouse

> Ouch.  "Dollar bill mice" hits a raw nerve.  A few months ago I created
> a mouse from a paper with the proportions of a dollar bill (as seen in
> John Montroll's "Origami Sculptures").  I was very pleased with it until
> I tried folding it from a real dollar and finding that it was impossibly
> thick!  I wonder if anyone else has ever had this experience?

I have found that american money does not take to folding so well
myself.





From: Jessica Schulman <JS2301@AOL.COM>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 15:56:27 -0500 (
Subject: Re: Query for simple envelope

i too would like diagrams for envelope.
what is your web page so that i can look them up.
jess
js2316@banet.net

do not send to aol address as i will probably never pick up my mail.





From: Dorothy Engleman <FoldingCA@WEBTV.NET>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 21:28:32 -0800
Subject: Re: sheet metal origami

Hi Clare!

I would enjoy hearing your comments and feedback, both positive and
negative, about Folding California.

Dorothy





From: Dorothy Engleman <FoldingCA@WEBTV.NET>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 22:29:03 -0800
Subject: (NO) Re: sheet metal origami

Oh, geez, another heartfelt (and exhausted) mea culpa for mistakenly
sending private email to Clare to the list.

Blame it on the bossa nova.

Dorothy





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 22:54:00 +0000
Subject: Der Falter "BOS" edition - free!

Hi all - BOS supplies has been having a clear out of old magazines & we
came across a box of Der Falters (the superb magazine of Origami
Deutschland), the issue devoted to the BOS.

These are far too good to throw away & we haven't been selling them, so
here's your chance for a free copy. It includes biogs (auf Deutsch,
naturlich) & designs from all the leading Brits - Brill, Corrie, Petty,
Kenneway, Rob***on etc.

All you have to do is send a Stamped Addressed Envelope with enough
postage to return a smallish booklet back to you - if there *isn't*
enough postage, it won't be sent - sorry!

Send them to Darker Than Blue (origami), Aizlewoods Mill, Sheffield S3
8GG, England.

cheers,

Nick Robinson
nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk

***      What do you call 50 banjos in a canal?      A start.....     ***





From: DLister891@AOL.COM
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 04:59:34 -0500 (
Subject: Envelope and Letter Folding.

I was asked some time ago to send the address of the Envelope and Letter
folding Association. and I must apologise for keeping everyone waiiting.

The Envelope and Letter Folding Association is an international organisation
and  its international organiser is John Cunliffe. There are national
organisers in several European countries, but at present I understand that
there is a vacancy for an organiser North America. I'm sure that John Cunliffe
would be delighted to hear from anyone who would like to promote the serious
study of envelope and letter folding in the United States or Canada. Or in any
other part of the World for that matter.

Enquiries about the Envelope and letter Folding association should be sent to
John Cunliffe at 17, Regents Park Road, London, NW1  7TL, England. Telephone
from abroad:  +44 - 171 - 487 - 239.  Unfortunately John is not on the
Internet.

Someone queried the difference between letter folds and envelope folds.

Letter folds came first and were merely a means of folding up a letter before
sealing it with sealing wax and sending it through the post. Envelope folds
came into general use with the introduction of the inexpensive General Post
started in 1840. People found their letters less vulnerable if placed in an
outer wrapper instead of been sent naked into the world.

Both letter folds and envelope folds may be divided broadly into two kinds:
utilitarian and decorative. There are many ways of folding a letter for
sending it through the post. Some of them are not only utilitarian, but they
are also fascinting examples of folding construction. Other letter folds are
too complicated to be of any practical use, but are very decorative. Other
letter folds are not so much folds as ways of making a sheet of paper look
pretty before writing upon it.

An interesting sidline has been the investigation of the ways of folding A4
paper. A lot has been discovered about A4 geometry in this way.

Similarly, envelopes may be useful, interesting, decorative, while still
remaining a possiblility for the post, or wildly decorative and impracticable,
but yet, fascinating examples of the folding art.

Letter Folds, in particular, go back for hundreds, if not thousands of years
and some of the earliest have been discovered in China. Some kinds of the
Japanese formal wrappers or "Tsutsumi", especially those used for gifts of
money are really only envelope folds. They are often very beautiful and are
also always tied with mizuhiki string, tied into elaborate formal knots.

Yet another category of letter folds are ways of folding a letter so that it
can immediately be seen if it have been unfolded by anyone. These are usually
sent by schoolchildren or lovers. Lovers' Knots come in string and ribbon, but
there is catagory of lovers' knots folded in paper.

Another interesting sideline has been the study of paper valentines that were
so popular in the 19th Century. Some are ingenious examples of folding,
although they often contain cuts.

Valentines may be derived fom the baptismal cetificates or birth brieves which
were popular in Central Europe in the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries. They,
too,were a special form of letter fold, usully produced by double-blintzing.
Friedrich Froebel's own folded baptismal cetificate, folded in this way, is on
display at the Froebel Museum at Bad Blankenberg in Germany. Baptismal
Certiicates may themselves by a Christanised version of folded horoscopes
dating back to the middle ages, but this is a an area where much more research
is needed before any confident pronouncements can be made.

There are several postal museums round the world with collections of envelope
and letter folds. The subject is a much bigger one that would appear at first
glance.

Books on gift wrapping also contain what are in reality letter and envelope
folds. it is worth having a look at them.

John Cunliffe has written several booklets containing a rich harvest of
envelope and letter folds. His first was published as a British Origami
Society Booklet (No. 25, 1988). There have been three more ediions since then.
The Second Edition was a revision of the first, but the Third and fourth
"editions" are not revisons of the first booklet, but are new collections of
folds.  John has copies available for purchase at reasonable cost.

Do write to John Cunliffe. He will be delighted to hear from you. Better
still, ask to join ELFA. At present there is no subscription.

David Lister,

Grimsby, England.

(Member of ELFA)





From: THORKILD SXNDERGERD <thokiyenn@GET2NET.DK>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 05:16:14 +0100
Subject: Kalmon rides again, a gain ?

This is Kalmon again bragging
on behalf of the crazy old Dane
I have now added a few more things to Origami Cloud
in his clouded Universe
on www.thok.dk

DNA 4 molecule - A4 or any silver rectangle
Diabolic frame    - A4 modified
Parallelepiped    - A4
Folding money    - custom
Fujimoto Hex Box - Square
Inside-Outside Box - A4
Magic Rings  - A4

The magic rings are better named in broken Danish-Latin:
Umulius Rectangulum, which translated into English means
Impossible rectangular connection.

Remember: Blame goes to Thoki Yenn thok@thok.dk

Praise goes to me:
Kalmon  The great and Glorious.





From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@OPENCOMINC.COM>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 07:04:18 -0600
Subject: Re: Design (crediting) problem.

Peter Budai wrote:

> I have created a crocodile model some time ago which now I decided to
> diagram. And now, when I'm diagramming it, I discovered that the model is
> structurally the same as John Montroll's Crocodile (African Animals in
> Origami). Normally, I would throw the thing to the dustbin but this case is
> special, because my model looks quite different (full 3D appearance, with a
> nice lower jaw) from Montroll's model. I mean "different" in a sense two
> things on the same subject can be different.
>
> I am asking that should I diagram it or abandon the whole thing and sail on
> calm waters? If I do diagram it, how the "little problem" of creatorship
> could be solved? Perhaps a joined credit would do (I've seen such a thing
> in Origami Zoo by Robert Lang and Stephen Weiss)?

Peter and all and sundry,

We have been down this road before, if anyone other of course then David (who
is probably giving a much wiser answer) Lister, would agree.  I was thinking of
the case of the purloined pig!  by coincidence two folders one in Spain the
other in Japan each designed a pig that was fundamentaly the same, general
consensus was that both had the right to claim the model as neither had copied
the other.  On the other hand one of the folders mentioned was in my opinion a
little paranoid and claimed it was stolen from him (read Yoshizawa here).

In this case you are dealing with some one who has allready been through the
independant discovery process several times and will probably not become upset
if your model is similar to his, especialy if you have given the model a
different character or used a different style of folding to come to a similar
thing.  I would say the best you can do is give mention to the other folder and
state after you were done you later discovered the similarities but felt that
your version was worth the effort to publish and to fold.

Perry

--
pbailey@opencominc.com
http://www.afgsoft.com/perry/  <---- Origami Web Page with Diagrams!
ICQ 23622644





From: Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 12:08:55 -0500
Subject: Design (crediting) problem.

Hello folders and creators!

I'd like to hear your opinions about the following issue.

I have created a crocodile model some time ago which now I decided to
diagram. And now, when I'm diagramming it, I discovered that the model is
structurally the same as John Montroll's Crocodile (African Animals in
Origami). Normally, I would throw the thing to the dustbin but this case is
special, because my model looks quite different (full 3D appearance, with a
nice lower jaw) from Montroll's model. I mean "different" in a sense two
things on the same subject can be different.

I am asking that should I diagram it or abandon the whole thing and sail on
calm waters? If I do diagram it, how the "little problem" of creatorship
could be solved? Perhaps a joined credit would do (I've seen such a thing
in Origami Zoo by Robert Lang and Stephen Weiss)?

I'm sorry to bore you with this problem of mine but I'm truly helpless.

What are your opinions?

Happy folding, Peter Budai





From: Kenny1414@AOL.COM
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 12:23:58 -0500 (
Subject: Re: Design (crediting) problem.

In a message dated 99-03-02 12:10:23 EST, Peter Budai writes:

> the model is
>  structurally the same as John Montroll's Crocodile (African Animals in
>  Origami)..., ... my model looks quite different (full 3D appearance, with a
>  nice lower jaw) from Montroll's model.

Aloha Peter Budai,

I believe Buddhist philosophy is 'no intention, no sin'.

Go ahead and diagram your Crocodile, but, since you know now,
make sure to include the above note referring to John Montroll's
Crocodile.

I would also add the ISBN and page numbers if you have them.
You could move the ISBN detail to a bibliography at the end of
your book, but I'd put it in both places, to prevent the publisher
dropping it with the bibliography (silly publishers).

Aloha,
Kenneth M. Kawamura        kenny1414@aol.com





From: "Chamberlain, Clare" <Clare.Chamberlain@HEALTH.WA.GOV.AU>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 12:42:24 +0800
Subject: sheet metal origami

Many years ago, when I was living in Japan, I studies enamelling with a
wonderful teacher, Inomata-sensei.  Amongst the many tricks she taught me
was that if you heat up sheets of thin copper, they remain much more
malleable for some minutes after they have cooled down.  I did fold some
tiny, simple models (butterflies, I think) but I had the same problem of
sharp corners and edges.  Hope this is inspiring. (I do also have a bronze
cast traditional crane windbell, which my dad picked up in a junk shop in
Kobe....................)

On a different thread - one of my happiest folding memories was persuading
my dad to take me to an origami display in Birmingham (near the Cricket
ground I believe) - where I discovered BOS.  I was only about 12 at the
time, and was finding life in England very strange after years in Japan!
Mick Guy and friends welcomed me, and now I hope to do the same in Perth!





From: Bob Stack <Noobob@AOL.COM>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 12:54:34 -0500 (
Subject: Re: Design (crediting) problem.

To Peter B.

All creativity is based on prior work by others.  The true creator starts with
a predecessors work and branches off.  Credit must be shared if the change is
not dramatically different.  Without seeing your crocodile I can't say you
should or shouldn't credit John Montroll.  If the creator of the bird base
were known should credit be given each time a model using the base?  And what
about Johns' dinosaur base?  When one gets close to the line it becomes murky.
In this case where, as you say, the head is significantly different there is
no doubt that you woould be entitled to publish.   Should you give credit?  I
guess so.

Bob Stack





From: Russell Sutherland <RGS467@AOL.COM>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 13:10:32 -0500 (
Subject: Re: Design (crediting) problem.

Hey Peter and Fellow Folders,

Glad to hear that you are busy creating and diagramming.   This is an
interesting issue which ALL ORIGAMI CREATORS deal with at some point.  I, too,
have come across the same problem RE: Ownership/Credit for a model.  I have
asked many folders to give me their opinions on how these models should be
credited.  It was suggested that a keep in mind that there are only so many
bases from which to fold.

If the model that you have designed is different enough (aesthetically and
structurally), the consensus seems to be that you should take credit for the
model (only you can make that decision).  Of course, credit for inspiration
should be duly given to Montroll if you borrowed his base folds... I just
received Kawahata's ORIGAMI FANTASY last week... some of the models closely
resemble Montroll's dinosaurs from his PREHISTORIC ORIGAMI... coincidence?
Although Kawahata's dinosaurs seem more complex, I would imagine that Montroll
had influence on his work.  Was credit given to Montroll? And what's more,
Montroll's dinosaur models resemble Japanese designs of dinosaurs that were
published before PREHISTORIC ORIGAMI.... Coincidence?.. And was credit given?
I think we all feed off of each other's creative juices and inspiration when
creating... and that's the way it should be.... However, credit for
inspiration should be given.

In the case of ORIGAMI ZOO, by LANG and WEISS, both creators had their own
models in the book that takes credit for. Although I have heard that both of
them solicited the other's opinions when creating some of these models, none
of the models give dual credit as to creation.

Lang's insects in ORIGAMI INSECTS closely resemble Japanse insects which I
have seen that were published before his book... coincidence???  I think we
all do it.... and if we say we don't we are fibbing.

Who was it that said of ART: From the good ones, borrow.... From the great
ones, STEAL!?

Just some thoughts... I may be way off base, but I think it is an interesting
topic.

Cheers,

Russell Sutherland  AKA: THE LONE FOLDER

PS: I'm sure at this point, we will be referred to the ARCHIVES... Surely,
this is NOT the first time this subject has reared its ugly head on the list.

DARE TO FOLD!!!!!!





From: Marcus Hanson <hecatomb@CARROLLSWEB.COM>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 13:24:02 -0600
Subject: Re: Design (crediting) problem.

Origami should be for every one.
If I made a design I would share it with everyone.
to hell with copyright in this case.

Anyway I find John Montrolls work repulsivly over detailed





From: Vince and Cherri <iamgone@IBM.NET>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 14:27:07 -0800
Subject: Re: Envelope and Letter Folding.

Dear David,
I thank you for your informative post. I will write John Cunliffe and ask to
join the ELFA. Before I post the letter, could you tell me how much to
include for the 3 booklets you mentioned? Do you happen to know how John
would prefer to receive payment? Are checks from the US permitted?
Thanks so much,
Cherri Langley
Seattle, WA
-----Original Message-----
From: DLister891@AOL.COM <DLister891@AOL.COM>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 2:01 AM
Subject: Envelope and Letter Folding.

>I was asked some time ago to send the address of the Envelope and Letter
>folding Association. and I must apologise for keeping everyone waiiting.
>
>The Envelope and Letter Folding Association is an international
organisation
>and  its international organiser is John Cunliffe. There are national
>organisers in several European countries, but at present I understand that
>there is a vacancy for an organiser North America. I'm sure that John
Cunliffe
>would be delighted to hear from anyone who would like to promote the
serious
>study of envelope and letter folding in the United States or Canada. Or in
any
>other part of the World for that matter.
>
>Enquiries about the Envelope and letter Folding association should be sent
to
>John Cunliffe at 17, Regents Park Road, London, NW1  7TL, England.
Telephone
>from abroad:  +44 - 171 - 487 - 239.  Unfortunately John is not on the
>Internet.
>
>Someone queried the difference between letter folds and envelope folds.
>
>Letter folds came first and were merely a means of folding up a letter
before
>sealing it with sealing wax and sending it through the post. Envelope folds
>came into general use with the introduction of the inexpensive General Post
>started in 1840. People found their letters less vulnerable if placed in an
>outer wrapper instead of been sent naked into the world.
>
>Both letter folds and envelope folds may be divided broadly into two kinds:
>utilitarian and decorative. There are many ways of folding a letter for
>sending it through the post. Some of them are not only utilitarian, but
they
>are also fascinting examples of folding construction. Other letter folds
are
>too complicated to be of any practical use, but are very decorative. Other
>letter folds are not so much folds as ways of making a sheet of paper look
>pretty before writing upon it.
>
>An interesting sidline has been the investigation of the ways of folding A4
>paper. A lot has been discovered about A4 geometry in this way.
>
>Similarly, envelopes may be useful, interesting, decorative, while still
>remaining a possiblility for the post, or wildly decorative and
impracticable,
>but yet, fascinating examples of the folding art.
>
>Letter Folds, in particular, go back for hundreds, if not thousands of
years
>and some of the earliest have been discovered in China. Some kinds of the
>Japanese formal wrappers or "Tsutsumi", especially those used for gifts of
>money are really only envelope folds. They are often very beautiful and are
>also always tied with mizuhiki string, tied into elaborate formal knots.
>
>Yet another category of letter folds are ways of folding a letter so that
it
>can immediately be seen if it have been unfolded by anyone. These are
usually
>sent by schoolchildren or lovers. Lovers' Knots come in string and ribbon,
but
>there is catagory of lovers' knots folded in paper.
>
>Another interesting sideline has been the study of paper valentines that
were
>so popular in the 19th Century. Some are ingenious examples of folding,
>although they often contain cuts.
>
>Valentines may be derived fom the baptismal cetificates or birth brieves
which
>were popular in Central Europe in the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries. They,
>too,were a special form of letter fold, usully produced by
double-blintzing.
>Friedrich Froebel's own folded baptismal cetificate, folded in this way, is
on
>display at the Froebel Museum at Bad Blankenberg in Germany. Baptismal
>Certiicates may themselves by a Christanised version of folded horoscopes
>dating back to the middle ages, but this is a an area where much more
research
>is needed before any confident pronouncements can be made.
>
>There are several postal museums round the world with collections of
envelope
>and letter folds. The subject is a much bigger one that would appear at
first
>glance.
>
>Books on gift wrapping also contain what are in reality letter and envelope
>folds. it is worth having a look at them.
>
>John Cunliffe has written several booklets containing a rich harvest of
>envelope and letter folds. His first was published as a British Origami
>Society Booklet (No. 25, 1988). There have been three more ediions since
then.
>The Second Edition was a revision of the first, but the Third and fourth
>"editions" are not revisons of the first booklet, but are new collections
of
>folds.  John has copies available for purchase at reasonable cost.
>
>Do write to John Cunliffe. He will be delighted to hear from you. Better
>still, ask to join ELFA. At present there is no subscription.
>
>
>David Lister,
>
>Grimsby, England.
>
>(Member of ELFA)





From: ROCKYGROD@AOL.COM
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 15:52:57 -0500 (
Subject: Matsuri Festival In Arizona

I just returned from a wonderful weekend in Phoenix, Arizona where I attended
the annual Japanese Matsuri Festival.  In addition, the Phoenix Origami
Society sponsored an origami workshop given by Joseph Wu.  He was outstanding
creator, patient teacher and generous sharer of his talent with all.  We
learned Joseph's baby elephant and far eastern dragon...what a treat!  Thanks
to Doris Asano for putting this workshop together and and letting some of us
lone folders in the west attend!  A great time was had by all.
Patty Grodner
New Mexico





From: Bob Stack <Noobob@AOL.COM>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 17:08:25 -0500 (
Subject: Re: Matsuri Festival In Arizona

I just want to say that the description of Joseph Wu is accurate but
understated.





From: DLister891@AOL.COM
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 18:05:19 -0500 (
Subject: Re: Design (crediting) problem.

Once more copyright! And I thought I swore only a month or two ago never to
write another word to Origami-L about the forbidden subject. I'm not sure that
I agree with Perry Bailey that we have been down this particular avenue of
origami copyright before, but we have certainly been down several like it, so
that it haunts us like of those uncomfortable places we visit in our menacing
dreams. Those subscribers who cannot tolerate the very mention of the word
"copyright" and who turn puple with rage at the slightest hint of the subject
should beware, and depart now and and flick to the next message.

Perry also suggests I may be give a much wiser answer. But wiser than what or
whom? Nevertheless, I'll pick up the gauntlet.

The facts of the matter are these. Peter Budai has entirely independently
designed an origami crocodile. After he designed it, he discovered that
structurally it resembled a crocodile previously designed by John Montroll.
What should he do? Should he publish it or not?

First, there is the hoary issue of whether copyright can exist in the concept
and theoretical structure of the model. If copyright is incapable of existing
in the concept of the model and if Peter's diagrams are in no way copies of
John Montroll's, then, in law, Peter can go ahead with impunity can go ahead.
In law that is. The courtesy of the matter might call for a different
approach.

Second. Suppose, for argument, that copyright CAN exist in the concept of the
model. Even then, provided Peter has designed his model entirely without any
concscious or unconscious reference to John's model, in theory he can still go
ahead, because he has not copied John's model and consequently has not
breached John's copyright.

Such is the theory. The practice and the sensible course of action are far
different. We are talking about legal rights and obligations. In any legal
dispute, the biggest problem of all is for each party to PROVE his position.
How could Peter prove to the satisfaction of a court of law that he had not in
the slightest been influenced by John's earlier model? He couldn't, But
equally John would find it difficult to prove the contrary. We are left with
two honest folders doubting each others' integrity.

This sort of dispute crops up  with regularity in the field of pop music,
where there is far more money involved than in paperfolding and where the
contestants can sometimmes afford to squander fortunes on legal actions. The
judges in such cases have a well-nigh impossible problem to solve and their
decisions can never satisfy both parties. At any rate the lawyers come out of
such conflicts in pocket. Perhaps we are fortunate that paperfolders are less
likely to have spare cash available to throw at each other.

Even if, as is usual, the case does not go to court (as in the case of the
Purloined Pig and still more, as in the case of the Purloined Peacock , where
there were at least three claimants to the design) it can cause suspicion,
bitterness and resentment. Marcus Hanson says :"To hell with copyright in this
case." But no amount of consigning disputes such as this to hell will cause
such problems to go there. It is a sad fact that they will remain in this
world and fester and cause resentment and pain. Even without going near a
court or a lawyer. Even by pretending that such problems do not exist.

The answer is for Peter to take the matter up directly with John Montroll and
to be frank about it. From what I know of John, he would appreciate being
approached and while I could not possibly speak for him, I suspect he would be
likely to be co-operative. If he gave his blessing, Peter would print his
model according to his own design and diagrams and should then include a short
note about how he independently discovered the model and only later found that
it had the same structure as John's. He should mention that he had approached
John about the matter and quote the reference in John's book to enable readers
to compare the similarities and the differences between the two models. In all
probability John would agree. If so, this would be a better and more creative
result than for Peter to spring his model on the world without any
acknowledgement to John and to incur John's possible suspicion of copying and
also his resentment.

Speaking more generally, in the world of paperfolding where the universal
rules of geometry apply, it is inevitable that folders independently arrive at
similar designs. It has happened over and over again. It is also inevitable
that folders build on their predecessors' ideas, whether consciously  or
unconsciously. Whether a model is a copy of another or whether it copies ideas
from another model is a question of degree that can only be measured by that
flexible word "substantially". The question is: are the the two models or
ideas used in them substantially the same?

Copyright conflicts will not go away by pretending that they do not exist.
They should never be ignored. But a reasonable and cooperative approach can
often bring about a solution acceptable to all parties and prevent their venom
from poisoning relationships between paperfolders. Sadly Adolfo Cerceda felt
wounded by the contoversies that surrounded some of his models. Because of
this, he clammed up, kept models to himself and refused to publish them for
fear of being accused of copying. The result is that we are all the losers.

David Lister.

Grimsby, England.

DLister891@AOL.com





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 18:57:28 +0000
Subject: Re: Design (crediting) problem.

Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU> sez

>calm waters? If I do diagram it, how the "little problem" of creatorship
>could be solved? Perhaps a joined credit would do (I've seen such a thing

If you follow through a logical process, there's every chance that
others have as well. What you *mustn't* do is let this worry you! Every
design leads to another (and often better). If you feel influenced by
Montroll & have folded lots of his work, it would be nice to add "after
Montroll" or "with deference to" etc.

However, if it's as similar as you suggest, is it worth diagramming at
all? Will the origami world benefit? This problem is one reason I moved
away from modular boxes (after a brief foray) - I discovered that
everything I came up with had been created earlier by Fuse. Since the
area was so well worked, it seemed a better use of my time to explore
other, less popular areas (at the time, minimalist, wet-folding etc)

I always look to Herman Van Goubergen for inspiration - his designs are
absolutely his own and although he undoubtedly has influences, his
choice of subject and technique is uniquely his. I envy him! Jeremy
Shafer is another folder with a unique line in origami subject matter.

At risk of being inflammatory, I think it's difficult to be truly
original when you are using such advanced techniques as employed by
Montroll, Lang, Kawahata et al. They have explored many of the more
obvious areas nearly to exhaustion.

If duplication worries you, I'd suggest going for simple to medium
difficulty folds and concentrate on less common subjects, actively
rejecting techniques you may have borrowed from other folders.

all the best,

Nick Robinson

email           nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - now featuring soda syphons!
BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos/   - back online!





From: "Jerry D. Harris" <102354.2222@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 19:50:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Design (crediting) problem.

Message text written by Origami List
>Origami should be for every one.
If I made a design I would share it with everyone.
to hell with copyright in this case.<

        Maybe I'm misremembering something here, but I recall awhile back
discussions of copyright on this list settling that while the _diagrams_ on
folding a model could be copyrighted, a _model_ cannot...?  If true, your
(Peter's) diagrams for completing your model could be copyright-able, given
that they're not identical in all respects to John's (which, since you
mention your model is somewhat different, shouldn't be a problem).
However, as others have pointed out, you probably ought to mention
somewhere on them that your model resembles John's and that the convergence
is coincedental.  (I have the same problem, as my own,
independently-derived _Stegosaurus_ model uses virtually the same technique
to create plates as Kawahata's, but I invented mine weeks before obtaining
a copy of Kawahata's book!)

>Anyway I find John Montrolls work repulsivly over detailed<

        Sounds like someone's itching to restart the "Realism vs.
Symbolicism" debate...

 _,_
 ____/_\,) .. _
--____-===( _\/ \\/ \-----_---__
 /\ ' ^__/>/\____\--------
__________/__\_ ____________________________.//__.//_________

 Jerry D. Harris
 Fossil Preparation Lab
 New Mexico Museum of Natural History
 1801 Mountain Rd NW
 Albuquerque NM 87104-1375
 Phone: (505) 899-2809
 Fax: (505) 841-2866
 102354.2222@compuserve.com





From: PErick3491@AOL.COM
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 23:46:52 -0500 (
Subject: Rabbit

Hello Everybody,
It seems I only send a message to the list when I need help--as now.  In
Randlett's Best of Origami, he has a picture of a rabbit by Neal Elias.  He
says it is closely related to Mr. Elias' lion, which is diagrammed in the
book.  The rabbit is not diagrammed.  If anyone has played around with this
and knows what changes to make to the lion diagram,  I would greatly
appreciate hearing from them.  Thanks in advance.  Pat





From: Faye Goldman <FayeG@IX.NETCOM.COM>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 06:50:50 -0600
Subject: Visit to San Diego, Calif

I will be visiting Southern California over the weekend (3/5) and
I am looking for any interesting paper or book stores which
I should visit.
Please reply privately,
Thanks,
Faye Goldman
fayeg@ix.netcom.com

Faye Goldman





From: Boseditor@AOL.COM
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 07:35:24 -0500 (
Subject: Design (crediting) problem.

In a message dated 03/02/1999 09:00:54 PM GMT, Peter Budai
<peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU> writes:
 Subject:

 << I have created a crocodile model some time ago which now I decided to
 diagram. And now, when I'm diagramming it, I discovered that the model is
 structurally the same as John Montroll's Crocodile >>

Seems to me that Peter is saying that his crocodile was created without any
conscious dependence on John Montroll's earlier work.

The only real question therefore is whether there was any unconscious
dependence. For this to be the case there would have to be something
significantly original about the structure of John's crocodile - which amounts
to more than a re-use of previous techniques in a difference context - which
has either influenced Peter directly or by dissemination through other models.

In Peter's place, provided I was happy that there was neither conscious or
unconscious dependency, I would simply add a note to my diagrams saying
something like 'A very different crocodile developed by John Montroll from
similar preliminary folds can be found in ....'

Dave Mitchell
