




From: Susan Johnston <supersuzy2000@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 20:14:46 +0100 (
Subject: Re: Japanese book

To Mark,
I don't think you received an email i sent u before regarding that book.  If
you did then tough - you'll have to read it again but if you didn't, i'm
writing it out again...
I have not seen that book which you mentioned so i don't know what it looks
like.  although, i went down to london in the easter hols and i came across
a Japanese book shop which had loads and loads of things to do with origami
in it.  (Books + paper)
I know it didn't answer your q and that you would still have to go down to
london, but this is some info...

JAPAN CENTRE BOOKSHOP
212 Picadilly
London
W1V 9LD
Tel. 0171-439 8035
Fax. 0171-287 1082

Oh and if you have trouble reading the title, you can always ask me... i'm
learning japanese at school!!!

I hope that was some help cos if it wasn't then i've just wasted a lot of
homework time!
Nevermind

>From Susan
@---)-->---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>From: Mark and Theresa <mark@HOBBITON.FORCE9.NET>
>Reply-To: Origami List <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
>To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>Subject: Japanese book
>Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 12:01:35 +0100
>
>I have seen a book (by Kasahara) with loads of nice folds of animals,
>mostly fairly simple on the whole. However I can't get my own copy! I
>have the ISBN but all the major online bookshops say they don't have it.
>Other than a trip down to London (Yes - I am in the UK!) I don't know
>how to get hold of it. Any ideas? Any London folders could email me with
>offers of help if they wanted ;)
>
>Thank you for your time
>
>--
>Mark

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





From: Deg Farrelly <DEG.FARRELLY@ASU.EDU>
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 20:16:57 -0700
Subject: Origami Book Loans

On May 14, Doug Philips wrote:

<<... then I guess you have to use your library
(if you don't have one locally, I've heard of some libraries having
outreach programs for those unable to leave their homes, as well as
services available through the mail).>>

Origami books are more widely available in libraries now than they have ever
been.

Most libraries offer an InterLibrary Loan service (ILL) through which they
will obtain for your use books held by other libraries.  Charges may apply.

Loan of origami books is one of the services offered to Origami USA members
(wherever they may be).  Books available for loan are limited to titles
which are currently in print, (and thus also available for purchase from The
Source - the OUSA supply center).  And borrowers pay shipping costs, (Return
only, I think).

By the way, the US Postal Service offers a special shipping rate for books.

deg farrelly, Associate Librarian
Media / Women's Studies / Document Delivery Program Manager
Arizona State University West





From: OrigamiNW <orca@ESKIMO.COM>
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 20:36:24 -0700
Subject: Re: ORCA Registration

Thanks for asking John about the ORCA registration.

No one has recieved registration forms yet.  We have had a lot of hurdles
to overcome before they could go out.  We expect them to be out within the
next two weeks.

As far as late fees.... we through those out the window.  Unlike the New
York convention, there is no penalty or advantage associated with the
timing of you registration.

One of the things we have accomplished is the ability to take credit
cards.... Visa, Master Card, American Express, Discover, etc.  Hopefully
this will make it easier for some.

And YES, we will be posting our registration forms on our web site:
          http://www.eskimo.com/~orca
The registration forms should appear there in the next couple of days (for
those of you who want to get it out of the way.)

Our e-mail address is  orca@eskimo.com
The information line:  (425) 451-2849

Thanks again for your inquiry.





From: Binzi <binzi@MUENSTER.DE>
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 21:07:51 +0200
Subject: cats

Hi folders,

Where can I find a realistic looking, complex cat (in addition to the ones
sleeping in my bed and sitting on my breakfast)?

CU
Evi





From: Torsten Drees <torsten.drees@T-ONLINE.DE>
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 21:13:24 +0200
Subject: web site updated (2nd )

99-05-17 21:00:00 MET
 Hi,

i updated my website again.

problems solved.

 http://home.t-online.de/home/Torsten.Drees/

 torsten





From: Rob Moes <robert.moes@SNET.NET>
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 21:16:20 -0400
Subject: Re: origami capitalism

Kevin writes:

>My question is this: Is it in any way considered taboo to
>sell origami? I know that there are several people on this
>list who make money at it, but I get the impression that
>income is generated mostly from commissioned designs,
>published works, etc., and not from the sale of completed
>models.

Some consider it taboo.  I think you will have to come to your own
conclusions about this.  I think we all know of the heritage of origami as
something to be given away or shared with someone.

I do think that from a practical standpoint it is difficult to make more
than 5 or 10 dollars on any given model--which may represent an hour of
time for an impeccably folded piece.  Let's face it...if the designers
could make a lot of money by folding, they wouldn't be doing deals with
Dover Publications to sell entire diagrammed books that cost 5 or 10
dollars apiece.

When I was a college student I did do some folding for money.  However, I
was far from a good capitalist.  I used the money *strictly* to buy
additional paper and books.  Then a bit more folding of better and fancier
models, and I was able to join a couple of origami organizations and buy
imported and rare books and paper, and so on.  OK, maybe it bought me a
pizza or two along the way as well, but you know how college kids are when
it comes to food.  I sold my work to friends who appreciated my time and
effort and need for pizza.

I will still accept money from someone who would like to have something
folded out of unusual or expensive paper.  When I lived in Iowa, I was sent
on a shopping spree to Aiko on North Clark Street in Chicago for some of
their astonishing Japanese papers--gas and trip expenses paid.  These were
made into special origami "thank you" favors from the bride to the members
of her wedding party.  The father of the bride even chipped in an extra 50
bucks out of sheer gratitude, as these went over so well.

Perhaps I should have written to people like Fred Rohm and Pat Crawford and
asked if they would like 5 dollars, courtesy of a grateful
father-of-the-bride.  Would you have taken the money, O great Creators out
there?

If I were an evil entrepreneur...origami for weddings would definitely be
the way to go, in my opinion.  It's handmade.  It has keepsake value.  It
has that symbol of purity.  It can be quite festive or extravagant.  It
(hopefully) didn't come out of Martha Stewart Living magazine, so it will
be *unique* and memorable for the occasion.  Hey, if any of you come up
with an origami for weddings website, I demand acknowledgment if not actual
cash.  <wink>

Some would say that I was still folding for personal gain, even if I didn't
realize actual "profit" and this is true.  However, I have gained a great
deal of expertise as a folder from having more challenging books and
greater varieties of paper.  I have since donated some of my ill-gotten
booty as donations to the American Museum of Natural History for its
holiday origami tree the last dozen years or so.  I have also been able to
donate my time and my own paper to folding seminars for schools and other
groups that would otherwise not have the resources to *share* origami with
others.  So there!   :)

Rob
robert.moes@snet.net





From: Paul Chabot <OrKman15@AOL.COM>
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 21:21:15 -0400 (
Subject: Re: cats

In a message dated 5/17/99 8:42:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
origami@ALOHA.NET writes:

<< >
 > Hi folders,
 >
 > Where can I find a realistic looking, complex cat (in addition to the ones
 > sleeping in my bed and sitting on my breakfast)?
 >
 > CU
 > Evi
  >>

I found a very cute Spanish cat (gatito) on one of the Spanish organization
sites. It's by Anibal Voyer at : http://www.publynet.com/aep/desarrollos.htm
. There are also some other really good models by her on that page. It comes
out very good when wet folded out of a strong piece of paper. You may need to
modify the tail to give it a more catlike pose. The diagrams should be pretty
easy to understand, but some of the explanations are in Spanish.

Happy folding
Paul Chabot





From: "Mr A.S. Malik" <2staron@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 22:09:38 -0400
Subject: Paris Convention

The French realy know how to put a convention together, I had a
great time, and met old friends, and made many new ones.
The only down side was the hotel, but that can't be blamed on the
M.F.P.P.
I look forward to next year, many thanks to the people that put
it togther, you all did a great job.

Asghar.





From: Susan Dugan <florafauna@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 23:22:16 -0400
Subject: Re: [NO]  ORCA Registration (Sounds familiar)

John,
Let me relay info on a phone call I made yesterday concerning the OCRA
registration.
We are planning a trip to Seattle at about the same time as the Convention
and we received a letter in February 99 back saying the registration
packages would be mailed out in March 99. I was tired of waiting, so I
called the information line (425) 451-2849 (email address is
ORCA@eskimo.com) and was told (by a very helpful gentleman) the registration
material has not been mailed yet and should be mailed very soon. I mentioned
that the August Convention date is fast approaching for those of us that
have to plan ahead PLUS they have a $25.00 late fee identified for
applications not sent in by June 1. (This sounds so familiar!)
The rooms at the University appear very plentiful but they are still working
out some logistics. (I asked about the possibility of a family room for
myself/wife and 9 yr old daughter).
The website reference for those that have not seen it is:
http://www.eskimo.com/~orca/. There appears to be sections still "under
construction" or pending (like an on-line application form).
Seems like putting together a Convention can be difficult and time consuming
regardless of what side of the US you are on.  But I plan on enjoying the
trip with my family.
If anyone else has additional information that I am not aware of or new
(different?)information, please let me know.
Mike Montebello (a husband lurker behind Susan Dugan, the real Origami fan)
(Don't be fooled by the email name, I am not Susan Dugan)

>I have not received any registration info. for ORCA, and can't find an
email address on their website. Does anyone know if registration is being
accepted yet? According to the website, registration after June 1 will be
subject to a late fee.
>It would be nice if a registration form was available on the website.
>Thanks in advance,
>John Marcolina
>San Jose, CA.
>jmarcoli@cisco.com





From: Dino Andreozzi <dion@HEM.PASSAGEN.SE>
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 23:55:15 +0200
Subject: SV:      "Moment of Truth" photo?

Another good picture of that model can be found in the homepage of Origami
     Sweden . The URL is:
http://home4.swipnet.se/~w-46551/andrahtml/gallery2.htm

Regards

Dino

----- Ursprungligt meddelande -----
Frn: Dolphin G. <dolphing@HOTMAIL.COM>
Till: <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Skickat: den 16 maj 1999 04:57
mne: "Moment of Truth" photo?

> I've heard alot about Elias's bull-fighting scene, but I've never seen it.
> Can someone please direct me to a picture of it?  Thanks!
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com





From: OrigamiNW <orca@ESKIMO.COM>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 03:20:32 -0700
Subject: Re: ORCA Registration

On Mon, 17 May 1999, OrigamiNW wrote:

> As far as late fees.... we through those out the window.  Unlike the New
> York convention, there is no penalty or advantage associated with the
> timing of you registration.

Oops... My English is tear-able.  I hoap yew'll fig-your out watt I ment.

There will be no late fees for the ORCA convention.  We THREW them out the
window.

How embarrassing.





From: Chris Miller <Chr1sM@AOL.COM>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:03:07 -0400 (
Subject: Re: sighting

In the Simpsons, they also folded some yen into a crane, which of  course was
there last money, and the air picked it up and it went bye-bye.

chrismiller
pedr0nniall
chr1sm@aol.com





From: Jennifer <jsgerrish@YAHOO.COM>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:09:09 -0700
Subject: Re: origami capitalism

Rob, I would be interested in the favors you folded.  I am having a shower for
my sister in law to be and that would be a great idea.  I could send you the
money for a pizza.

Jen
jsgerrish@yahoo.com





From: Carlos Alberto Furuti <furuti@AHAND.UNICAMP.BR>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:30:45 -0300
Subject: Re: cats

>>From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
>>
>>I believe that the cat in question is by YAMAGUCHI Makoto.
Agreed.
>>
>>Yes, Yoshizawa has a nice cat in Sosaku Origami. It's made out of 2 pieces
>>of paper, though.
I think there are no cat models in Sousaku Origami (Yoshizawa/NHK), unless
you count the tiger. There are both photos and diagrams of two-piece
cats in Dokuhon II (Tokuhon II, depending on romanization).

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





From: Carlos Alberto Furuti <furuti@AHAND.UNICAMP.BR>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:35:34 -0300
Subject: Re: cats

>>From: Christopher Holt <Ella-mae@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
>>Engel's Tiger fold can also be adapted to various domestic cat postures and
>>proportions with a little tweaking. What caught my attention in your post
If you mean the tiger in the OUSA Annual 88 and "Angelfish to Zen", I think
it resembles a leopard more than a tiger (too slender, no suggestion of
whiskers). Just hide the teeth, flex the legs and you have a very good cat.

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





From: Carlos Alberto Furuti <furuti@AHAND.UNICAMP.BR>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:45:35 -0300
Subject: Re: cats Wait Try this one first !

Darren, I appreciate your willing effort (I still haven't checked the picture),
to help, but please consider:
- some people must download the whole message from the provider before
it can be seen (and since you didn't use a good subject line, before even
knowing what it is). Downloading 250KB can be slow
- some people have limited mailboxes. If it fills up, further messages
can be lost
- some people *pay* per each received byte.

Although I have (yet) none of these limitations, I'd advise you before posting
a large image to put it in a Web page (or the origami archives) and
advertising the URL instead. Otherwise, at least mention in the subject
line that it's a large message.

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





From: Binzi <binzi@MUENSTER.DE>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:52:18 +0200
Subject: Re: sighting

>Last night's episode of The Simpsons mentioned origami,
>albeit briefly.
>
>----------------------
>Kevin A. Hines

They also folded an easy swan in "pretender" on tv. It was used for
communication between Jarod and his simple minded Friend. Very impressive.

Evi





From: Binzi <binzi@MUENSTER.DE>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:07:21 +0200
Subject: cats/thank you!

Hi folders,

thank you for all the research you have done! I guess I'll end up ordering
about 20 new books.
My husband is already getting heart attacks.  :o)

Happy folding!
Evi





From: Michie Sahara <michies@WESTWORLD.COM>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:15:00 -0700
Subject: origami capitalism

I don't see anything wrong in making money with origami.  Not only in
selling our book or teaching we make origami artwork to sell. Our origami
artworks are sometimes a canvas with origami on it or a branch with origami
on it.  ( There are photos of them in the last chapter of our book.) I don't
think most people appreciate things when they are given free.  Since our
works are made mostly of washi, paper alone is very expensive.  Like Mathias
Gutfeldt said the time we spent on creating is the time we should get paid,
too.  I want to raise the people's appreciation of origami...to make origami
valuable. One way to achieve this I feel is to have them pay for it.  I want
people to think of origami as art, just like a painting or a sculpture.
People pay for them so why not for origami!
Now so far we only fold connected cranes so they are traditional...sort of
like in public domain.  Therefore there is no neccesity of paying a royalty,
but it seems that you need to pay a royalty for a creation by someone.  Of
course you will mention the original creator's name, but like Mathias said
the actual profit may be very little and to share that with the author might
be difficult.  Anyway I do want to raise the value of origami by having
people pay for the finished work.





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:18:54 -0700
Subject: Re: cats

At 08:30 99/05/18 -0300, you wrote:
>I think there are no cat models in Sousaku Origami (Yoshizawa/NHK), unless
>you count the tiger. There are both photos and diagrams of two-piece
>cats in Dokuhon II (Tokuhon II, depending on romanization).

My mistake. You are quite correct, Carlos.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t: 604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331  e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
w: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:28:38 -0700
Subject: Re: origami capitalism

At 13:58 99/05/18 +0200, you wrote:
>I sell other people's designs. Hell, I even sell my own designs. And I
>get paid to teach origami, never mind who created it. I even got paid to
>show some origami on TV, of which only a very few designs were my own. I
>think it would be wrong if I did all this for free.

Sigh. We've been through this so many times before. Yes, you should get paid
to do all of those things, but so should designers.

>Maybe the analogy with music will help: Is it taboo for the London
>Synphony Orchestra to play a classical concert? I don't think so.
>Instead, they are famous, they make CDs, they get invited all over the
>place. Strange, isn't it? After all, all they do is sell other people's
>music! (And hey, most of the time they sell DEAD PEOPLE'S MUSIC! Now
>isn't that evil, profiteering from the deceased?).

And if they play something that is still under copyright, they PAY A USERS'
FEE (or licensing fee, or whatever you want to call it).

>Now the money business: Of course, people say we're "stealing money"
>from the creators when we sell THEIR models. Well, that's total
>nonsense. Even if we can sell a model for 50$ we don't make all that
>much money. Most of the time, it barely covers the expenses of buying
>the paper, not to mention the folding time. So all expenses accounted
>for, there might be 1$ left. Would it make sense to send the creator his
>share of this 1$?

No, it's not nonsense. What possible motivation do I have to "share" my work
with people if I know that they're going to turn around and profit from it?
Especially if they're undercutting my fees, possibly stealing business from
me? I would like to be able to support myself by doing origami, and I think
I'm well on my way to achieve that goal. But that won't be possible if
others in the community continue to hold such simplistic views about
"sharing". I've said it before: the result of such forced sharing is that
designers will have less inclination to publish diagrams for their work.

>So I think you shouldn't worry about taboos until you buy your your next
>Porsche with Origam money.

Origami is paying for my honeymoon and for part of my new house.

>Matthias
>P.S.: But if you do sell origami professionaly, it is polite to inform
>the creator. Jan did it, and I think the creator's replies were mostly
>encouraging.

And what if they say no?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t: 604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331  e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
w: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





From: Kim Best <kim.best@M.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:01:06 -0600
Subject: Re: The Human Condition

Doug Philips wrote:

> Is it just that there is an overbalance of "joy" or is there another reason
> for the focus on the "Dark side"?
>

Maybe I'm just grim.  No really, I used these dark emotions because I
thought my meaning would be less ambiguous.  Joy will do.  But a more
specific sort of joy then that created by looking at a good piece of
origami.  How about he joy a woman feels after giving birth to a child.
The joy a couple feels at getting married.  The joy of surpassing ones
own personal expectations.

> (Humor) Done a lot because its "easier" or just more acceptable?
>

Probably both.

>
> Again, even in this case, it is the result of a reductionism.  Or,
> would you claim, that the medium of origami is not expressive enough
> (or has yet to be made that expressive) to convey those shadings in a
> way that a painting (or sculpture) of just those two waltzers could?
>

If by reductionism you mean the the limitation of using one uncut
square.  I believe you have a point.  Many models in a scene would
provide more context and make the exploration of ideas and complex
emotions easier.  But I have seen a lot of amazing things done with a
single sheet of paper.  For example a lizard on a wall looking at a
fly.  Maybe more can be done with a single sheet then we have expected.

I would also like to clear up a few misunderstandings.  When I talked
about the tools of origami not fading into the background.  I was not
referring to the viewing of the finished model.  Yes, there are many
pieces that transcend the medium.  I was referring to the actual
creation process.  Take an oil painter for example.  After he gets very
good, he no longer has to thing about how to use the paint and brush to
create a lion, he just does it.  The paint and brush have faded into the
background.  But for the creator of origami, the folding process never
completely fades into the background.  A painter can use the same
technique to paint a tiger as he did a lion.  But it takes quite a bit
of reworking to convert a lion fold into a tiger fold.  This makes the
creation of new things in origami harder, but certainly not impossible.
It also makes it more interesting.

Also, it was never my intent to set restrictions on origami.  Indeed, it
was my hope to expand it.  Yes, more lifelike animals are still an
exciting part of origami.  Tessellations are still a promising field of
exploration.  But origami has always benefited by challenges.  In
addition to the more representative challenges, how about a few more
emotionally charged ones?

--
Kim Best                            *******************************
                                    *          Origamist:         *
Rocky Mountain Cancer Data System   * Some one who thinks paper   *
420 Chipeta Way #120                * thin, means thick and bulky *
Salt Lake City, Utah  84108         *******************************





From: Spider Barbour <spider@ULSTER.NET>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:37:15 -0500
Subject: origami taboos push my buttons

-- [ From: Spider Barbour * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --

Matthias Gutfeldt writes:

++There are at least as many taboos about origami as there are subscribers
to this list. But you don't have to subscribe to all of them.++

Indeed, or to any of them.  I personally am a little sick of the attitudes
that seem to go along with the folding of so-called pure origami.  Arrogance
, elitism -- any model that is mentioned that does not follow the
restrictions set forth by "purists" is described as "unfortunate."
To me, this hierarchy for valuing certain models over others smacks of
authoritarianism.
        I reject it and say, Fold what you like, like what you like, don't
apologize for it but please be tolerant of other choices.  There are no art
police, and the only origami policeman I know of was designed by Eric
Kenneway and is in Robert Harbin's "Origami 3."

Yours for freedom in folding,
Anita Barbour





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 12:22:03 -0400
Subject: Re: origami capitalism

Michie Sahara wrote:
> I don't think most people appreciate things when they are given free.
...
> I want to raise the people's appreciation of origami...to make origami
> valuable. One way to achieve this I feel is to have them pay for it.  I want
> people to think of origami as art, just like a painting or a sculpture.
> People pay for them so why not for origami!

An interesting point. I note also that flea markets are full of art that sells
for very little. And then there are the "starving artists" sales, where one
can get a large painting (large >= several square feet) very cheaply as well.
I don't think having people pay versus not-pay will make much of a cultural
difference (at least not in the USA). Personally, I think having origami
treated as art by galleries, museums, patrons, etc. will make a bigger
difference. We might hope otherwise, but most of the general public takes
their direction (dare I say mimics?) from the existing "bastions" of the art
world. Just my $0.02.

-D'gou





From: Marcus Hanson <hecatomb@CARROLLSWEB.COM>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 13:38:22 -0500
Subject: Re: origami capitalism

>And then there are the "starving artists" sales, where one
> can get a large painting (large >= several square feet) very cheaply as well.

the paintings in starving artist sales are mass produced
on an assembly line with rubber stamps.
definitely little value.
To keep this in the realm of origami.
I do not think it is taboo to sell origami.
Just in poor taste.
But that is my opinion .
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Hanson's Digital Gallery
http://members.tripod.com/~MarcH_3/index.html
last updated 5-9-99
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you have but one wish, let it be for an idea."
                                        - Percy Sutton -





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 13:58:47 +0200
Subject: Re: origami capitalism

Kevin writes:
>My question is this: Is it in any way considered taboo to
>sell origami? I know that there are several people on this
>list who make money at it, but I get the impression that
>income is generated mostly from commissioned designs,
>published works, etc., and not from the sale of completed
>models.

Of course it's considered taboo. It is also considered taboo to use
non-square paper, to cut the paper, to paint on the finished model, and
finally it is taboo to think impure thoughts like "If only I could use
scissors here!".

There are at least as many taboos about origami as there are subscribers
to this list. But you don't have to subscribe to all of them.

I sell other people's designs. Hell, I even sell my own designs. And I
get paid to teach origami, never mind who created it. I even got paid to
show some origami on TV, of which only a very few designs were my own. I
think it would be wrong if I did all this for free.

Maybe the analogy with music will help: Is it taboo for the London
Synphony Orchestra to play a classical concert? I don't think so.
Instead, they are famous, they make CDs, they get invited all over the
place. Strange, isn't it? After all, all they do is sell other people's
music! (And hey, most of the time they sell DEAD PEOPLE'S MUSIC! Now
isn't that evil, profiteering from the deceased?).

Now the money business: Of course, people say we're "stealing money"
from the creators when we sell THEIR models. Well, that's total
nonsense. Even if we can sell a model for 50$ we don't make all that
much money. Most of the time, it barely covers the expenses of buying
the paper, not to mention the folding time. So all expenses accounted
for, there might be 1$ left. Would it make sense to send the creator his
share of this 1$?

So I think you shouldn't worry about taboos until you buy your your next
Porsche with Origam money.

Matthias
P.S.: But if you do sell origami professionaly, it is polite to inform
the creator. Jan did it, and I think the creator's replies were mostly
encouraging.





From: Michael LaFosse <info@ORIGAMIDO.COM>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:29:48 -0400
Subject: Re: The Human Condition

> Also, it was never my intent to set restrictions on origami.  Indeed, it
> was my hope to expand it.  Yes, more lifelike animals are still an
> exciting part of origami.  Tessellations are still a promising field of
> exploration.  But origami has always benefited by challenges.  In
> addition to the more representative challenges, how about a few more
> emotionally charged ones?

I have many kinds of origami sculptures and exhibit pieces that, for various
reasons, I am uncomfortable about displaying in the usual "Origami Convention"
type exhibit, or in my frequent "Natural History" theme shows.  And, I would
generally regard these as "human condition" pieces.  My choice to not exhibit
them comes out of consideration for the scope or appropriateness of any
particular venue.  I have exhibited these types of works at art shows and in the
galleries of the colleges that I have attended; as far back as 1975.

Among these pieces are: "Sketch of a Dead Bird"; "Phantom Self"; "Portrait of a
Friend"; "Male and Female"; "Is It Just Paper?"; "Frozen Dances"; "What Do You
Feel (a series)?"; "The Orchid (a 10 year experiment)"; and "Origami Black Box",
to name a few.

The most controversial of these exhibits, and I was not surprised, was the "What
Do You Feel?" series in which a particular piece, "Is It Just Paper", really
struck a chord.  "Is It Just Paper" (1978) was a wooden panel onto which a
     square
sheet of white paper and an origami crane were each attached, side by side, by a
big nail. Some people burst into tears at the sight of it.  I must admit that it
so affected me at first.  Then I had to seriously ask myself why I felt so
strongly about the fate of this paper crane.  When I was done with my soul
searching I realized two things:  1.) With the aid of cultural influences my
     mind
strongly projected a sense of the helpless, the pure-hearted, and the sacred on
this icon.  2.) The plain piece of paper now represented to me the forgotten,
     and
those things that I take for granted.  As a result of these realizations I now
feel that I should consider the "plane piece of paper" as well as the "crane".
And, in other words, a person who can be shocked at the notion of nailing an
origami crane to a board may still have no problem cheating a friend!

Also, as a result of this introspection, I would rather fold and send just one
crane, and with the balance left from not folding the other 999, do something
really useful to support the person(s) to whom the caring is directed.

I encourage the creation of and exhibit of all types of work in this direction
     in
origami.

Sincerely,

Michael G. LaFosse





From: Thoki Yenn <thok@THOK.DK>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:32:18 +0200
Subject: Kalmon : Re: origami capitalism

Hello Everybody !

Anyone is hereby allowed to sell
and profit from the creations of Thoki Yenn
with one condition -
don't sell it cheaply - I repeat do not sell it cheaply
let people know that these things are valuable,
and do not forget to mention the name of Thoki Yenn.

Regards from
The Great and Glorious Kalmon





From: Darren Scott <Darren.Scott@SCI.MONASH.EDU.AU>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 18:17:07 +1000
Subject: Re: cats Wait Try this one first !

Binzi wrote:
>
> Hi folders,
>
> thank you for all the research you have done! I guess I'll end up ordering
> about 20 new books.
> My husband is already getting heart attacks.  :o)
>
> Happy folding!
> Evi
It's great to buy new books but wait until you've tryed this one

It's free and quite good if you modify the tail !





From: Daniela Carboni <s134259@STUDENTI.ING.UNIPI.IT>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 20:34:15 +0200
Subject: Re: Star Trekzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

>Christopher Holt <Ella-mae@EMAIL.MSN.COM> sez
>
>>Do you have an Elmer Fudd fold? I'd like to see Woody Woodpecker myself.
>
>Or even Woadwunner?
>
>
>Nick Wobinson

I have a Roadrunner model I folded in 1995. I was never able to fold Wile
E. Coyote...Did you see him in any place?

Beep beep! Zow!
                Daniela.

/\_/\    Daniela S. Carboni
 o o     email: s134259@studenti.ing.unipi.it
= # =    -Soon I will have a new web page-





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:55:09 -0700
Subject: Re: origami capitalism (long)

At 22:01 99/05/18 +0200, you wrote:
>> And if they play something that is still under copyright, they PAY A USERS'
>> FEE (or licensing fee, or whatever you want to call it).
>Sigh. My question was whether it is considered taboo to play other
>people's music, and not whether the players should pay money for it. A
>taboo is a taboo, no matter how much money you pay.

Interesting point. But where is this taboo you speak of? People routinely
fold other people's work. The fact that diagrams are published at all means
that they are meant to be folded. There is no taboo there. It is when profit
comes into the picture that problems arise. Anyone who releases diagrams
expects people to fold their models. But, using your music analogy, such a
"performance" of the model is for personal enjoyment. Public "performance"
of the model (e.g. selling the model, or even displaying it, if we take the
analogy to its utmost extent) should require a separate licensing fee.

>Hey, nobody forces you to "share" with us. If all you want is our money,
>take your designs off your homepage and make us pay for the privilege to
>look at them!

And if all I want is money, then I would do just that. Obviously, I'm after
something else here. What I want is something that is worth far more (and is
far more costly) than money. I'm talking about respect and consideration. If
I spend time and effort to create something, then I deserve to have my
wishes respected regarding that creation. If I give up those rights, whether
I am paid or not, then that's another matter entirely. What I object to is
the attitude that "if it's out there, it's fair game". If the only way I can
protect my wishes is to keep my creations secret, then I will do so. I have
already decided to never diagram certain of my models. Other designers have
also made such decisions.

For the record, I have never charged royalties for any of my models. Yes, I
have been asked, and that has been more important. If a substantial job
comes up, I may consider charging a royalty.

>It's not a simplistic view. I'm just putting things into perspective.
>You are very privileged if you make so much money that you have to start
>worrying about your profits. But you are a very small minority! So far,
>I only know about 2 people in the whole world that actually LIVE on what
>they earn by selling their origami models (there are a few more that
>live by selling their books). One of them is a busker. Maybe you know
>some more.

Don't be so sure about the books. There is little profit in that for the
authors.

Yes, I realize that I am privileged to be able to make money on my art. But
that does mean that I must make a choice. Do I shut out the origami
community to pursue my livelihood or do I jeopardize my livelihood by
catering to the community? I choose neither. I try to share what I can, and
to try to persuade the community to support designers in their efforts to
maintain the balance between making a living and sharing. The last thing we
need in this community are lawsuits. Constantly keeping one's work secret is
not a good option either.

The bottom line for me is this: designers are often the ones who contribute
most to the origami community. The rest of the community must work towards
an atmosphere where designers are encouraged to continue contributing.

>But the rest of us, we just fold something for fun, and then someone
>comes along and offers ein paar Franken for it. I don't see how that
>could possibly undercut your fees or steal your business, especially
>since you're on a whole different continent.

I do business with people around the world. My last consultation was with
someone in Germany, actually.

>In that case, go and pay those creators whose desings your own designs
>are based on. Maybe a fee-per-borrowed-fold should be applied?

Perhaps I should consider that. It depends really on what was borrowed.
Techniques fall into a grey area, and I don't have an answer to whether or
not certain folding sequences should be protected. I tend towards the
opinion that they should not. It is difficult enough keeping track of models
without having to keep track of techniques. For example, Yoshizawa considers
the little crimp used to form the beak of the traditional crane to be his
innovation, and has pointed it out in other people's designs as a technique
copied from his work. It just gets too difficult. I think that the deciding
factor is really a question of how much was borrowed. If I take Engel's
tiger and turn it into a cat (as talked about in our other current message
thread), I can't honestly say that I've come up with a new model. If I take
the base for his tiger and turn it into a star-nosed mole or a centaur (I've
done both before), then I think I can honestly say that I've made up
something new. I still acknowledge where the base came from, though.

This is a topic that I think should be explored further. Anyone else have an
opinion?

>Well, Jan stopped using the desings. Me, I'll deal with the problem when
>I get there.

So what exactly are you saying? That you'll decide when someone says "no",
or that you'll never have to deal with it until you "get there" by asking
for permission?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t: 604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331  e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
w: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





From: Howard Portugal <howardpo@MICROSOFT.COM>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 15:43:49 -0700
Subject: Re: origami capitalism

I don't really like to get involved in this stuff, but how do people feel
about comparing this to buying a craft kit and then selling the result? It
seems pretty similar, so why all the hoopla? You can walk into a craft store
and buy all kinds of patterns and kits, assemble the project and then sell
it at their local craft fair for a tidy profit. Why is this not the same for
Origami? You buy a book and paper, spend your time practicing and learning
so that you can fold the designs well. So why shouldn't you be able to
profit from you labor if you so desire?

Howard

Howard Portugal
Critical Problem Resolution - NT Escalation (CPR/NT)
> * howardpo@microsoft.com
> *Wk: 425/704-4078
> *Pgr: Urgent V-Mail
>
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.





From: Michael LaFosse <info@ORIGAMIDO.COM>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 16:22:54 -0400
Subject: Re: The Human Condition

I have had a number of requests for explanations about some of the other "human
condition" pieces that I have mentioned.  Here I will relate the story of  "The
Orchid (a 10 year experiment)".

By 1975 I had perfected my origami orchid.  I would fold these early specimens
     from
commercial crepe paper, fully knowing that they would turn brown and crumble to
     dust
in a few years time.  (Since then I have perfected methods for making my own,
archival quality handmade crepe paper.)  As a few years began to pass these
     early
orchids would show their signs of age and would "wither" as if they were real
     orchid
blossoms passing.  The process was much slower than a real, withering bloom, but
remarkably similar in total effect.  Anyone wishing to commission an orchid
     from me
was warned about the inevitable; most did not mind, and they bought them anyway.
Since these orchids required four to six, fairly intense and draining hours of
effort, I would originally charge about $50 (1978; the hand made paper ones of
     to day
cost quite a bit more).

The original title of the origami orchid was "The Orchid Experience" and here
     is how
it goes:

(1978) A patron would pay $100 for an orchid (remember, the gallery gets 50%)
     knowing
full well that it will wilt.  They are now on a personal journey with this
     piece for
the next ? number of years. What they may experience, over time, and personally
realize is any, all of, or more than the following: 1.) What was I thinking?
     2.)
Help! It really is wilting and I wish it would stop! 3.) I lost $100!  4.) I
     enjoyed
this piece while it lasted and I helped to support an artist who's work I
     admire.
5.) What an interesting experiment; I am happy to participate first hand.  6.) I
wonder if I can hire an expert to arrest the rot? 7.) I will have to order
     another
one.  8.) I wonder what Michael is doing these days? 9.) I can learn to let go,
though it hurts. 10.) I lost interest and I can just chuck it in the trash.

I told each participant to consider why they feel these feelings, as they may
     come up
over the years.

I have not offered these orchids with this proposal in many years.  By the
     example of
the specimen that I kept (yes, I am a participant too) all of the orchids that
     were
purchased are now dust (just about 10 years time for this to happen).  So now I
     often
refer to the project as "The Orchid (a 10 year experiment)".

Michael G. LaFosse





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 16:51:18 -0700
Subject: Re: origami capitalism

At 15:43 99/05/18 -0700, you wrote:
>I don't really like to get involved in this stuff, but how do people feel
>about comparing this to buying a craft kit and then selling the result? It
>seems pretty similar, so why all the hoopla? You can walk into a craft store
>and buy all kinds of patterns and kits, assemble the project and then sell
>it at their local craft fair for a tidy profit. Why is this not the same for
>Origami? You buy a book and paper, spend your time practicing and learning
>so that you can fold the designs well. So why shouldn't you be able to
>profit from you labor if you so desire?

Because when people develop those kits, they have granted the right for
people to do what they want with them, including selling them at craft
fairs, etc. I see origami diagrams as being more like a music score, for
reasons already discussed.

Whether or not these craft fair people actually make a profit, after you
factor in time costs, is another question all together.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t: 604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331  e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
w: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 16:55:40 -0700
Subject: Re: origami capitalism.

At 18:42 99/05/18 -0500, you wrote:
>        It seems to me that there are only a few reasons not to ask
>    a creator of a model for his permission to use it for financial gain:
>                1. You can't find the creator or it is traditional

Fair enough.

>                2. You're afraid to contact the creator because..
>                        a. You're afraid the creator will say no
>                        b. You're afraid of the creator(??)
>                        c. (fill in your own reason here.)

I certainly hope no one is afraid of me! I'm opinionated, and sometimes I
have bad moods (who doesn't?), but I do my best to be approachable and fair.

>                3. You not really concerned with the creator's
>                   wishes. This probably includes apathy towards
>                   the creator and his work with the model.

This is what I have a hard time with.

>                4. You assume all origami is public domain, since
>                   it is possible to eventually reproduce on your
>                   own.(Remember: an infinite amount of monkeys
>                   typing on an infinite amount of typewriters
>                   will eventually reproduce the works Shakespeare,
>                   so an infinite amount of origami-ka....)

Sure, so let's all copy a novel by <insert your favourite author here> and
sell it as our own. 8)

>     There might be more reasons, but these are the few I could think of.
>I have a feeling reasons 2 and 3 are the case with more complex models. I
>think a lot of this has to do with self confidence. I don't think I'm good
>enough to have someone pay me for a model I've made(even the original
>ones), but I'm more than willing to have them pay me for a piano gig. In
>origami, I leave the paying gigs to the professionals.

But you should take pride in your work! I've always encouraged people to do
that. The flip side is that you should respect other people's work as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t: 604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331  e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
w: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 16:57:19 -0700
Subject: Re: origami capitalism

At 18:47 99/05/18 -0500, you wrote:
>        I think Joseph's plan is to hook us with these models, and then
>yank them off the net. By this time we're all addicted to these models.
>Then he creates "Joseph Wu's Origami Omnibus" which is 200+ pages of
>models and text which he sells through Sasuga for at least $100 american
>dollars a pop, thus paying for the rest of his new house and starting
>a college fund for his future offspring.

Hahahahahaha! That's a good one! I'll have to try that someday! <grin>.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t: 604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331  e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
w: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





From: Sandra P Hoffman <ghidra@CONSCOOP.OTTAWA.ON.CA>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 18:14:42 -0400
Subject: Re: origami capitalism.

On Tue, 18 May 1999, Joseph Wu wrote:
>
> >                4. You assume all origami is public domain, since
> >                   it is possible to eventually reproduce on your
> >                   own.(Remember: an infinite amount of monkeys
> >                   typing on an infinite amount of typewriters
> >                   will eventually reproduce the works Shakespeare,
> >                   so an infinite amount of origami-ka....)
>
> Sure, so let's all copy a novel by <insert your favourite author here> and
> sell it as our own. 8)

When I used to have time to make my own clothes, I would buy designer
patterns to work with. These were top name designers. The patterns came
clearly marked with the restriction that the clothes made from the pattern
were for personal use only, not for selling. This is the closest analogy I
can think of for the situation with Origami. The designers were willing to
have their designs published and sold to hobbiests but not to resellers.

Someone saw me knitting mitts last winter and suggested I should make them
to sell. That would take all the fun out of it for me. Once you are
selling, you are producing to a deadline, and a strict set of standards. I
don't sell knitting, sewing or origami. I want to keep them fun, and be
able to be careless with them every now and then.

I'm on the side of ask permission before selling a folded model from
someone else's design, it is basic courtesy to do so. Ungrudgingly, pay a
royalty if asked to or don't sell the model. And
realize that once you have to work to a deadline, and for a client it can
suck the fun out of what you are doing very quickly.

sph

Sandra P. Hoffman ghidra@conscoop.ottawa.on.ca
http://www.flora.org/sandra/
It's a thankless job, but
I've got a lot of karma to burn off.





From: Jeff DeHerdt <jadeherd@IUPUI.EDU>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 18:42:01 -0500
Subject: origami capitalism.

        It seems to me that there are only a few reasons not to ask
    a creator of a model for his permission to use it for financial gain:

                1. You can't find the creator or it is traditional
                2. You're afraid to contact the creator because..
                        a. You're afraid the creator will say no
                        b. You're afraid of the creator(??)
                        c. (fill in your own reason here.)
                3. You not really concerned with the creator's
                   wishes. This probably includes apathy towards
                   the creator and his work with the model.
                4. You assume all origami is public domain, since
                   it is possible to eventually reproduce on your
                   own.(Remember: an infinite amount of monkeys
                   typing on an infinite amount of typewriters
                   will eventually reproduce the works Shakespeare,
                   so an infinite amount of origami-ka....)

     There might be more reasons, but these are the few I could think of.
I have a feeling reasons 2 and 3 are the case with more complex models. I
think a lot of this has to do with self confidence. I don't think I'm good
enough to have someone pay me for a model I've made(even the original
ones), but I'm more than willing to have them pay me for a piano gig. In
origami, I leave the paying gigs to the professionals.

                                                Jeffrey DeHerdt





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 18:44:59 -0700
Subject: Re: origami capitalism

At 21:25 99/05/18 -0400, D'gou wrote:
>I think this topic has come up many times before. It would certainly be nice
>if publishers would print something to that effect in origami books, but as
>has also come up many times, most publisher's don't give authors, let alone
>origami authors, much control over the final content of the book.

88)) <nodding vigorously>

>So the question is, is the right "model" that the creator should get a fixed
>fee as in the ASCAP-esque model, or a portion of the profit?  The problem with
>profit based model is that it can be hard to determine profit accurately, and
>easy to make it evaporate.

Well, in the art world, people take cuts as a percentage of sale price, not
of profit.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t: 604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331  e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
w: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





From: Darren Abbey <darren_a@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 18:57:26 -0500
Subject: Menger's sponge, depth 2

Earlier this year I started construction of an origami Menger sponge, depth
2.   I probably have Jeannine Mosely to blame for the inspiration to build the
model as she has been working on her depth 3 model for quite a while now.
        I decided to build my model from standard sonobe units.   The large
     quantity of
paper the model would require was a problem for me until I realized that
"Post-It Notes" were a readily available source for large numbers of cheap,
small squares of paper.   The glaring colors of the paper I was able to get this
way might not appeal to most, but they seem to look pleasent enough in the,
since yesterday, completed model.
        The finished model required 2400 sheets and took many more hours than I
bothered to count.   It is about 10.5 inches on a side and is able to support
itself.   I've not yet weighed it, but I estimate its weight at about 1.5
pounds.
        The glue of the post-it notes was used to help keep the individual
     sonobe units
secured, but did not aid further in holding the units together.
        I've found it a fun exercise to do in my spare time between classes and
     I
suspect it will make a good conversation piece.   However, if you decide to
create one of these models for yourself, I advise you utilize Jeanine's business
card module because of the lower effort required per module.
        I do not have any photos of it yet online and since I'm in the process
     of
moving, it may be a while before I am able to do so.

--
Darren Abbey     -. .-.   .-. .-.   . E-mail:
Biology student  ||X|||\ /|||X|||\ /|  darren_a@mail.utexas.edu
University of    |/ \|||X|||/ \|||X|| URL:
   Texas, Austin '   `-' `-'   `-' `-  ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~psycho/





From: Marcus Hanson <hecatomb@CARROLLSWEB.COM>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 19:01:36 -0500
Subject: Re: origami capitalism

> > I do not think it is taboo to sell origami.
> > Just in poor taste.
>
> Why is it poor taste?

I find Origami much more fullfilling when it is shared rather than
solicited.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Hanson's Digital Gallery
http://members.tripod.com/~MarcH_3/index.html
last updated 5-9-99
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you have but one wish, let it be for an idea."
                                        - Percy Sutton -





From: Marcus Hanson <hecatomb@CARROLLSWEB.COM>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 19:01:36 -0500
Subject: Re: origami capitalism

> > I do not think it is taboo to sell origami.
> > Just in poor taste.
>
> Why is it poor taste?

I find Origami much more fullfilling when it is shared rather than
solicited.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Hanson's Digital Gallery
http://members.tripod.com/~MarcH_3/index.html
last updated 5-9-99
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you have but one wish, let it be for an idea."
                                        - Percy Sutton -





From: Robby/Laura <morassi@ZEN.IT>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 19:06:41 +0200
Subject: Re: cats Wait Try this one first !

Darren,
At 18.17 18/5/1999 +1000, you wrote:

>It's great to buy new books but wait until you've tryed this one
>
>It's free and quite good if you modify the tail !
>
>Attachment Converted: "D:\TERMINAL\INTERNET\EUDORA\ATCH-IN\p-ex56.jpg"
..............

Sorry for being boring, but again I have to complain about JPG attachments
sent to the whole list. There are 500+ people here, not all of them like
cats, and by sure most of them are concerned about having to download
several kilobytes of unwanted stuff. I stress it: if all those who write
should freely attach pictures or whatever else, we'd stay online all the
day long just to empty our mailboxes.....

Please.....don't....

Roberto





From: Emmajg <emmajg@CUSTARD.ORG>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 21:18:08 +0100
Subject: Re: Japanese book

I'm poping to London at the beginning of June and I will try and find this
Japanese bookshop I'll have a  look to see if I can find this book
let me known what sort of diagrams are inside it.
happy folding
emmajg*
http://chocolate.custard.org/origami

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark and Theresa <mark@HOBBITON.FORCE9.NET>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: 16 May 1999 12:00
Subject: Japanese book

>I have seen a book (by Kasahara) with loads of nice folds of animals,
>mostly fairly simple on the whole. However I can't get my own copy! I
>have the ISBN but all the major online bookshops say they don't have it.
>Other than a trip down to London (Yes - I am in the UK!) I don't know
>how to get hold of it. Any ideas? Any London folders could email me with
>offers of help if they wanted ;)
>
>Thank you for your time
>
>--
>Mark





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 21:25:55 -0400
Subject: Re: origami capitalism

Joseph Wu, replying to Howard Portugal's comparison of origami diagrams to
craft kits, wrote:

+Because when people develop those kits, they have granted the right for
+people to do what they want with them, including selling them at craft
+fairs, etc. I see origami diagrams as being more like a music score, for
+reasons already discussed.

I think this topic has come up many times before. It would certainly be nice
if publishers would print something to that effect in origami books, but as
has also come up many times, most publisher's don't give authors, let alone
origami authors, much control over the final content of the book.

+Whether or not these craft fair people actually make a profit, after you
+factor in time costs, is another question all together.

So the question is, is the right "model" that the creator should get a fixed
fee as in the ASCAP-esque model, or a portion of the profit?  The problem with
profit based model is that it can be hard to determine profit accurately, and
easy to make it evaporate.

-D'gou
