




From: "Michael J. Naughton" <mjnaught@CROCKER.COM>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 21:36:06 -0400
Subject: Re: [NO] copyright crisis (Long)

Anna Weathers wrote:
> I invite your replies.

Anna, I liked your posting a great deal. You said some things that I
have been trying to figure out how to say for some time, and you
said them simply and beautifully. Thank you!

A couple of comments:
Anna Weathers wrote:
> I know that without rewards to the inventors, the diagrammers, and the
> publishers, models will become scarcer and harder to get ahold of.

this echoes Doug Philips' observation that
> Origami book writing is not a (financially) lucrative proposition,
> for the authors at least!

I have no objection to making money (hey, I enjoy doing it myself!),
but I like to remind myself sometimes that expectation of financial
gain is not the only reason to do something. I think the modern
explosion of interest in origami is largely due to people who have
generously given both time and money to promote paperfolding. I think
a case could be made that the large number of creators around today
owe their existence to the origami community these volunteers have
fostered, and not the other way round (although the truth is probably
that there is a symbiotic relationship, with neither group being solely
responsible -- but that makes my point). The number of web sites now
offering diagrams for free tells me that there are a lot of creators
out there who are willing to share their efforts -- perhaps they, too,
find their rewards someplace other than their bank accounts.

Don't get me wrong -- I think it's great that people like Michael
LaFosse and Joseph Wu can make money doing origami, but I think their
ability to do so is significantly helped by all the anonymous folders
who work without payment to further knowledge and appreciation of
the art.

Anna Weathers wrote:
> John Perry Barlow in Wired magazine. . . wrote songs for the Grateful
> Dead, and argued that their open copying policy had _helped_ them become
> more profitable.

To which Bernie Cosell replied:
> for each Grateful Dead that make a lot of money from appearances,
> . . . there are dozens of small-time musicians who've basically never
> made a dime because folk copy [=pirate] their tapes and CDs and don't
> buy enough of 'em (I had friends . . .

With all respect to Bernie's friends, I wonder if anyone has established
that the *reason* they "never made a dime" is that some people "pirated"
their music. Perhaps if everyone had somehow been forced to pay many of
the pirates would simply have opted out. It's possible that more people
heard their music as a result of the pirating than would have otherwise.
If their goal was to make money, they clearly lost; if their goal was
to share their music, . . . . ?

My own view is that it is wrong to steal other peoples' work, whether
it's origami diagrams or musical recordings (and by "steal" I mean use
without permission). But when people freely publish origami diagrams
or musical scores, I think the situation becomes more gray, since anyone
who uses them combines their own talents and energy with the ideas of
the original "creator". The law on musical scores is clear (as Joseph
Wu has pointed out), but I'm not convinced it's a good law (I'm not
convinced it's bad, either -- I'm just not sold either way). I think
the main reason it works is that there is an organization (ASCAP?) that
enforces and administers it -- if you want to play someone's music, as
I understand it, you contact the organization instead of the individual
musician. The world of origami has no such organization, and while it is
certainly possible to contact some creators (especially those with web
sites) directly and easily (for those of us with access to the web),
there are many creators who are not so easy to reach. I think if origami
creators really want to push the musical analogy, they should form a
similar organization as quickly as they can; until then, I have some real
problems with it. My own opinion is that the recent emphasis on "creators'
rights", while well-intentioned, is likely to slow the spread of origami
unless it can be better organized than it has been so far.

Mike "It has in my case" Naughton





From: "Michael J. Naughton" <mjnaught@CROCKER.COM>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 22:07:19 -0400
Subject: Re: [NO] origami capitalism (long)

Joseph Wu wrote:
>> Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:
>> 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.

With respect, Joseph, I think you have underlined a fundamental weakness in
your position. If we accept the "musical score" analogy, then I think we
also have to accept the fact that in the musical world if I base my piece
of music on your piece of music I owe you something for the privilege. In
the origami world (as in most arts), there are very few completely *original*
artists, so most creators owe debts of varying size to those who have
preceded them. It seems to me that if you are really serious about the analogy,
you have an ethical responsibility to compensate those whose efforts made
your work possible. Are you really saying that your reluctance is based on
it's being too "difficult"? Would you accept the excuse of someone who sold
a model based on one of your designs that they never contacted you because
it was "too difficult"? Suppose they learned your model from a friend and
were unsure of the source -- how hard should they try to discover it? How
hard have you tried to give proper credit for your inspirations?

I'm not trying to be difficult -- just to suggest that it may not be a wise
policy (or helpful to the spread of origami), to think that you can put
models out in the public domain by publishing diagrams and yet still retain
control of whatever sort you want over their eventual use. An alternative,
as you have noted, is not to publish them (perhaps another is to publish
them with explicit instructions as to how they may or may not be used). Both
of these, of course, work against the goal of "sharing", but I think seeking
to retain individual control -- in whatever way -- always will.

The Great and Glorious Kalmon wrote:
> 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.

I personally agree with this one hundred percent, and I echo it for my own
creations:
Anyone is hereby encouraged to sell and profit from the creations of
Michael Naughton, on condition that they not sell them cheaply and they
not forget to mention the name of Michael Naughton.

Thank you, glorious Kalmon!

Mike "May all of you be rolling in money, if that's what you want" Naughton





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 22:07:34 +0200
Subject: Re: origami capitalism

Marcus Hanson schrieb:
> I do not think it is taboo to sell origami.
> Just in poor taste.

Why is it poor taste?

If nobody sold their origami, there wouldn't be any origami books, there
wouldn't be origami bunnies on billboards, there wouldn't be origami
sharks in the NYT (or whatever newspaper it was), and there wouldn't be
any origami jewelry, origami classes, origami videos, etc.

Matthias





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 22:07:34 +0200
Subject: Re: origami capitalism

Marcus Hanson schrieb:
> I do not think it is taboo to sell origami.
> Just in poor taste.

Why is it poor taste?

If nobody sold their origami, there wouldn't be any origami books, there
wouldn't be origami bunnies on billboards, there wouldn't be origami
sharks in the NYT (or whatever newspaper it was), and there wouldn't be
any origami jewelry, origami classes, origami videos, etc.

Matthias





From: Howard Portugal <howardp@FAST.NET>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 23:02:51 -0700
Subject: Re: [NO] origami capitalism (long)

"Michael J. Naughton" wrote:

--- snip ---

> The Great and Glorious Kalmon wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I personally agree with this one hundred percent, and I echo it for my own
> creations:
> Anyone is hereby encouraged to sell and profit from the creations of
> Michael Naughton, on condition that they not sell them cheaply and they
> not forget to mention the name of Michael Naughton.
>
> Thank you, glorious Kalmon!
>
> Mike "May all of you be rolling in money, if that's what you want" Naughton

Thank you Michael, and Kalmon (Thoki).

< Climb up on soapbox >

Perhaps if an individual wants to ensure some sort of credit and or remuneration
for
their diagrams, then they should only be self-published and sold. That way one
could
ensure complete control, that is until they were copied . . .

I think that the whole issue really doesn't become important until someone
     starts
taking
of the situation. Perhaps if someone started an Origami for profit business
     where
they
sold models folded from books on a regular basis, in quantity, without proper
permission.
As of now, there are only a few well-known individuals making any kind of money
from
commercial Origami (Joseph being one of them). As far as I know these people use
their own creations exclusively, so the discussion is somewhat moot.

We seem to spend far too much bandwidth discussing the HUGE importance of
     copyright

as it pertains to Origami. I'd much rather be reading David Lister's wonderful
letters
on Origami history, OUSA-Gate , or even some of Xuxa's antics.

Please don't respond about message filters and deleting what I don't want to
     read,
I
know all of that and I already have a filter which dumps the copyright stuff
     into a

separate folder.

< Climb back down >

Thanks for listening.
--
Howard Portugal, Woodinville, WA email:howardp@fast.net
---------------------------------------------------
"A problem worthy of attack, proves its worth by fighting back." -- Piet Hein





From: Dorothy Engleman <FoldingCA@WEBTV.NET>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 23:40:41 -0700
Subject: Re: The Human Condition

Clare,

Since I initiated the thousand cranes project for the Columbine High
School students, I would like to respond to the sentiments you've
expressed.

I happen to feel that symbolic communal acts of love and kindness and
healing, such as the folding of cranes, are very important.  But it is
simply not true to assume that these symbolic acts replace other acts
that you've mentioned, such as supporting gun control.

When I was curating Folding California, I made a decision in accordance
with my conscience that I would not glamorize weapons, and I refused to
permit any gun and rifle moneyfolds to appear in my show.

Symbolism and activism are not mutually exclusive.  In many cases, they
augment each other.

Dorothy





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 08:17:22 -0400
Subject: Re: a must

Evi indited:

+Well, let's change the subject. Which books do you recommend "a must for
+origami lovers"?

Ahhh, this isn't a "just one subject at a time" medium, though people act that
way a lot, there is no reason not to have several discussions going on
simultaneously.

To answer your question, I would have to list several dozen books, most of
which others will probably list anyways, so I'll just mention one that doesn't
get a lot of "mind time"
        Classic Origami by Paul Jackson

-D'gou





From: Doug and Anna Weathers <dougw@RDROP.COM>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 08:23:48 -0700
Subject: Re: a must

I must second the recommendation of Classic Origami by Paul Jackson.  This
book contains a tasteful selection of models, drawn from many authors,
attractively pictured, clearly diagrammed.  I have no other book that gives
as wide a view of origami possibilities and yet manages to contain only
models I enjoyed.  And a beginner can start right in, then continue into
some folds of complex level.

One weakness -- doesn't contain a systematic layout of bases.  But since
most books do have one, your second book can easily cover that.

Anna Weathers, Portland, Oregon, USA
"In paradox truth."





From: Dave Venables <davevenables@USA.NET>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 08:58:16 -0600 (
Subject: moment of truth

As a number of you have pointed out I goofed when trying to point you in the
direction of a nice photograph of Neal Elias's Moment of Truth.
Those that have requested diagrams please bear with me I want to send it out
in one mail shot probably this weekend.

The site I tried unsucessfully to give you last time around.....

http://www.publynet.com/aep/fotos/expo17.jpg

 Best Wishes

Dave Venables

____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 09:36:28 -0700
Subject: Re: origami capitalism

At 10:53 99/05/19 +0200, you wrote:
>Just imagine: every day hundreds of origami lovers would ask Joseph Wu for
>permission.
>I wonder how he could manage to design new diagrams, beeing busy with
>answering all those mails at the same time. :o)

I think I've received 3 such messages in the past year. However, I answer an
average of 10 messages a day from people who have various questions about
origami. So having to answer email is not a problem.

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 19 May 1999 09:39:41 -0700
Subject: Re: origami capitalism (long)

At 10:42 99/05/19 +0200, you wrote:
>since I am an artist too (graphics designer), I've got another question.
>
>Do I need a permission, if I want to integrate an folded and colored origami
>model (may be one of your designs) into my own artwork, to form something
>different and new?
>Just for an easy example: a folded crane beeing glued on to my painted
>canvas.

You've answered your own question. As a graphic designer, when you put
together a project, don't you have to pay for the artwork or photographs
that you use?

>Concerning your discussion I have to say, that I don't like it either, if
>somebody steals my design. But these things are hard to prove.
>As an origami lover I am happy about every free diagram on web. But this
>doesn't stop me from buying the books nevertheless. Without having seen
>anything, I would probably not become interested in some artists work.
>Publicity is neccessary.

This is not about publicity. Buying the book is not the concern. The point
is that having access to origami diagrams (whether they are from the Web or
from a book) does not give the right for someone to sell the work that is
made from the diagrams. The diagrams are for the person's own enjoyment.

>P.S. Picasso said something like " The beginner borrows, the great artist
>steals."

Yes, that's probably true.

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:24:04 -0700
Subject: Re: a must

Here we go, finally, some interesting stuff ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim Best [mailto:kim.best@M.CC.UTAH.EDU]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 10:20 AM
> To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: a must
>
>
> > Subject: Re: a must
> >    Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 17:40:10 +0200
> >    From: Xuxa Rojas <jj-casalonga@MAGIC.FR>
>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Hey Xuxa!  How long have you been shacking up with Jean-Jerome?  Is it
> serious?  How did you meet?  Are there wedding bells in the future?
>
> Forget copyrights! I want the juicy details!
>
> --
> 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: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:28:16 -0700
Subject: Re: a must

>Well, let's change the subject. Which books do you recommend "a must for
>origami lovers"?
>
>Evi

I think most people on this list would agree with me that Origami for the
Connosseur is a must due not only to the interesting and challenging folds
but for the brain ticklers that make you think about origami more than just
folding it.  The only drawback I found in this book was the cuts in one of
the models, yuck!   I also like Lang's Complete Book of Origami and Origami
Insects.  By the way I was just folding Kawasaki's shell (the first one in
the connesseur book) and I was wondering about the last step when you open
out the flaps, on my shell they don't touch, connect like they seem to on
the photographs.  Any hints about that: am I opening up the wrong flaps
(I'm opening the left ones) or am I just doing it wrong?  I know many of
you must have done that fold it looks too fun not to do.

David





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:30:54 +0200
Subject: Re: origami capitalism (long)

Joseph Wu wrote:
>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
The initial question was whether it is taboo to sell origami. My answer
was no, it's not taboo to sell origami. That's all there was to this
paragraph.

>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.
Yes, the keyword is 'take the analogy to its utmost extent'. What you
want is that each time I show a friend an origami model, I should pay
the creator a fee. Each and every time that I fold a model in public
(riding the bus, for example) I should pay the creator a fee. Each time
that I put a model on a shelf in my office, I should pay a fee. Eech and
every single time that I fold a model for a child, I should pay a fee.
Each and every time that I 'pay' for a favour with an origami model, I
should pay the author a fee.
Well, Joseph, did you pay those fees? I very much doubt it.

>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
No, you've always been talking about MONEY Joseph. Respect and
consideration is not something you can put a price tag on. Of course
your wishes should be respected, but it also means that you are under
the obligation to make your wishes clear to everybody. A simple
copyright notice isn't enough, since all you can do is copyright the
diagrams and the images, but not the model itself. If you wanted to
protect your model, you't have to patent it (and we have had THIS
discussion many times, too).

>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".
Well, that is certainly not my attitude. I did not say "if it's out
there, it's fair game". I merely pointed out that most people just don't
make enough money with selling other creator's models to allow for an
elaborate compensation process. I certainly don't.

>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.
I think that's a good decision. Nobody in the business world would put
his trade secrets on a webpage or in a book and then expect people not
to take advantage of it.

>Don't be so sure about the books. There is little profit in that for the
>authors.
I'm aware of that. I think there are at least 3 authors that live on
their profits.

>I do business with people around the world. My last consultation was with
>someone in Germany, actually.
I thought the EU would protect us against you evil OUTSIDERS!!
<g>

>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.
I expected this answer, and I'm glad you walked into the trap. Michael
J. Naughton discussed the weakness of this position already. If it is
ethically wrong to use another creator's models for profit, it is also
wrong to use only parts of his models for profit. Especially in your
case, where there seems to be a lot of money involved. "Difficulty"
cannot possibly be an excuse. And I think it was you who mentioned a
while back that your shark heavily borrowed from someone else's design.

>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?
For the record, I did ask the authors for permission to sell their
models, both by mail and by e-mail. When none of them answered, I sent
another mail (and yes, I did verify that the address is correct). Still
none of them answered. Is this "difficult enough" for you?

Trying to contact an author costs both time and money. Up until today,
my occasional, meager sales didn't really allow for a full-blast search
party to track down the authors in person and force a statement out of
them. Maybe I should reconsider this option once I make the kind of
money that you make. Until then, I'll just write snail and e-mails.

All in all, I think this is a very interesting discussion, even if we
did have it many times before. But we should try not to mix the
different issues. One issue is ethics, one is the money, and one is the
law. Of course these issues touch each other at certain points, but they
are not one and the same issue.
>From an ethical point of view, I agree one hundred percent that the work
of an author has to be respected, and whenever I give a model away or
sell a model I make a point of saying who created the model.
But from the monetary point of view, I can only repeat that I think my
"profit" of maybe 900sFr. per year (for models sold, classes given,
etc.) just doesn't justify the accusation that I "steal" from other
people. And so far, the law has not said a single thing about the
subject: there have been no lawsuits yet.

All the best,
Matthias





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:31:34 -0700
Subject: Re: origami capitalism (even longer)

At 10:30 99/05/19 +0200, you wrote:
>Yes, the keyword is 'take the analogy to its utmost extent'. What you
>want is that each time I show a friend an origami model, I should pay
>the creator a fee. Each and every time that I fold a model in public
>(riding the bus, for example) I should pay the creator a fee. Each time
>that I put a model on a shelf in my office, I should pay a fee. Eech and
>every single time that I fold a model for a child, I should pay a fee.
>Each and every time that I 'pay' for a favour with an origami model, I
>should pay the author a fee.
>Well, Joseph, did you pay those fees? I very much doubt it.

I think that the definition of "private" (as in private use) in this case is
a bit broader than what you have chosen to use. If I make something for me,
it's private. If someone sees it on my shelf in my personal space, it's
private. If I give it as a gift to someone it's private. However, if I sell
it, it is not, and neither is it private to put a piece in an exhibition. I
realize that in the origami world charging a fee for use for exhibiting work
makes little sense, but I was building on your analogy about the music
world. If you choose to use an analogy, you cannot ignore significant
portions of it.

>No, you've always been talking about MONEY Joseph. Respect and
>consideration is not something you can put a price tag on. Of course
>your wishes should be respected, but it also means that you are under
>the obligation to make your wishes clear to everybody. A simple
>copyright notice isn't enough, since all you can do is copyright the
>diagrams and the images, but not the model itself. If you wanted to
>protect your model, you't have to patent it (and we have had THIS
>discussion many times, too).

I talk about money because people that seems to be what people understand
and care about. It makes them take notice (worked on you, didn't it?). When
I talk only about respect, people seem to assume that "oh, it's just a
personality thing and it doesn't matter." I have always talked about
creating an awareness in the origami community that it must support
designers' in order for the designers to give back to the community. We
could create a huge system like ASCAP (see Michael Naughton's message) to
police all of this, but that would defeat the openness that we have all
enjoyed in this community. It is a balancing act to keep the designers happy
and productive, and to foster an open community where everyone benefits. All
of my arguments revolve around this point. You seem to have focused solely
on the money issue.

>Well, that is certainly not my attitude. I did not say "if it's out
>there, it's fair game". I merely pointed out that most people just don't
>make enough money with selling other creator's models to allow for an
>elaborate compensation process. I certainly don't.

No? But you say in your previous paragraph that copyright is not good enough
protection, and that a patent is required. That underlies an attitude that
if stuff is available, it will be taken advantage of. Remember my point? A
balance between community benefit and designer benefit? Patents and lawsuits
are there for when trust and respect have been destroyed and such measures
are necessary to protect people's work. In our community where openness and
sharing are supposed to be paramount, can we not do better than that?

>I think that's a good decision. Nobody in the business world would put
>his trade secrets on a webpage or in a book and then expect people not
>to take advantage of it.

And yet the origami community often expects that any new design should be
available to everyone. I get so many requests for diagrams for my models.
Sometimes, when I say that I have not diagrammed a particular model, I get a
response of righteous indignation from the requester because they feel it is
their right to have access to any model they ever see. So while YOU
acknowledge that that's a good decision, I still feel that I must educate
the community on this issue.

>>I do business with people around the world. My last consultation was with
>>someone in Germany, actually.
>I thought the EU would protect us against you evil OUTSIDERS!!
><g>

Guess again! <g>

>I expected this answer, and I'm glad you walked into the trap. Michael
>J. Naughton discussed the weakness of this position already. If it is
>ethically wrong to use another creator's models for profit, it is also
>wrong to use only parts of his models for profit. Especially in your
>case, where there seems to be a lot of money involved. "Difficulty"
>cannot possibly be an excuse. And I think it was you who mentioned a
>while back that your shark heavily borrowed from someone else's design.

Yes, that is true. I do not, however, consider that I've walked into a trap.
I would contend that this is a lesser issue because many designers have
dialogues about their work and freely share their ideas with each other. In
this arena, ideas are protected by keeping them secret. For example, I
taught Michael LaFosse my snake-skin technique as he was preparing to design
his rattlesnake. In the end, he did not use it, but I had no problems with
sharing with him. Similarly, Eric Joisel taught me his basic face-making
technique, and while I have experimented with it (one of the faces is now
hanging in my office), I have never published or publicly exhibited any of
those experiments. As for my great white shark, I did take the basic idea
for the tail formation from John Montroll's blue shark. However, the rest of
the shark is entirely different. Certain structures become a part of the
origami vocabulary. In Japan, the Origami Tanteidan talk about Nishikawa's
hand (a sequence of folds used to make a realistic hand). Hojo took that
hand and modified it to make it more life-like and has used it in many of
his Buddhist figures (see the seated Buddha figure on my website for an
example).

>For the record, I did ask the authors for permission to sell their
>models, both by mail and by e-mail. When none of them answered, I sent
>another mail (and yes, I did verify that the address is correct). Still
>none of them answered. Is this "difficult enough" for you?

This was not apparent in your previous messages. I applaud your efforts and
I hope that others will emulate you. Technically, one could argue that you
still have not received permission, but I would think that if any of them
cared enough to object, they would have answered your request.

>Trying to contact an author costs both time and money. Up until today,
>my occasional, meager sales didn't really allow for a full-blast search
>party to track down the authors in person and force a statement out of
>them. Maybe I should reconsider this option once I make the kind of
>money that you make. Until then, I'll just write snail and e-mails.

Again, I agree with you on this point.

>All in all, I think this is a very interesting discussion, even if we
>did have it many times before. But we should try not to mix the
>different issues. One issue is ethics, one is the money, and one is the
>law. Of course these issues touch each other at certain points, but they
>are not one and the same issue.
>>From an ethical point of view, I agree one hundred percent that the work
>of an author has to be respected, and whenever I give a model away or
>sell a model I make a point of saying who created the model.
>But from the monetary point of view, I can only repeat that I think my
>"profit" of maybe 900sFr. per year (for models sold, classes given,
>etc.) just doesn't justify the accusation that I "steal" from other
>people. And so far, the law has not said a single thing about the
>subject: there have been no lawsuits yet.

And I hope there never will be. As I've said, your original message gave no
indication that you even cared about designers' wishes, hence my
heavy-handed response. For that, I apologize. But I do hope that you
consider my arguments for an increased awareness in the origami community
regarding this issue. When it comes down to it, I really only care about the
ethical part of all of this. But, unfortunately, money and laws always seem
to come into the picture. I don't think we can separate them out entirely.

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:34:21 -0700
Subject: Re: a must

At 10:28 99/05/19 -0700, you wrote:
>I think most people on this list would agree with me that Origami for the
>Connosseur is a must due not only to the interesting and challenging folds
>but for the brain ticklers that make you think about origami more than just
>folding it.  The only drawback I found in this book was the cuts in one of
>the models, yuck!   I also like Lang's Complete Book of Origami and Origami
>Insects.  By the way I was just folding Kawasaki's shell (the first one in
>the connesseur book) and I was wondering about the last step when you open
>out the flaps, on my shell they don't touch, connect like they seem to on
>the photographs.  Any hints about that: am I opening up the wrong flaps
>(I'm opening the left ones) or am I just doing it wrong?  I know many of
>you must have done that fold it looks too fun not to do.

Yes, it's a great book. Also recommended is his "Origami Omnibus". As for
the shell, the diagrams show a version of the shell that is not closed. The
photo shows a variation of the shell that does not appear in the book. I
believe it can be found in "Origami: El Mundo Nuevo" and also in Tomoko
Fuse's "Spirals".

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:34:21 -0700
Subject: Re: a must

At 10:28 99/05/19 -0700, you wrote:
>I think most people on this list would agree with me that Origami for the
>Connosseur is a must due not only to the interesting and challenging folds
>but for the brain ticklers that make you think about origami more than just
>folding it.  The only drawback I found in this book was the cuts in one of
>the models, yuck!   I also like Lang's Complete Book of Origami and Origami
>Insects.  By the way I was just folding Kawasaki's shell (the first one in
>the connesseur book) and I was wondering about the last step when you open
>out the flaps, on my shell they don't touch, connect like they seem to on
>the photographs.  Any hints about that: am I opening up the wrong flaps
>(I'm opening the left ones) or am I just doing it wrong?  I know many of
>you must have done that fold it looks too fun not to do.

Yes, it's a great book. Also recommended is his "Origami Omnibus". As for
the shell, the diagrams show a version of the shell that is not closed. The
photo shows a variation of the shell that does not appear in the book. I
believe it can be found in "Origami: El Mundo Nuevo" and also in Tomoko
Fuse's "Spirals".

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: Binzi <binzi@MUENSTER.DE>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:41:14 +0200
Subject: a must

Well, let's change the subject. Which books do you recommend "a must for
origami lovers"?

Evi





From: Binzi <binzi@MUENSTER.DE>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:42:59 +0200
Subject: Re: origami capitalism (long)

Hi Joseph,

since I am an artist too (graphics designer), I've got another question.

Do I need a permission, if I want to integrate an folded and colored origami
model (may be one of your designs) into my own artwork, to form something
different and new?
Just for an easy example: a folded crane beeing glued on to my painted
canvas.

Concerning your discussion I have to say, that I don't like it either, if
somebody steals my design. But these things are hard to prove.
As an origami lover I am happy about every free diagram on web. But this
doesn't stop me from buying the books nevertheless. Without having seen
anything, I would probably not become interested in some artists work.
Publicity is neccessary.

P.S. Picasso said something like " The beginner borrows, the great artist
steals."

Don't worry about my english,
cu
Evi





From: Jean-Jerome CASALONGA <jj-casalonga@MAGIC.FR>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:51:37 +0200
Subject: Re: origami capitalism (Short)

            We will ALL end up like Yoshizawa :

 - Old
 - Senile
 - Paranoid
 - Afraid of showing his latest creation
 - Telling that someone else has stollen one of his creation
 - Making one book every 5 years, with always the same models
 - Boring to death young folders, telling them that HE created Origami, and
all the others simply copied HIM, or stole HIS ideas
 - You are WITH him, or you are AGAINST him !

 - ...  forgotten

        JJ Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasalongaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa





From: Binzi <binzi@MUENSTER.DE>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:53:46 +0200
Subject: Re: origami capitalism (long)

Just imagine: every day hundreds of origami lovers would ask Joseph Wu for
permission.
I wonder how he could manage to design new diagrams, beeing busy with
answering all those mails at the same time. :o)

cu
Evi





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 11:13:29 -0700
Subject: Meguro

Sorry to bother you guys again, but I was at Wu's website looking at the
galleries when I noticed the two folds by Meguro and I was blown away by
how utterly astounding they were!  I wanted to know if anybody knows about
Meguro, has he published any diagrams, what is this origami molecules
method?  Or does he keep his amazing tricks as trade secrets.  How did he
fold those crabs!?  And that urchin, they are just astounding!  If anyone
has any information about Meguro please reply to this email or email me at
dmwhitbeck@ucdavis.edu

Thanks

Sincerely,
David





From: "Juan P. Fernandez" <jpf@DAISY.PHAST.UMASS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 11:19:14 -0400
Subject: Re: a must

> Well, let's change the subject. Which books do you recommend "a must for
> origami lovers"?

Sorry to be predictable, but my "must" is
P. Engel's "Origami from Angelfish to Zen".
People might not like the models, but till
now everybody on this list has deemed the
introductory essay "superb".  Besides hav-
ing Engel's nice creations, it teaches the
beginner how to do the crane and the frog.

jp





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 11:19:29 -0700
Subject: Re: Meguro

At 11:13 99/05/19 -0700, you wrote:
>Sorry to bother you guys again, but I was at Wu's website looking at the
>galleries when I noticed the two folds by Meguro and I was blown away by
>how utterly astounding they were!  I wanted to know if anybody knows about
>Meguro, has he published any diagrams, what is this origami molecules
>method?  Or does he keep his amazing tricks as trade secrets.  How did he
>fold those crabs!?  And that urchin, they are just astounding!  If anyone
>has any information about Meguro please reply to this email or email me at
>dmwhitbeck@ucdavis.edu

Hopefully, Hatori-san will answer this better than I can. As far as I can
remember, Meguro is something of a recluse and a fanatic for coming up with
new an difficult ways of folding. He is not as interested in reproducing
previous models, only in coming up with new ones. As such, he has no
diagrams that I know of. However, he has corresponded with a few folders
outside of Japan. I believe that he and Robert Lang have discussed his
"bunshi" (molecules) method, and that he shared his sea urchin technique
with Hans Birkeland of Norway.

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 19 May 1999 11:19:52 -0600
Subject: Re: a must

> Subject: Re: a must
>    Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 17:40:10 +0200
>    From: Xuxa Rojas <jj-casalonga@MAGIC.FR>
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hey Xuxa!  How long have you been shacking up with Jean-Jerome?  Is it
serious?  How did you meet?  Are there wedding bells in the future?

Forget copyrights! I want the juicy details!

--
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: "Chamberlain, Clare" <Clare.Chamberlain@HEALTH.WA.GOV.AU>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 12:52:17 +0800
Subject: Re: The Human Condition

"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 just have to thank Michael G. LaFosse for putting into words what I have
been striving to share with you the last few weeks.
Clare





From: Binzi <binzi@MUENSTER.DE>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 14:22:26 +0200
Subject: Re: origami capitalism (Short)

>We will ALL end up like Yoshizawa :

Dear JJ,

you will soon end up like Robin Hood. Better run, if Joseph reads your mail!
:o)

Fold some wings, or drink Red Bull!
CU
Evi





From: Carlos Alberto Furuti <furuti@AHAND.UNICAMP.BR>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 14:32:54 -0300
Subject: Re: a must

>>From: Doug and Anna Weathers <dougw@RDROP.COM>
>>I must second the recommendation of Classic Origami by Paul Jackson.  This
>>book contains a tasteful selection of models, drawn from many authors,
>>attractively pictured, clearly diagrammed.  I have no other book that gives
>>as wide a view of origami possibilities and yet manages to contain only
I think I do - Steve & Megumi Biddle's "The New Origami". Very clear
diagrams, and a wider range of models. Also, a more detailed and orthogonal
classification system. Instead of Jackson's traditional/modern western/
modern eastern, TNO uses a more direct approach, practical/layered/action/
animals/geometric and so on. TNO is also in general more easily
available.
Please note I like CO a lot too, it even doubles as a coffetable book...

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

P.S. As Kim has noticed, has the secret connection Xuxa/The Mad Corsican
been revealed? When will we get the latest news? Details at eleven...





From: Xuxa Rojas <jj-casalonga@MAGIC.FR>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 17:40:10 +0200
Subject: Re: a must

>I must second the recommendation of Classic Origami by Paul Jackson.  This
>book contains a tasteful selection of models, drawn from many authors,

        NO !   Paul Jakson bad man !   He stole models from mi hermano !

    Better book is Hector Rojas books.   Better models !   Better pictures !
All made with ONE hand.

        Hector Rojas is best Origami in world !   Paul Jakon stinks !
Yoshizawa stinks !

                                        Xuxa Rojas





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 21:25:30 +0200
Subject: Re: origami capitalism (even longer)

Joseph Wu schrieb:
> I talk about money because people that seems to be what people understand
> and care about. It makes them take notice (worked on you, didn't it?). When
I think it was the other way round: I mentioned money, and you went all
morally high and mighty on me :-).

> creating an awareness in the origami community that it must support
> designers' in order for the designers to give back to the community. We
> could create a huge system like ASCAP (see Michael Naughton's message) to
> police all of this, but that would defeat the openness that we have all
> enjoyed in this community. It is a balancing act to keep the designers happy
> and productive, and to foster an open community where everyone benefits. All
> of my arguments revolve around this point. You seem to have focused solely
> on the money issue.
Well, from a folder's point of view, it's just the other way round: We
pay hard cash for those books. Without us, the creators could't afford
making their books and becoming not rich but famous and respected and
invited to conventions to all over the world for their wonderful
designs. So if they want to stay in business and stay famous they'd
better make sure they keep us happy. All this stuff about 'openness' and
'community' is just a way to mask the simple, ugly truth: We give the
designers money, the designers give us new models to fold.

> No? But you say in your previous paragraph that copyright is not good enough
> protection, and that a patent is required. That underlies an attitude that
> if stuff is available, it will be taken advantage of. Remember my point? A
The fact remains that The Law does NOT protect the creator's model
unless it is patented. The Law only protects the diagrams themselves
against commercial use. This has nothing to do with attitude, but simply
with how the legal situation is.
My point is that I, personally, don't care whether or not The Law
protects an origami diagram: I, personally, do not wish to use another
creator's designs for profit without at least trying to ask her or him
for permission. But my attitude does not change the legal situation at
all.

> are necessary to protect people's work. In our community where openness and
> sharing are supposed to be paramount, can we not do better than that?
Yes, we can and we do, as far as I know. But we are NOT legally required
to do it. We're just so very NICE people, that's all. Plus we can't
afford a lawsuit <g>.

> response of righteous indignation from the requester because they feel it is
> their right to have access to any model they ever see. So while YOU
I can't be held responsible for other people's attitudes, can I?

> Yes, that is true. I do not, however, consider that I've walked into a trap.
> I would contend that this is a lesser issue because many designers have
> dialogues about their work and freely share their ideas with each other. In
Oh, so you say it's OK when one designer steals from each other, but not
OK when a folder steal from a designer? Uh-uh. You can do better than
that, Joseph :-).

> >For the record, I did ask the authors for permission to sell their
> >models, both by mail and by e-mail. When none of them answered, I sent
> >another mail (and yes, I did verify that the address is correct). Still
> >none of them answered. Is this "difficult enough" for you?
>
> This was not apparent in your previous messages.
But it was quite apparent that, although I didn't say one word about it,
you assumed that I had not asked the authors for permission. In dubio,
right?

> I applaud your efforts and
> I hope that others will emulate you. Technically, one could argue that you
> still have not received permission, but I would think that if any of them
> cared enough to object, they would have answered your request.
That's the big question. Next time I will aks whether they forbid the
use of their models and that I will take no answer as a "yes". Problem
solved.

> And I hope there never will be. As I've said, your original message gave no
> indication that you even cared about designers' wishes, hence my
Well, read the archives :-).

>heavy-handed response. For that, I apologize. But I do hope that you
No problem. I wasn't all that subtle myself, and I did expect the kind
of answers I got, both on the list and in private e-mails.

> regarding this issue. When it comes down to it, I really only care about the
> ethical part of all of this. But, unfortunately, money and laws always seem
> to come into the picture. I don't think we can separate them out entirely.
No, of course we can't separate them out entirely. But we shouldn't
think that money can change the ethic aspect of using someone else's
folds. The ethic dilemma remains, and money is just the capitalist way
out of it.

Happy money-making!
Matthias





From: Susan Johnston <supersuzy2000@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 16:15:15 +0100 (
Subject: Re: Japanese book

To Mark,
I haven't heard of the book you want and i don't live in london although i
live in england but i might know a shop in london which might sell it.
(Sorry that i'm not answering the question)It's a Japanese shop in Picadilly
called the JAPAN CENTRE BOOKSHOP.  I saw it when i went down to london in
the Easter holidays.  It had lots of things to do with origami there
including paper and books - that's why i think your book might be there.
The address is (i got it off the carrier bag!):

212 Picadilly,
London
W1V 9LD

Tel: 0171-439 8035

Fax: 0171-287 1082

I hope its of some use.:-D
>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: Paul & Jan Fodor <origami@ALOHA.NET>
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 18:09:51 -1000
Subject: Re: origami capitalism

I've been wondering how many of the people who have commented have
actually sold origmi. I assure you, that people who buy origami seem no
less sincere about the joy they feel when they buy it and I doubt that
they feel that it's in poor taste that they are buying it.  I don't feel
that it poor taste to make and sell them, never have.  I still share
freely upon request.  The only concern I have is that I am making
origami that I am not ashamed of.  Yes, the quality is of great concern
to me but thus far, no one has commented about this to me personally.  I
have had comments like "isn't it tedious?", but that's as negative as it
gets.  Great art is complimented by how much one pays for it so little
bitty me is not going to feel bad about people who happily pay for what
I offer.  My opinion is, it is only in poor taste to offer what is not
worth the price you ask.  I have had some bad fairs but then a lot of
other vendors did poorly when it poured rain, sales do move along
according to the weather but I was very fulfilled when I made $1400 at
my best fair this year.

aloha, Jan





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 13:15:26 -0700
Subject: Re: cats Wait Try this one first !

At 21:50 99/05/19 +0200, Robby/Laura wrote:
>I agree with your message except for this last statement. I don't think you
>can check the subjects "on the server" and then decide what to do with
>every single message. You may read the subject and decide to trash the
>message and/or its attachments without reading, but only AFTER you've
>downloaded the whole stuff and wasted time, money etc.... so that's pretty
>useless ! ;-)

There are a number of tools that will allow you to do this. I believe Bernie
mention some before. I don't use one myself.

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 19 May 1999 13:30:46 -0700
Subject: Re: origami capitalism (even longer)

At 21:25 99/05/19 +0200, you wrote:
>I think it was the other way round: I mentioned money, and you went all
>morally high and mighty on me :-).

Probably. I was referring to the topic as a whole, discussions past and
present.

>Well, from a folder's point of view, it's just the other way round: We
>pay hard cash for those books. Without us, the creators could't afford
>making their books and becoming not rich but famous and respected and
>invited to conventions to all over the world for their wonderful
>designs. So if they want to stay in business and stay famous they'd
>better make sure they keep us happy. All this stuff about 'openness' and
>'community' is just a way to mask the simple, ugly truth: We give the
>designers money, the designers give us new models to fold.

No, it's not that at all. I think I've covered the topic of openness and
sharing already. The folders' point of view is already well developed. The
designers' side is the one that is often ignored, thus my apparently
one-sided argument. I say again: it's not about money, but about respect.
Many designers make an effort to share with everyone. Whether they make
money on that is another thing. Most of the money made from the sales of
origami books goes to cover publishing costs, not the designers' (or
authors') time. The fact is, when it comes to diagramming, designers share
because they want to, often at their own expense. All this stuff about
'money for models' is a cynical view of designers and diagrammers that is
totally inaccurate. So the circle turns again to the folders: how can
folders expect designers to continue to want to share if they do not
respect the designers' wishes regarding their models?

>Yes, we can and we do, as far as I know. But we are NOT legally required
>to do it. We're just so very NICE people, that's all. Plus we can't
>afford a lawsuit <g>.

No, we are not. But I've never asked for a legal solution to this issue.
Rather, I'd like to build on that very "niceness" that already exists.

>I can't be held responsible for other people's attitudes, can I?

No, but some of your arguments come close to such attitudes.

>Oh, so you say it's OK when one designer steals from each other, but not
>OK when a folder steal from a designer? Uh-uh. You can do better than
>that, Joseph :-).

You miss my point again: many designers have freely chosen to share their
ideas with each other. I've already said that if a designer chooses to let
people do what they want with their models, then that is that designer's
prerogative.

>But it was quite apparent that, although I didn't say one word about it,
>you assumed that I had not asked the authors for permission. In dubio,
>right?

The sentiments in the rest of your message seemed to imply that you had
not. As I've said, I'm happy to be proven wrong on this matter.

>That's the big question. Next time I will aks whether they forbid the
>use of their models and that I will take no answer as a "yes". Problem
>solved.

I'm willing to live with that.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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: Peggy Van Norman <peggy@VANNORMAN.COM>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 14:07:05 -0700
Subject: Creased Paper Question

Hello everybody,

A friend of mine has some mulberry paper, which she would like to use for a
book jacket, but it has creases.  She would like to know if there's a way to
get the creases out, does anyone have any suggestions that I can forward to
her?

Thanks in advance,

Peggy





From: John Marcolina <jmarcoli@CISCO.COM>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 14:21:53 -0700
Subject: Re: Creased Paper Question

At 02:07 PM 5/19/1999 -0700, you wrote:
>Hello everybody,
>
>A friend of mine has some mulberry paper, which she would like to use for a
>book jacket, but it has creases.  She would like to know if there's a way to
>get the creases out, does anyone have any suggestions that I can forward to
>her?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Peggy

I bought some mulberry paper to make tissue-foil with, and it came folded in a
     package. To get it to lie flat, I simply ironed it, using steam. This
     didn't seem to damage the paper at all.

John Marcolina
San Jose, CA.
jmarcoli@cisco.com





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 14:28:55 -0700
Subject: Re: Creased Paper Question

At 14:21 99/05/19 -0700, you wrote:
>I bought some mulberry paper to make tissue-foil with, and it came folded in
>a package. To get it to lie flat, I simply ironed it, using steam. This
>didn't seem to damage the paper at all.

Should work just fine. Don't have the iron set too hot, obviously. If it's
still damp after the ironing, tape down the corners on a flat surface to
help keep it from curling as it dries.

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: Peggy Van Norman <peggy@VANNORMAN.COM>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 15:06:53 -0700
Subject: Re: Creased Paper Question

Thanks, John Marcolina and Joseph Wu, for your suggestions.  My friend will
be very pleased.

Peggy





From: "Penelope R. Chua" <pchua@UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 15:15:57 -0800
Subject: Star Wars Origami

I braved the crowds for the opening show of The Phantom Menace last night
and wore a hat with 4 origami Yodas (from one of the Tanteidon books) stuck
to it.  Someone tried to ask how much I would sell one of them for, but I
couldn't sell it, it would have ruined my hat!

--
Penelope R. Chua, Ph.D.                 email: pchua@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Rine lab                                Tel: (510) 642-7070
Molecular and Cell Biology              Fax: (510) 642-6420
University of California
401 Barker Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-3202
