In her email, on Monday the 5th, *Lisa B. Corfman* mentioned we need a world-wide accepted definition of the concept "traditional origami". Lisa suggested to start by asking different origami platforms for general input, and then ask world-wide origami societies to come to an agreement embodied in a detailed document. She also asked if all traditional models "are in the creative commons".
Hi Lisa. I think a good way to get an official definition is just how you proposed. I do wonder if there will be enough interest from the platforms and societies, but I do hope there will be! It makes me think about initiatives like the First International Origami Copyright Meeting, in Tokyo 2008. In his reply, that same day, *Hans Dybkjær* explained how "Creative Commons" is different from "free access", but I'd like to say a bit more about that. I think Lisa you're confusing "Creative Commons" with "public domain". Creative Commons is an organization which has mainly designed premade licenses for creative works. There's a variety of them, in case an author wishes to attach one of them to their copyright-protected work https://creativecommons.org/ Now, public domain relates to creative works that aren't protected by copyright for different reasons. It could be, for example, because the author passed away long enough for it to stop being protected by copyright law or because the author simply donated his work to the public domain. This won't be the agreed definition we're looking for, but I would like to propose one anyway: Traditional origami refers to models that were created before the XX century and whose creators are globally unknown. Such models are of the public domain. In that sense, *Horse and Rider*, created by Adolff Senff around the early XIX century, isn't traditional origami since its creator is actually known; but it probably belongs to the public domain anyway. Many models have been erroneously stated as traditional origami, even though they aren't that old and their creators aren't globally unknown. For example, *Novelty Purse* created by Akira Yoshizawa (1911 - 2005), which diagrams are included in *Secrets of Origami* (1971) by Robert Harbin, is hinted to be a traditional tato with no reference to Mr. Yoshizawa in *Complete Origami* (1987) by Eric Kenneway. To avoid spreading false claims about the traditional character of a model, it is important to research, but also ask extensively within different origami communities, as well as verify the sources of the received information. YouTube is a very bad source for researching traditional origami since it has many false claims regarding different models. The following two webpages are good places to start inquiring: *The Public Paperfolding History Project* by David Mitchell: http://www.origamiheaven.com/historyindex.htm *Model of the Month* by David Petty: https://britishorigami.info/academic/davidpetty/mom/model_of_the_month_choice.htm Continuing with my email, *Hans* had offered his own definition about traditional origami. From the looks of it, we actually already disagree in a couple of things 😉. I state that the model's creator MUST be globally unknown for it to be declared traditional, while Hans says it's USUALLY the case (but not always). Aside from that, Hans declares that, with time, new models will turn into traditional origami; I disagree with that as well. Just because a model becomes part of the public domain, it doesn't mean it is now traditional as well. Traditional origami is related to the public domain, but that doesn't mean they are synonymous. For example, if we take into consideration the Argentinian and the Japanese copyright law, in only 16 years the models created by Ligia Montoya and those created by Michio Uchiyama will be included in the public domain, but that won't turn them into traditional origami. In that sense, I consider "traditional origami" as a group of models within a set historical time frame. In his own reply, on the day after, *David Mitchell* stated his desire for the abandonment of the term "traditional origami". I don't agree with that, but I certainly do agree with our common disapproval regarding the use of the term "traditional origami" as a way to get away with the lack of research related to the creators and their deserving credit. Now, David's reply does leave me with a very important question which I hope some of you can help me with: *Which were the first published appearances of the word "traditional" in regard to origami, and how exactly was the word used?* I think this would be very useful in the construction of a definition like the one Lisa is asking for! OK, I don't want to make this email any longer, but I wanted to finish mentioning that David Lister–yes, one more David, but not just any David–wrote the following, which is also related to this conversation: https://britishorigami.info/lister/100_trad_models.php Cheers! -- *Gerardo G.* gerardo(a)neorigami.com *Knowledge and Curiosity in Origami:* *six private classes online* <https://sites.google.com/neorigami.com/classes> "(...) It doesn’t happen often, but when it does, it takes your breath away and fills you with the true joy of *origami*. I experienced this in my lessons with Gerardo G. I wouldn’t trade it for anything. Gerardo is (...)" *C. R.* *Read the full review* <https://sites.google.com/neorigami.com/classes#h.q2mt4npahmc2>
