Re: [Origami] Folding sequences of structural similar models

[Matthew Green]

On Aug 11, 2016, at 3:35 AM, Anna  wrote:
...it is possible to use a completely different folding
sequence to come to a structurally identical model. So is this still the
same model? I mean the outcome may be similar, but the path to get there
isn't.
…….
I wonder this because sometimes for really simple models someone folds a
single fold differently and calls it hos own model. 
-
And then I've got a second question that is even more pressing for me.
Lets say I've derived at my own folding sequence for a specific model and I
want to share it with the world by publishing diagrams for it, am I allowed
to?
Do I need permission from the author? 

Hello Anna,

To answer part of your question, I’d say that if the final structure is 
identical or very nearly identical, it counts as the same model, regardless of 
the folding sequence. I say this in part because I sometimes use different 
folding sequences for my own designs, and in no way do I think, “I just 
invented a new model!” No, I discovered a new way to get to the model. By 
analogy, if someone were to discover an island in the Pacific Ocean by sailing 
east from Japan, and someone else discovered it by sailing west from 
California, the first person to get there gets to say that they discovered it. 
You can’t say, “I took a different route, so the island is new.” Similarly, if 
a pharmaceutical company has the patent on a medicine, another company can’t 
sell the same product with the claim that “I made it using a different method.” 
If it’s the same chemical, it’s the same product.
I do think, however, that someone can take credit for discovering a new and 
ingenious folding method, but if I were do do that for, say, the Kawasaki Rose, 
it would still the Kawasaki Rose, but perhaps “folded using the Matthew Green 
method”. 
Therefore, I’d say you also have to ask permission to publish diagrams for a 
new method for someone else’s model, because the goal is to make the model; the 
folding sequence is the method, not the goal.
I think people do sometimes incorrectly claim that they “invented” a model when 
they simply made a minor modification to an existing model.

That’s my two cents on this topic… Have a great day!
Matthew Green
Monterrey, Mexico

[Origami] Fold-Ease

[Jan Polish]

Michael Sanders asked about this "useless" product, and seemed to remember
it at an OrigamiUSA convention. Your memory is good, Michael, although I
also don't remember the year. The manufacturer sent samples to the Business
Committee, convinced we would order lots. We had the same reaction as you
did. Useless, and not cheap. We probably brought the samples to convention
for a laugh.

... Jan Polish

[Origami] Folding sequences of structural similar models

[Anna]

Hello,

I've got a question I'm wondering about quite some while now.
The question is how much structural difference is necessary for a model to
clearly become a new model?
When I fold something from Crease Pattern the structure of the model should
be the same in the end, no matter how I arrived there. But that leads to
another phenomenon, it is possible to use a completely different folding
sequence to come to a structurally identical model. So is this still the
same model? I mean the outcome may be similar, but the path to get there
isn't.
The question gets even more complicated when I fold a model from a picture
only without a CP or any other clues. I've done that before so it is
clearly possible. But then I also had the case that even if it looks the
same, it is structurally not the same because I started with a differently
shaped paper (square instead of rectangle).
Of course if I fold something from CP or picture I attribute the model to
the initial designer of the model, because if it hadn't been for his input,
I would never have gotten the idea to fold this model. But still I
sometimes wonder whether this is even correct.
I know at least three models by heart where I found a very nice folding
sequence to later find out that the original designer folds them completely
different. Two of them end up with minor differences at the end. The
differences are of structural nature and not openly visible, so the models
look exactly the same, even though they are not.
I wonder this because sometimes for really simple models someone folds a
single fold differently and calls it hos own model. Here I do all the folds
differently, but end up with a similar looking model and don't attribute it
to myself, even though the difference is much higher than on the simple
model with just a slight difference. Know what I mean?
So what is your opinion to this subject?

And then I've got a second question that is even more pressing for me.
Lets say I've derived at my own folding sequence for a specific model and I
want to share it with the world by publishing diagrams for it, am I allowed
to?
Do I need permission from the author? I mean it is not something he came up
with, just the result is the same and like I said, maybe even not
completely. I guess it would be the nice thing to ask, but the folding
sequence is my own and not his.

I'd really like to hear your opinion on that matter.

Nice Greetings

Anna from Vienna, Austria.