Re: [Origami] Implications of the term 'Traditional' and call for feedback
On 8 Jul 2021, at 9:06, Gerardo @neorigami.com wrote: > > 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". > When I saw Lisa’s email I immediately started drafting a reply, but I was on vacation and put it on the back burner. Since then, other people have said 90% of what I was planning on saying; generally, I’m especially in agreement with Gerardo’s latest email, so I’ll just add the one thing that I think has not been commented on much in this thread. While I agree that international standards for criteria, symbols and terminology are helpful and can be desirable, I think it’s nearly impossible to demand uniformity, for many reasons. Even the “standard” Yoshizawa-Randlett system of symbols isn’t truly uniformly applied, nor the “standard” terminology. As someone who (like many on this mailing list) uses origami books in several languages and participates in classes in different languages and countries, I can attest that there can be significant variation in terminology even within the same country and language. The same is true about the details of the symbols used in diagramming. The more closely you look and the more books you look at, the more you find variations and differences. Even what counts as “origami” can be up for debate. Is “Golden Venture” aka “3D origami” really origami? How much (if any) cutting is OK? How much (if any) glue, and in what kind of use: to glue pieces together that don’t have a folded lock? To help strengthen a folded lock? To keep layers together? Does the paper have to be square? Or a regular or convex polygon? We can find examples from recognized origami books from the first half of the 20th century and earlier that include cuts, glue, non-square paper, etc. Do the creases have to be clearly defined? Does the paper have to end up with any folds in place, or can it just be creases in the paper? Does it even have to be paper, or do folded metal and wood count as origami? As recent discussions in various forums show, There are things that are generally accepted today to be origami that don’t fit the general “rules.” The fact is, the origami community isn’t a structured community with any centralized authority that can impose norms. This makes achieving and maintaining uniformity of terminology, symbols, standards, etc., practically impossible. So, while we can (and should) discuss the issue and encourage a uniform application of the term “traditional” as a substitute for the name of an author when the model’s origin is lost to us because the model has been handed down for generations and consequently is in the public domain (or whatever definition finds consensus), there’s no practical way to enforce or guarantee that it will be respected. I do think the term is useful but should be used very sparingly and only for models that truly fit the description. A well-curated source including all and only the truly traditional models (according to the definition I mention above) with a historical commentary would be a boon to the origami community. I’d certainly buy it! Best, Matthew
Re: [Origami] Implications of the term 'Traditional' and call for feedback
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
Re: [Origami] Implications of the term 'Traditional' and call for
Hans wrote: >I believe the most extensive attempt at collecting "traditional models" is >that of David Petty: >http://britishorigami.info/academic/davidpetty//index.htm. For all I know, he >is right about that list Dave's methodology in creating this list was to look through books and to include anything that the author had designated traditional. Clearly, if mistakes were made in the original work, then they are perpetuated in his list. As far as I know he did not attempt any verification of the information. Most of the mistakes I have found relate to the geographical origin of the designs. The Magazine Cover Box, for instance, is designated as Japanese, although the evidence suggests that it is German in origin. Dave (yes, another one)
Re: [Origami] Implications of the term 'Traditional' and call for feedback
wrote: >I think it would be extremely helpful and important to define the term >"Traditional" in a way that is accepted worldwide. A personal note is that >the term traditional is a term I still do not have a clear understanding of >>its meaning and I am an active member of the OUSA community and have been >since 2006. The Yoshizawa-Randlett system diagraming system is worldwide and >terminology should be too. I was told it is not a legal >term, but people >seem to be using it for legal reasons. Yes, I agree, it would be very helpful! It would probably be even more helpful if people simply stopped using the term, but that is clearly unlikely to happen. A tradition, I think, is something that people do by custom. So, for instance, if it was common in a society to usually fold a particular paperfold on a particular day of the year it would be reasonable to call that a traditional paperfold, ie a paperfold that is used in a traditional context. In the same sense Turkey could be called a traditional food because we eat it at Christmas (here in the UK) or at Thanksgiving (across the pond). What I think, however, people mean by calling paperfolds traditional in origami is 1, I don't know who first designed it or 2, I think it is old rather than modern or both which is a different kettle of fish entirely. It would be much more helpful if people would simply say 'Designer unknown' and try to give some idea of the age or origin of the design. For instance ... 'Designer unknown: modern' or 'Designer unknown: Japanese pre-1900' Of course, this requires some historical knowledge ... but there is now a resource on my site, an ever growing resource, though not yet a comprehensive one, where you can look these sorts of things up. See http://www.origamiheaven.com/historyindex.htm. Dave
Re: [Origami] Implications of the term 'Traditional' and call for feedback
> On 5 Jul 2021, at 15.11, l...@origamiplace.com wrote: > I think it would be extremely helpful and important to define the term > “Traditional” in a way that is accepted worldwide. > I believe there should be something to clearly state that traditional models > are in the creative commons if this is the case. This is my personal > understanding. The starting point would be a post to multiple origami > platforms to get general input. Then, have origami societies worldwide come > to an agreement and share a clear document with an in-depth description with > examples included that the community would support. Thoughts? > > Please send feedback to the form at https://origamimuseum.org/contact/, if > you do not want to send feedback to this list. I believe the most extensive attempt at collecting "traditional models" is that of David Petty: http://britishorigami.info/academic/davidpetty//index.htm. For all I know, he is right about that list, and the full list of "traditional models" should be much longer. My humble understanding of a "traditional model" is this: A model which is at least somewhat widespread and which usually has no known designer. Always simple or intermediate models. Usually older models, but surely new models over time may get this status as well. And always de facto in the open domain. That is a pretty vague definition, and given how many simple un-attributed models you see diagrammed on the internet, in books (even by Yoshizawa) and on packages of origami paper, it is frustratingly difficult to judge whether a given model is "traditional" or copyrighted under free use conditions or in some other way free access, or if the model is in fact copyrighted by someone who does not want it in the public domain. I do not believe that you can vote a model to be traditional, and we don't have a forum or super-organisation with the authority to declare them so. The best you may hope for is to do like David Petty did: put up a public list of diagrams of models that presumably and in good faith are traditional models. If somebody claims a model does not belong on the list, that that there is in fact a known designer, they have to provide proof, and the site owner must take them down if the proof is deemed sufficient. Of course, the devil is hidden in the terms "good faith" and "take them down"; which we all know from sites distributing pirated books, music, designs or other art works. This is where recognised origami organisations might have a natural role: They have the network to make a bona fide search for if a model is traditional or not, and they have the organisation to maintain the list if claims for the opposite are made. On the other hand, the more streamlined and formal the organisation is, the higher risk there is that somebody might bring them to court (probably an American one) over some more or less dubious claim. So such an organisation might have to fill such a list of "traditional models" pretty defensively. Finally, note that "creative commons" does not mean "free access". It is a set of copyright declarations ranging from "CC by" (do whatever you want as long as you attribute the designer) to "CC by nc nd" (must attribute, only non-commercial use, no derivatives). See https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/. The "CC by nc nd" is pretty close to the "fair use" of standard copyright conditions. By this range you might believe that "CC" in itself would mean "do what you want", even without attributing the model, but I find it likely that the Creative Commons organisation deliberately omitted that option from their list of standard licenses. The "nd" condition is not clear. When is a model a new model and when is it a derivative? What if you make a trivial change of the tradtional crane, is that a new model that can be copyrighted, or is it only a derivative? Robert Lang had a court case concerning use of his crease patterns by another artist which as I understand concerned the question if that art was a derivative (and if such are allowed) or an original art work in itself. Best regards, Hans Hans Dybkjær papirfoldning.dk Society: foldning.dk
