# ATA Forms Protected?



## ArmorOfGod (Sep 21, 2008)

I read on a thread that ATA forms are copyrighted.
Is this true?  If it is, is it done to keep other schools from using the forms?
Also, what other things are protected?  If one got an ATA black belt, would the black belt be "revoked" if they started their own school that was not in the ATA chain?

AoG


----------



## MBuzzy (Sep 21, 2008)

Actually, I've been doing a bit of research on this.  I can't find the actual cases that have been brought to court regarding it, but I've spoken to a few lawyers out of my own curiosity.  A martial arts form cannot be copyrighted....my understanding is that it is like a dance, simply a series of movements put together in a coordinated way.  So if I understand correctly, you can no more copyright a form than you can the act of walking.  

Now....if the organization created them itself, it may be able to defend against others making a profit from them, based on the laws of intellectual property, but I think that is as far as you can go.

If anyone knows of any actually court cases, I'd love to know about them!


----------



## arnisador (Sep 21, 2008)

They've been trying to copyright (trademark?) things like yoga...I wouldn't rule it out. See this post and this.


----------



## MBuzzy (Sep 21, 2008)

I have heard that there are court precedents, but I've never seen them or heard of the actually case names.  Until it is brought to a high enough court to create a precedent, there really won't be a standard.  Now, it may already be out there....I just haven't been able to find it.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 21, 2008)

If you can copyright fotms then whu not kicks and punches


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 21, 2008)

You might actually be able to cover a form under copyright; it's a specific arrangement of moves, just as a song or book is a specific arrangement of words.

But I think you'd have to show that the form was original to the group trying to copyright it.  And, for many martial arts, including TKD, that would be an uphill battle.


----------



## MBuzzy (Sep 21, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> If you can copyright forms then why not kicks and punches



...or stances, or a fist, or breathing.....

honestly, I find the idea of copyrighting a form a bit silly.  Though, I do recognize the need to protect intellectual property.  If one organization creates a form, I can see the need to keep others from capitalizing on it and making a profit from their work.  It is a fine balance though.  I can see the legal perspective of viewing forms in the same light as dance movements, which also can't be copyrighted.

Plus....can you imagine enforcing such a copyright???  It is relatively simple to enforce the publishing or making a profit off of it, but you simply can't keep people from doing it.  Until, of course, big brother installs cameras in every corner of the country.


----------



## granfire (Sep 22, 2008)

I do believe you can actually copyright forms.

I have been told an organization tried to claim copyright infringment on the traditional forms and lost - subsequently changed the forms around.

BUT, I am a mere grasshopper  could not confirm it....


----------



## YoungMan (Sep 22, 2008)

I believe the ATA forms are indeed protected. Even if you can't copyright separate techniques, you can probably copyright forms that put together these techniques in ways unique to an organization and style. You can't copyright notes in a song, but you can copyright chord progressions and lyrics that people recognize as a song.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 22, 2008)

To my knowledge the ATA forms are copyrighted as a specific set of movements in a pattern unique to ATA.

A bigger question is if you are not ATA why would you want to use them?
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





In other words create your own forms.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Sep 22, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> To my knowledge the ATA forms are copyrighted as a specific set of movements in a pattern unique to ATA.
> 
> A bigger question is if you are not ATA why would you want to use them?
> 
> ...


 
I agree with you.  I would not want to use the ATA forms if I were no longer affiliated with them.

I think the bigger question should by why are they copyrighted?  

I understand that instructors need to make a profit from teaching so that they can continue to teach.  I also understand the desire to make money.  But I also understand that a martial art is not going to grow unless you have the ability to teach it.

Not everything should be about money.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 22, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> I agree with you.  I would not want to use the ATA forms if I were no longer affiliated with them.
> 
> I think the bigger question should by why are they copyrighted?
> 
> Not everything should be about money.



Absolutely and I could not agree more!


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 22, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> I agree with you. I would not want to use the ATA forms if I were no longer affiliated with them.
> 
> I think the bigger question should by why are they copyrighted?
> 
> ...


 
But with the ATA iit ia all about money.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 22, 2008)

A gentleman I know on TKDspace, whom I do respect, is an ATA instructor and has stated that the forms are indeed copyrighted.  He says, and I have no reason to doubt him, that they use, "the original chang hon forms."  I also know that ATA competitions are ATA only.  Not sure if ATA practitioners are forbidden from entering non ATA competition, but ATA competitions are not open to non members.

I know of no lawsuits involving the ATA forms.  Chances are that there aren't any; most people opening a school do so within whatever organization they're already associated with and use the forms appropriate to it rather than trying to raid another organization's forms.

The sort of internalizing of tournaments and forms and such has both potential benefits and drawbacks.  

Daniel


----------



## BrandonLucas (Sep 22, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> A gentleman I know on TKDspace, whom I do respect, is an ATA instructor and has stated that the forms are indeed copyrighted. He says, and I have no reason to doubt him, that they use, "the original chang hon forms." I also know that ATA competitions are ATA only. Not sure if ATA practitioners are forbidden from entering non ATA competition, but ATA competitions are not open to non members.
> 
> I know of no lawsuits involving the ATA forms. Chances are that there aren't any; most people opening a school do so within whatever organization they're already associated with and use the forms appropriate to it rather than trying to raid another organization's forms.
> 
> ...


 
The problem is that there should be no reason to copyright a form, unless you expect to be paid for the forms in question.

Unfortunately, it seems that the organization is more about making money than actually teaching the martial art.

I'm not sure exactly what the benefit would be to having a completely closed tournement all the time, though.  Hopefully, there are some ATA members that clear this up on here.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 22, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> The problem is that there should be no reason to copyright a form, unless you expect to be paid for the forms in question.
> 
> Unfortunately, it seems that the organization is more about making money than actually teaching the martial art.
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what the benefit would be to having a completely closed tournement all the time, though. Hopefully, there are some ATA members that clear this up on here.


Not an ATA member, but I think I can answer the question to an extent. 

The biggest benefit to a closed circuit is that the participants can be regulated and sactioned more easily, and of course, there's no need to worry about whether or not all participants are familiar wit the rules.  It also keeps all members competing only in ATA tournaments, so any entry fees that a competition minded student pays all stay in house.

The obvious drawback is a limited pool of talent.  Of course, the counter argument could be made that the NFL, NBA, and MLB also run closed tournaments.

Regarding copyrights, wanting to make money is not the only reason to copyright something.  Simply not wanting others to use what you or your organization have developed is a perfectly legitamate reason.  I think that the main reason is to keep as much unique to their organization as possible, and while they don't make money from the forms, keeping it protected allows them to say, "you can't get these anywhere else."  

I'd also like to hear from some ATA members.  We can speculate about the organization to such an extent that it seems like fact, but without an actual ATA member here, its mostly just speculation.  If nothing else, a member would keep the conversation more ballanced.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 22, 2008)

It's not necessarily the forms themselves that need to be protected legally from use by others.  It's the entire body of teaching materials the ATA has produced (their books, dvds, handouts, teaching methodology, etc) that is valuable - I'm sure they've spent countless hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars conceptualizing and then producing it.

To me that stuff is way more valuable than the forms themselves, which are honestly just basics strung together to create a pre-designed floor pattern.  Like many new forms, the ATA Songahm hyung have no bun seoh to them.  You could get much the same benefits from practicing some difficult combinations.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 22, 2008)

Very good observation, Dancing.  And in truth, I can't fault any organization for protecting the material that provides them with their lifeblood.

Daniel


----------



## MBuzzy (Sep 22, 2008)

Well, do the forms appear regularly...or ever...with the copyright symbol?  ©

If someone had gone to the trouble and expense to register something, it seems like they would enforce that.  It is really the only way for others to know that something is protected.


----------



## Baby_Huey (Sep 22, 2008)

In my opinion, a copyright flies in the face of what martial arts is suppose to be. As a mass communication major, I had to take several law classes and most of them dealing with the subject of copyrights and intellectual property.  
In America and Europe, there are several laws on the books to protect people,  pretty much if you have been taught by certified ATA instructor or purchased material for ATA forms you are bestowed the  rights to use that form, for practice or demos.  But it doesn't give you the right to make money on the forms such as competitions that raise money or your teaching unless you have ATA certified permission.  
Nothing has come up legally in US Courts with forms. 
I had a law professor that said that copyrights does nothing more protect your share of the profits.  Shouldn't we as martial artists be working on spreading the arts?  
This is why in my opinion having federations and such hurt the arts more then help it.  I study both ITF forms and WTF forms (Palgwes and yes I know they are the old school forms for WTF)  as far as I know all the forms are not copy righted, if we have a group that copy rights everything then a merger and unfied Tae Kwon Do will never happen.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 22, 2008)

Huey!  Good to see you here!!  I assume you're the same Huey from another TKD site.

Daniel


----------



## YoungMan (Sep 22, 2008)

Another advantage to having copyrighted forms:

If some instructor has a disagreement with the ATA over whatever and leaves, he cannot open his own independent school, claim to be ATA, and teach ATA forms. You leave the ATA? You lose the right to teach their curriculum.
Problem with other organizations is that their forms and material aren't protected, So that if someone leaves an organization, there is nothing preventing him from opening up shop and teaching the material he learned regardless of whether he has permission.
In fact, a black belt student of one of our instructors did this and tried to teach our material without official permission. We had to threaten legal action since he would have used the organization's name for his own benefit to shut him down.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Sep 22, 2008)

Baby_Huey said:


> In my opinion, a copyright flies in the face of what martial arts is suppose to be. As a mass communication major, I had to take several law classes and most of them dealing with the subject of copyrights and intellectual property.
> In America and Europe, there are several laws on the books to protect people, pretty much if you have been taught by certified ATA instructor or purchased material for ATA forms you are bestowed the rights to use that form, for practice or demos. But it doesn't give you the right to make money on the forms such as competitions that raise money or your teaching unless you have ATA certified permission.
> Nothing has come up legally in US Courts with forms.
> I had a law professor that said that copyrights does nothing more protect your share of the profits. Shouldn't we as martial artists be working on spreading the arts?
> This is why in my opinion having federations and such hurt the arts more then help it. I study both ITF forms and WTF forms (Palgwes and yes I know they are the old school forms for WTF) as far as I know all the forms are not copy righted, if we have a group that copy rights everything then a merger and unfied Tae Kwon Do will never happen.


 
I agree.  Anything that is designed to stop the spreading of knowledge of martial arts is not honorable in the least.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Sep 22, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> Another advantage to having copyrighted forms:
> 
> If some instructor has a disagreement with the ATA over whatever and leaves, he cannot open his own independent school, claim to be ATA, and teach ATA forms. You leave the ATA? You lose the right to teach their curriculum.
> Problem with other organizations is that their forms and material aren't protected, So that if someone leaves an organization, there is nothing preventing him from opening up shop and teaching the material he learned regardless of whether he has permission.
> In fact, a black belt student of one of our instructors did this and tried to teach our material without official permission. We had to threaten legal action since he would have used the organization's name for his own benefit to shut him down.


 
I can see how that would work, however, it only stops someone from opening up shop with affiliation to ATA.  It doesn't stop the person from opening a school with no backing.  In fact, I know of a school not far from here that is doing just that.

Just because someone wants to open a school without permission does not completely mean that they aren't ready to open a school or teach...think of Bruce Lee.


----------



## Kwanjang (Sep 22, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> A gentleman I know on TKDspace, whom I do respect, is an ATA instructor and has stated that the forms are indeed copyrighted. He says, and I have no reason to doubt him, that they use, "the original chang hon forms."
> 
> Daniel


 
It has been my understanding the ATA uses the Songham form Created By GM Hae Un Lee- I don't think they use the chang hon form any more in liue of the songham forms.  I don't know if any of you fellow TKdist have sen the "songham" forms. I personally did not like them. However on a trip to visit my Aunt and Uncle in Little Rock AR. I stopped in for a visit to their world HQ's (After GM H.U.L passed away) They gave me a tour including a rare visit to his office and prsonal training area. It's ironic in 1980 when I started Moo Sul Kwan (the school I  origionally joined)was a member of the ATA. at the time.  Its a small world after all. :ultracool


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 22, 2008)

Kwanjang said:


> It has been my understanding the ATA uses the Songham form Created By GM Hae Un Lee- I don't think they use the chang hon form any more in liue of the songham forms. I don't know if any of you fellow TKdist have sen the "songham" forms.


Thanks for the correction!  

I went back and looked at his old post.  He indicated that when he started, he learned the Chang Hon forms and that the ATA uses the Songham forms.

Daniel


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 22, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> If some instructor has a disagreement with the ATA over whatever and leaves, he cannot open his own independent school, claim to be ATA, and teach ATA forms. You leave the ATA? You lose the right to teach their curriculum.
> Problem with other organizations is that their forms and material aren't protected, So that if someone leaves an organization, there is nothing preventing him from opening up shop and teaching the material he learned regardless of whether he has permission.
> In fact, a black belt student of one of our instructors did this and tried to teach our material without official permission. We had to threaten legal action since he would have used the organization's name for his own benefit to shut him down.




this troubles me.

Mind you, i called my instructor, and got permission to open a school, like a student should do. At the same time, If my instructor didnt consider me a good teacher, she shouldnt have promoted me to 2nd.

However, if i had to pay her 25% of my profit, like the ATA is reputed to do, and spend thousands of dollars to get a 'teachers license" like i KNOW the ATA does, i would have told her to pack sand and done it anyway.

My knowledge is MY knowledge, you cant take that away. Plus it is really un-enforceable anyway. The closest case law is for music. There, the standard is 10%

the new thing has to be 10% different from the old thing to be considered new.

On a 30 move kata. thats 3 moves. If i cant figure out 3 moves to change ona kata, and figure out a new name to call it, i shouldnt be taching anyway.

While I see Young Man's point, and to a degree I agree with it, in whole I cant agree.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 22, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> It's not necessarily the forms themselves that need to be protected legally from use by others. It's the entire body of teaching materials the ATA has produced (their books, dvds, handouts, teaching methodology, etc) that is valuable - I'm sure they've spent countless hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars conceptualizing and then producing it.
> 
> To me that stuff is way more valuable than the forms themselves, which are honestly just basics strung together to create a pre-designed floor pattern. Like many new forms, the ATA Songahm hyung have no bun seoh to them. You could get much the same benefits from practicing some difficult combinations.


 
Yea if you like to run a McDojo, sorry all the ATA schools here are like that.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Sep 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> this troubles me.
> 
> Mind you, i called my instructor, and got permission to open a school, like a student should do. At the same time, If my instructor didnt consider me a good teacher, she shouldnt have promoted me to 2nd.
> 
> ...


 
This better states where I stand with it.

I think it's more of a ploy on this particular issue to keep the ATA on the payroll.


----------



## stone_dragone (Sep 22, 2008)

I'm not a current member of the ATA, but I was a member for about 4 years.  Here's what I know about the ATA forms, copyrights and other ATA stuff...

From "The Way of Traditional Taekwondo, Volume A, Philosophy and Tradition" (the ATA's series of belt level manuals which include the basics, forms, philosophies, self-defense and one-steps for each belt level).

"In Songahm Taekwondo, the "philosophy" can be seen mostly through the poome-sae (forms).  Each poome-sae (form) is, in itself the philosophy of Taekwondo expressing the principles, knowledge, action, thoughts, respect and courtesies of Songahm Taekwondo.  Other Taekwondo styles say that the philosophy of Taekwondo is in their poome-sae (forms) also, but is it?  the poome-sae (forms) are simple basics that give very little depth to the art.  They do not demonstrate many chah-gi (kicks) (if any at all) nor do they have a consistent pattern that ties the poome-sae (forms) or "way" together.  The poome-sae of other styles are simple and do not flow from one to the other nor are they designed with the techniques or technical level of that particular rank in mind."

...

"In 1968, General Choi had a meeting with then MAster Haeng Ung Lee.  Master Lee was, at the time, teaching the PyeongAhn poome-sae (forms) (pre-Taekwondo, Japanese based forms) to his organizationof followers.  General Choi taught Master Lee the first 16 Cheon-jee poone-sae (forms) (also known as the Chahng-hun system) in only four days and three nights...."

...

"The copyrighted Songahm poome-sae (forms) have been arranged as a system to gradually increase the student's skill, develop technial balance equally on teh left and right side of the body, train muscles, and to develop students from the beginner level through the rank of Dae Sah-boo Nim (Grand Master).  this is why each Songahm poomse-sae (form) does not repeat most techniques more than twice and also why every technique which is done with a right arm/leg is also repeated with the left arm/leg."

...

"Each rank has its own unique form designed specifically fofr the techniques taught at that rank level.  The poome-sae (form) is part of a complete system of teaching the Songahm Taekwondo student." 

Similar to the Universal Pattern in American Kenpo, the ATA has a pattern that they use as a teaching tool called the Songahm star.  It is basically lines on the cardinal directions and intermediate directions crossing at the center and connectors drawn along the outside. Form in the series (Songahm, In Wha, Choong Jung, Shim Jun, Jung Yul, Chung San, Sok Bong, Chung Hae and Jhang Soo) trace their foot work pattern (embusen in japanese, I have no ide what it is in korean) along the lines and shapes within the Star without any being duplicated (i.e. following the rectangle formed on the right side, next form follows the right rectangle, next follows the top rectangle, etc).  

The forms, the Songahm star, and the instructor certification program were all copyrighted as a way to ensure that all people who were teaching the ATA curriculum were pointed in the same direction and to provide some level of quality control.  

I can't pretend that I am a supporter of the ATA any more, but I can say that, in their defense, they provide a very well structured curriculum from white belt all the way through the senior black belt ranks.  They also are pretty uniform in how they teach things across the board...i.e every green belt knows the same forms as every other green belt and learned them with the same techniques and almost no variation.

I firmly believe that the ATA today is not what the founder, H.U. Lee, had envisioned.  Although he wanted to grow a large organization designed to uniformly spread his art over the world, I highly doubt that he wanted his name to be attached to something that has become synonomous with 5-year old black belts and karate-day-care centers.


----------



## Baby_Huey (Sep 22, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> Huey!  Good to see you here!!  I assume you're the same Huey from another TKD site.
> 
> Daniel



Yes sir, the one and the same, I'm on a couple of sites now just don't post regular as I do the site you are talking about.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 22, 2008)

Question if they are copywritten then why are they all over youtube would that not be infringment or something.:erg:


----------



## MBuzzy (Sep 22, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Question if they are copywritten then why are they all over youtube would that not be infringment or something.:erg:



It seems to me that their proliferation would be much more tightly controlled if it were an issue.  Although, if people are not making a profit off of it, I don't suppose that there would be a basis for a court case.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 23, 2008)

> They also are pretty uniform in how they teach things across the board...i.e every green belt knows the same forms as every other green belt and learned them with the same techniques and almost no variation.



That may have been true before the advent of "block" teaching.  Given that everyone is the same belt band learns the same form at the same time under block teaching, we could very well have a white belt that knows the yellow belt form, but not the white or orange belt form.  I'm obviously not a fan of block teaching.



> I firmly believe that the ATA today is not what the founder, H.U. Lee, had envisioned. Although he wanted to grow a large organization designed to uniformly spread his art over the world, I highly doubt that he wanted his name to be attached to something that has become synonomous with 5-year old black belts and karate-day-care centers.



Mr. Lee was a great promoter of TKD, and I greatly respect him for his contributions to the art.  That said, he was regarded as one of the more commercial TKD instructors in America by both his peers and seniors.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 23, 2008)

Baby_Huey said:


> Yes sir, the one and the same, I'm on a couple of sites now just don't post regular as I do the site you are talking about.


Good to see you here!

Daniel


----------



## milewskiw (Nov 27, 2008)

While it is true that many ATA schools block in the way mentioned (all students learn one form) not all do this,  as each school is independently licensed each school may choose how to teach.  We do not block in this way, but follow GM Lee's vision and teach the forms as he envisioned.  

As far as tournaments go, I simply ask you to attend one and see for yourself the respect, courtesy and sportsmanship, I never saw this kind of attitude in any open tournament.


----------



## IcemanSK (Nov 27, 2008)

One of my students is a former ATA student. She told me that they never did forms at her old school. In my town, you can go to several TKD schools (ATA, KKW that I know of) & never be taught a form of any kind. 

Saves a lot of time on belt test day.:mst:


----------



## terryl965 (Nov 27, 2008)

IcemanSK said:


> One of my students is a former ATA student. She told me that they never did forms at her old school. In my town, you can go to several TKD schools (ATA, KKW that I know of) & never be taught a form of any kind.
> 
> Saves a lot of time on belt test day.:mst:


 
How is that even possible no poomsae? I mean what are they teaching, oh just the sport no art, Got it.


----------



## Dave Leverich (Nov 28, 2008)

I've heard of schools  that don't teach forms to the 'basic' members, but it seems like crap to me as well.

As far as copyright, the forms are copyright as a combination of movements (similar to a dance routine yes). Terry (you'd asked why not kicks and punches) it's like copyrighting note A and C vs copyrighting the progression that is say 'Fortunate Son'.

I started doing the Chang Hon forms and honestly, the Songahm forms are a better progression of difficulty, but that's my view after doing both. Understand that the forms were created by people who'd done the CH forms for years upon years, the ATA at that time had been the NBG of the ITF in the US. When GM Kang left and GM Lee (at that time simply referred to as Master Lee) became KJN, things did change, but then Choi  had approached Lee, not Kang even though Kang was KJN. Oh to be a fly on the wall.

Terry - "But with the ATA iit ia all about money.". Depends on the person, but that's the same with any given organization. If that was the case, I'd be rich, and teaching in a McDojahng making my bazillions.

Brandon - The closed tournaments ensure trained judging, also accountability from competitors as their actions are directly tied to their instructor and school, all accountable to the region and org. Rules are written, hard, steadfast, and all judges and competitors are up to date on them as well as accountable. But yeah, I've always loved the usual 'open' tournaments as well for the diversity and flavor. I have found that respect is tenfold at an ATA tournament vs any given open tournament. The variety of talent is sometimes stagnant, although travellers help that at times.

Twin fist - 25% of profit. As I don't run a school, I'm not privy to that. Thousands of dollars for a 'teachers license' though, I know to be untrue as my certification was a few hundred. I've been in the ATA since 1985, my latest certification was 2005.

Terry - Ouch if all the ATA schools in your area are like that. On forms being on Youtube etc, perhaps a performance is considered different than the works? Honestly, no idea.

dancingalone - Rotational curriculum/block teaching, no arguments here. Calling H.U. Lee 'Mr' Lee seems somewhat of an affront to him as he was granted 10th dan post-humously by a panel of the worlds top TKD masters.

I've seen a lot of things change in the last 23+ years. The forms (from CH to Songahm), sparring gear (like needing anything other than a cup/mouthpiece), focus (from 18-30 males to 'family') etc etc. But, I've seen those same changes throughout the martial arts in the States.

If you need to know more about 'me', I'd say ask Wade if he's still around (as he'd fought in the same rings), maybe Iceman as he and I've shared many a discussion on the various TKD forums.

I guess the only thing that made me respond was the 'ATA is' vs 'some of ATA schools are' type comments. It's like if I went off on a WTF sport TKD tirade, or ITF north Korean attack etc. Broad brush, big strokes, not always truth.

Taekwon.


----------



## terryl965 (Nov 28, 2008)

Thank you David for that history about the ATA, I remember when they was a great org. back some twenty years ago. I hope you can make a big diference in the view of TKD withen the ATA.


----------



## dancingalone (Nov 28, 2008)

> Calling H.U. Lee 'Mr' Lee seems somewhat of an affront to him as he was granted 10th dan post-humously by a panel of the worlds top TKD masters.



Hi, Mr. Leverich.  You know, 'Mister' used to be a title given in respect to someone not of the peerage.  It's a perfectly acceptable and respectful way to refer to someone, and in my opinion in these days when everyone is a 'master' or a 'grandmaster', I'd just as soon go back to basics.  In any case, I don't practice Mr. Lee's system, so I honestly don't see the need to call him anything else.  I realize he's an important figure in your corner of the martial arts world, and I'm sure you give him every honor.  

Sincerely,

DA


----------



## miguksaram (Nov 28, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> A gentleman I know on TKDspace, whom I do respect, is an ATA instructor and has stated that the forms are indeed copyrighted. He says, and I have no reason to doubt him, that they use, "the original chang hon forms." I also know that ATA competitions are ATA only. Not sure if ATA practitioners are forbidden from entering non ATA competition, but ATA competitions are not open to non members.
> 
> I know of no lawsuits involving the ATA forms. Chances are that there aren't any; most people opening a school do so within whatever organization they're already associated with and use the forms appropriate to it rather than trying to raid another organization's forms.
> 
> ...


 
A couple of items.  First if they do the oringinal Chong-ahn forms, which I will have to do more research on, but I doubt it, then they can not copyright the form since they are not the original.  Well I guess they can copyright it but it will not hold up in court since the forms predate their organization.  Secondly, an ATA student can compete in non-ATA competitions, though it is not done often.  ATA philosophy is to keep the money in the family.


----------



## IcemanSK (Nov 28, 2008)

Dave Leverich said:


> I've heard of schools that don't teach forms to the 'basic' members, but it seems like crap to me as well.
> 
> As far as copyright, the forms are copyright as a combination of movements (similar to a dance routine yes). Terry (you'd asked why not kicks and punches) it's like copyrighting note A and C vs copyrighting the progression that is say 'Fortunate Son'.
> 
> ...


 

Hey Dave, glad to see you back on MT. I always appreciate your perspective. In my town of 200K people, all the ATA branches have the same core root. Sadly, that root doesn't uphold the best standard of the ATA. Thanks again for sharing from your experience.:asian:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Nov 28, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> A couple of items. First if they do the oringinal Chong-ahn forms, which I will have to do more research on, but I doubt it, then they can not copyright the form since they are not the original. Well I guess they can copyright it but it will not hold up in court since the forms predate their organization. Secondly, an ATA student can compete in non-ATA competitions, though it is not done often. ATA philosophy is to keep the money in the family.


Actually, I misquoted my friend: he said that they use the _Songham_ forms and that he had learned the Chang Hon forms in the ITF.  I posted this correction on the last page.  Sorry about the confusion.  

Daniel


----------



## Dave Leverich (Nov 28, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> Hi, Mr. Leverich.  You know, 'Mister' used to be a title given in respect to someone not of the peerage.  It's a perfectly acceptable and respectful way to refer to someone, and in my opinion in these days when everyone is a 'master' or a 'grandmaster', I'd just as soon go back to basics.  In any case, I don't practice Mr. Lee's system, so I honestly don't see the need to call him anything else.  I realize he's an important figure in your corner of the martial arts world, and I'm sure you give him every honor.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> DA


I hear you DA, sorry, it was late and at times I see things that aren't there. When I started, we had masters, and um, that's it. Mister/Master, no Senior/Chief/Grand/etc stuff.

I think an issue that comes up often is that a newly minted 1st Dan opens a school, after training 2-3 years. Imagine the lack of knowledge that could be there, heck I spent more time between degrees than some of them have training completely.

Miguk, I think there is a lot more comp outside the group, just people wearing plain doboks. There's a lot of stigma to fight against when that ATA badge is on your back.

I guess all I can hope is to be the best example that I can be.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Nov 29, 2008)

The only info I have on the ATA is what I've seen, and what I've seen may not be correct for all other ATA schools.  I've only had experience in visiting 2 other ATA dojangs, and they were both in the South GA area, so it very well could be an isolated thing.

But, that being said, what I've seen from the ATA orgs around here is more along the lines of movie star kicks and punches.  The contact in sparring was minimal at best, and the forms were not drilled for correctness.

Several students from the dojang that I attend got together and visited 2 ATA dojangs in the area, so that's where I'm getting my info from...

I sparred 3 different blackbelts, and at the time, I had just received my 1st dan.  Now, it should be noted that it took me 3 1/2 years to earn my 1st dan, and the guys I sparred and only been going about a year and a half...anywho, when I sparred the first blackbelt, I kicked him with about half-force with a side kick to the midsection, and was told that contact was frowned upon...and I was also told that if I were a "true" blackbelt, that I would know how to watch my power.

So, the other 2 matches for the day against the other 2 blackbelts consisted of shadowboxing.  I couldn't even tell if I was really blocking anything that was thrown or not...

And the forms were horrible.  I don't know their patterns, so I can't comment on whether they were performing the movements in the correct order, but the blackbelts were so sloppy.  Often, when a knifehand block was performed, the wrist was relaxed, and the fingers were loose.  If someone were to really block with that, it would shatter their arm.  Their stances were terrible as well, and no correction was given from the instructor, but I'm not sure that they weren't corrected because they had "guests" in the dojang.

Anyway, the whole point of this is that this is the only experience I've had with ATA at all, and I sincerely hope that it's the exception to the other ATA dojangs out there.  I mean no disrespect toward anyone by my post, but I honestly think that it's because of students that are like the "blackbelts" that I sparred that day that TKD gets such a bad rep.

I just wish there was a way to get rid of instructors who teach in this way.  I know it has little to do with the affiliation with the ATA org, but instructors like this give the ATA a bad name.


----------



## dancingalone (Nov 29, 2008)

There are some good ATA schools out there.  I visited the Niblocks ATA school in Texas on a sparring night some time ago, just to watch.  They had some athletic people going at it with a decent amount of contact.  It was very much sport-type sparring however.  Not my cup of tea but I would have no problem recommending them as a school for people to go to if they want a workout in a motivating and friendly atmosphere.

I myself train with head shots and I incorporate take downs at all levels of experience... It's just a matter of what you want out of your MA.


----------



## HM2PAC (Nov 29, 2008)

I am presently in the ATA. It is rife with sloppy performance. They are honestly trying to change their appearance and are cracking down on Dojangs that have gotten sloppy. The nice thing is that the orders for change are coming from the top down. 

At least in our area, Dojangs with sloppy students are not cutting it when testing for 1st Dan. The latest testing, only BB's from our school made it. BB candidates from the other 3 schools failed. These other schools have a reputation, according to our instructor, for sloppiness. 

I am beginning to appreciate our instructors more each day. They recently made someone wait an extra 2 years before testing for BB. That is pretty much unheard of in the ATA, but our instructors will not test someone who is not ready.


----------

