# A question...



## bluemtn (Jul 21, 2008)

What is Soo Bahk Do?  I see it often used in conjunction with TSD, but could never see anything explained...  So now, I'm scratching my head, wondering.  For one thing, I don't always see it advertised with every TSD dojang in my general area.  Can someone clear up the "mud" a bit, please?


----------



## e ship yuk (Jul 21, 2008)

Soo Bahk Do is the name of the art now taught by the Moo Duk Kwan - it was changed to reflect the changes made in the art by GM Hwang Kee, to tie the art to older arts, and to provide a trademark-able name for the art.

The name Soo Bahk Do may only be used by schools officially aligned with the Moo Duk Kwan - in the U.S., the U.S. Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation.  Anyone, on the other hand, can use Tang Soo Do, so it is much more prevalent, and generally more well known.  Thus you will often also see SBD schools advertise as SBD/TSD.

SBD schools will, generally, teach a much more Chinese-influenced, softer art, while TSD schools will run a spectrum from Japanese-influenced hard to almost-SBD.  SBD schools also teach additional form sets, the Yuk-Rho and Chil-sung sets created by GM Hwang, which most TSD schools will not.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 21, 2008)

There were a number of copyright battles in which the US Soo Bahk Do Federation attempted to prevent the Tang Soo Do schools who had separated from the federation for one reason or another from using the name, forms, logos, intellectual property, etc.  At the center was the name and logos, many of the schools who split off continued to use the name Moo Duk Kwan and the Federation logo.  The Federation was interested in ensuring that there was a clear delineation between Soo Bahk Do and Tang Soo Do.  Both of which being the art passed down from Hwang Kee, but following his death, the Federation was taken over by his son, HC Hwang, who maintains full control of the name, logos and intellectual property of his father.  Many of the TSD schools who left have very high ranking masters who were close to Hwang Kee and went their separate ways to teach their interpretation.  

In the end, it was ruled that the words "Tang Soo Do" could not be copyrighted, since they are as common and general as the term "Karate" (esp. since they are a direct Korean translation of the Hanja characters for Karate).  Therefore, the name Soo Bahk Do was used in its place, but the Moo Duk Kwan remains sole property of the Federation (although Moo Duk Kwan Tae Kwon Do also uses the name, since they split off duruing the Kwan unification in 1940's/50's Korea).

As for the rest of the stuff, the logo can only be used by the federation in its exact configuration.....but the forms were ruled to be "dance movements" also general and common, such as walking.  Since they are simply a combination of movements, they cannot be copyrighted. 



e ship yuk said:


> SBD schools will, generally, teach a much more Chinese-influenced, softer art, while TSD schools will run a spectrum from Japanese-influenced hard to almost-SBD. SBD schools also teach additional form sets, the Yuk-Rho and Chil-sung sets created by GM Hwang, which most TSD schools will not.


 
In my experience, this is a minor misconception.  Though Soo Bahk Do does have some chinese influence, I have _personally_ seen this to be more of an addition to the art rather than a completely altered style.  The Tang Soo Do schools that I was in did teach a very hard, Japanese based kind of style....but the Soo Bahk Do schools that I have trained with have taught basically the same curriculum, simply with the addition of some softer techniques.  This "softer side" is mainly found within the Chil Sung and Yuk Ro forms, although the Federation has added new Basic movements to reflect these softer, chinese style movements.  The bottom line is that the harder side remains.

(e ship yuk - not intending to disagree, just expand a bit)


----------



## terryl965 (Jul 21, 2008)

There really is not more to add both people gave accurate info.


----------



## bluemtn (Jul 21, 2008)

Thanks guys!  It was one of those things that kept bugging me until I found out for sure...


----------



## e ship yuk (Jul 21, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> In my experience, this is a minor misconception.  Though Soo Bahk Do does have some chinese influence, I have _personally_ seen this to be more of an addition to the art rather than a completely altered style.  The Tang Soo Do schools that I was in did teach a very hard, Japanese based kind of style....but the Soo Bahk Do schools that I have trained with have taught basically the same curriculum, simply with the addition of some softer techniques.  This "softer side" is mainly found within the Chil Sung and Yuk Ro forms, although the Federation has added new Basic movements to reflect these softer, chinese style movements.  The bottom line is that the harder side remains.
> 
> (e ship yuk - not intending to disagree, just expand a bit)



You could even disagree, and I'd be okay with it.    Really, though, I think we're on the same page, I just could have explained it a bit better.  SBD does tend to be TSD+.  They have all the techs that TSD does, and then the SBD stuff in addition.  What I was trying to get across was the main difference in the curricula - the Chinese influence.  It's there in TSD, too, but more easily noticeable in SBD, even when doing the standard TSD forms.

This is just my experience, though.  You're a Fed member, aren't you?  You have much more experience with it than I.



> As for the rest of the stuff, the logo can only be used by the federation in its exact configuration.....but the forms were ruled to be "dance movements" also general and common, such as walking. Since they are simply a combination of movements, they cannot be copyrighted.



I knew others used the forms outside of the USSBDMDKF (what a mouthful!), but when was the non-copyrightable ruling made?  I know the ATA has successfully sued former members to stop them from using their copyrighted forms.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 22, 2008)

e ship yuk said:


> You could even disagree, and I'd be okay with it.  Really, though, I think we're on the same page, I just could have explained it a bit better. SBD does tend to be TSD+. They have all the techs that TSD does, and then the SBD stuff in addition. What I was trying to get across was the main difference in the curricula - the Chinese influence. It's there in TSD, too, but more easily noticeable in SBD, even when doing the standard TSD forms.
> 
> This is just my experience, though. You're a Fed member, aren't you? You have much more experience with it than I.


 
I definately see the chinese influence in there.  The only other major difference that I've ever seen is the exaggerated use of the hips.

Yep, I'm in the Federation, but I have done a good deal of training with other TSD organizations before I joined the Federation. 



e ship yuk said:


> I knew others used the forms outside of the USSBDMDKF (what a mouthful!), but when was the non-copyrightable ruling made? I know the ATA has successfully sued former members to stop them from using their copyrighted forms.


 
I have no idea.  I'm actually looking for the ruling now, I've heard a lot about it from different sources, so I'm pretty sure that it is true, I've just never read it or seen the case history.  

ATA as in the TKD ATA or the TSD ATA?  I know that a lot have tried to sue, but I didn't think that anyone was successful.  Especially since at least with the Chil Sung and Yuk Ro forms, the other organizations are still using them, but have stopped the use of the logos and names.


----------



## e ship yuk (Jul 22, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> ATA as in the TKD ATA or the TSD ATA?  I know that a lot have tried to sue, but I didn't think that anyone was successful.  Especially since at least with the Chil Sung and Yuk Ro forms, the other organizations are still using them, but have stopped the use of the logos and names.



TKD ATA... but of course, I can't find anything to support that.  Always thought it was odd, anyway.


----------



## cdunn (Jul 23, 2008)

The TKD AKA has the phrase 'Songahm' trademarked with respect to martial arts teaching, as well as the big mat symbol they like to do them on. While a cursory search reveals no case law involving either copyright or patentability of the performance of the Songahm forms, the trademark means no one else can sell them as the Songahm poomsae or as Songahm Taekwondo. For all we know, there may be a hundred schools out there teaching the ATA forms and calling them 'Bob's Buttkicking poomsae'. 

There are some subtle differences between the three kinds of intellectual properties, and they do deserve better treatment than I can give them.


----------



## terryl965 (Jul 23, 2008)

The ATA many years ago tried and take a formal BB to court because he was teaching these patterns at his school and they lost on the ground of knowledge cannot be taken away, once learned. Now they have that non compete claus that is simply if you ever leave you cannot teach but if it was challenged it to would loose. The ATA is a wrecking ball for any Martial Arts. But they do know how to make money.


----------



## Lynne (Jul 23, 2008)

The American Tang Soo Do Association includes the Chil-Sung and Yuk-Rho forms.


----------



## e ship yuk (Jul 23, 2008)

cdunn said:


> The TKD AKA has the phrase 'Songahm' trademarked with respect to martial arts teaching, as well as the big mat symbol they like to do them on. While a cursory search reveals no case law involving either copyright or patentability of the performance of the Songahm forms, the trademark means no one else can sell them as the Songahm poomsae or as Songahm Taekwondo. For all we know, there may be a hundred schools out there teaching the ATA forms and calling them 'Bob's Buttkicking poomsae'.
> 
> There are some subtle differences between the three kinds of intellectual properties, and they do deserve better treatment than I can give them.



I checked TESS for trademarks, and did find Songahm, and the symbol you mentioned.  Like you say, someone could just change the names... call them Pine Rock or some such.  

But the original claim I'd heard was in regards to performance of the forms.  I suppose the argument would be that, sure, you can teach the forms all day, but public performance of the form violates their copyright - much in the same way I can quote a movie all day long, but if I host a public viewing of it I violate copyright.


----------



## cdunn (Jul 23, 2008)

e ship yuk said:


> I checked TESS for trademarks, and did find Songahm, and the symbol you mentioned. Like you say, someone could just change the names... call them Pine Rock or some such.
> 
> But the original claim I'd heard was in regards to performance of the forms. I suppose the argument would be that, sure, you can teach the forms all day, but public performance of the form violates their copyright - much in the same way I can quote a movie all day long, but if I host a public viewing of it I violate copyright.


 

That may be the claim that someone else boiled out of it, but, what happens with the trademark is this: Only the name, specifically in conjunction with the teaching and performance of the martial arts, is protected property. You cannot do the forms and specifically call them Songahm without the express permission of the ATA. If I were to establish a Songahm brand of air fresheners for cars, they would have to have an awful slick lawyer to prove damage to their brand. However, merely the existance of the trademark permits a certain category of legal threat - Chances are that an "apostate" that has gone into teaching for himself has done something actionable once. The extent is the question. Without caselaw demonstrating the copyright of martial arts forms however, all you can do is run around in circles making assertions.


----------



## JoelD (Jul 23, 2008)

Lynne said:


> The American Tang Soo Do Association includes the Chil-Sung and Yuk-Rho forms.


 
...as does the Mi Guk Kwan Association.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 23, 2008)

JoelD said:


> ...as does the Mi Guk Kwan Association.


 
There are definately a few that teach them, but remember that "once knowledge is learned, it can't be taken away." also, it should come into consideration the very high ranking of the GMs of those organizations.  Kang Uk Lee for example teachese them in his organization....but his Dan Bon is also 75.  That's pretty low....I wouldn't question him!


----------

