Intellectual Property and Martial Arts

[Makalakumu]

I recently listened to a podcast on how the founder of Bikram yoga was claiming that his method of yoga was "his" and that anyone who taught that style needed his permission. I've experienced this in the martial arts. When I trained in Soo Bahk Do, their Federation contended that all of their material was the Grandmasters property and they were willing to sue anyone who taught it without their permission. What do you think about the idea of intellectual property as it applies to martial arts? Can you own a technique or method? What would you classify as intellectual property?

 

[dancingalone]

Some groups like the ATA have copyrighted their training materials (books and DVDS and even curricula) and so only licensed member schools can use it in their instruction without fear of legal pursuit. Apparently, some ex-ATA schools have been given desist orders when their owners left the association and kept teaching their stuff.

It is not so much specific isolated techniques that can be classified as IP; it's the organization and presentation of the techniques together like forms or one steps or the books/DVD that are.

I suppose they have invested a lot of money and effort into producing their curriculum and it is fine that they want to 'protect' it.

Nonetheless, I would never train in a system like that nor would I recommend it to others because of the 'lock in' factor. I should disclose that my niece and nephew are ATA students and they like it... A LOT.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Look at any 10 fliers for events.
I'll bet 7-8 of them are using pictures they just pulled off the web with no regard to who owns them, copyright, and so on.
I've already found my pics on camp sites and fliers without any previous ok on my part for their use. So, I see a lot of disregard for copyright and intellectual property all around unfortunately.

 

[Archangel M]

"Owning" a physical movement seems silly IMO.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"Owning" a physical movement seems silly IMO.

I agree. That seems to make as much sense as trying to copyright walking.

 

[chrispillertkd]

I think that probably the (vast) majority of people who train in a martial art style that was founded in the modern period, and by this I mean from the 19th century onward, would find the idea of having patterns or other physical techniques classified as "intellectual property" as silly.

Most of the modern martial arts such as the Japanese Gendai Budo and Korean Taekwon-Do were founded specifically with the intent of spreading them to very large numbers of people. The notion that "intellectual property" in such styles exists in the sense that it would preclude certain people form using such techniques would seem to run counter to that idea in the first place. Can it be done? To some extent, yes. Someone already mentioned the ATA but Kuk Sool Won and Hwarangdo are also notoriously (for want of a better word) guarded about their material and people who leave the system must alter what they teach at least somewhat to deal with the trademark issue.

That all being said, I'd be very interested in what practitioners of koryu systems think about such things. As an outsider, it seems to me that the ryuha takes precedence over the individual practitioner in some ways. What is important isn't having vast numbers of students so much as having some good students who are going to pass on the ryu to the next generation and this ties in with the various teaching licenses issued. Would this kind of thing qualify as "intellectual property" passed down from headmaster to headmaster, or would it be somthing else?

Pax,

Chris

 

[Bruno@MT]

In traditional JMA, the techniques are not considered IP, but in most systems you sign a contract not to teach to non-members. And the name of the system is protected via a licensing method (the menkyo system).

Of course, in the western world, the honor system doesn't really work that well so I concede that it is flawed and that most people here care squat about honoring the agreements they made.

 

[KenpoVzla]

I recently listened to a podcast on how the founder of Bikram yoga was claiming that his method of yoga was "his" and that anyone who taught that style needed his permission. I've experienced this in the martial arts. When I trained in Soo Bahk Do, their Federation contended that all of their material was the Grandmasters property and they were willing to sue anyone who taught it without their permission. What do you think about the idea of intellectual property as it applies to martial arts? Can you own a technique or method? What would you classify as intellectual property?

It's one thing to wanting to be acknowledged as the founder, but to deny anybody to teach it without permission is just too much. Now I'm sure the Grandmaster didn't use any material from HIS masters, is that correct?

I thought so.....the only difference is that times have changed and he can potentially, use that kind of power.

People want to own everything nowadays, if you look at the IT and computer world, it's even more extreme....e.g. patenting the double click of a mouse.


I for one, tend to go more or less along the lines of Richard Stallman's philosophy.

Anyway, the term “intellectual property” is a propaganda term which should never be used, because merely using it, no matter what you say about it, presumes it makes sense. It doesn’t really make sense, because it lumps together several different laws that are more different than similar.
For instance, copyright law and patent law have a little bit in common, but all the details are different and their social effects are different. To try to treat them as they were one thing, is already an error.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

 

[Makalakumu]

I've written several books about karate and teaching it and I would consider that to be MY intellectual property. However, it seems that some people want to say that this would entitle one to own the entire system. Even if you innovated some new things within the system, I don't see how someone could claim the whole thing as IP.

None of this was created in a vacuum and there is so much crossover to other systems, trying claim martial arts as IP, stretches the definition of property.

On the other hand, I hear that dance instructors often claim their dances as IP and are successful in defending it.

 

[jks9199]

I think a book, a particular format or method of instruction, and the like can be considered intellectual property. Mechanisms already exist to to protect this. Some unique techniques, tactics, or strategies can probably be protected, much like patents. But an underlying physical motion? Probably not so much.

That doesn't mean that it can't be recognized as something unique or special; think about dance steps, gymnastic moves, or skating combinations. Let me use the Tsukahara vault. You could break it down and name it's components and call it a double back flip in pike or layout position... but it's recognized by naming the first person to successfully pull it off in competition. There just ain't but so many ways to move a body, make a fist, etc. But you can use a particular combination of those body dynamics in a particular way, and call it an oizuki or a Bando turn punch or boxer's cross or whatever a similar motion might be in xingyi...

 

[chrispillertkd]

In traditional JMA, the techniques are not considered IP, but in most systems you sign a contract not to teach to non-members. And the name of the system is protected via a licensing method (the menkyo system).

I assume you are referring to the keppan here. Or do you mean an actual contract that has standing in a court of law?

Of course, in the western world, the honor system doesn't really work that well so I concede that it is flawed and that most people here care squat about honoring the agreements they made.

The levity which people view giving their word on a host of issues is ... disturbing.

It is interesting to note, however, that a keppan, as well as more well known oaths such Congressmen being sworn into office, as well as the Hippocratic Oath all contained aspects which call down divine judgement on the person if they break the oath. (In the case of the Congressional swearing in, until fairly recently this was done with the hand placed on an open passage from the Bible - from Deuteronomy, IIRC - wherein it relates the Israelites calling down God's judgement on them if they fail to be faithful to their convenant with him. The inference being that if the new Congressmen weren't aithful to their office a similar fate would befall them.) While many who take such oaths these days might not literally believe in the divine judgement they call to be a witness to themselves at times I find myself not being entirely opposed to wishing that such divine retribution makes itself manifest at times...

Pax,

Chris

 

[Bruno@MT]

Keppan is indeed the traditional name for blood oath. In our case however, we sign a copy of the Genbukan rules, as well as a (thinner) copy of the dojo rules. One of these rules specifies not teaching to non members. This is a legally binding agreement.

Of course, this does not mean that anyone who breaks the rules gets sued. It is after all hard to prove, and going to court over this is also hard to imagine. But it does give the organization a legal opportunity to kick you out without recourse.

 

[Supra Vijai]

IMO as Bruno said it comes down to your own personal code of honor which sadly seems to be a dying notion these days.

From what little I have been exposed to, the traditional schools (of an art like Ninjutsu in particular as that is where I train) kept their techniques secret from the other schools. Yes there is a lot of cross over. Yes there are only so many ways to make a fist or to move but the subtle variances are really not that subtle when it comes down to it. One of our Kamae as we train it from Gyokko Ryu will vary dramatically to the exact named posture in Tokagure Ryu or Koto Ryu, each school adds it's own flavour. Back in the day it was probably a lot more vital considering rival clans would most likely use their own school/system and therefore not want their enemies to know their tricks. These days though with things like MMA being the standard art of the UFC it leads people to start questioning why such secrecy is required etc. It purely comes down to the code.

I'll be the first person to admit that when friends of mine have expressed an interest in taking up Ninjutsu I have given them some pointers and shown them the absolute basics of movement etc, hell I've even shown an ex of mine who was about 5'4" and 90lbs (abt 40kg) how to take me down with no effort and I'm 5'10" and about 188lbs (abt 85kg) and then asked them to come to the class to learn more if they were still keen. I've never claimed the techniques as my own though or as the creation of a particular sensei, rather that they were lifted straight from scrolls that are centuries old.

My sensei is a traditionalist as well, he trains in Katori Shinto Ryu as a student and he refuses to teach anyone (even his best students) anything from the school as that was part of the agreement he made upon enrolling. Also he's been training in Ninjutsu for close to 2 decades, gained enough experience to start his own dojo and teach well before that and yet waited to get his sensei's permission to start teaching - under the same organization! Personally I prefer that mindset to "everyone is entitled to learn everything" because in my mind it increases the value of your lessons.

As I said at the start this is all my own opinion and not the views of my sensei enforced onto me or our dojo in any way.

 

[ATC]

I agree. That seems to make as much sense as trying to copyright walking.

Well since I own the copyright and patent to typing you all owe me a lot. I am willing to settle for 10K each. My lawyer will contact you all shortly.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here's a question that just popped into my mind. Is secrecy in the arts the same thing as intellectual property? The above posts are talking about signing DNR agreements with all kinds of different punishments implied and it struck me as to how similar these two things could be. I would say the only difference is that one is working within the legal system and other is more informal, but up to that point, it seems very similar.

 

[harlan]

Whatever one calls it, I'm all for control over what one personally invests into a system. The classic example would be what happened to Mr. Oyata, and the extremes one has to go to ensure acknowledgement and quality control.

 

[oaktree]

Of course, in the western world, the honor system doesn't really work that well so I concede that it is flawed and that most people here care squat about honoring the agreements they made.

Keppan is indeed the traditional name for blood oath. In our case however, we sign a copy of the Genbukan rules, as well as a (thinner) copy of the dojo rules. One of these rules specifies not teaching to non members. This is a legally binding agreement.

Japanese are humans too Bruno they are capable of deceit.




Mr.Bruno,
Are you implying Mr.Tanemura owns Seoinage or any generic Japanese terms for techniques?


Are you also implying that if a person teaches Omote gyaku(simply means outside wrist lock) modified as Goshinjutsu(again generic for self defense)
that Mr.Tanemura will try to sue?

The reason I ask is because the techniques are found in every art and the names are generic.

 

[Omar B]

I find the whole thing or calling a martial art Intellectual Property silly. Yet it seems to be happening in Hwarangdo and Kuksoolwon. In fact people seem to be jumping ship from KSW at the moment because of all the rules and restrictions being placed upon them.

 

[Chris Parker]

Mr.Bruno,
Are you implying Mr.Tanemura owns Seoinage or any generic Japanese terms for techniques?


Are you also implying that if a person teaches Omote gyaku(simply means outside wrist lock) modified as Goshinjutsu(again generic for self defense)
that Mr.Tanemura will try to sue?

The reason I ask is because the techniques are found in every art and the names are generic.

I'll jump in here, if no-one minds...

No, Tanemura Sensei does not "own" Seionage, Omote Gyaku (actually means "outside reverse", it would need Kote in there to refer specifically to the wrist, and there is no actual mention of "locking", so you know), or anything like that. However, he does own Genbukan Ninpo, Kokusei Jujutsu Renmei, Tanemura-ha Koto Ryu, Tanemura-ha Togakure Ryu, and each of the other branches and Ryu-ha that he holds the headmastership to. As to the names being generic, well, kind of. But the term used in one system does not really mean the same thing in another system, so while Omote Gyaku is a fairly common (although not the exclusive, or only used term for such actions) term, the exact methodology employing such a techinque is greatly varied from Ryu to Ryu, and each of those methods are then the "property" of the Ryu, and it's sole holder, the Soke, Shihanke, or otherwise.

Now, before we get back into the discussion of "how on earth do you copyright a physical movement", it's not really about that at all. A martial art is not it's physical techniques (I think I've said this here before...), the physical techniques are the expression of the philosophy that guides the art itself. That philosophy guides a number of things, including the training methods and approaches of the martial system. It's this philosophy that is the "intellectual property" of most systems, at least the side that they see. Others obviously include physical items and documents, such as scrolls and histories. And they are certainly able to be covered as "intellectual property".

A few years ago, a particular organisation was found to be using the kata from a very well known Koryu Kenjutsu system as it's syllabus. The group actually claimed to have developed the techniques themselves, from reading texts such as the Gorin No Sho (that should say which Ryu they stole from). However the Gorin No Sho cannot be used to formulate these techniques, and they were (albeitly incredibly badly) performed exactly the way that they are done in the mainline form of this Ryu today. When they were discovered (and finally admitted to having just seen some You-tube clips, and copied them) they tried to hide behind "well, you can't copyright human movement...." However, the owners of the Ryu themselves, as well as the students of the Ryu, were understandably upset by this theft of their intellectual property. It's not the kata themselves, it's the strategies and tactics that they represent and teach, it's the commitment to the lessons and history passed from previous generations, it's the time and effort taken to ensure the art is passed properly and correctly, and that is all removed in such cases.

So is it possible to refer to your art as "intellectual property"? Absolutely! In fact, all arts should be considered such, really.

Oh, one last thing, a small correction:

My sensei is a traditionalist as well, he trains in Katori Shinto Ryu as a student and he refuses to teach anyone (even his best students) anything from the school as that was part of the agreement he made upon enrolling.

No, I don't train in Katori Shinto Ryu. I do train in another Koryu Kenjutsu system, however as we are still a very unofficial study group (Hombu in Japan knows about us, but we are not at a point where we are represetative of the Ryu and it's teachings yet), we don't advertise the Ryu itself, refering to the training simply as "Kenjutsu". I have, however, recieved an invitation to train with a Katori Shinto Ryu dojo next year when Sugino Shihan visits, so I may have some semi-official status with them after that. But now, no.

 

[Balrog]

What do you think about the idea of intellectual property as it applies to martial arts? Can you own a technique or method? What would you classify as intellectual property?

You can't copyright techniques per se. You can, however, copyright specific combinations of techniques. For example, ATA has copyright protection on each of the forms in the Songahm style of Taekwondo.

An analogy would be to consider writing a book. The copyright is not on the words, but on the specific combination of words that make a unique item. Or on dance choreography; you can't copyright the individual steps, but only a specific, unique combination of those steps.