Intellectual Property and Martial Arts

[oaktree]

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.

My apologizes for not using the term with"kote" which confused modern Practitioners.

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

It is a generic name and why since you corrected me are you not refering it as Omote"kote"gyaku is because you knew what I was refering to when I typed "Omote gyaku" in the first place? If we are using generic words in Japanese
how can we say that someone owns this? Lets use generic words in English:
Body drop,foot sweep,wrist lock can we really say that someone owns these?

If you want to put something fancy like"Dragon crushes tiger" and it is a wrist lock and you copy righted it and someone else uses it and uses the same name then yes that is violation of Intellectual property.

Using a wrist lock same as "Dragon crushes tiger" but calling it "armbar" most likely will not be Intellectual property violation depending on the circumstances.

Look at Kimura lock,chickenwing,reverse keylock who owns this? It is used by everyone. Who owns the Jab? Who owns the double leg take down?

Throw a Japanese name on it or a Chinese name on it. It is the same thing only with a Japanese or Chinese name.

 

[Bruno@MT]

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.

At no point did I say that.
The names are fairly generic, as are the basic techniques. Chris already covered that. And noone said that we hold any claim to the actual techniques or the names of the techniques.

However, we sign a legal agreement not to teach what we learn to outsiders. If we do so, we risk being expelled. This has happened before, though we are not talking about simple things like showing someone a wrist lock. Regardless of whether Tanemura sensei sues or not, if we break that agreement, that is a dishonorable thing to do. I generally stand by my word. If I don't agree I don't sign. I don't sign and the do what I want if I happen to disagree.

Now, Tanemura sensei also does 'own' the names of the various ryuha for which he is headmaster, and he does protect those names. IIRC, there have been court cases about who owned certain ryuha. He is the only person who can legitimately license / pass on Gikan ryu b name.

 

[punisher73]

It's a tough one. I think that logos and a style name should be able to be protected since they would not be something that is considered general domain. I also think that if you use a specific terminology that is unique to your own methods than that should be able to be protected in certain cases if they are not common terms.

As to protecting katas, techniques etc. That is also tough, how much change do you need to make something unique? Look at music and what they go through with "sampling" and if it violates copywright laws.

If for example, you create your own art and the katas are unique to your system and your system alone? Do you have any compensation for someone learning a little bit and then opening up their own school and just renaming everything that you created and make money off of it? Or, unknown to the founder a person learns a bit of the system and then moves somewhere and then starts using the name and logo of the system. Should the organization/founder have a way to legally remedy this situation?

I think the best answer would be to look at other artisitic endeavors and see how they handle it. Arts such as dance/choreography, music, etc.

 

[oaktree]

At no point did I say that.
The names are fairly generic, as are the basic techniques. Chris already covered that. And noone said that we hold any claim to the actual techniques or the names of the techniques.

However, we sign a legal agreement not to teach what we learn to outsiders. If we do so, we risk being expelled. This has happened before, though we are not talking about simple things like showing someone a wrist lock. Regardless of whether Tanemura sensei sues or not, if we break that agreement, that is a dishonorable thing to do. I generally stand by my word. If I don't agree I don't sign. I don't sign and the do what I want if I happen to disagree.

Now, Tanemura sensei also does 'own' the names of the various ryuha for which he is headmaster, and he does protect those names. IIRC, there have been court cases about who owned certain ryuha. He is the only person who can legitimately license / pass on Gikan ryu b name.

Ok pal best of luck to you.

 

[Blade96]

"Owning" a physical movement seems silly IMO.

Agree with this.

There are ways associations can pay respect to the founder of a MA system (and they do).

 

[BloodMoney]

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

Yup, and yet still people try!

Here in NZ because you cant sue people theres a lot more give, which I personally like. People dont get too riled up when things are used fairly, which for the most part they seem to be (I do a bit of promotion etc and often "illegally" use pictures for non profit stuff). If you start profiting off someone elses work of course then it gets bad, but that doesnt seem to happen much.

My master basically said I was a Wing Chun instructor and as such could teach anybody whatever I wanted, he said I was free to go and do what I wanted. Now of course if I want to call myself a VCK instructor (as I do) then I have to be part of his organization and comply accordingly. But he did say he would not stop me if I wanted to go off by myself, he just questioned who I would go to for help when I got stuck (which is fair enough, theres too many "masters" out there that only became so because they branched off to themselves, and suddenly they are more senior magically...)

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi Oaktree,

My apologizes for not using the term with"kote" which confused modern Practitioners.

Hmm, you may have mis-understood me a little bit there.... Depending on the system itself, Omote Gyaku is correct for an outside wrist-reverse action, although the word "Kote" would be needed for your translation to have been closer to correct. And Omote Gyaku is more a concept that doesn't necessarily need to be applied to the wrist. But we're getting a little technical there.

So while Omote Gyaku can refer to what you translated it as, it doesn't translate the way you said, and as a concept it implies and refers to a lot more than you were talking about. And exactly what it refers to will change depending on the Ryu in question.

It is a generic name and why since you corrected me are you not refering it as Omote"kote"gyaku is because you knew what I was refering to when I typed "Omote gyaku" in the first place? If we are using generic words in Japanese
how can we say that someone owns this? Lets use generic words in English:
Body drop,foot sweep,wrist lock can we really say that someone owns these?

First off, I continued to use the term for a few reasons. First, I was following the terminology first applied by yourself (which was not necessarily incorrect) for ease of reading and expediancy. Second, some schools will use the term Omote Gyaku, with others using Omote Kote Gyaku, others use Omote Gaeshi or Kote Gaeshi, and others using very different terms again. For example, a variant is found in some branches of Asayama Ichiden Ryu which is refered to as Ete Nage (Monkey Hand Throw).

But really, what is your point here? You seem to be switching back and forth between an argument over ownership of the terms and an argument over ownership of the actions (although, it must be said you are consistent... you don't seem to allow anyone to have ownership over either!)? Are you arguing about the terms or the techniques here? Tell you what, I'll deal with both, okay?

Terminology is specific to the system, although not necessarily exclusive in all examples. Obviously, exclusive terminology should be covered. When it comes to the more "general" terms, if the distinction is made applying it to the particular system, then the same thing applies. For example, Gyokko Ryu Omote Gyaku can only be found in Gyokko Ryu (and for the record, it is performed differently from Koto Ryu, Kukishinden Ryu, Takagi Ryu, and so on). However, copyrighting the term "Omote Gyaku" isn't the issue here. And if you're arguing about "who gets to use the name?", you have missed the point of intellectual property as applied here.

In terms of techniques, well, again that's kinda beside the point. Especially when you take a single action, isolated apart from the rest of the system, and use it as an example. In that regard, it is the same as trying to copyright walking, as Bob said. But we are again not talking about copyrighting such things, we are talking about protecting and recognising that which makes each system unique.

If you want to put something fancy like"Dragon crushes tiger" and it is a wrist lock and you copy righted it and someone else uses it and uses the same name then yes that is violation of Intellectual property.

Again, you're looking too small here. The name given to any action does not make it unique intellectual property, nor does a specific action automatically become intellectual property. Not even the combination of them, really. What makes it intellectual property is the application of a unique non-physical ideology or approach. The name can be copyrighted, but that is a completely different issue (and can be proven rather easily... "He used my name." "Do you have a copyright on the name?", "Yes, here it is").

Using a wrist lock same as "Dragon crushes tiger" but calling it "armbar" most likely will not be Intellectual property violation depending on the circumstances.

No, but can be as well. But again, you're discussing copyrighting a combination of name (terminolgy) and technique (action, in this case a wrist lock). And in that you are missing what intellectual property is, what a unique philosophy expressed through the teachings of the art itself.

Look at Kimura lock,chickenwing,reverse keylock who owns this? It is used by everyone. Who owns the Jab? Who owns the double leg take down?

Whoever teaches or uses it does. But the particular approach of such actions, the way they are drilled and taught, the uses of these actions, the applications of them and so on, are owned by those who developed them (or were taught them, in the case of members of a Ryu or martial art class). The jab is not intellectual property, but ways of drilling it, combinations and applications etc are. If you stop looking at techniques, are start thinking of coaching methods and approaches to combat as the intellectual property issue, you may start to look at things a little differently.

Throw a Japanese name on it or a Chinese name on it. It is the same thing only with a Japanese or Chinese name.

Again, not the point.

The reason the Koryu members in the example I spoke of earlier were upset was not that "no one can use this thrust to the throat!", it was because their philosophical approach, their particular strategies as pertaining to combat effectiveness, their intellectual property really, had been co-opted by people with no claim to it whatsoever. That was a perfect example of theft of intellectual property, and had nothing to do with the terms used (although that was evidence of the source of the theft), or the physical actions (although again that was the method used to steal the property itself).

 

[Bruno@MT]

Ok pal best of luck to you.

I am confused about your post.

Do you mean that if you sign your name under a contract, you should only abide by the terms if you want to?
Or do you mean that you can claim to teach an original, traditional art and pass it on whole if you never received it in full?

 

[oaktree]

Mr.Parker

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree then


Mr.Bruno
To answer your question:what ever you think it is

 

[Bruno@MT]

This is still a discussion forum. The point is not so much to come to a concensus but to understand each others point of view / opinion.

If one party disagrees with the opinion of another party, and then refuses to explain further / answer questions and instead sticks with 'yeah right' or 'whatever' that is not really beneficial to the goal of arriving at understanding. I don't mind people disagreeing with me or even being plain wrong. But if they indicate that they think my ideas / opinions are silly, it would be polite to tell me why.

Tbh, that is the kind of passive aggressive argumentation that women are so good at (no offense ladies).

 

[shesulsa]

Frankly, I feel the need to copyright a syllabus because if the upper echelon of (that style I can't say I teach) decides to try to discover what I teach and/or sue my ***, I can prove that I teach a legal syllabus.