If you learn a system from someone, can they keep you from teaching it to others?

[bluedragon1]

My son took lessons from a proficient martial artist for 7 years. Now, that he no longer goes, he states my son can not teach anyone what he's learned.

 

[drop bear]

 

[RTKDCMB]

Did your son sign some sort of air tight, unbreakable contract that states that he cannot teach under those circumstances?

Does he not live in a free country?

If the answer to both questions is no, then he can teach if he wants to.

 

[Headhunter]

Yeah that's bull he can do whatever he wants...what's the guy going to do about it

 

[hoshin1600]

Martial skills are not proprietary. However a name or brand are. There are many instances of students not being able to use the style name and having to invent a new name for the style but the curriculum is actually the same. It is also common to be ranked in a system and if you leave that organization you would not be able to use that affiliation as legitimacy.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

My son took lessons from a proficient martial artist for 7 years. Now, that he no longer goes, he states my son can not teach anyone what he's learned.

If he's doing it for money, watch out for copyright teaching the same or similar system. If he's not doing it for money, or is not teaching it by the already set up curriculum, than he should be fine.

 

[JR 137]

I study Seido Juku. In order to open a Seido Juku dojo, I need permission from the organization's founder.

But that doesn't mean I can't teach anything I've learned nor anything else. I could open the JR 137-Ryu dojo, and there's nothing anyone could do, so long as I'm not using copyrighted and/or proprietary protected stuff. If I want to get a bunch of people together in my back yard and teach or host a fight club, so long as I'm not breaking any laws, that's my right.

If I did this without the blessing of my teacher or his teacher (the founder of the organization), I could potentially be kicked out of the organization. But so long as I'm not using their name or likeness, there's nothing they can do to stop me, legally speaking. They could bash me on social media or word of mouth, etc., but nothing more than that really.

If he wants to teach, he can teach. Just make sure he's teaching appropriately and responsibly.

 

[JowGaWolf]

He'll be fine with copyright, it's the trademarked systems that would be an issue but only if he were to teach under the same name. Like Blauer Self defense systems. A person can take what they learned in that class, teach it at their school. They just couldn't open up shop and claim that they teach Blauer Self Defense Systems. The name is trademark so I couldn't operate under that same brand.

Now either one of use can create a new system and call it our family martial art system and we can Trademark it. So that no one would be able to teach our martial art system under our name unless they are licensed to. Then you can create an governing association that monitors and gives licensed rights, then It'll be no different than a business franchise and it's secret sauce. This is possible with any new martial art system because you have a clear founder / creator. The only thing we would need to do is to make the teaching and the techniques uniquely identifiable. Not all of them just a solid set of them.

For example, This hand position is probably unique to the SPEAR System. In traditional martial arts, this would be bad form because it's not a good grabbing position and it puts the person at risk for someone grabbing their fingers and breaking them, by bending them backwards. But for the SPEAR SYSTEM it's their thing, their identification.

 

[Andrew Green]

My son took lessons from a proficient martial artist for 7 years. Now, that he no longer goes, he states my son can not teach anyone what he's learned.

He can teach, nothing is going to stop him.

What he might not be able to do is use some elements of that style which may be proprietary. Names, logos, etc. may be trademarked, written and video material may be copyrighted, etc.

 

[Juany118]

You can have limited "do not compete" contracts like any business. As an example my school requires all students to sign a contract that says if you are awarded the status of "Guro" you will not teach, outside the school itself, for 2 years.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[Buka]

I think it depends on who you are and who he is.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is possible he cannot use the name of the system without authorization (assuming good trademarking, etc.), but there's nothing likely to stop him from legally teaching what he knows. I doubt there's been any NDA (non-disclosure agreement) involved, and that's the only thing that could potentially contain the information, so far as I know. There may be a non-compete (I know at least one instructor who does this, to keep students from opening schools nearby), but those are difficult to enforce, even inside the business world (where they are pretty common).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

DB gets bonus points for using V for Vendetta reference.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

You can have limited "do not compete" contracts like any business. As an example my school requires all students to sign a contract that says if you are awarded the status of "Guro" you will not teach, outside the school itself, for 2 years.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

It depends on the jurisdiction and the details of the contract whether that non-compete clause will hold up in court. You're in Pennsylvania, so non-compete clauses are allowable (unlike in California) as long as they are "reasonable" in terms of time, geographic area, legitimate interests of the company, and benefit/consideration provided to the bound party in exchange for being bound by the non-compete clause.

I'm not a lawyer, so nothing I say should be construed as legal advice. A Pennsylvania lawyer specializing in that sort of contract law would know what a court is likely to consider "reasonable" in those 4 factors. I'd guess that the unlimited geographical area is almost certainly not enforceable. The other three factors would require an expert to offer opinions on. Personally I wonder about the final factor - consideration provided. Most non-competes come up in the context of employment where the employee is being paid by the employer wanting the non-compete clause, not in the context of a school where the student is the one paying the person wanting the non-compete. I haven't been able to find any cases where such a clause was actually litigated in the context of a martial arts school, so it might be one of those things where no one would know for sure until it actually went to court.

(On another note, the OP is asking for his son. If the son was under legal age at the point where he started training, then he wouldn't have been able to legally sign and be bound by such a contract if there was one.)

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Getting back to the OPs question: you haven't provided much in the way of details, so we can speak only in generalities. The following thoughts assume that you are living in the U.S.. If you are located elsewhere then laws may be different.

• If the instructor holds a trademark on the specific name of the art being taught "Proficient Paul Ryu Karate-Jutsu", then he can legally forbid your son from using that exact name for what he teaches. This doesn't apply to the actual material being taught, just the brand name. Such trademark protection would not apply to generic terms like "karate", "jujutsu", "kung-fu", etc or to most older traditional arts where no one person or organization holds a legal trademark.
• If the instructor holds copyright on certain instructional material, he could restrict your son from using it. This would not apply to most of the functional applications of the art, but it is possible for a martial artist to create a kata and copyright the specific choreography of that form in the same way a dance choreographer could copyright a specific dance composition. This is pretty rare, but it does occasionally happen. In that case your son would need to not teach those exact forms. Individual techniques are not copyrightable.
• If your son signed a non-compete clause, then see my previous comment in response to Juany118. He'd likely need to consult with a lawyer to see if such a clause was enforceable in his jurisdiction.
• The instructor may say that your son is not "qualified" to be an instructor in the art. This may or may not be true, based on your definition of qualified, but it has no legal weight. If the art is one represented by a larger organization and your son has not obtained whatever teaching credentials that organization issues, then his students and any promotions he issues will probably not be recognized as legitimate by the organization. Whether that is a problem depends on your son's goals and the art in question.
• The instructor may claim that your son has no moral right to leave and set up as competing teacher. Phrases like "turncoat" and "ungrateful" may be tossed around. Whether you think this has any validity depends on your personal code of ethics and the specifics of the situation, but it has no legal weight.
• Some schools may have students sign agreements that they will not share any of what they have learned without permission of the instructor. (In some of the koryu traditions this would actually come in the form of a blood oath.) This is not so much a "non-compete" clause so much as it is an attempt at a "trade secrets" protection. To the best of my knowledge, this sort of clause is not enforceable in the U.S., but you would need to consult with a lawyer in your jurisdiction to verify that. IANAL. I will note that violating such an agreement may have the effect of burning bridges with the instructor/school in question, so your son might want to consider whether he intends to have any future relationships with his old instructor.

In general, a student is free to pass on what they have learned, but I've tried to cover all the possible exceptions above.

 

[wingerjim]

Most folks already posted my thoughts, one would have to be careful to use a trademark name and I would even stay away from using the person's name without permission, but it also depends on what your son might have signed. I have signed an agreement with my instructor no to teach in his area, which is the business concern anyone would have. Now if you son were to go teach in another state or country, then why is this instructor resistant to allow him to teach? I would believe after 7 years he would have something to pass on to others.

 

[JowGaWolf]

My son took lessons from a proficient martial artist for 7 years. Now, that he no longer goes, he states my son can not teach anyone what he's learned.

After reading posts from others, I wonder if this was said more from the perspective that the teacher was trying to protect himself. For example, I personally don't want my students to teach other people because if they hurt someone in the process, then I'm worried that I may be held responsible for the actions of that student. Especially if that student thinks they are officially representing my teacher. If I take Jone's Karate then go out and say yeah my teacher told me I can teach Jone's karate then there is an association between my teaching and the organization.

Sort of like me working for a company and I have a company t-shirt that I wear outside of company functions. If I do something bad or have a say a car accident while wearing that shirt then, the company has a loose association with due to the shirt. Now if the company told me that I could go out and fix cars outside of the work and I say. Oh yeah I work for this company then another association has been created.

I know I don't like student to teach friends or family Jow Ga Kung Fu because there are techniques that can cause serious harm and injury if not done correctly or with control. I've actually seen a student do this on video while sparring against her family members and the stuff she said was wrong and actually would put the student in more harm. After seeing the video I told her to not spar Jow Ga with her family or friends anymore and not to teach the Jow Ga techniques. I wasn't mad at her, but I was definitely concerned that someone was going to get hurt. And I definitely didn't want inaccurate teaching to be tied back to me with the assumption that "I taught the student to do a technique incorrectly."

Most students who don't have a deep understanding of the mechanics and concepts of the martial arts that they train, will create and teach assumptions about a technique that their teacher has never taught in class.

I'm not saying this is why he told your son your son that, but it could very well be. So if anything comes back to him he can state that he specifically told your son not to teach the things he learned.

 

[Xue Sheng]

My son took lessons from a proficient martial artist for 7 years. Now, that he no longer goes, he states my son can not teach anyone what he's learned.

Do you live on Mainland China or in Taiwan? If you do there may be problems, meaning a fight or two but other than that it comes down to was there a contract signed or as Buka said

who you are and who he is.

 

[bluedragon1]

Getting back to the OPs question: you haven't provided much in the way of details, so we can speak only in generalities. The following thoughts assume that you are living in the U.S.. If you are located elsewhere then laws may be different.

• If the instructor holds a trademark on the specific name of the art being taught "Proficient Paul Ryu Karate-Jutsu", then he can legally forbid your son from using that exact name for what he teaches. This doesn't apply to the actual material being taught, just the brand name. Such trademark protection would not apply to generic terms like "karate", "jujutsu", "kung-fu", etc or to most older traditional arts where no one person or organization holds a legal trademark.
• If the instructor holds copyright on certain instructional material, he could restrict your son from using it. This would not apply to most of the functional applications of the art, but it is possible for a martial artist to create a kata and copyright the specific choreography of that form in the same way a dance choreographer could copyright a specific dance composition. This is pretty rare, but it does occasionally happen. In that case your son would need to not teach those exact forms. Individual techniques are not copyrightable.
• If your son signed a non-compete clause, then see my previous comment in response to Juany118. He'd likely need to consult with a lawyer to see if such a clause was enforceable in his jurisdiction.
• The instructor may say that your son is not "qualified" to be an instructor in the art. This may or may not be true, based on your definition of qualified, but it has no legal weight. If the art is one represented by a larger organization and your son has not obtained whatever teaching credentials that organization issues, then his students and any promotions he issues will probably not be recognized as legitimate by the organization. Whether that is a problem depends on your son's goals and the art in question.
• The instructor may claim that your son has no moral right to leave and set up as competing teacher. Phrases like "turncoat" and "ungrateful" may be tossed around. Whether you think this has any validity depends on your personal code of ethics and the specifics of the situation, but it has no legal weight.
• Some schools may have students sign agreements that they will not share any of what they have learned without permission of the instructor. (In some of the koryu traditions this would actually come in the form of a blood oath.) This is not so much a "non-compete" clause so much as it is an attempt at a "trade secrets" protection. To the best of my knowledge, this sort of clause is not enforceable in the U.S., but you would need to consult with a lawyer in your jurisdiction to verify that. IANAL. I will note that violating such an agreement may have the effect of burning bridges with the instructor/school in question, so your son might want to consider whether he intends to have any future relationships with his old instructor.

In general, a student is free to pass on what they have learned, but I've tried to cover all the possible exceptions above.

I’m impressed with all the great feedback that has been given so quickly. Let me clarify on some of the parts per request.

He, my son, has no interest in copying the name of the school. It’s not that cool to worry about.

He has no interest in copying any designs or logos. My son is an artist and can make his own.

I don’t see how the instructor can hold any claim to the material for the following reasons. My son started at school A. An instructor who taught at school A was fired to the point the main instructor removed all evidence of the instructor working there before. My son decided to go with the fired instructor feeling he was the better teacher. The fired instructor taught the same forms and style as he had learned from School A. School A never came after the instructor for teaching the material. The whole system is from a questionable and / or confusing lineage. It is a hodgepodge of different styles of Kung Fu. Many of the forms can be found being performed by other people not related to the school on YouTube.

If we ever signed a non-compted clause it was very short and made by the instructor not some iron clad type of document. Yet again, since it wasn’t his in the first place, can he really do that?

The instructor felt fine letting me son teach time and time again with him showing up. It was getting to the point where my son was teaching way more than he was.

Also, my son probably will not consider teaching in a business type setting until he finishes school and gets settled. So, potentially, he has 4 more years of studying other martial arts. Can’t he just teach his own style at some point and use a little from each. We already know the instructor wasn’t using his own made of forms.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I’m impressed with all the great feedback that has been given so quickly. Let me clarify on some of the parts per request.

He, my son, has no interest in copying the name of the school. It’s not that cool to worry about.

He has no interest in copying any designs or logos. My son is an artist and can make his own.

I don’t see how the instructor can hold any claim to the material for the following reasons. My son started at school A. An instructor who taught at school A was fired to the point the main instructor removed all evidence of the instructor working there before. My son decided to go with the fired instructor feeling he was the better teacher. The fired instructor taught the same forms and style as he had learned from School A. School A never came after the instructor for teaching the material. The whole system is from a questionable and / or confusing lineage. It is a hodgepodge of different styles of Kung Fu. Many of the forms can be found being performed by other people not related to the school on YouTube.

If we ever signed a non-compted clause it was very short and made by the instructor not some iron clad type of document. Yet again, since it wasn’t his in the first place, can he really do that?

The instructor felt fine letting me son teach time and time again with him showing up. It was getting to the point where my son was teaching way more than he was.

Also, my son probably will not consider teaching in a business type setting until he finishes school and gets settled. So, potentially, he has 4 more years of studying other martial arts. Can’t he just teach his own style at some point and use a little from each. We already know the instructor wasn’t using his own made of forms.

So, if I'm understanding the explanation correctly, it is your son's second teacher (the one who was fired from the original school) who is trying to claim your student can't teach what he has learned? That would eliminate any concerns about copyrighted material or a trademark on the style name.

The enforceability of a non-compete clause would not depend on whether it was short or written by the instructor, but on the factors I listed in my post at 9:33 am and the laws in your region*. If your son isn't immediately intending to teach commercially, then that would be a strike against the "legitimate business interests" requirement for enforceability. If he isn't planning on possibly teaching in a business setting for another 4 years or more, than that would be a strike against the reasonable time limitations requirement.

*(You mention your son is still in school. How old is he and how old was he when he started training? If he signed a non-compete clause as a minor then it would probably not be binding and if you signed it for him, he would not be bound by your signature.)

Regardless, unless your son's former instructor can actually produce a signed document with a no-compete clause then I wouldn't worry about it and would just ignore him. If he does produce such a document and threatens litigation, then you should consult with a lawyer in your jurisdiction. I would strongly suspect that such an agreement would not be enforceable, but I am not a lawyer and you should not take legal advice from random strangers on the internet.