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.