- Jan 3, 2006
- Reaction score
- Denver, CO
Last I heard was that the copyright issue was thrown out and that the court rules that as they have been in exsistance for so long, by so mant, no one would be allowed to exclude others in using them!
In the US, the laws are somewhat different - they hold the copyright, and charge for the privilege of using the logos.
I have contacted an ITF man in the know on this issue and will report back once I hear from him. The USTF is no longer part of any ITF, though are thinking of jining ITF-V I think.. still, why would they want to enforce such a thing anyway!
The USTF has rejoined ITF-V, as an AA.
Bottom line is:
1. C K choi the designer of the logo said it is allowed by all.. technically, he holds any real copyright
2. Im in the UK, so US rulings dont affect me
3. I dont really care about it TBH. If they wanna cover the costs of my students uniforms and make a big ho ha about it, Ill happily change.. until then.. I dont care.. Im a martial artists, not a bickering baby.. those orgs should take note!
We are all products of our environments, as are our attitudes - and in the US, it's all about money; only those clubs/schools/students who are members of the USTF can use the ITF logo, and being a member has a cost. Not only were associations outside the USTF threatened with lawsuits, so was the only licensed outlet for ITF-logoed doboks in the US, as which point they refused to sell to anyone who wasn't on the USTF's approved list. Thus, the assumption that the use of such logos has a monetary incentive. If the laws are different in the UK, then of course you would have a different perspective.
I would ask, however, why you don't just buy plain doboks? I buy them plain and have our association's logos either silk-screened or embroidered on them. I have a student from the UK who arrived with plain doboks in white and black - so they must be available somewhere.
Nonetheless, this is off the topic of the original post - which was about schools limiting the emphasis on forms in preference to what the OP described as "more practical" skills. As I said in my original response:
I think that in limiting patterns, and teaching your students that they are only valuable to "provide an artistic element and a tie to tradition", but that they are "not practical in terms of self-defense or sparring", you are doing them a major disservice. For more detail on why I think this, see this thread for a discussion of the value of patterns in training.