Who "Owns" the Material?

[Cougar]

Came across a rather acrimonious discussion recently regarding martial arts material (forms, kata, etc). So, let me give you a little background. Let's say I have studied with a venerable old school master that has shared some secret family routines and forms with me. I take it and practice it to a level to receive his blessing. A related master/sifu/sensei teaches a similar, but not exact, form to some of his students. One of the colleagues of the two different masters decides to publish a book and DVD with very similar material. The book and DVD are distributed in the USA and abroad. Now, the first student decides he is outraged that someone took the book and DVD and learned the material, although not performed as well as the first student, and calls them a thief and phoney martial artist because they did not learn this secret family form from his teacher.

My point is if the material, regardless of origin, is handed down from teacher to student and so on it is out in the world. If the same piece of material is ever published and put out for sale, it belongs to whoever buys it. Is it my practice to learn material from a book or a DVD? No, but I have met numerous folks that have picked up material that way. My position is that if more than one person knows the material and it has been shared, it is in the public domain. If it is a closed group and has never been shared outside of a family group, okay, it is private. But how in the world can you get bent out of shape if someone else is doing something similar to what you are doing? Does anyone here really think they invented something totally new that has not been done in the world of martial arts somewhere before?

 

[jasonbrinn]

Just ask the Gracies!

You can't copyright, trademark, etc., the actual techniques. You can, however, trademark, copyright, etc., processes and names.

Kyokushin has had A LOT of these types of issues as well as others like; Daito ryu, Hakko ryu, etc.

 

[Zoran]

As far as I am concerned, you learn it, it is yours to do with as you choose and accept all the benefits and consequences that comes with it. This whole "you can't teach what I taught you", regardless of the medium it was learned form, is just silly.

As to others that are mad and leveling accusations, that has been going on for a very long time. Maybe they have legal legs, maybe not.

 

[pgsmith]

Techniques and movements cannot be owned. A person will miss a lot trying to learn things strictly from a video or book, but that is a choice that some people make. The only thing that I see that is out of line is when someone tries to learn from a book or video, and then claims to be studying that particular art. Copying things out of a book or video is worlds away from actually learning an art under a legitimate instructor of said art, but lots of folks just don't understand that.

 

[punisher73]

There is a reason why in the business/technical world that there are contracts and boundaries for when a person leaves that they can't do anything in that field for a certain amount of time.

Ethical vs. Legal is what it comes down to. If you learned that stuff from an instructor and were being passed a family art and asked to keep it that way, I think it is crappy to go and then commercialize it and make money off of what you were shown.

Now, if on the other hand you are just learning a commercial product already then the teacher really doesn't have a complaint unless you are violating certain business practices (like going through his student database to get prospectice students).

 

[K-man]

Once any material is in the public domain anyone can use it. I am assuming that "form" means a kata in my language. Any kata, by itself, is just a collection of techniques. As such it doesn't matter who practises that form. It is of no great benefit to them. Now assuming once again that the 'routines' come from the forms, that is the valuable material. But, if it is taught, it is out there. That is why the old masters only taught the real meanings of the kata to students they totally trusted. If by 'routines' you mean combinations the master has developed for training his students, once again, it doesn't matter. Sure, you are entitled to feel cheated if someone else takes your material without acknowledgement, but IMO that is about the end of it. :asian:

 

[chinto]

once you learn it it is yours.

 

[seasoned]

Once any material is in the public domain anyone can use it. I am assuming that "form" means a kata in my language. Any kata, by itself, is just a collection of techniques. As such it doesn't matter who practises that form. It is of no great benefit to them. Now assuming once again that the 'routines' come from the forms, that is the valuable material. But, if it is taught, it is out there. That is why the old masters only taught the real meanings of the kata to students they totally trusted. If by 'routines' you mean combinations the master has developed for training his students, once again, it doesn't matter. Sure, you are entitled to feel cheated if someone else takes your material without acknowledgement, but IMO that is about the end of it. :asian:

And for the above reasons people think they can learn from books and DVD, and they can. But, this is all superficial at best, and without the principles behind what the kata is actually teaching it is of no value to the serious student of martial arts. Moves can always be copied, so hence they can be owned by any one. What was guarded and kept secret and only pass down to trusted students was meaning and intent.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm, it seems like I'm responding to almost the entire thread so far... mainly as I'm disagreeing with most of the responses. This could be interesting...

Came across a rather acrimonious discussion recently regarding martial arts material (forms, kata, etc). So, let me give you a little background. Let's say I have studied with a venerable old school master that has shared some secret family routines and forms with me. I take it and practice it to a level to receive his blessing. A related master/sifu/sensei teaches a similar, but not exact, form to some of his students. One of the colleagues of the two different masters decides to publish a book and DVD with very similar material. The book and DVD are distributed in the USA and abroad. Now, the first student decides he is outraged that someone took the book and DVD and learned the material, although not performed as well as the first student, and calls them a thief and phoney martial artist because they did not learn this secret family form from his teacher.

You know, that sounds very much like a thread I was recently involved in on another thread... it was a lot more acrimonious before it was cut down, but I kinda like the way it ended up.

My point is if the material, regardless of origin, is handed down from teacher to student and so on it is out in the world. If the same piece of material is ever published and put out for sale, it belongs to whoever buys it. Is it my practice to learn material from a book or a DVD? No, but I have met numerous folks that have picked up material that way. My position is that if more than one person knows the material and it has been shared, it is in the public domain. If it is a closed group and has never been shared outside of a family group, okay, it is private. But how in the world can you get bent out of shape if someone else is doing something similar to what you are doing? Does anyone here really think they invented something totally new that has not been done in the world of martial arts somewhere before?

I think there is a major distinction not being made here, and that is the context under which the art is learnt in the first place. As such, "regardless of origin" denies a lot of the way a number of situations occur, and to simply dismiss them is rather shortsighted, to say the least... as, in a lot of the type of things I deal in, they are in no way "in the public domain". The idea of it being taught outside a family isn't really a factor, the arts I'm talking about are taught to people from almost all ranges and walks of life, but they absolutely remain private groups with their own rules being enforced.

That said, there's a big difference between someone doing something "similar", and someone "stealing".

Just ask the Gracies!

You can't copyright, trademark, etc., the actual techniques. You can, however, trademark, copyright, etc., processes and names.

Kyokushin has had A LOT of these types of issues as well as others like; Daito ryu, Hakko ryu, etc.

Just for clarification, what are you defining as the "techniques", and what are the "processes"?

As far as I am concerned, you learn it, it is yours to do with as you choose and accept all the benefits and consequences that comes with it. This whole "you can't teach what I taught you", regardless of the medium it was learned form, is just silly.

As to others that are mad and leveling accusations, that has been going on for a very long time. Maybe they have legal legs, maybe not.

No, it's not silly, not in the slightest. To clarify, I'm coming at this from a Koryu (old traditional Japanese martial arts, ones that are centuries old, not decades... so well and truly pre-dating Karate, Aikido, Judo etc) perspective, in which case there are both legal aspects and ethical aspects coming into play.

Techniques and movements cannot be owned. A person will miss a lot trying to learn things strictly from a video or book, but that is a choice that some people make. The only thing that I see that is out of line is when someone tries to learn from a book or video, and then claims to be studying that particular art. Copying things out of a book or video is worlds away from actually learning an art under a legitimate instructor of said art, but lots of folks just don't understand that.

Honestly Paul, I'm a little surprised to see this coming from yourself. In Koryu terms, techniques and movements (the kata and more) are owned, the same way a songwriter owns their song. The notes, no, but the particular arrangement of them, the tempo, the structure, the melody, the lyrics, and so on, yes. That's what's "owned" in martial terms as well, really. I'm with you on the "learning from a book" aspect, but the idea that a Ryu (and it's head) don't, or can't "own" their techniques I fundamentally disagree with.

Once any material is in the public domain anyone can use it. I am assuming that "form" means a kata in my language. Any kata, by itself, is just a collection of techniques. As such it doesn't matter who practises that form. It is of no great benefit to them. Now assuming once again that the 'routines' come from the forms, that is the valuable material. But, if it is taught, it is out there. That is why the old masters only taught the real meanings of the kata to students they totally trusted. If by 'routines' you mean combinations the master has developed for training his students, once again, it doesn't matter. Sure, you are entitled to feel cheated if someone else takes your material without acknowledgement, but IMO that is about the end of it. :asian:

I think this is a big part of the idea of the context I was referring to earlier... what makes it "the public domain"? To be frank, the way you're describing things there makes it sound to me that the kata actually aren't in the public domain... and if they aren't, obviously they are being kept back for a reason. Perhaps so people don't steal them?

Any kata, by itself, is just a collection of techniques.

And again, I'd fundamentally disagree with this comment. If all it is is just a collection of techniques, it's not a kata.

And for the above reasons people think they can learn from books and DVD, and they can. But, this is all superficial at best, and without the principles behind what the kata is actually teaching it is of no value to the serious student of martial arts. Moves can always be copied, so hence they can be owned by any one. What was guarded and kept secret and only pass down to trusted students was meaning and intent.

Which to me reads as the seniors of the art retaining ownership, and then passing ownership to those who earn it.

But I'll fill in what I'm going on about here.

In Koryu terms, the kata (and other aspects of the Ryu, it's name, it's history, and more) are the property of the current head of that system. Not symbolically property, legally property. The copyright is owned by the head of the Ryu. It's usage is up to them. It is only under their authority that it can be used to describe what is being done. If you look at the traditional ranking system applied, it is referred to as the Menkyo system. Menkyo literally refers to a licence. In other words, you don't get "ranked" to such and such a level, you get licensed to a certain degree of authority, which allows you to use the name of the system to describe what you're teaching, and its' methods for you to teach. This licence, with all it's intrinsic authority, can be revoked, with a process known as "hamon" (破門 - expulsion from the Ryu, literally "break with the entrance [to the tradition]). Once that happens, you are not permitted to show or teach the methods of that Ryu, or use it's name to describe anything you're doing.

Now this all sounds like it's a case of old-fashioned folks who are stuck in their ways, and don't get the way of the modern world, all scary with its internets and blogs and so forth, dagnabbit... but it really is still a current state of affairs. Anyone who thinks that there isn't ownership of the methods and name of a martial system probably just doesn't understand how it manifests itself... as most of the posts here, even those who seem to disagree with such a concept of ownership, demonstrate it in their words... especially K-Man and Seasoned (you whacky karate guys you...). The thing to understand is when the ownership moves from the teacher to the next generation.

The teacher is the owner of the knowledge. They are the holders of it, the keepers of the arcane secrets, the source and supply of abilities and skills not yet possessed by the student. They then impart that knowledge, generously revealing the arcane, supplying skills and insight to the student by means of the methods and techniques of their art. As the art is so imparted, the ownership of such methods passes to the student. We signify that new ownership by wrapping different coloured lengths of cloths around the waists, or changing the colour armband, or in some cases by allowing a different colour t-shirt, or something similar. Not uncommonly there might be certification involved as well, and the student eventually becomes a teacher themselves, passing on what they have learnt. It might be exactly the same, or it might be altered in some way depending on the students other experiences... but is still under the authority (to use the name and established methods) of the ranking earned. In this way, the idea of "when you've learnt it, you own it" is correct. And is really no different to the Koryu licencing methods.

Where it gets messy (in Koryu terms) is when the names are being used without the authority of the head of the system. In a number of cases (sadly, the majority of them, really) that is a case of empty copying of actions. Thing is, even with the heart of the kata missing, the actions are exclusive to the Ryu itself. Here's an example:

Hoshinjutsu "sword curriculum". They claimed to have created these techniques independently, by "reading the Book of Five Rings" and engaging in "personal study" of the sword. Hmm.

Compare with the actual Ryu itself here - Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu. There is no way to come up with these techniques by reading the Gorin no Sho, nor indeed by any amount of "personal study" of the sword.

Same group as above, this time copying the Iai of Katori Shinto Ryu.

Actual Katori Shinto Ryu Iai (and other things). Again, there is no way that the Hoshin group can come up with these other than stealing them, as their performance shows that they have no connection to the Ryu at all.

In these cases, even though the group doesn't claim to be teaching the Ryu in question, they are obviously stealing the kata, copying and passing on with no authority to do so. But again, that's the old fashioned, stick-in-the-mud group, yeah? Why should even members of the Ryu in question care if some other group is doing bad versions of their kata, passed down in the Ryu, preserved and protected for centuries in these cases? I mean, who are they really hurting? Well, that's the thing, they're hurting the image and perception of actual traditional Japanese martial arts, and trying to put across an image based on the easiest way out.

Now think of your art. Imagine a group who claim to be doing what you do. Imagine that they are presenting their badly done, poorly understood imitations as the actual art itself. We've all laughed at some of the you-tube clips out there of delusional martial artists, but I'm talking about the ones who at least look plausible... except everything they do is false. It's stolen, or a bad imitation. Now have them using the same name as your art, or claiming to do the same kata, presenting themselves as doing the same thing as you are... is that something that anyone wants for their art?

Then, when it's all said and done, the thing to remember is that what we're really dealing with here is intellectual property. And that definitely has a concept of ownership.

 

[jks9199]

I come down somewhere towards Chris Parker's view. I have been entrusted with the teaching and material of my martial art. Part of that trust is the responsibility and duty to see that it's passed on. But, at the same time, there is material that I have been taught that I don't have the authority to teach, at least not yet or outside of a particular circumstance. Who "owns" the material? My teachers and our grand master/chief instructor.

 

[clfsean]

Came across a rather acrimonious discussion recently regarding martial arts material (forms, kata, etc). So, let me give you a little background. Let's say I have studied with a venerable old school master that has shared some secret family routines and forms with me. I take it and practice it to a level to receive his blessing. A related master/sifu/sensei teaches a similar, but not exact, form to some of his students. One of the colleagues of the two different masters decides to publish a book and DVD with very similar material. The book and DVD are distributed in the USA and abroad. Now, the first student decides he is outraged that someone took the book and DVD and learned the material, although not performed as well as the first student, and calls them a thief and phoney martial artist because they did not learn this secret family form from his teacher.

My point is if the material, regardless of origin, is handed down from teacher to student and so on it is out in the world. If the same piece of material is ever published and put out for sale, it belongs to whoever buys it. Is it my practice to learn material from a book or a DVD? No, but I have met numerous folks that have picked up material that way. My position is that if more than one person knows the material and it has been shared, it is in the public domain. If it is a closed group and has never been shared outside of a family group, okay, it is private. But how in the world can you get bent out of shape if someone else is doing something similar to what you are doing? Does anyone here really think they invented something totally new that has not been done in the world of martial arts somewhere before?

Yeah... let me jump in here because I know exactly what you're talking about.

The issue isn't the material ultimately being out there, it's the way it's performed since the essence of the material can not be taught by book or video. You know exactly what I'm referring to. Transitions are lost, intent misinterpreted from the original material, etc... This isn't even mentioning the questionable origin of how the set came to be in that org. This is what sets off the warning flags to people who actually know it.

I have the form as well, from one of the two sources (people, not media). I pains me to watch that particular video of the set because it is so far off base that it can't even be considered funny. I've seen it within the whole org (West Coast & east Coast) at question & bottom line is, it's not correct. Not by a long shot & not anywhere close to the original.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Chris, I removed portions of your quote to have the part I would like to discuss.

. . .
In these cases, even though the group doesn't claim to be teaching the Ryu in question, they are obviously stealing the kata, copying and passing on with no authority to do so. But again, that's the old fashioned, stick-in-the-mud group, yeah? Why should even members of the Ryu in question care if some other group is doing bad versions of their kata, passed down in the Ryu, preserved and protected for centuries in these cases? I mean, who are they really hurting? Well, that's the thing, they're hurting the image and perception of actual traditional Japanese martial arts, and trying to put across an image based on the easiest way out.

Now think of your art. Imagine a group who claim to be doing what you do. Imagine that they are presenting their badly done, poorly understood imitations as the actual art itself. We've all laughed at some of the you-tube clips out there of delusional martial artists, but I'm talking about the ones who at least look plausible... except everything they do is false. It's stolen, or a bad imitation. Now have them using the same name as your art, or claiming to do the same kata, presenting themselves as doing the same thing as you are... is that something that anyone wants for their art?

Then, when it's all said and done, the thing to remember is that what we're really dealing with here is intellectual property. And that definitely has a concept of ownership.

I have had this happen to me. People say your art sucks, because I have seen *Insert Name Here*, and they could not *Insert comment here*, and yet then through mutual contacts or friends they work out with me and then realize what I do is different from what they have seen or even been taught in some cases.

It does cause problems. It does cause hurt feelings and trust issues.

So, how do non Japanese Traditional Systems handle this? I mean they promote ranks, and do not have the terms (* if truly understood by your explanation *) that mean a license to a certain understanding and expectations with said license. If other cultures do not understand this or openly choose to disregard this, then how should this be handled?

Curious to your ideas.


Thanks

 

[K-man]

Originally Posted by K-man
Once any material is in the public domain anyone can use it. I am assuming that "form" means a kata in my language. Any kata, by itself, is just a collection of techniques. As such it doesn't matter who practises that form. It is of no great benefit to them. Now assuming once again that the 'routines' come from the forms, that is the valuable material. But, if it is taught, it is out there. That is why the old masters only taught the real meanings of the kata to students they totally trusted. If by 'routines' you mean combinations the master has developed for training his students, once again, it doesn't matter. Sure, you are entitled to feel cheated if someone else takes your material without acknowledgement, but IMO that is about the end of it.

I think this is a big part of the idea of the context I was referring to earlier... what makes it "the public domain"? To be frank, the way you're describing things there makes it sound to me that the kata actually aren't in the public domain... and if they aren't, obviously they are being kept back for a reason. Perhaps so people don't steal them?

Originally Posted by K-man
Any kata, by itself, is just a collection of techniques.



And again, I'd fundamentally disagree with this comment. If all it is is just a collection of techniques, it's not a kata.

My comments are from a karate perspective. Karate is not an ancient art. Basically it is only a bit over 100 years old. Te (or Tode) or Tegumi are older but they did not have the kata we have now. Various Okinawans journeyed to China and learned Kung Fu and various forms of Kung Fu kata. Whether it was Bushi Matsumura, Kanryo Higaonna or Kanbon Uechi, they all brought back various kata when they returned to Okinawa. No one will ever know what they initially learned. Names across the various styles are the same or similar but the performance and the techniques within the kata are different. Did the early Masters change the kata to suit their own understanding or were they taught different kata to suit their different body types?

Regardless, they taught these kata to their students and their students in turn taught their students. Gogen Yamaguchi claimed to be appointed successor to Chojun Miyagi but the Goju Kai kata is different to the Okinawan Goju kata. Different students have left their initial organisation and set up their own styles. They have kept their traditional kata and maybe modified it or even added kata from other styles.

But, which ever way you look at it, it's hard to say who has 'ownership' of the kata. I would argue that anyone who performs it owns it. You make the kata yours.

Now let's look at the composition of any particular kata. Fundamentally kata consists of anything from 10 techniques (or less in other MAs) to over 100 techniques, in a given sequence. Without further understanding of application, kata is just the performance of those techniques. To an uneducated observer, kata is just a collection of techniques. Hence my comment.

This pretty much describes karate kata taught from the time it went into the schools in Okinawa until the 1980s. We had no idea of the application of kata in those years. We worked on applications to suit individual techniques but we had no concept of the kata as a fighting system. I wonder if even the Masters had full knowledge of the kata they brought back from China. If they did, it doesn't seem to have been passed on. Thanks to people like George Dillman, Iain Abernethy, Earle Montaigue and, more recently, Masaji Taira, we can start to interpret kata for ourselves.

If we look at the OP we might well be talking of a kata that has only been handed down within the family. Sure, they would be entitled to be upset if their kata was taught to someone outside the family circle who in turn betrayed the trust and taught it to others. But unless the application was taught with the kata, the kata is useless. This leads to my comment on the 'routines'. If these routines are just training tools then, once again, you might be upset to find others using them without permission but that's life. Some people have no scruples. The time to be really upset would be if the true application (or 'routine') had been taught to someone who in turn betrayed that trust.

I have no knowledge of Ninjutsu. I don't know if you guys have kata with the original applications but we certainly don't in Karate. But, if I cross trained Ninjutsu, and paid for the privilege, I would feel entitled to teach anything I learned to my students.

But the OP goes further in saying the material is put out on a DVD. It is the student of the master who is upset because another student learnt similar material from that DVD. And, the material was not taken from that master but from a colleague. And the material was not the same as the guy's master is teaching. Pleeese!!! All I could say to the guy is "get over it". If we look at the ownership issue, as previously discussed, the material might have been technically 'owned' by the master or his family, but what right has the student to complain?

My head is starting to hurt!

 

[Tony Dismukes]

In Koryu terms, the kata (and other aspects of the Ryu, it's name, it's history, and more) are the property of the current head of that system. Not symbolically property, legally property. The copyright is owned by the head of the Ryu.

I don't know what the laws on the subject are like in Japan, but I suspect you really mean "trademark" rather than "copyright". Of course, in the U.S. and probably in most of the world there are no such laws guaranteeing ownership of a martial tradition. (You could file for a trademark on the name of your organization, but that would be subject to normal trademark law, not koryu traditions.)

In terms of ethical philosophy, there are different cultural norms regarding the "ownership" of the knowledge contained in cultural traditions. In the west, functional knowledge in how to train a skill such as a martial art would not be considered protected by personal ownership. An individual creative composition would be protected by copyright, but that is time-limited. After a certain number of years, it automatically enters the public domain. (Likewise for technical innovations that are protected by patent.) From my outlook, this is a good thing. A creator gets a certain time period to profit from their creation, and then the benefit passes on to society at large.

In the absence of laws protecting the content of a koryu tradition, I'd say that said content is more of a trade secret than a copyrighted tradition. If the people involved want to keep it a secret, that's on them to keep it that way. Anyone who learns the material and hasn't made a comittment to keep it secret is free to pass it on as they wish.

I do wonder if the people involved in traditions with such attachment to secrecy have thought deeply about the reasons for holding on so tightly to said secrets. Historically, there were understandable reasons for it. In an era where the martial skills involved might be used for life-or-death battles, it would make sense to keep potential enemies from knowing your techniques. In more peaceful times, holding back the rights to teaching the art might protect the income of an instructor who made a living from his students. Neither reason really makes sense for koryu practitioners today. All that's left is "tradition". We do it that way because we've always done it that way! If that makes you happy, then great! Just don't expect folks outside the tradition to buy into the values involved.

(For those who feel that it makes your art look bad when you see someone outside your lineage doing one of "your" kata in a way that looks bad to you - get over it. For any art you can name - martial, musical, or visual - there will be people doing a terrible job of it. Do you think Eddie Van Halen gets bent out of shape when he sees a crappy amateur like myself playing a song and thinks "oh my goodness, that guy makes us real guitar players look bad"? I don't think so.)

 

[pgsmith]

Honestly Paul, I'm a little surprised to see this coming from yourself. In Koryu terms, techniques and movements (the kata and more) are owned, the same way a songwriter owns their song.

You shouldn't be, given how I framed my response. Take for example, jujidome. I've seen this technique performed in at least three different koryu sword arts. Lets say that somebody practices Niten Ichi ryu to a high level, then decides he wants to start his own school based on his own experiences and ideas. One of his kata uses jujidome. What can the complaint be if he doesn't claim to be teaching Niten Ichi ryu? Other than the fact that it's kind of silly to try starting a new Japanese sword art when there are so many actual arts still in existence. Now if this same fellow taught 5 two sword kata and called them Hyoho Niten Ichi ryu Nito Seiho, then he would be encroaching on intellectual property because the names and kata are attributed to HNIR. However, the actual techniques in the kata can be found in other sources.

Now think of your art. Imagine a group who claim to be doing what you do. Imagine that they are presenting their badly done, poorly understood imitations as the actual art itself. We've all laughed at some of the you-tube clips out there of delusional martial artists, but I'm talking about the ones who at least look plausible... except everything they do is false. It's stolen, or a bad imitation. Now have them using the same name as your art, or claiming to do the same kata, presenting themselves as doing the same thing as you are... is that something that anyone wants for their art?

As long as they don't claim they are practicing a legitimate koryu under the current head of that school, I don't really care what they do. People in general aren't real smart, and there are lots of folks that want what they think things should be, rather than what they are. None of those folks are going to end up practicing a real koryu sword art because they'd much rather do their imitation thing. As long as they aren't lying about what they do, all they're good for is a chuckle.

 

[Cougar]

Just got back here and read the responses. Excellent feedback that causes me to add more comments. First of all, I was trying to provoke thought and reasonable discussion of an area that I have experienced over the last 45-47 years of martial arts study. Many feel very strongly about this and many others take the totally Western approach. I am not agreeing or disagreeing, merely making an observation. My personal feelings on the subject vary depending under what circumstances I came upon the material and if any contracts or agreements were signed and registered.

Tony Dismukes - excellent point and one that was very much in mind when I made my original post.

K-man - has also made some astute observations how tradition and culture may not necessarily win the case in court, but then there is the pesky issue of ethics.

clfsean - Yes, sir, I bet you do know what triggered my posting here. While I can relate to the other discussion, this posting really was to see how others felt about the subject without getting into anyone's family history or copyright issues.

My thoughts vary on how to approach this subject. The whole issue of you cannot perform that form without Master Soandso giving permission or you are not allowed to demonstrate that form in public without markers or some other restrictions just does not work for me without legally binding documents. While I was an instructor in my former organization, I signed statements of understanding for content of material and non-compete zones and use of name and symbols. And after having left the organization well over the ten year span of non-compete, I do show some of the material, but in a dramatically different sequence, form and application. I did not agree with the way the material was presented while I was in the organization and feel I can do with it as I see fit now. Does learning a form/kata without knowing the originally intended purpose/intent take away from the effectiveness? Maybe, depends on the skill level of the martial artist performing the material. We have all seen, as previously mentioned, good and bad performances of different pieces of material. Was the person trying very hard, but just did not have the skill set to pull it off? Was the person athletically gifted, but the true intent was obviously missed? All along the scale, sure. It happens. And what I tell my students is while they may all learn the same piece of material, they should only worry about their own development because everyone is different and learns at a different rate and try as hard as you can, you may not develop as well or as quickly as your classmate. Personal growth and individual development is what I encourage.

 

[clfsean]

clfsean - Yes, sir, I bet you do know what triggered my posting here. While I can relate to the other discussion, this posting really was to see how others felt about the subject without getting into anyone's family history or copyright issues.

Right... no worries there. No point dredging up the particulars on family & such. Totally agree. But it's hard to ignore the facts that are there (concerning other materials too) given past history. I have history with the org in question as well so like you, am talking from a point of first hand experience & knowledge.

 

[Chris Parker]

Chris, I removed portions of your quote to have the part I would like to discuss.

I have had this happen to me. People say your art sucks, because I have seen *Insert Name Here*, and they could not *Insert comment here*, and yet then through mutual contacts or friends they work out with me and then realize what I do is different from what they have seen or even been taught in some cases.

It does cause problems. It does cause hurt feelings and trust issues.

So, how do non Japanese Traditional Systems handle this? I mean they promote ranks, and do not have the terms (* if truly understood by your explanation *) that mean a license to a certain understanding and expectations with said license. If other cultures do not understand this or openly choose to disregard this, then how should this be handled?

Curious to your ideas.

Thanks

Hey Rich,

It gets a little dicey looking at the different approaches from different systems around the world, but in essence, the same licencing idea is used. Most arts have an official, or at least semi-official (recognized standard) "teaching" rank. Within a school, or organization, that rank confers the permission to pass on the information. The reasoning is that at that point you have enough understanding and skill to pass the systems' methods on without there being mistakes. Think of the difference between a karate practitioner with less than a month under their belt teaching a roundhouse kick, or a third dan instructor teaching it. Odds are the month-long practitioner will make mistakes, miss (sometimes vital) parts or details, and not be able to perform it to anywhere near the standard of the "instructor level" practitioner... this is an example of a licencing for passing a system on, just without the official stamp, as it were.

The problem being found is when people leave these more "modern" systems, regardless of rank achieved in established forms of the art. I've seen a range of "systems" created by people who have a year or two in one art, six months in another, and seem to have watched some videos on a couple more... and think they "get it". Hell, an example right now in the forums is that of Al Case, a person who claims to have originally learnt karate from a book, thinks a Korean off-shoot of students of a student of a student of Japanese karate and another teacher (Manchurian) of Chuan Fa, means that his karate is more "purely true" karate than the Okinawan and Japanese systems, demonstrates very limited understanding of Aikido and Chinese arts (which are apparently his major focus... hmm), and has created his own approach to his teaching of martial arts (that he calls "Matrixing"), thinking what he's showing is new, better, or in any way powerful compared to the way martial arts are taught normally (another thing he completely misses the point on)... Now, Al presents things like the Pinan katas, with his take on what they are about... personally, if someone came to me showing his form of karate (and I was still in my karate days), thinking that was what I was presenting, I'd be rather offended. Same with his Aikido. It all comes across as a pale imitation, and I think that comes from his lack of real education in the matter, all of which comes down to a habit of taking only a surface approach to his studies, and not having the depth of actual teaching level instruction himself (the licencing concept).

Now, if someone achieves a teaching rank, whatever that is in the organization they are a part of, then they have the authority to pass on their understanding of what they learnt (unless it's revoked, obviously, but that's almost unheard of in modern systems). If a teaching rank in a form of karate is third dan, for instance, and someone achieves third, or fourth, or higher, then leaves to start their own independent karate school, as they are deviating from the teachings of the original group, they can teach their form of the kata learnt there, as the authority has been given. If they aren't at a level where the kata is understood, but have been given the rank, well, that comes down to the ranking body being at fault (to my mind).

So what is the solution to the people showing highly lacking forms of a particular art? Honestly, there's not much that can be done, as there is a rather desperate lack of understanding of what each art really is, and how it is passed on. As such, charletains can continue to show things under a name that they simply don't have a right to, as there is nothing being done to stop them (Koryu are a different story in that sense, though... depending on the particular Ryu and how they want to deal with such issues). The best defense we have is education. I was sent a PM from a member here today asking about a particular individual, and their legitimacy. My answer was that they are completely fraudulent, as the system they are claiming has no real connection to any authentic or legitimate (historically) system in line with it's claims, the name the (Western) instructor goes by showed no knowledge of Japanese naming systems (choosing a common surname, and a word that isn't even a name to make his "new" one), and all the references to this art showed it to be a madeup invented one. If an understanding of the issues wasn't already attained, though, the claims can come across as plausible... so it's really only by providing information (such as on forums like this) that such things can be combated. Otherwise we get people who will train with people like dougmukashi, as he claims to have been training constantly since 1986, so he must know what he's doing, and be good, yeah? A quick search here might show the answer to that...

My comments are from a karate perspective. Karate is not an ancient art. Basically it is only a bit over 100 years old. Te (or Tode) or Tegumi are older but they did not have the kata we have now. Various Okinawans journeyed to China and learned Kung Fu and various forms of Kung Fu kata. Whether it was Bushi Matsumura, Kanryo Higaonna or Kanbon Uechi, they all brought back various kata when they returned to Okinawa. No one will ever know what they initially learned. Names across the various styles are the same or similar but the performance and the techniques within the kata are different. Did the early Masters change the kata to suit their own understanding or were they taught different kata to suit their different body types?

Hey Russ,

Yeah, I get where your perspective is coming from, my friend. And honestly, in regards to your question at the end there, I'd say both, as well as changing them to suit individual personalities... but I'm not sure that that changes much in the idea of ownership. At that point, the students (the men who would later be called the "masters") were in the process of taking ownership, as it were.

Regardless, they taught these kata to their students and their students in turn taught their students. Gogen Yamaguchi claimed to be appointed successor to Chojun Miyagi but the Goju Kai kata is different to the Okinawan Goju kata. Different students have left their initial organisation and set up their own styles. They have kept their traditional kata and maybe modified it or even added kata from other styles.

Yeah, we've discussed Yamaguchi's relationship to Miyagi before... In this case, we have someone who was taught a particular method, got to a level where he had internalized (made his own) what he was taught, and felt that his experience gave him a different perspective (whether based on his physical abilities, his take on the meanings behind the kata, or other), which lead to his alterations of the methods of Goju Kai versus Goju Ryu. Then again, Goju Kai, although it came from Goju Ryu, doesn't claim to be Goju Ryu itself... so it's only claiming to be Goju Kai's methods being taught.

But, which ever way you look at it, it's hard to say who has 'ownership' of the kata. I would argue that anyone who performs it owns it. You make the kata yours.

Sure, but only from a certain level. What that is will change depending on the system, really. But when it all comes down to it, "who has ownership" is simple... the system itself has ownership. And the person who heads the system or line, if there is one, would be the individual who has the claim to legal ownership... and those under that head, who have been given rank or permission to teach it, have been given a form of ownership themselves.

The idea of "you make the kata yours" is something I completely agree with and emphatically disagree with, though. I completely agree that you should strive to "make it yours" in the sense of taking it's lessons to yourself in a way that you can apply them with the greatest amount of efficacy and power, adapting in ways that are necessary for yourself. I disagree in that the kata is designed not so much for a student to alter in their own image, but to provide the student with the art itself. In short, you learn a martial art to learn it's approach to combative encounters (and more), the way it handles things, not so you can just find "what works for you". If that was the case, there'd be no need for learning a martial art, because it's just fighting. So for all the talk of "the art doesn't fight for you, you do", that's fundamentally wrong. It denies the very reason for training in the art in the first place.

When it comes down to it, you are learning what the art can teach you. You are learning what is being passed down from your seniors. You are quite simply taking what they possess... which shows you where ownership comes into it. The methods (kata, or anything else) belong to the system.

Now let's look at the composition of any particular kata. Fundamentally kata consists of anything from 10 techniques (or less in other MAs) to over 100 techniques, in a given sequence. Without further understanding of application, kata is just the performance of those techniques. To an uneducated observer, kata is just a collection of techniques. Hence my comment.

Ah, but that's to the "uneducated observer".... that's not what kata are. And that was my point. Kata are only ever "just a collection of techniques" to the uneducated. Kata are never "just a collection of techniques" and still kata.

This pretty much describes karate kata taught from the time it went into the schools in Okinawa until the 1980s. We had no idea of the application of kata in those years. We worked on applications to suit individual techniques but we had no concept of the kata as a fighting system. I wonder if even the Masters had full knowledge of the kata they brought back from China. If they did, it doesn't seem to have been passed on. Thanks to people like George Dillman, Iain Abernethy, Earle Montaigue and, more recently, Masaji Taira, we can start to interpret kata for ourselves.

Personally, I think the disconnect occurred as karate was brought to Japan, for a number of reasons. If there wasn't any understanding of the applications taken from China to Okinawa, then the art simply wouldn't have survived, it would have been people simply making up what they thought things were meant to be, then relying on such ideas in actual usage... which is a short recipe for a quick downfall. I'm also less than convinced of some of the modern "interpretations", especially those of people such as Dillman, for a range of reasons. When it all comes down to it, I'm not fond of the idea of personal interpretations... there's just too much danger of losing the actual lessons, replacing them with ill-conceived, or ill-fitting and incongruent ideas. And honestly, I think a lot of the interpretations unnecessarily complicate matters, but that's me.

If we look at the OP we might well be talking of a kata that has only been handed down within the family. Sure, they would be entitled to be upset if their kata was taught to someone outside the family circle who in turn betrayed the trust and taught it to others. But unless the application was taught with the kata, the kata is useless. This leads to my comment on the 'routines'. If these routines are just training tools then, once again, you might be upset to find others using them without permission but that's life. Some people have no scruples. The time to be really upset would be if the true application (or 'routine') had been taught to someone who in turn betrayed that trust.

Sure. But without that "application", it's not the kata. It's an imitation, or repetition, of actions without context. And the teacher, having not actually taught the kata itself, has retained ownership of it. Of course, I'd be concerned about someone being given a teaching rank/licence if they haven't been taught anything beyond movements... I don't know, maybe I'm a little old fashioned, but I tend to think that learning an art involves, well, learning the art. Not just the movements. As a result, I'd think that people, not having been taught the meaning of the actions, wouldn't be in a position to be ranked to teach the system. Hopefully.

I have no knowledge of Ninjutsu. I don't know if you guys have kata with the original applications but we certainly don't in Karate. But, if I cross trained Ninjutsu, and paid for the privilege, I would feel entitled to teach anything I learned to my students.

(Slightly snobby comment following) Ah, mate, we have kata. In fact, almost everything we do is kata. But we have actual Japanese kata, not the Chinese/Okinawan hybrid you guys think kata is.... it's so cute you guys think that what you do is kata... ha!

A little more seriously, though, if you cross-trained in a Ninjutsu school, and had a rank of, say, 7th Kyu (maybe a year or so in, with me), then taught what you'd learnt, would you think that you'd really be in a position to teach it? You wouldn't be of teaching rank, and your experience would be quite limited, to the point where I'd suggest that you'd have an interpretation of what you think it is you've been training, but not really the reality of what it is (at that point). So why would you be entitled to teach it? I mean, by that token, I could teach a huge number of arts...

But the OP goes further in saying the material is put out on a DVD. It is the student of the master who is upset because another student learnt similar material from that DVD. And, the material was not taken from that master but from a colleague. And the material was not the same as the guy's master is teaching. Pleeese!!! All I could say to the guy is "get over it". If we look at the ownership issue, as previously discussed, the material might have been technically 'owned' by the master or his family, but what right has the student to complain?

Hmm.... tell you what, here's a link to a conversation I was involved in which is remarkably similar to the OP's description: http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/s...from-the-Soke-(Split-from-Toshido-Bujinkan-th

A number of the issues in this construct are discussed there, from a couple of different points of view.

My head is starting to hurt!

Ha, yeah.... talking with a student last night, they mentioned that they read everything I write.... and referring to them as "essays"... so part of this is to make him sit through it! Really, they shouldn't tell me things like this, it just gives me things to play with.... ha!

I don't know what the laws on the subject are like in Japan, but I suspect you really mean "trademark" rather than "copyright". Of course, in the U.S. and probably in most of the world there are no such laws guaranteeing ownership of a martial tradition. (You could file for a trademark on the name of your organization, but that would be subject to normal trademark law, not koryu traditions.)

Hey Tony,

No, I meant "copyright". The "trademarks", if you will, would be the name of the Ryu, perhaps particular weaponry (designs, or specialist items, whether real or training forms), the kata and methods (as shown in my examples) would come under the idea of copyright. Think of a Ryu like a book in this sense.

In terms of ethical philosophy, there are different cultural norms regarding the "ownership" of the knowledge contained in cultural traditions. In the west, functional knowledge in how to train a skill such as a martial art would not be considered protected by personal ownership. An individual creative composition would be protected by copyright, but that is time-limited. After a certain number of years, it automatically enters the public domain. (Likewise for technical innovations that are protected by patent.) From my outlook, this is a good thing. A creator gets a certain time period to profit from their creation, and then the benefit passes on to society at large.

Honestly, I'd disagree with that (that the martial arts methods of training wouldn't be protected), as many methods of various types are protected. Arthur Murray Dance Studios have a particular method which is theirs, acting schools have their own method (such as the Stanislavski method, the Strasburg method etc), and so on. In terms of the copyright being time-related, it can also be renewed... which is what happens when the art gets passed to the next generation.

In the absence of laws protecting the content of a koryu tradition, I'd say that said content is more of a trade secret than a copyrighted tradition. If the people involved want to keep it a secret, that's on them to keep it that way. Anyone who learns the material and hasn't made a comittment to keep it secret is free to pass it on as they wish.

Except that there are laws protecting them, and have been utilised and upheld in a number of cases in Japan, a trade secret is also a legally protected idea, and in joining a Koryu (in the vast majority of cases) you do make a commitment to protect the information. There's a big difference between putting on public demonstrations, or even teaching members of the public, and putting something in the public domain devoid of such protections.

I do wonder if the people involved in traditions with such attachment to secrecy have thought deeply about the reasons for holding on so tightly to said secrets. Historically, there were understandable reasons for it. In an era where the martial skills involved might be used for life-or-death battles, it would make sense to keep potential enemies from knowing your techniques. In more peaceful times, holding back the rights to teaching the art might protect the income of an instructor who made a living from his students. Neither reason really makes sense for koryu practitioners today. All that's left is "tradition". We do it that way because we've always done it that way! If that makes you happy, then great! Just don't expect folks outside the tradition to buy into the values involved.

To put it simply, because of the cost in gaining the information in the first place. It is highly valued, and to have others not earn that information, but instead to steal it, is rather unseemly, to say the least. The mentality is a protectionist one. And really, for those of us in the Koryu world, saying that expecting those outside to not buy into our values really misses the point... it's like putting out a plagiarised book, then saying that, if the original author complains, that you're just not buying into their values. Same with Russ' comments about "tell them to 'get over it' " earlier.

(For those who feel that it makes your art look bad when you see someone outside your lineage doing one of "your" kata in a way that looks bad to you - get over it. For any art you can name - martial, musical, or visual - there will be people doing a terrible job of it. Do you think Eddie Van Halen gets bent out of shape when he sees a crappy amateur like myself playing a song and thinks "oh my goodness, that guy makes us real guitar players look bad"? I don't think so.)

Honestly, Tony, it's a bit of a different set of circumstances... for one thing, the guitarist isn't claiming to be taught by Eddie Van Halen, he's not saying he wrote Eddie's riffs and licks, he's not presenting it as the way that Eddie should be doing things, and it's pretty obvious the difference between an amateur player and Eddie. Then again, if someone claimed to be the guitarist for Van Halen, or to have written Eddie's parts, that'd be closer.

You shouldn't be, given how I framed my response. Take for example, jujidome. I've seen this technique performed in at least three different koryu sword arts. Lets say that somebody practices Niten Ichi ryu to a high level, then decides he wants to start his own school based on his own experiences and ideas. One of his kata uses jujidome. What can the complaint be if he doesn't claim to be teaching Niten Ichi ryu? Other than the fact that it's kind of silly to try starting a new Japanese sword art when there are so many actual arts still in existence. Now if this same fellow taught 5 two sword kata and called them Hyoho Niten Ichi ryu Nito Seiho, then he would be encroaching on intellectual property because the names and kata are attributed to HNIR. However, the actual techniques in the kata can be found in other sources.

And hey Paul,

Except that jujidome is not specifically HNIR, except for the form that HNIR teaches... but that's like saying that you can plagiarise a book, because no-one owns the individual words. Jujidome isn't the thing that's protected, the kata are. And if our hypothetical student isn't claiming to teach HNIR, or HNIR kata, then there's no issue. He calls is Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu Nito Seiho, yeah, he'll have some problems. The best he could do is claim a branch of HNIR... but if what he's doing is completely removed, aside from some superficial similarities, then it's not a branch.

But, for the record, the exact technical methods (how to perform a cut, how to assume the particular kamae) may have similiarities with other systems, but from my experience, they are not found anywhere else.

As long as they don't claim they are practicing a legitimate koryu under the current head of that school, I don't really care what they do. People in general aren't real smart, and there are lots of folks that want what they think things should be, rather than what they are. None of those folks are going to end up practicing a real koryu sword art because they'd much rather do their imitation thing. As long as they aren't lying about what they do, all they're good for is a chuckle.

Okay, then, how do you class the Hoshin groups I posted? They claim to have invented the obviously HNIR waza they're presenting, so they're lying... but they're not claiming to teach it as a legitimate Koryu, as they say they made it up themselves recently.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

would be subject to normal trademark law, not koryu traditions.)Hey Tony,

No, I meant "copyright". The "trademarks", if you will, would be the name of the Ryu, perhaps particular weaponry (designs, or specialist items, whether real or training forms), the kata and methods (as shown in my examples) would come under the idea of copyright.

That's the distinction I was making. If koryu content is protected by Japanese copyright law, then someone who watched an HNIR demonstration, then turned around and taught the demonstrated techniques to someone else under a different name (not claiming it as HNIR) would be subject to legal sanctions. Does that happen in Japan? I'm not familiar with Japanese law, but it would be interesting to hear about such a court case.

In terms of the copyright being time-related, it can also be renewed

Despite the efforts of the Disney corporation, copyrights can not be indefinitely renewed. For example, under Japanese law copyright is limited to the life of the creator + 50 years. Perhaps koryu traditions get extra protection beyond that in Japan, but that extra protection would not be legal in the U.S..

Honestly, Tony, it's a bit of a different set of circumstances... for one thing, the guitarist isn't claiming to be taught by Eddie Van Halen, he's not saying he wrote Eddie's riffs and licks, he's not presenting it as the way that Eddie should be doing things, and it's pretty obvious the difference between an amateur player and Eddie. Then again, if someone claimed to be the guitarist for Van Halen, or to have written Eddie's parts, that'd be closer.

I'll stand by my analogy. Claiming to be taught by Eddie Van Halen when I actually wasn't is like claiming to be taught by Lyoto Machida when I actually wasn't. It would be a lie and I think we can all agree that would be a bad thing. On the other hand if I tried performing a crappy version of Eddie's string-tapping technique, that would be akin to performing a crappy version of a karate kata - I'd only be embarrassing myself.

To put it simply, because of the cost in gaining the information in the first place. It is highly valued, and to have others not earn that information, but instead to steal it, is rather unseemly, to say the least.

Yeah, here's where we have a fundamental difference in philosophy. The world is full of information which is more valuable and was harder won than the contents of any koryu, yet is not held as secret. (Think physics, mathematics, chemistry, etc) You can "earn" that information by doing the work necessary to comprehend it and it is open to anyone who is willing to do that work. The world would not be a better place if you had to jump through hoops and get special permission from the great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson of Isaac Newton before you were allowed to open a physics textbook.

Even within the martial arts world, I don't buy that keeping a technique or method secret makes it more valuable. The entire curriculum of judo is public, but you still have to "earn" it by doing the work necessary to master it. Competitive BJJ-ers may invent "secret" techniques to give them an edge in competition, but the moment they start using those techniques other players will watch and steal them. (I rather suspect the same thing was true of koryu techniques back in the days where those methods were actually used in combat.)

Openness of the sort I have described has allowed these fields of knowledge to grow and progress and allowed society to benefit from that knowledge. Of course, I'm aware that "growth and progress" are not necessarily koryu values. However even if you practice koryu as a way to preserve an historical cultural tradition, I'm not convinced that secrecy will provide the best results. Imagine the state of historical research in general if historians each maintained their own family tradition of passing on knowledge, with certain details held secret from researchers from different families. There's a reason real historians don't work that way.

 

[pgsmith]

Okay, then, how do you class the Hoshin groups I posted? They claim to have invented the obviously HNIR waza they're presenting, so they're lying... but they're not claiming to teach it as a legitimate Koryu, as they say they made it up themselves recently.

That makes them fools, but they're not breaking any laws. Folks like that are only worth a head shake and a smile, and it's worth educating anyone that happens to ask about them, but they're hardly worth any anger or outrage as the original poster mentioned. That's getting a bit extreme in my opinion since what they are doing has no effect on anyone actually practicing HNIR.

Of course, I'm aware that "growth and progress" are not necessarily koryu values. However even if you practice koryu as a way to preserve an historical cultural tradition, I'm not convinced that secrecy will provide the best results.

This may not make much sense to someone that doesn't actually practice a koryu art, but historical preservation of techniques is not the base idea behind them, and secrecy is a good part of why they are still in existence. The koryu began originally as family or clan traditions. These were kept very secret because everyone else was the enemy, and you didn't want the enemy to understand the basis of what you were doing. The koryu also began as political entities, with their own ideas and ways of doing things. These were mostly kept secret also as a way of distinguishing those that were in the know. A lot of this flavor is still preserved in the koryu. Not so much in the larger and more public koryu such as MJER or MSR iaido, but in the smaller, more traditional arts. Secrecy is simply a large part of the teachings, and the inner workings are never passed out to anyone that the head of the school thinks will not have the best interests of the ryu at heart.

Preservation of the ryu itself as a distinct entity is paramount, not necessarily any particular technique or form. Properly preserving the ryu for another 400 years means that the inner workings of the ryu need to be kept secret. This is because putting the inner knowledge out in the public domain would overly dilute that knowledge with myriad little changes, and you'd end up with many, many branches of the ryu that bear only a superficial resemblance to the original. While this would be perfectly fine with both MA historians, and the martial artists that would like to learn more about a particular art, it would mean the end of the ryu as it has been pased down for hundreds of years, and that is what we are charged with preserving.