Martial art as intellectual property

[t_niehoff]

Has anyone else heard of this?

I've run into a TCMA group that has its "disciples" sign contracts both when they join, and later if they become instructors, indicating that the forms, drills, theory, etc. of their martial art is intellectual property belonging exclusively to that the group (instructor), with the group (instructor) claiming proprietary (ownership) rights thereto! In other words, treating the martial art as a sort of a "trade secret" (like the formula for Coca Cola) that you cannot disclose without consent of the group (instructor), and you can't demo, teach, market, etc. without the express written consent of the group (instructor) -- or face being sued for breach of contract.

[Ernie]

another '' Jim Jones '' cult in MA ,,,,,, um no suprise

[anerlich]

Shhhhhh ... Rorion might hear you ....

[kj]

I've not heard of anything with that level of formality, though I can't say I am surprised by it. I have heard of many people being "close to the vest" with information, requesting that it not be passed around, or being selective with whom they share. As I view it, everyone has their free choice.

There are probably lots of analogies that could be made to argue one viewpoint or the other. One such analogy might be viewing the training as something of a recipe. The U.S. Copyright Office says this about recipes:

"Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection."

So if such an analogy holds, then the actual movements, techniques, or pieces of raw information could be viewed as the "ingredients" and not protected by contract or copyright. It makes no logical sense to me that human function or forms of movement could be subject to restriction through contracts or other means, or claimed as another's intellectual property, at least under my present form of government. I am furthermore hard pressed to think how such restrictions could be reasonably applied.

However, the training methods, sequences, some specific methods of transmitting information, some ancillary types of information (e.g., stories, proverbs, written materials, video tapes), etc. might be viewed as the "formula" or "specific expression" and therefore subject to protection. This too makes sense to me in that these types of combinations, forumulations or documents are the direct result of someone's intellectual investment, and not something inherently and naturally available to everyone.

Supposing that there may be a legitimate right to such impose such restrictions, there is also a legitimate right to either patronize or reject such services. Applying another analogy, some people like the benefits that come with buying proprietary software, and some prefer open systems. I'm an advocate for capitalism, and respect people's right to choose as they will.

Just some thinking aloud.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[Wayfaring]

Kathy Jo's well thought out post on intellectual property and her mention of open systems vs. proprietary systems reminded me of a couple concepts in the software arena.

"The Cathedral and the Bazaar" is an almost legendary writing on producing working systems with people in the software arena. Here's a wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cat...and_the_Bazaar.

While the jargon and tech terms probably would make your head hurt reading through, the concept is really interesting in light of this discussion.

One approach - the "Cathedral" advocates hierarchical structures and limiting information that is exposed. People have only what they need to have and the hierarchy is responsible for quality control and for the direction of the product.

The other approach - the "Bazaar" likens the structure to shopping at a large open market. Information is exposed unilaterally with very little hierarchy and coordination, and the natural selection of the shoppers determines the direction. The market determines the direction of the product, and quality control occurs due to so many eyes on it.

The author is a strong advocate of the "bazaar" type of organization, but each type has strengths and weaknesses, and marked examples of success and examples of failure in the industry.

So which type is wing chun? How about other martial arts? Which is better? Why?

[AmanuJRY]

So which type is wing chun? How about other martial arts? Which is better? Why?

The question isn't which type is WC, it's which type is your school/Kwoon?


IMHO, bazzar is better.

[reneritchie]

KJ made me sign the GNU and Creative Commons before she would even demo a set

[kj]

KJ made me sign the GNU and Creative Commons before she would even demo a set

LOL - good one.
- kj

[stricker]

believe it or not i had to sign an agreement not to pass on anything i learned in Systema once.

[t_niehoff]

believe it or not i had to sign an agreement not to pass on anything i learned in Systema once.

Yeah, but that's the only responsible thing to do -- now if everyone would just do that (not pass it on), the world would be a better place.

[stricker]

Yeah, but that's the only responsible thing to do -- now if everyone would just do that (not pass it on), the world would be a better place.

hahahaha

you going off first hand experience or ??

[CFT]

Has anyone else heard of this?

I've run into a TCMA group that has its "disciples" sign contracts both when they join, and later if they become instructors, indicating that the forms, drills, theory, etc. of their martial art is intellectual property belonging exclusively to that the group (instructor), with the group (instructor) claiming proprietary (ownership) rights thereto! In other words, treating the martial art as a sort of a "trade secret" (like the formula for Coca Cola) that you cannot disclose without consent of the group (instructor), and you can't demo, teach, market, etc. without the express written consent of the group (instructor) -- or face being sued for breach of contract.

Personally, I don't think it has a place in martial arts. The closest analogy I can think of would be the illusionist tricks which are "protected" by the Magical Circle. Circle members have to promise, don't know if it really is legally enforceable, not to reveal how the tricks are performed.

In any case, I would think that most Wing Chun information/theory is pretty much public domain; prior art, and all that. They can obviously copyright their organisation name and logo. Copyright printed material and video etc.

Drills - how can you copyright a developmental process? Forms? Do dance/ballet companies copyright their routines? Closest equivalent I think.

[reneritchie]

Niehoff has probably found an old, overly broad patent for "human motions used to prevent and cause human damage" and is doing research before filing in Texas for $300 billion...

(The Geiko caveman is claiming prior use)

[CFT]

Can you actually imagine trying to specify every single Wing Chun action without trying to be too broad as to be unfeasible or too specific (e.g. angles, etc)?

C'mon Terence, can you give us a proper legal perspective on this? Would such a "contract" be legally enforceable?

I wouldn't quibble with the Systema guys though; I sure wouldn't want ex-KGB/FSB people on my back!

[monji112000]

you can't copywrite just about any martial art. Its legally impossible.. something called prior knowledge. IF you created the martial art from your own experience only, then MAYBE. You also have to realize that everyone mostly punches, and kicks the same. The stances are mostly the same... so really its not legally binding. You could get them to sign something not allowing them to disclose trade secrets.. thats another story all together. Copywrite no, trade secret maybe..