Debate time!
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN MARTIAL ARTS: OWNERSHIP, REPRESENTATION, AND ETHICS
It is generally agreed upon that in order to ethically represent or teach a martial system, an individual must undergo a vetting process - usually carried out by senior figures in the organisation, often including the head/inventor of the system - in order to become officially recognised as a qualified practitioner and authority in the system.
Admittedly, the consistency and quality of this vetting process varies considerably from system to system (and sometimes even within the system itself). However, the necessity for some kind of process is widely understood, certainly where the commercial aspect of martial arts is concerned.
ISSUE 1: Corruption or undermining of vetting process.
In some cases, the official vetting process is circumvented, either in part, or in full. In the case of the vetting candidate, they may have excluded themselves from the assessment, or have failed to pass the assessment, or have only passed a part of the assessment, yet they still deliver the system material to students and clients (often under the banner of their own independent organisation). In the case of assessors, they may selectively choose to ignore/suspend/lower certain criteria or standards in order to ensure that a candidate becomes qualified. The reasons for the above behaviour - on both sides - are usually political or financial in nature, which in turn raises questions about transparency and fair play.
ISSUE 2: Ownership of intellectual property.
Since a physical action cannot be copyrighted or trademarked, and there is rarely anything resembling a written non-disclosure agreement signed by the learner, it would seem that there is no enforcement structure in place to prevent a learner from passing on the things they have learned for their own gain. Furthermore, even written content (structuring, terminology, methodology, etc) unique to the system/organisation can be easily plagiarised and/or replicated in a slightly altered state to avoid litigation.
ISSUE 3: Misrepresentation and references.
In order to reinforce their input, instructors may reference other instructors, practices, and research. However, there appears to exist very little in the way of negative consequences for the instructor in the event that information is twisted or misconstrued in any way. Furthermore, individuals would appear able to award themselves positions of authority, falsely claiming links with recognised systems and experts, claiming false qualifications, and massaging their backgrounds with relative impunity.
My question is ultimately one of ethics rather than legality: Where should the line be drawn between what is considered to be influence/integration and what is considered to be misrepresentation/theft? What protocols should we abide by and enforce to future generations of instructors and learners? Is it fair that those who behave unethically are exposed publicly? Would we expect a specific code of ethics to apply universally across the martial arts industry?
In the interests of stimulating debate and developing our shared education, I invite you all to comment. Please keep it polite and on topic ;)
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN MARTIAL ARTS: OWNERSHIP, REPRESENTATION, AND ETHICS
It is generally agreed upon that in order to ethically represent or teach a martial system, an individual must undergo a vetting process - usually carried out by senior figures in the organisation, often including the head/inventor of the system - in order to become officially recognised as a qualified practitioner and authority in the system.
Admittedly, the consistency and quality of this vetting process varies considerably from system to system (and sometimes even within the system itself). However, the necessity for some kind of process is widely understood, certainly where the commercial aspect of martial arts is concerned.
ISSUE 1: Corruption or undermining of vetting process.
In some cases, the official vetting process is circumvented, either in part, or in full. In the case of the vetting candidate, they may have excluded themselves from the assessment, or have failed to pass the assessment, or have only passed a part of the assessment, yet they still deliver the system material to students and clients (often under the banner of their own independent organisation). In the case of assessors, they may selectively choose to ignore/suspend/lower certain criteria or standards in order to ensure that a candidate becomes qualified. The reasons for the above behaviour - on both sides - are usually political or financial in nature, which in turn raises questions about transparency and fair play.
ISSUE 2: Ownership of intellectual property.
Since a physical action cannot be copyrighted or trademarked, and there is rarely anything resembling a written non-disclosure agreement signed by the learner, it would seem that there is no enforcement structure in place to prevent a learner from passing on the things they have learned for their own gain. Furthermore, even written content (structuring, terminology, methodology, etc) unique to the system/organisation can be easily plagiarised and/or replicated in a slightly altered state to avoid litigation.
ISSUE 3: Misrepresentation and references.
In order to reinforce their input, instructors may reference other instructors, practices, and research. However, there appears to exist very little in the way of negative consequences for the instructor in the event that information is twisted or misconstrued in any way. Furthermore, individuals would appear able to award themselves positions of authority, falsely claiming links with recognised systems and experts, claiming false qualifications, and massaging their backgrounds with relative impunity.
My question is ultimately one of ethics rather than legality: Where should the line be drawn between what is considered to be influence/integration and what is considered to be misrepresentation/theft? What protocols should we abide by and enforce to future generations of instructors and learners? Is it fair that those who behave unethically are exposed publicly? Would we expect a specific code of ethics to apply universally across the martial arts industry?
In the interests of stimulating debate and developing our shared education, I invite you all to comment. Please keep it polite and on topic ;)
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire