I'm starting a new thread for two reasons. 1/ Because the thread "Ninja Match, who would win" has gone completely off topic. 2/ Because of a point that a member posted something in relation to "Having permission to teach Ninjutsu" Now before we begin I would like to point out that if one was giving out grades in Bujinkan, Genbukan, Jinenkan etc without having permission from the organisation to do so, then this would be fraudulent. I also would like to point out that if one was giving out grades in Gyokko ryu, koto Ryu etc then this would also be fraudulent, although there might be an argument whether it would be ok to use the term "Mr Xs Gyokko Ryu" but thats been discussed before so don't want to go there. But what about Ninjutsu? A few questions to think about. Firstly is the term "Ninjutsu" (Not the art just the name) owned by anyone, in other words does it belong to Hatsumi, Tanemura, Manaka, or is it a general term that has been used for generations to describe a skill set, or group of people etc and is therefore a term much like "Samurai" Secondly the art. Is there a copyright on the art whereby if one studies it, sells it, teaches it etc without permission (From the owner if there is one)they are breaking the law. In fact can one have a copyright on movement, on principles, on strategies etc etc. Thirdly as the art is made up of the different ryuha is one ok in taking the concepts, principles, stategies etc from those ryu ha kata and their movements and using those as a base for ones own interpretation of Ninjutsu. The reason I'm putting this up here is that there are many people throughout the world that we call independants who have spent time in different kans who have left for one reason or other and started their own systems. Some call what they do "Ninjutsu" or use similar words to describe the art i.e. "Shinobi", whereas other make no mention of the name "Ninjutsu" but teach concepts, stategies, techniques, kata that one may find in an x kan. Should these people be seen as fraudulent if they are being honest with their students about what they are doing, i.e giving their opinion or version of the art or are they absolutely OK in what they are doing, after all many arts (Martial or otherwise) adapt/evolve from the original source to become something else or a different interpretation. Thoughts please. Note: Just to keep this on track can we keep this away from whether one is good or bad, or whether one has learnt the REAL techniques because views of this kind without actually meeting each other are nothing more than opinions without substance. If anyone wishes to start a thread on this then please do, but lets try to stay on track here and derail the thread with put downs.
Against the law: Doubtful Right: No And you can't leave out the whether they are teaching the REAL techniques. That is important, surely. If you were to teach something like how to fly a plane but missed out the important aspect of how to land the plane, would that be RIGHT and HONEST? IMHO as always...
I would argue that it's used to describe concepts, not necessarily methodologies. Principle, not application. If you use a powerful laser to blind someone it's essentially metsubushi no? I would love to see someone waste their time and money applying for a copyright on a martial art. So no. Seeing as many arts share the same or similar principles or are derived from the same sources I would also say no. Aikido example. Ueshiba learned daito ryu aikijujitsu in addition to the six other martial arts he learned throughout his life. When you create an art that is your own you take into account everything you have studied. If you aren't teaching something verbatim then it ceases to be the original art. Change is inevitable and are you really going to patronize people for trying to improve? That's what humans DO! All the blended, re imagined and changed kung fu styles are proof enough of that. It would be like criticizing Kano for teaching fraudulent jujitsu! But it wasn't jujitsu anymore it was judo or kano jujitsu if you fancy.
Taken in its modern context to mean a martial art with punching, kicking etc, ninjutsu is a generic term. Like karate, kung fu etc, it's gramatically a common noun. Anyone can use it if they want. Whether they should use it or not, whether it accurately describes what they think it does is a different thing. But that's a matter of personal judgement. It certainly isn't a term that anyone owns or could own, any more than anyone could own the term lawnmower, or cola. However Bujinkan is not a generic term - it's a proper noun and refers to a specific organisation. So it cannot be used by just anyone, or at least it shouldn't be. In some territories, it's a legally protected term, although it's never been defended legally to my knowledge. So Bujinkan Ninjutsu (or Genbukan, Jinenkan, whateverkan Ninjutsu) is a much more specific term than just ninjutsu on its own. It definitely is owned, in the same way that Coke or Pepsi is, but cola isn't. Whether peopel should describe what they do as ninjutsu if they're not associated with an organisation that teaches it is a different matter. There's nothing legally wrong with them doing so, but there is a wider question over the ethics of it - most people practicing the martial arts we're discussing don't really have a clear understanding of the difference between the way the term ninjutsu was used historically and 'modern' ninjutsu, in other words, the way it's often used to describe the arts studied today collectively. Certainly I don't use it. I do sometimes use the term ninpo taijutsu, but that's a different discussion.
Are you teaching ninjutsu? Or are you teaching jujutsu/bujutsu? How much "NINJUTSU" do you actually teach Garth? think about it Sho Kosugi of course
well it is afterall, a more accurate description (except it doesn't highlight the weapons side of the art... hence my belief in Ninpo Bujutsu being a more accurate representation...)
You are asking two different things here garth. The first is "can I use the name Ninjutsu without stepping on other peoples toes?" And well in that the answer is YES if you have actually learnt any ninjutsu (see my earlier post) but the fraudulent claim is a different question. If you train for many years in system X and get bloody good at what you have practiced there, then decide to go independent, selling your school on the basis of the style and not the system...well there is nothing fraudulent about that. If you trained half-heartedly, regardless of years, and are not very good at what you have practiced, but sell it as if you are good...then yes I think you are trying to sell doggy doo and boot shine.
You can easily search for words that are copyrighted. If you use such a word, you can potentially be sued. That was part of the discussion we were having. The other part, which some people would understandably want to avoid, deals with being an authentic teacher of what you are claiming to teach. So yes, there are legal and ethical issues. Interesting that some are quick to jump on Hatsumi sensei for any perceived lack of proof or want to question how he teaches, yet they think their own schools should be exempt from similar scrutiny. If you are lying about or misrepresenting what you are teaching, you are wrong. That's the bottom line.
While it isn't a copywritten word or anything like that, I do believe that it should only be used when talking about systems connected to Japan. If it isn't a pure Japanese system, then it cannot be ninjutsu, no matter how much influence you take from it.
Let's just leave it at this... if I started a Kendo school I'd be ripped on pretty hard by the MA community in general.
Well, it's a word. Nobody 'owns' the word. That bunch of people nearby who provide the ninjer role playing game experience are free to say they practice ninjutsu. No laws against it, because it is not a protected claim (contrary to doctor or engineer for example). Otoh, historically speaking, ninjutsu refers to a certain skillset, which was handed down from one grandmaster to another. If you are not in that lineage, but instead have spent a summer in the Bujinkan or a karate dojo, and then decide that you look cool in black, and you argue that ninja used whatever they had, so karate is ninjutsu too... ... you're an idiot. Being an idiot is not against the law.
Like I said, it is very easy to search to see what words are copywritten. You should do that before saying what is or isn't. Sadly, people would rather just talk. How do you know it isn't? Did you check?:bang: The rest of your post was good. Not own but have control over certain uses of. Many trademarks/copyrights of the word ninja and if you infringe on their rights in your usage of the word, you would be paying for it. Ask Nick if you are still confused.
Why make a thread arguing for doing something that is ethically wrong? Why go through all the trouble to lie and have to explain away your lies later? Why not just be upfront and truthful in the first place so you won't have egg all over your face later?
Because if you put an add in the paper saying 'exicing new green grocer in town! All we sell is rotten tomatoes though'. You probably won't get too many customers coming your way. What's the difference between a nice fresh juicy peach and a rotten tomato anyways, at the end of the day. You say tomAtoe, I say TOMaTOE. All kidding aside, people try and justify their wrong doings anyway they can, and if they didn't think it was wrong, they wouldn't start asking questions like 'do you think it's ok to..'
