Ownership of a twirling move

Can firetwirling moves be owned?
If you learnt the weave independently, does that mean you own it?
does that apply to any move you have learnt independently?
The local fire community here is also very technically diverse, and as such there is a great tendency to see the unique being anything but!

The motivation to declare ownership of them does not take a psychoanalyst to understand; we pour hours, sometimes years into 'development' of a move, and wish be recognised for it. Profesionally, some peeps may feel little need to share a move, to reinforce their differentiation.

But is it right to declare it? more to the point, is it even possible?

learning to recognise then letting go of this desire was of great significance to me as it appeared to be easy but proved deceptively elusive. Freeing oneself in this way removes a negative ego from our consciousness and truly does make happiness one step closer, if only because it makes firetwirling that much more fun!!

have you got any tales of firetwirling copyright©? they don't have to involve llamas if don't want to. Not that I'm suggestively implying it. Llamas. They're furry, y'know.

share the fun!!

i would have to say that no one can own firetwirling or the moves and i hate it so much when ppl try to. firetwirling to me is a form of expression and freedom, i feel that the people who put years into the development of a move do so as a part of personal development, its why the moves are called the weave, corkscrew etc etc rather than the bob, mary, fred and jill.

its very similar to capoeira where the great masters who created it did so for the love of it and named things after things they represented, from their teachings and such their student then created songs to sing their praise. a similar thing happens in fire twirling where good firetwirlers are talked about in the firetwirling comunitys

as with all forms of self expression as soon as ego jumps in they become tainted and the magic vanishes

I wish i could sing in portugese!
for now i barely do so in english!

It's an interesting question. A similar one came up in molecular biology: Can you own a gene? If you discover a gene, do you own it?

Right now, the answer is that you have the exclusive right to market that gene product and all variations thereof for 20 years.

Which is hardly applicable to firespinning. My answer, "no." But if you'd like to name a move after yourself because you're an egotistical maniac and the move is genuinely novel (unlikely, seeing as how people have been spinning for hundreds if not thousands of years), then you may.

i know what u mean bender english is hard enought but portugese songs sound wicked when sung well

lightening i would have to disagree in that with molecular biology finding a gene can only be named after yourself if you are the first to publish on it, if u discover a new gene and someone else publishs it a day before you you dont get to name it anymore and all your hard work goes down the drain (well not totally but kinda) whereas with firetwirling there is no record of movements so there is no way to prove the move is unique and that u discovered it

so i guess there is a balance to be kept when we tread the area between respect & recognition of others' work, and the proliferation of a freaken' amazing art form.
I guess the need to compromise here would be altogether unnecessary if more people were conscious of the ideals in this thread on a deeper level, not just because Llamas are furry.

Which they are, of course.

erm...lightning I have to say that your comment about patenting and "owning" genes or gene products ain't quite right. There's a little more to it, i.e. the gene or application of said gene or context of gene has to be novel i.e. I don't think you can just find an in vivo gene sequence and claim rights, IP etc..altho' you would get the cred for discovering it, but you don't "own" it. My biotech legal knowledge is a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure that's the case....ah just spotted ben-ja-min has also pointed something simlar out...I should really read the whole thread before posting:rolleyes:

With regard to poi moves, mmm yeah i suppose if I worked a new move out then I'd like to be associated with it in someway but I don't think you can really tag anyone with ownership. Who's to say someone hasn't done it before by accident, freestylin' or summat.....gah I better shut up now my head is blocked up with glasto lurgy and I'm starting to forget what I was going to write.

Just thought I'd chuck in my two penneth
N

...and I wasn't attracted to this thread because of the llama content...honest

i'd say for the most part, no, you can not own a move. but if you create a move so diverse and different and you've never even heard tell of it, i suppose you could say you made it up, because you did. someone else may have done the same thing, but if you didn't know about it, then it's kind of your move....but always keep in mind, there's always someone else that has done the same thing. happy spinnnings

I think it would be very selfish and egotistical of someone to try and copyright a move. This might sound a little PLUR-ish, but I thought the purpose of this website and the hope of its members was to unite people on common ground and share knowledge of the craft for the betterment of the community, not one person's performances. And like someone else said, the chances that "your" move has never been done before in the long history of spinning are pretty slim.

Any and every move in your repertoire is something you own. Just as I can own a video game and my friend can own the same game, so too can we both own the same technique or move.

I believe you're referring more to "Exclusive" ownership? Where just one person gets the right to perform or name the move? My answer is a hearty "no."

Just remember - for every copyright, there is a cheap knockoff somewhere else. Just look at the Transformers I bought the other day - the "6 in 1 Construction Team!" Ten points to whoever can guess what my new toy is a knockoff from

I would hate to find myself thinking that I owned a move... I like to share everything...
yes llamas are furry and they like to spit hey?

sad but true story: i have been spat on by a llama, it was chewing a carrot at the time too.

I've never been spat on for making up a name to one of my (?) poi moves tho. I tend to name the ones that i do that i dont see other people doing. It doesnt mean i own them. Its the same deal with stars, just cos you see it first with your brand new whiz bang telescope, and get to attach a name to it so you have something to call it when you see it again, doesnt mean you own it, or some other astronomy nerd with a whiz bang new telescope on the other side of the world hasnt named it fred or something else already....

people name moves because it makes it easier to refer to them in future conversations. Thank goodness for words like "weave" "threebeat" and "corkscrew"! it means from a teaching point of veiw, i can say,.... "do a weave, but try extending your arms on the third beat...."

To everyone else, this is just going to sound like gooblydook, unless we have some sort of common naming system.

I wonder how breakdancers describe their moves to each other? "man, youi know that move that i do where i spin on my head?" "oh yeah, the one with your elbows sticking out?" "nah man, the other one, with the knee thing..."

you can own a move...when you physically do it yourself.

You can't own the same move when someone else does it, coz it's not yours, it theirs.

Besides, non of us can do moves EXACTLY the same way in exactly the same fashion.

so yes, you can own a move, but onyl when you do it.

In my opinion, of course

You might be credited as having expanded the art through a particular move, but you can't then turn around and stop others doing it,or charge a fee for use (like copyright).

Do we really 'own' anything? or just take guardianship of it for a time?

I really admire the humble manner in which my spiritual guides have presented their knowledge.
Their work has always been intensely personal.
Their knowledge quite ancient (in the literal sense!)
It amazes me how simliarly they all present their knowledge; It's always with a caveat that sounds like:
"I can only speak from my own experience, but..."
citing what is credited to whom.
When such a humble tone is taken, I know I am in the presence of True Awareness.

I think this is the approach with which I present firetwirling moves, as I revere the reverant!

oh yes, and it doesn't hurt to have a shaved head and flowing orange robes! kekeke!
:rubs nearest person for good luck but ends up scalded by the kettle:

I agree with charles soo much when im doing my special moves i own them cause i thought of them .

If people copy my move it means they love my spinning style.

voltron. ten points. boooyaaa!

Want the technical legal answer?

No..you can not own a move...for many reasons.

1) Historic Inspiration. To own it means you would have to research the history of every dance and similar tool use to be completely sure it is unique. Usually now they are not, just variations.

2) Simultaneous Genius. At the same time you are thinking of a move, someone else can as well, on the other side of the globe. You have no way of knowing which one worked it out at the same time.

Technically, you can't even own a series of moves like fountains, because they are too widely accepted.

What you CAN OWN, and it falls under Intellectual Property Law, is a routine to set music unless you teach it at which point in time, you forfeit ownership to public domain. However, if you are performing a routine to a certain piece of music and later you come across some hacks doing the same thing, you can fight this in a court of law...but here is where it becomes tricky...the burden of proof is on you to prove that you created the choreography. Choreography can be copyrighten, which is why everything should be written out, in pen or on computer, and dated. If you choose you can do a "poor man's protection" which is to actually snail mail the document to yourself, then never open it. The postage date serves as a form of proof. I have done it for several of the comedy shows I have done. In the end though, the cost of fighting it versus simply doing it better isn't worth it.

You can Patent Tools, but there are strict guidelines to Patent Laws which require that they not previously exist to the public at large, and be "unique", which means that no one could run out and patent a set of dog chain poi.

Copyright Laws only pertain to that which is tangible, paper written...such as music, lyrics, scripts, photos, books, poems, etc. And again, there are specific guidelines, including unique titles, required. Copyrights last for a specific duration after which it is offer for renewal or for purchase of outside parties. After many years (depending on the medium) the article becomes public domain, that is up for public use. While things are under Copyright the laws protecting them span from credidation only to fees charged for use. Lawyers who specialize in Copyright Law can help with the particulars.
*side note: Using a song for a show does not infringe copyright, btw, as long as you don't burn it on a cd to sell as a show soundtrack later.

Trademarks and Service Marks protect names of businesses and the like, and is usually only used by those that are incorporated. For small performance groups a DBA usually suffices.

There you have it, more than you ever really cared to know about this topic.
(PS..for those who are managing their own troupes, I hated my law classes but they really have paid off when it comes to business. To learn about all this more in depth, check out contract law. )

hmm,

Puk,
what if the component parts you made a special move out of were owned by somebody else, do they then in turn own part of your move?

This all seems very daft, even by my standards. Everybody 'invents' moves or transitions on their own but eveything is diluted because it was dirived (even if only partially so) from other peoples spinning.

Unless of course there is anybody on this site that has never seen or heard of anybody elses' moves at all. Didn't think so.

I have some new doubles grooves that I have never seen anybody do but they were influenced by many peoples spinning from over the last year, I wouldnt say that I owned them as they are just concepts.

I do however own my staffs

edited for spelling

[ 08. July 2003, 12:29: Message edited by: TEMPEST ]

Sorry Arashi, the correct answer was "Devastator." Voltron was made up of 5 lions

I should know, I've "owned" Voltron (staying on topic? ) since the 80's... and now "own" Devastator's rainbow-colored cheap-cheap clone as well My life is complete!