# training style plagarism



## Nick Hrycaj (Mar 30, 2014)

what's the consensus on developing a training style made of many training methods (commercially taught and offered by various professional trainers) and using it in business? is that plagarism?

To me if a person is offering their method or mentality publicly -online/in articles/ on video/ in conferences- they are realizing it will become public knowledge. moreover an individual trainer still needs to have the skill to transfer the knowledge into results in a variety of contexts with a variety of dogs.

in the big picture those that are motivated constantly learn from a variety of sources including mentors and tangible resources. I see it the same in the dog world but this forum does a good job highlighting how drama prone some can be regarding dogs.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

All good trainers are thieves.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

No,I sure wouldn't call it plagiarism, like you very succinctly said: "those that are motivated constantly learn from a variety of sources including mentors and tangible resources", and by the same token, if someone is motivated enough to put it in video, book, seminar, etc., and earn from it, I say all the more power to them ...but I would call it bullshit if someone tried to claim they were the ones who invented the wheel.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Here's the thing. Say you use something to train with.... some kind of device. You used it for years and told other folks how it was done/made but then along comes an individual who takes that and patents it. (don't laugh, it's happened) Where does that fall in the scheme of things?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Sarah Platts said:


> Here's the thing. Say you use something to train with.... some kind of device. You used it for years and told other folks how it was done/made but then along comes an individual who takes that and patents it. (don't laugh, it's happened) Where does that fall in the scheme of things?


 low down dirty trickery and thievery.....hang the sob.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Sarah Platts said:


> Here's the thing. Say you use something to train with.... some kind of device. You used it for years and told other folks how it was done/made but then along comes an individual who takes that and patents it. (don't laugh, it's happened) Where does that fall in the scheme of things?



Good or bad it only tells me that one person is a better entrepreneur then the other is. That's what a patent is all about.

You can take Konrad Most, Ellis, Flinks, Balabanov, etc and the differences are anything from subtle to huge but they are different. 
They probably have ALL adjusted their training from how they were taught. 

Beyond that I doubt anyone on here follows any one method by the book.


----------



## Nick Hrycaj (Mar 30, 2014)

Patents and copyrights are one thing. I was referencing strictly public ideas.

Susan, Im 100% in agreement that "new" training is generally just an iteration of an earlier idea.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Nick Hrycaj said:


> Patents and copyrights are one thing. I was referencing strictly public ideas.
> 
> Susan, Im 100% in agreement that "new" training is generally just an iteration of an earlier idea.


But what makes a "public" idea? When I was coming up in trailing, I was taught (and scarfed up) many ways of doing things. Then along comes a person and slaps a *name* on the stuff. Now it looks like I'm using this dude's method when I'm not. It's like trademarking "Vapor Wake Detection Dogs" which is just a fancy name for airscenting to source.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Sarah Platts said:


> But what makes a "public" idea? When I was coming up in trailing, I was taught (and scarfed up) many ways of doing things. Then along comes a person and slaps a *name* on the stuff. Now it looks like I'm using this dude's method when I'm not. It's like trademarking "Vapor Wake Detection Dogs" which is just a fancy name for airscenting to source.


 
This happens in schutzhund quite frequently, but I think it's just the way the world works in general. People learn something then modify it, sometimes those modifications are more successful, sometimes less so, depending on the handler and dog, hence the term "many tools in the toolbox". It's like Balabanov's "the game" he didn't invent the technique, not by a long shot, he was just the first one to give it a catchy name, put it in a book and in pay per view DVDs, but he doesn't own the technique.

When it comes to patents, I think that's a different story because once patented, no one else can use it without the express permission of or paying a fee to the person who holds the patent? That's not fair if it's not something the person actually invented, if it's something he stole, then he's a moralless prick and a thief.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

every system of training is taken from others for the most part.

people add steps, subtract steps, tighten guidelines, relax guidelines, adopt and modify physical aspects from handling to decoying, to paraphrasing or even repeating word for word what they have heard from others while teaching...

There is nothing Proprietary about dog training methods, meaning anyone can copy it, whether it was made "public" or not... you cannot plagiarize a "system or method" 

you can trademark a name, you can copyright written material and recorded footage or soundtrack, and you can get a patent on some new innovative twist on product design or function, you cannot copyright a style or system...

If I wanted to start and sell a system called negative pos pos, I think I would win in court. as long as I used my own words and video footage to sell it.


----------

