While it can be argued that the IFF has a legal responsibility to object to the youtube postings if an entity as large as PBS is willing to tolerate this because of the ‘greater good’, then IFF might do the same. Also note that because the IFF did not post the video they are not responsible for any lack of release forms or liable for any copyright infringement. They don’t have to condone it, they just have to stay out of the way.

Thank you for your reply. You raise aspects of the situation which help to understand the IFF’s action. I still maintain that whoever holds the copyright to this material is in a position to make this material more broadly available. Taking only the educational needs of the practitioners into account is rather a case of “preaching to the converted”, don’t you think?

Anyway, I do see that it is not a black and white issue abd your explanation is welcome and appreciated.

Greetings from Germany, Wolfgang

Gail, you’re completely right about competition, it’s the Starbucks syndrome. Everywhere there is a Starbucks, there is a small independent coffee shop a block away that is profiting from the Starbucks being there. I have been preaching this to my colleagues in Portland, mostly on deaf ears. Many are afraid of competition, but as far as I can see it usually helps, not hinders, the growth of whatever is involved.

As for the public relations problem and there being no distinction for the public between the IFF or the FGNA, those comments weren’t directed at the public. They were directed at my colleagues.

And, it would be wonderful for practitioners to get their hands on the original materials for learning purposes. It would be even more wonderful for us to be able to share some of the tapes of Feldenkrais giving public lessons to the public. I’m with all the folks who want to have more access to him. What if the IFF selected 10 segments/snippets of individual lessons, lectures, and such to release to the public? The lecture on Awareness for example. What if anyone could purchase that? What a beautiful way we could have of introducing new people to this work. What a legitimizing action!!!

In terms of distributing materials to practitioners. What I have heard and continue to hear from practitioners is that they want some of the material available to the public. Certain video snippets are provocative and intriguing and serve as great introductions to the work, stimulating not only interest but also action as people decide to call a practitioner, purchase products or otherwise get involved in the community.

I will have some follow-up questions for you, or perhaps you will agree to a interview so we can discuss this?

Thanks again – Ryan

I am writing to you as the Chair of the IFF-Distribution Center, and on the part of the Board of the International Feldenkrais Federation.

There has been some discussion online about several excerpts from the Amherst training videos that have appeared on YouTube. The IFF has been reviewing and monitoring the upload of the videos and has acted to inform Youtube that these videos are under the copyright of the IFF and the IFF has requested that the videos be removed. The board of the IFF has also written to the person as follows:

—————
Dear Mr Doroftei,

We have noticed that you have posted extracts from the Amherst training and FI videos without permission of either the copyright holder (International
Feldenkrais Federation) or the people depicted in the videos. We have therefore requested You tube to remove them.

Whilst the IFF Board of Directors is keen to see the work shared with as many
people as possible, we request that in future you seek the appropriate
permissions before posting further materials.
—————–

There are several points to this issue:

1. The IFF’s first priority is to get materials to practitioners for their own
learning and development;

2. The IFF publishes materials through legal agreements with the copyright
holders, primarily the Feldenkrais family;

3. Part of the agreements include the responsibility to maintain copyright;

4. All video materials include the explicit statement, “Copying is strictly
prohibited”;

5. The video recordings at Amherst did not have the kind of release permissions that are current in this day. Consequently we do not have permission to share images of people at Amherst other than Dr. Feldenkrais. This “sharing” includes still stills and video;

6. We differentiate the distribution of materials for professional learning of
practitioners from distribution to the public;

7. We are working on digitising the videos of the Amherst training and FI’s for
the community of Feldenkrais practitioners; we are close to being done;

The IFF looks forward to working together with practitioners to find ways to
excerpt sections of the Amherst videos for the learning of all practitioners.

Warmly,

Robert Black
Chair, IFF-Distribution Center

A friend and I were talking about Anat Baniel recently. He is angry at her for something. Whatever she may be like personally (I don’t know her), her marketing certainly works and she has done a great job branding herself. I really do give her credit for that. And there is room in the universe for others to do the same….

I understand what the IFF is doing (I think). They have a set of rules they have to follow and they have to “protect” their copyright. But we/they still need a strategy to get the work out there. It really is a law of nature on the internet – the more demand their is for “free” snippets and clips, the more people are interested in buying the products itself. And therein lies another problem – The IFF doesn’t sell to the public. But it would at least stimulate other pracs to buy them…

cheers! – Ryan

Great points, Kim! We all miss Richard.

On a sidenote, I don’t think it helps the conversation to make comparisons between what a solo individual is doing and what an organization is doing. Individuals are nimble and flexible and able to move easily. Organization are sluggish and stable and slow to warm up. You get the idea.

Let’s also not confuse the IFF, International Feldenkrais Federation, which is made up of ALL the Feldenkrais Guilds world-wide, with the FGNA, The Feldenkrais Guild of North America, which represents the U.S. and Canada.

Your points are very well taken, our work will be better represented and more appealing if we can share the original works of our founder. Thanks for this post.

From what I’ve heard, the cross-motivation originated with the man himself. Has anyone else heard the story that his studio on Nachmani street didn’t have a window, because he was afraid people would see him and steel his work? Mythological as that story may be, he certainly was the one who chose to call the association he found a “guild”.

But that doesn’t mean that we, as a community, need to define ourselves that way. But oy, the challenges of changing institutional habits…