Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Legal debates concerning TCEs have been mired in a rhetoric that focuses on the
need for protection, focusing upon the rights of the beneficiaries or custodians
of the TCE. However, the usage of this term differs according to the field of law
being navigated and context of the situation. The concept of protection for the
rights holder under copyright law has a far different connotation than the
protection provided under the laws of cultural heritage. Protection in the
context of cultural heritage law implies protection bestowed by the state, usually
to expressions or articles contained in heritage lists for the benefit of the public.
Terms applied to ICH such as safeguarding, preservation, promotion and
enhancement are similarly focussed upon imposing responsibilities on statebased entities to take measures to ensure the viability of cultural heritage. The
public listing protection bestowed under heritage Acts contrasts with the
protection of private rights the subject of IP law, which aims to prevent
misappropriation of the protected subject matter by virtue of it belonging to the
owner. Copyright seeks to protect against unpermitted reproductions of creative
works by designating such acts infringements of the author, in which case the
author is entitled to exercise private rights of compensation against the
perpetrator. In other words, copyright operates as a preventative right to allow
legal recourse against misappropriation. Applying such a right to indigenous
expressions would possibly conflict with the role of the state to preserve and
promote indigenous expressions where they are part of a countrys ICH. As
international support for legal protection of ICH gains traction, it is yet to be seen
how copyright protection of indigenous expressions may interplay with state
based mechanisms for protecting ICH.
This essay will argue that attempts to carve out a sui generis regime for cultural
expressions akin to only IP law are inadequate. A holistic legal regime should
apply to the regulation of cultural expressions that encompasses the private
rights inherent in copyright law in addition to the public rights of cultural
heritage law. The intrinsic cultural value of cultural expressions should be
recognised to ensure that the need to preserve TCEs is held paramount. Although
an international framework exists for ICH, the ICH Convention is drafted to
designate responsibilities upon signatory states to implement appropriate
measures to safeguard ICH as it sees fit. Nation states have considerable
flexibility to determine the domestic regime applicable according to their
priorities. This differs considerably from IP conventions which strictly set out the
minimum standards of protection to be implemented, although there is currently
no convention mandating IP protection of cultural expressions. Where countries
do decide to include cultural expressions as copyright material, the more
prescriptive measures pertaining to international IP obligations are likely to
override the less cohesive stipulations of cultural heritage conventions. This
essay argues that any IP rights over cultural expressions should be subject to
countervailing measures that will ensure the preservation of cultural expressions
is given priority. Doing so will recognise the changing paradigms of culture as
part of the economic lifeblood and intellectual commons of many countries and
ensure that diversity of cultural heritage is fostered as part of the public interest.
Furthermore, the discourse defining the cultural expressions paradigm should
shift from one of protection which insinuates an exclusionary situation, where
rights are used to prevent the actions of another, to one that highlights
preservation as being a right inherent in the nature of the work itself rather than
those seeking to exercise control over it.
2
international obligations and were designed to act as the framework upon which
developing countries could implement the obligations of the Berne Convention as
well as the 1971 revision of the Universal Copyright Convention. The Tunis Model
Law specifically included folklore in the copyright regime (although it does not
grant commensurate rights to the copyright owner). Folklore is defined in section
18 as:
all literary, artistic and scientific works created on national territory by
authors presumed to be nationals of such countries or by ethnic
communities passed from generation to generation and constituting one of
the basic elements of the traditional cultural heritage;
Neither traditional nor cultural heritage are defined. Section 6 [Works of
national folklore] vests the rights conferred under sections 4 [Economic rights]
and 5 [Moral rights] to be exercised by the competent authority. Competent
authority is defined in section 18 as the person(s) appointed by the Government
for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction of copyright. Sub-section 6(3) also
requires the authorisation of the competent authority for any importation or
distribution of any copies, translations, adaptations, arrangements or any other
transformations of works of national folklore. The provisions relating to folklore in
the Tunis Model Law are indicative of the post-colonial context in which copyright
law was imposed onto developing countries. Purporting to bestow copyright
rights in a Government agency is indicative of the paternalistic attitude that was
a hangover from the colonial past of many developing countries and a rejection
of indigenous autonomy. As a result the adoption of the Tunis Model Law was
limited due to its failure to recognise the sensitivities of developing a law that
adequately endorses the rights of the community to use of their folklore.
These deficiencies were acknowledged in a subsequent international framework
for laws regarding folklore, the Model Provisions for National Laws on the
Protection of Expressions of Folklore Against Illicit Exploitation and Other
Prejudicial Actions (1982 Model Provisions).6 Like the Tunis Model Law, the
1982 Model Provisions were again developed cooperatively between WIPO and
UNESCO and hence designed to encompass issues relating to IP and cultural
heritage protection within its terms. Commentary on the document explicitly
recognises that previous attempts to frame folklore as part of the package of
rights under copyright were unsuccessful, among other reasons, due to the
nature of copyright works being a form of individual creativity, while folklore is
the creative activity of a community. Consequently, copyright was described as
an inadequate form of protection for folklore in favour of a sui generis regime. 7
The scheme mapped out by the 1982 Model Provisions stipulates a more
permissive based approach, where the utilisation of folklore requires
authorisation of the community concerned or competent authority. Utilisation
is the publication, reproduction, distribution, public recitation, publication or
other communication of the folklore with gainful intent outside of the traditional
6 Model Provisions for National Laws on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore Against
Illicit Exploitation and Other Prejudicial Actions 1982 (United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural OrganisationWorld Intellectual Property Organisation).
7 Ibid, pp 4-5.
4
8 Section 3.
9 Section 4.
10 Rosemary J. Coombe, 'First Nations Cultural Heritage Concerns: Prospects for
Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions in
International Law' in Catherine Bell and Robert K. Paterson (eds), Protection of
First Nations Cultural Heritage (UBC Press, 2009) 247, 255-256.
11 These fact finding missions culminated in the WIPO report Intellectual
Property Needs and Expectations of Traditional Knowledge Holders in April 2001.
12 Above, footnote 10, pp 260-261.
13 Folklore (or traditional and popular culture) is defined as the totality of
tradition-based creations of a cultural community, expressed by a group or
individuals and recognised as reflectingits cultural and social identity; its
standards and values are transmitted orally, by imitation or by other means.
5
culture to the debate on TCEs raises complex issues of how to value cultural
heritage as a resource.
Michael Brown notes that a shift in the way we conceptualise culture is underway
spurred on by the desire for ethnic nations to have enduring rights in their own
cultural productions, including the right to control the representations of their
ideas by outsiders.23 Brown notes the impact this may have upon the public
domain and how the erosion of public domain material is itself detrimental to
cultural productivity. Although Brown is critical of the misappropriation for
commercial gain of indigenous culture, he cautions against the use of intellectual
property regimes as a mechanism for resolving the perceived injustice due to the
deleterious impact such rights would have on the greater benefit in retaining
access to public domain material. Conversely, Rebecca Tsosie argues that First
Nations control over cultural representations is required to prevent social and
cultural harm, which is of greater damage that economic harm. 24 Tsosie argues
that culture is tied to issues of power and accordingly any attempt to regulate
expressions of cultural production may affect the maintenance of power relations
by opposing groups and the ability to exercise control over specific cultural
meanings. To substantiate this argument, Tsosie makes a polemical
demonstration of the misconceptions of Indian culture perpetuated particularly
by cowboys and Indian movies. It is through such vilifying representations that
Anglo-American culture perpetuates those same systems of dominance and
control used to colonise and destroy native culture. 25 The legal approaches to
regulate TCEs must be considered not only within the cultural context of the
specific indigenous community, but also against the repercussions regulation will
have upon culture itself and the predilection of lawyers to preside over a
paradigm shift from culture as an analytic category to a legal concept. 26
A corollary to the debate about legal regulation pertaining to culture is how the
definition of TCEs may potentially impact upon the right of those seeking to claim
a benefit under any legal regime. Christoph Antons argues that the difficulty in
defining culture leads to ambiguity about the intended beneficiaries of any
commercialisation of TCEs.27 Antons notes the difference that legal protection
plays in so-called settler societies such as Australia and Canada where
22 Elizabeth Burns Coleman, 'The Disneyland of cultural rights to intellectual
property: anthropological and philosophical perspectives' in Christoph Beat
Graber and Mira Burri-Nenova (eds), Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural
Expressions in a Digital Environment (Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2008) 49.
23 Michael F Brown, 'Can Culture be Copyrighted?' (1998) 39(2) Current
Anthropology 193, 194.
24 Rebecca Tsosie, 'ReClaiming Native Stories: An Essay on Cultural
Appropriation and Cultural Rights' (2002) 34 Arizona State Law Journal 299.
25 Above, footnote 24, 311
26 Luis A Vivanco, 'Review of "Who Owns Native Culture?" by Michael F Brown'
(Pt Blackwell Publishing Ltd) (2006) 11(1) Journal of Latin American Anthropology
242.
7
knowledge and TCEs are interdependent and each respectively represents only a
part of the manifestation of knowledge for an indigenous community. Aligning
the regimes according to the arbitrary distinction of IP regimes may serve to be
detrimental to the recognition of legal rights for cultural property as it divorces
the subject matter from the geographical context which gives it meaning.
Ironically, while the scope of this essay is confined to TCEs, the limited focus is
admittedly a cause for consternation in any attempt to map out a legal regime
pertaining to cultural property.
The terminology used in this essay will abide by the international norms
discussed above and adopt the prevalent terms used in current debates while
acknowledging that such definitions may be insufficient in framing the discourse
on the issue. Despite the lack of certainty associated with the term TCEs, in the
absence of further consensus, the usage of this definition as developed by WIPO
will set the parameters for this essay as it seeks to navigate the potentially
competing fields of copyright and cultural heritage law. By complying with what
may inadvertently result in a normative framework for the division of TCEs under
copyright law and traditional knowledge under patent protection, this essay
counterintuitively conforms to the very categorisations it seeks to usurp.
However, in lieu of alternative unanimity in the field as to the scope of material
that spans copyright and cultural heritage law, the description of the
characteristics of TCEs noted above in addition to the tentative definition in the
IGC Draft Provisions will be used for illustrative purposes alongside the
simultaneous concession that the vernacular may be inadequate for mapping out
a comprehensive approach that takes into account the full spectrum of legal
issues associated with indigenous cultural rights.
different cultures. Additionally, much loved fairy tales that are now part of the
public domain may also become subject to overly restrictive legal controls
impacting upon the current stable of material comprising the cultural heritage of
many different cultures. Such cultural consequences of IP law should also be
considered when questioning the often touted assumption that IP rights are
beneficial for development. Mira T. Sundara Rajan points to the impact, in
particular, that the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 37
(TRIPs) has had upon culture in developing countries. Rajan argues that TRIPs
imposes Western industrialised concepts, principles and standards of IP
protection on developing countries and since IP rules are subject to the general
mechanisms for dispute settlement and the enforcement of rulings at the World
Trade Organisation (WTO), the vision of culture embodied in TRIPs is potentially
coercive.38 In arguing against the need for strict economic copyright rights using
India as a case study, Rajan contends that the permissive approach of moral
rights is more aligned to the way in which TCEs are treated in Indian culture and
could more effectively be used to bridge the IP chasm that needs to be crossed
by developing countries. The ramifications that an introduced legal regime may
have upon culture and development should be at the forefront of policy makers
minds when devising any platform related to TCEs. This section will examine the
early attempts to apply copyright to TCEs, highlighting the main rationales
behind its unsuitability. Subsequently, the content of sui generis regimes will be
examined to critically assess how such regimes fail to take an integrated
approach in considering cultural heritage implications of protection, despite the
commoditisation of culture being one of the primary concerns of creating legal
regimes for TCEs that are analogous with IP.
Copyright
The early attempts to include TCEs under copyright law regimes faltered due to a
lack of global momentum for harmonisation. Although the Tunis Model Law was
developed in 1976 with provisions that sought to include folklore as part of the
copyright regime, it did not necessarily afford folklore the same economic and
moral rights as those granted to literary, artistic and scientific works.
Furthermore, there was no mention of folklore in the Berne Convention or TRIPs
(although protection was granted to works of an unknown authorship) hampering
any coordinated effort for a universal approach. This disconnect and failure to
understand the intricacies of TCEs may have contributed towards the decision by
many countries to omit folklore or TCEs from their copyright implementation
obligations under international agreements. Folklore is included in the copyright
law regimes of only a handful of countries, such as Tunisia and Vanuatu. In
contrast, a questionnaire published by WIPO of national experiences with the
1982 Model Provisions found that many countries have used them to some
degree in establishing their legislation, including Namibia, Mozambique, Mexico,
37 Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Organization, Signed in Marrakesh, Morocco, Uruguay Round Agreement (signed
and entered into force 15 April 1994) ('TRIPs').
38 Mira T. Sundara Rajan, Developing countries and the international copyright
regime: The neglected issue of cultural survival (Master of Laws Thesis,
University of British Columbia, 1999) <https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/9730>.
11
Sri Lanka and Vietnam.39 However, the WIPO findings also noted that there
seemed to be little practical experience with implementation of the provisions
and the TCE regimes in many countries were not functioning effectively in
practice. The practical realities of imposing a complex legal regime on matters of
cultural heritage highlight the difficulties in bringing such material under a
legislative umbrella. This is particularly the case where the underlying legal
principles of the law being replicated have been espoused in response to an
entirely different policy situation.
Attempts to fit TCEs under copyright regimes have been likened to trying to fit a
square peg into a round hole.40 The defining feature of economic copyright rights,
to afford proprietary rights for exploitation of copyright material, is regarded as
alienating to indigenous culture. Joseph Githaiga describes how the defining
features of copyright law and its requirements for originality, material form, a
limited term and individual authorship is deficient for protecting TCEs. 41 At the
core of the debate is the fact that TCEs are communally based derivative
products that evolve along with the relationships indigenous people have to their
land, people and kinship with other living creatures that share the land.
Eurocentric individualism and economic order is evidently diametrically opposed
to indigenous holistic attitudes of life and nature. Githaiga argues that an
alternative discourse is needed for the protection of folklore derived from the
Maatatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (Maatatua Declaration) drafted at the First International Conference
on the Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples held in
1993 in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Such platforms are regarded as progressive
advancements towards a deeper understanding of cultural rights that
conceptually embrace the universal significance of TCEs. As Githaiga also notes,
the developments in these areas are often tied with other rights being advocated
by indigenous people, such as the right for self-determination consistent with
their status as exclusive owners of their cultural and intellectual property. In
other words, the limitations of using copyright or indeed any other singular Anglo
or Eurocentric legal regime for regulating TCEs divorces the material from its
greater significance as an operational mechanism for culture.
However, other commentators argue that although less than perfect, a few
tweaks to the copyright system could assist in protecting TCEs against the
greater harm of misappropriation.42 Megan M. Carpenter believes that as IP rights
are the primary vehicle for protecting artistic, literary and scientific works
worldwide, segregating cultural material from the overriding schema denies
39 Above, footnote 21, Annex 60
40 Above, footnote 30, 150
41 Joseph Githaiga, 'Intellectual Property Law and the Protection of Indigenous
Folklore and Knowledge' (1998) 5(2) Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/1998/13.html.
42 See for example Megan M. Carpenter, 'Intellectual property law and
indigenous peoples: adapting copyright law to the needs of a global community'
(2004) 7 Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal 51.
12
indigenous peoples a powerful shield and sword for enforcing their rights. 43 In
other words, despite being developed in an alternate Western context, copyright
law, together with trade secrets law, can and should be assumed universally as
the most effective mechanisms for protecting all cultural content. Similarly,
Cathryn A. Berryman argues that copyright can act as the protector of cultural
creations by immunising the creation from distortion, inaccuracy and
misattribution.44 By requiring the authors consent, Berryman argues that the
author can act as a self-controlling policeman of the nations culture. Berryman
appears to discard the notion that existing legal regimes fail to embody cultural
elements by pointing out that production of copyright material is often supported
by state cultural bodies with the intent that such material may eventually enter
the public domain.45 Similarly, moral rights allegedly function as the states
cultural protector by preserving authenticity. 46 By positing similar arguments in
support of unfair competition and public domain laws, Berryman contends that a
scheme of domaine public payant, that imposes a fee for use of public domain
material could be used to provide the financial means for protection of cultural
heritage. In that respect, the state should consider expanding existing legal
regimes in order to encompass folklore which will in effect place greater
protections upon cultural creations. Berrymans argument for copyright
expansion advocates a state-centric approach to cultural protection with the
benefits eventually flowing to the creators of cultural material. However, states
may not be as amenable to endorsing an agenda that would require such a
demanding interventionist approach.
A particular issue with including TCEs under copyright is the preconception that
IP is a private rights based system. Allowing private rights over TCEs may
potentially diminish state based responsibilities, particularly towards ensuring
that there remains a wealth of material within the public domain. Robert K.
Paterson and Dennis S. Karjala argue that in characterising certain social
phenomena as private, the state may justify its lack of involvement, thereby
perpetuating inequities and inequalities. 47 Like Berryman, they argue that new
regimes of IP pertaining to TCEs are unnecessary. Although copyright and patent
rights are unsatisfactory for protection of TCES, Paterson and Karjala insist that
other Western laws such as contract, privacy, trade secrets and trade marks may
suffice in providing the desired level of protection. In maintaining that the
creation of a standalone regime for indigenous cultural heritage is redundant,
43 Ibid, 55.
44 Cathryn A. Berryman, 'Toward More Universal Protection of Intangible Cultural
Property' (1994) 1 Journal of Intellectual Property Law 293, 298.
45 Ibid, 298.
46 Ibid, 300.
47 Robert K. Paterson and Dennis S. Karjala, 'Looking beyond intellectual
property in resolving protection of the intangible cultural heritage of indigenous
peoples' (2003-2004) 11 Cardozo Journal Of International & Comparative Law
633, 656.
13
48 Ibid, 635.
49 For example see above, footnote 40, [99]-[101].
50 Above, footnote 21, Annex 7.
51 Silke Von Lewinski, 'The protection of folklore' (2003) 11 Cardozo Journal Of
International & Comparative Law 747, 754.
52 Above, footnote 15.
53 Above, footnote 33, 47
14
In seeking to include TCEs within the scope of IP law, these regimes expand upon
the standard features of copyright to include intangible works created by
communities for an unlimited term (except for the Bangui Agreement which
limits the term to 70 years after the death of the author). The tabular summary
of the provisions in each of the various regimes demonstrate disparities in
regional and global approaches to TCE and folklore protection. For instance, the
Pacific Regional Framework allows customary law to determine the resolution of a
dispute and the Panama Law states that the legislation does not affect rights in
relation to TCEs already in place. However the other documents are silent on any
reference to customary law. Although most sui generis frameworks allow for
some level of reciprocity, the inconsistent content of the various frameworks
introduce confusion into the way in which reciprocal treatment will be
recognised.
Commentators advocating for sui generis TCE and traditional knowledge regimes
similarly express caution over the implications of implementing a sui generis
regime. In considering an instrumentalist, development-oriented approach to a
sui generis regime, J. Janewa OseiTutu queries whether replicating quasi-IP rights
is a suitable mechanism for rectifying the power imbalance suffered by
indigenous populations in post-colonial societies. 55 OseiTutu postulates that the
potential distributive justice effects of a new IP right may distort the goal of
access to affordable knowledge as a public good with access to such knowledge
being in the public interest. Adoption of a protectionist economic model to
counter the detrimental impact of TRIPs may allow IP rights to intrude into
cultural spheres, to the benefit of industrialised countries. 56 The benefits of a sui
generis regime are questionable although OseiTutu acknowledges that there may
be some advantages in deploying IP for TCEs and traditional knowledge as
defensive mechanisms. For instance, in regions where there has been a constant
history of appropriation of traditional knowledge such as Africa there are
vehement proponents for stronger protection mechanisms based in and informed
54 WIPO Secretariat, Comparative summary of sui generis legislation for the
protection of traditional cultural expressions, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/INF/3, 28 April
2003, IGC Comm, 5th sess.
55 J. Janewa OseiTutu, 'A Sui Generis Regime for Traditional Knowledge: The
Cultural Divide in Intellectual Property Law' (2011) 15(1) Marquette Intellectual
Property Law Review 147.
56 Ibid, 160.
15
by local law and circumstances.57 Other academics question the efficacy of sui
generis regimes in light an absence of international collaboration to guard
against trans-border infringements. 58 Hence, developing consensus on the
parameters for protection of TCEs and identifying who the holders of the rights
created should be is an elusive task for which divergent treatment has been
afforded in frameworks drafted to date.
Copyright as commodification
By far the most prescient opposition to conceptualising TCEs as IP lies in the
argument that commercialisation will eventuate in an erosion of culture.
Rosemary Coomb has criticised IP protection of cultural expressions and
indigenous culture as an attempt to impose Western economic concepts upon
cultural traditions resulting in the commodification of indigenous cultural
heritage.59 Coombe, who has written widely on the topic, cautions against
attempting to reduce cultural material to IP rights as such simplification fails to
recognise basic indigenous rights as human rights. 60 The reification of TCEs
diminishes their cultural value and denigrates the special significance of the
expression. Christine Haight Farley refers to examples of how indigenous culture
has been decontextualized with respect to the reproduction of indigenous
Australian artwork for souvenirs.61 Farley regards the poaching of indigenous
symbols as an extension of the colonialist plunder mentality. Stripping TCEs of
spiritual meaning completes the invasion of indigenous heritage that started with
the theft of tangible land. In considering the political context of cultural rights,
Coombe argues that perceiving TCEs purely as cultural property disempowers
indigenous rights. TCE content straddles areas of cultural heritage law and IP,
and cannot be considered discretely. 62 Suspicious about the rationale of
extending IP rights to TCEs, Coombe queries the fragmented meaning of
protection which embodies conflicting meanings of commercialisation. She
notes that states have a long history of absorbing minority cultural traditions into
nationalised cultural patrimony. 63 As such the rhetoric of rights protection may
diffuse the debate into proprietary and possessive claims based on Western
57 Charles A Masango, 'Traditional knowledge and traditional cultural
expressions protections: prospects in Cameroon' (2014) 30(2) Information
Development 121.
58 Kilian Bizer et al, 'Sui Generis Rights for the Protection of Traditional Cultural
Expressions' (2011) 2(2) Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology
and Electronic Commerce Law 113.
59 Above, footnote 10.
60 Ibid, 253.
61 Above, footnote 34, 10-11.
62 Rosemary J. Coombe, 'The Expanding Purview of Cultural Properties and Their
Politics' (2009) 5 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 393.
63 Ibid, 405.
16
the first place. Consequently a broader approach has been advocated that
envisions the grounding of TCEs within a cultural rights paradigm.
can co-exist without conflict.74 However, there are others that claim that the
underlying rights giving rise to the respective bodies of law are diametrically
opposed, meaning that inevitably the regimes will encroach upon each other. 75
Right to culture
Arguments for a right to culture under human rights are primarily based upon
Article 27 of the UDHR which prescribes for the right of participation in cultural
life:
(1) Everyone has the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the
community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement
and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material
interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of
which he is the author.
These rights are reiterated in the Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural
Rights (CESCR) under Article 15:
(1) The State Parties to the present Covenant recognise the right of
everyone:
(a) To take part in cultural life;
(b) To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications;
(c) To benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests
resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which
he is the author.
Fiona Macmillan notes that these provisions have generated particular debate as
it is frequently argued that they support the conceptualisation of IP rights as
human rights.76 However, Macmillan professes that any such claims must be
tempered by the right to freedom of expression outlined in Article 19 of the
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) as well as the composite rights laid
out in the covenants and other international documents. The suggestion of public
domain rights within Articles 27(2) of the UDHR and 15(1)(c) of the CESCR also
serve to balance against the suggestion that a fundamental IP right is grounded
73 Christoph Beat Graber, 'Using human rights to tackle fragmentation in the
field of traditional cultural expressions: an institutional approach' in Christoph
Beat Graber and Mira Burri-Nenova (eds), Intellectual Property and Traditional
Cultural Expressions in a Digital Environment (Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.,
2008) 96, 97.
74 See for example Article 3(b) of the ICH Convention.
75 Fiona Macmillan, 'Arts festivals: Property, heritage or more?' in Kathy Bowrey
and Michael Handler (eds), Law and Creativity in the Age of the Entertainment
Franchise (Cambridge University Press, 2014) 197, 207.
76 Fiona Macmillan, 'Human rights, cultural property and intellectual property:
three concepts in search of a relationship' in Chistoph Beat Graber and Mira
Burri-Nenova (eds), Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions in a
Digital Environment (Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2008) 73, 77.
19
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
Lloyd argues that the existence of such rights scattered amongst international
documents are vital requirements for the safeguarding of ICH and support the
encapsulation of ICH protection within the cultural rights framework. In applying
cultural rights equally to all peoples, the right to safeguard cultural identity
should be a right available for all cultural groups even when such cultures are
different to the majority within a state. In analysing the purview of rights
comprising the right to culture as a human right, the essay suggests that the
right to preservation of ICH is an intrinsic part of the human rights framework
and the submergence of TCEs within the realm of private IP rights threaten the
ability of indigenous societies to take part in their own unique cultural life.
TCEs as are most likely to fall under the category of material listed in paragraph
2(2)(a) being folklore, (b) being performances of copyright material and (e) being
artistic works. Safeguarding for the purposes of the ICH Convention means
measures aimed at ensuring the viability of the intangible cultural heritage,
including the identification, documentation, research, preservation, protection,
promotion, enhancement, transmission, particularly through formal and nonformal education, as well as the revitalization of the various aspects of such
heritage. The operative clause of Article 11 require each state party to the
convention to take the necessary measures to ensure the safeguarding of the
intangible cultural heritage present in its territory. In doing so, the state should
collaborate and involve communities, groups and relevant non-governmental
85 Above, footnote 74, 51-56.
21
protection of ICH.94 The CPPDCE sets out a number of guiding principles based on
human rights and sovereignty to encourage the manifold ways in which cultures
of groups and societies find expression. Importantly this convention encourages
greater involvement by the cultural industries in producing activities, goods and
services. Protection in the context of the CPPDCE means the adoption of
measures aimed at the preservation, safeguarding and enhancement of the
diversity of cultural expressions, with protect having a corresponding meaning
to adopt such measures.95 Article 6 allows states to adopt measures to protect
and promote diversity of cultural expressions within its territory, such as
measures to provide financial assistance, nurturing and supporting artists and
enhancing diversity in the media. Article 7 also obliges states to take endeavours
to encourage groups and individuals to create, produce, distribute, disseminate
and have access to their own cultural expressions. Access to diverse cultural
expressions from within their own territory as well as from other countries in the
world is also encouraged. Article 8 allows state parties to take appropriate
measures to protect and preserve cultural expressions that are under risk of
extinction or under serious threat.
The terminology used in the CPPDCE in framing the operational provisions uses
flexible terms such as may and shall endeavour. Like the ICH Convention, the
CPPDCE is framed to apply to state parties and encourages international
cooperation as well as establishing an international cultural diversity fund.
Although many of the elements in the CPPDCE are embodied in the ICH
Convention, it was felt that a separate convention was necessary to recognise
cultural identity as the product of cultural values, beliefs and traditions forming
the common heritage of mankind. These ideas arose out of the Mexico City
Declaration on Cultural Policies resulting from the 1982 World Conference on
Cultural Policies.96 Together with the ICH and World Heritage Conventions, the
CPPDCE forms one of the three pillars on promotion and preservation of cultural
diversity.97 In recognising preservation of cultural diversity as separate from the
need for safeguarding of ICH, UNESCO has highlighted that, although related,
measures to maintain diversity may differ from those involved in safeguarding
ICH. The CPPDCE is concerned with ensuring that the breadth of cultural heritage
material is sustained and not diluted in the face of the homogenising effects of
globalisation. Diversity is important to ensure sufficient representation by a
number of cultural groups so resources can be distributed across the spectrum.
Coupled with the ICH Convention, the principles underpinning the CPPDCE
continue to link issues regarding the cultural heritage of indigenous peoples with
that of self-determination. As greater contextualisation is given to indigenous
culture it becomes evident that the crux of the debate is tied to sovereignty and
a desire to reverse the displacement caused by colonisation. Consequently, a
rights-based framework is needed to ensure that cultural heritage protection is
94 Peter K. Yu, 'The competing objectives underlying the protection of intangible
cultural heritage' (2014) Parana, 2 <www.peteryu.com/parana.pdf>.
95 Article 4.
96 Above, footnote 83, 97.
97 Ibid, 81.
24
accorded as a public and private right. Such a regime is envisaged under the
DRIP.
The prominence of indigenous rights was further enhanced in 2007 with the DRIP
paving the way for greater prevalence of indigenous protocols. Although the
wording of the DRIP has been described as vague and aspirational rather than
obligatory and its drafters seemed more interested in providing a platform for
long-term dialogue rather than short-term objectives, 98 the emphasis of the
document is clearly predicated upon recognising the right to self-determination
of indigenous peoples.99 In arguing for the need to establish a National
Indigenous Cultural Authority in Australia, Terri Janke argues that Article 31 of the
DRIP unequivocally bestows rights for protection of cultural property to
indigenous peoples.100 However, due to inconsistencies in the wording of the
Article, the DRIP does not necessarily provide for IP rights in cultural material.
Article 31 of the DRIP states that:
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and
develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional
cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences,
technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds,
medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions,
literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and
performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and
develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional
knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.
In taking effective measures to recognise and protect the exercise of these
rights, states should work in conjunction with indigenous peoples. 101 By
segmenting the right for indigenous peoples to maintain, control, protect and
develop their cultural heritage and TCEs from the right to maintain, control,
protect and develop their IP over such material, the DRIP stops short of
bestowing a right for indigenous peoples to have rights in IP. In other words, it
appears that the DRIP only bestows upon indigenous peoples the right to IP in
cultural heritage and TCEs to the extent that such rights exist. Presumably, the
granting of such rights will be at the compunction of the individual signatory
state and subject to domestic law. The substantive right, framed as to maintain,
control, protect and develop cultural heritage and TCEs, is not explicit as to how
such a right may take effect. Nonetheless, the DRIP provides an overarching
framework for empowering indigenous peoples to have greater control over their
cultural heritage.
98 Naomi Mezey, 'The Paradoxes of Cultural Property' (2007) 107 Columbia Law
Review 2004, 2013.
99 Article 3.
100 Terri Janke, 'Beyond Guarding Ground: A vision for a National Indigenous
Cultural Authority' (2009) <http://terrijanke.com.au/index.php/beyondguarding/>.
101 Paragraph 31(2).
25
The rights in Article 31 are complemented by the other rights in the DRIP such as
the right to practise and revitalize cultural traditions and customs (Article 11),
right to manifest, practise, develop and teach spiritual and religious traditions
(Article 12) and right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit histories,
languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, customs
and ceremonies to future generations (Article 13). States are obligated to take
effective measures to give effect to these rights. 102 Together with the rights
under Article 31, the DRIP articulates the need for sustaining the link between
indigenous peoples and their cultural heritage. Unlike the UNESCO conventions,
the DRIP employs a rights-based terminology to decree inalienable rights to
indigenous peoples whilst simultaneously obligating states to implement such
rights. This divergence in discourse from the state-centric approach taken in the
ICH Convention is a welcome manoeuvre. However, as a declaration, the
document does not necessarily have the same force as the UNESCO conventions
and as a UN document, sits outside of the administration of UNESCO and its
charter to promote cultural heritage. Consequently, there is the possibility that
signatories may take a lacklustre approach to observing the rights prescribed
under the DRIP, with limited recourse available to aggrieved communities or
individuals in the event of non-compliance. Regardless of the standing of the
DRIP as a declaration rather than a convention, the emergence onto the global
agenda of indigenous rights clearly paves the way towards a greater
commitment to fostering cultural heritage as a resource to be passed on for
generations. As part of the UNs mandate, the DRIP expands upon indigenous
issues as purely cultural issues, looking beyond the ambit of UNESCO. As the
DRIP brings to the fore the linkages between cultural heritage, land, education,
and self-determination, it consolidates issues that have been progressing
independently in several different forums. TCEs, like other indigenous issues,
span several topics and confining the discussion to a narrow legal field does not
adequately take into account the interwoven effect of indigeneity.
for flexibility and breadth in the strategies used to ensure TCEs are able to
continue and survive in their appropriate cultural context.
Conclusion
The concentration on IP and sui generis regimes predicated upon copyright for
tackling regulation of TCEs developed in response to concerns that TCEs have
been misappropriated. However, creating additional rights for custodians of TCEs
only allows the misappropriation to occur in different hands. In recognition of
TCEs as a cultural resource, the focus of legal protection for TCEs should be upon
the preservation of the resource for the benefit of maintaining and continuing
traditions in cultural heritage. Policy makers should seek to understand TCEs
prior to crafting together legal regimes that focus on one aspect of the problem.
While the UNESCO conventions on cultural heritage protection and the ICH
Convention in particular advocates safeguarding of ICH, the responsibility for
doing so is vested in the state. The conventions do not create a right in the
material itself to be safeguarded from annihilation. The more effusive wording of
the DRIP may assist in compounding a rights-based mechanism to be wielded by
indigenous communities and organisations. However, the DRIP is still far from
being a universally binding document and is subject to substantially varying
domestic interpretations. Hence greater consistency is needed by nation states
to develop holistic policies that provide integrated ways forward for supporting
indigenous rights in ways that protect and preserve cultural heritage and its
diversity. The benefit of TCEs derives from their continuance as part of a living
and continuing cultural heritage. It is by recognising the service that TCEs
perform and creating a legal regime that preserves the ability for TCEs to
continue this services function that the cultural value of TCEs can be maximised.
28
Bibliography
Adjei, Patricia and Natalie Stoianoff, 'The World Intellectual Property Organisation
(WIPO) and the intergovernmental committee: Developments on traditional
knowledge and cultural expressions' (Pt March 2013) (2013) 92 Intellectual
Property Forum: journal of the Intellectual and Industrial Property Society of
Australia and New Zealand 37
Analysis, Draft Gap, The Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions,
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/13/4(B) REV (13-17 October 2008) (Consultation Draft)
Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Organization, Signed in Marrakesh, Morocco, Uruguay Round Agreement (signed
and entered into force 15 April 1994) ('TRIPs')
Antons, Christoph, 'Traditional cultural expressions and their significance for
development in a digital environment: examples from Australia and Southeast
Asia' in Christoph Beat Graber and Mira Burri-Nenova (eds), Intellectual Property
and Traditional Cultural Expressions in a Digital Environment (Edward Elgar
Publishing Limited, 2008) 287
Antons, Christoph, 'Asian borderlands and the legal protection of traditional
knowledge and traditional cultural expressions' (2013) 47(4) Modern Asian
studies 1403
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Paris Act of 24
July 1971, as amended on 28 September 1979 (entered into force 9 September
1886)
Berryman, Cathryn A., 'Toward More Universal Protection of Intangible Cultural
Property' (1994) 1 Journal of Intellectual Property Law 293
Bizer, Kilian et al, 'Sui Generis Rights for the Protection of Traditional Cultural
Expressions' (2011) 2(2) Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology
and Electronic Commerce Law 113
Brown, Michael F, 'Can Culture be Copyrighted?' (1998) 39(2) Current
Anthropology 193
Brown, Michael F., Who owns Native Culture? (Harvard University Press, 2003)
Carpenter, Megan M., 'Intellectual property law and indigenous peoples: adapting
copyright law to the needs of a global community' (2004) 7 Yale Human Rights
and Development Law Journal 51
Coleman, Elizabeth Burns, 'The Disneyland of cultural rights to intellectual
property: anthropological and philosophical perspectives' in Christoph Beat
29
Graber and Mira Burri-Nenova (eds), Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural
Expressions in a Digital Environment (Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2008) 49
Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage,
UNESCO (entered into force 16 November 1972) ('World Heritage Convention')
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage,
MISC/2003/CLT/CH/14 (entered into force 17 October 2003)
Coombe, Rosemary J., 'First Nations Cultural Heritage Concerns: Prospects for
Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions in
International Law' in Catherine Bell and Robert K. Paterson (eds), Protection of
First Nations Cultural Heritage (UBC Press, 2009) 247
Coombe, Rosemary J., 'The Expanding Purview of Cultural Properties and Their
Politics' (2009) 5 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 393
Coombe, Rosemary et al, 'Intellectual Property Issues in Heritage Management'
(Pt 2: Legal Dimensions, Ethical Considerations, and Collaborative Research
Practices) (2010) 3(1) Heritage Management 117
Dommann, Monika, 'Lost in tradition? Reconsidering the history of folklore and its
legal protection since 1800' in Christoph Beat Graber and Mira Burri-Nenova
(eds), Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions in a Digital
Environment (Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2008) 3
Farley, Christine Haight, 'Protecting Folklore of Indigenous Peoples: Is Intellectual
Property the Answer?' (1997) 30(1) Connecticut Law Review 1
Forrest, Craig, International law and the protection of cultural heritage
(Routledge, 2010)
Gibson, Johanna, 'The lay of the land: the geography of traditional cultural
expression' in Christoph Beat Graber and Mira Burri-Nenova (eds), Intellectual
Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions in a Digital Environment (Edward
Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2008) 182
Girsberger, Martin A., 'Legal protection of traditional cultural expressions: a
policy perspective' in Christoph Beat Graber and Mira Burri-Nenova (eds),
Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions in a Digital
Environment (Edward Elgar Publishing Inc., 2008) 123
Githaiga, Joseph, 'Intellectual Property Law and the Protection of Indigenous
Folklore and Knowledge' (1998) 5(2) Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/1998/13.html
30
Graber, Christoph Beat, 'Using human rights to tackle fragmentation in the field
of traditional cultural expressions: an institutional approach' in Christoph Beat
Graber and Mira Burri-Nenova (eds), Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural
Expressions in a Digital Environment (Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2008) 96
Hadjioannou, Marina, 'The International Human Right to Culture: Reclamation of
the Cultural Identities of Indigenous Peoples Under International Law' (2005) 8
Chapman Law Review 201
Janke, Terri, 'Beyond Guarding Ground: A vision for a National Indigenous Cultural
Authority' (2009) <http://terrijanke.com.au/index.php/beyond-guarding/>
Kurin, Richard, 'Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage: Key Factors in
Implementing the 2003 Convention' (2007) 2 International Journal of Intangible
Heritage 10
Lewinski, Silke Von, 'The protection of folklore' (2003) 11 Cardozo Journal Of
International & Comparative Law 747
Lloyd, Georgina, The Safeguarding Of Intangible Cultural Heritage: Law And
Policy (Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, University of Sydney, 2009)
<http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au//bitstream/2123/7027/1/GL_LLOYD_2009_PhD_TH
ESIS.pdf>
Macmillan, Fiona, 'Human rights, cultural property and intellectual property: three
concepts in search of a relationship' in Chistoph Beat Graber and Mira BurriNenova (eds), Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions in a
Digital Environment (Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2008) 73
Macmillan, Fiona, 'Arts festivals: Property, heritage or more?' in Kathy Bowrey
and Michael Handler (eds), Law and Creativity in the Age of the Entertainment
Franchise (Cambridge University Press, 2014) 197
Masango, Charles A, 'Traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions
protections: prospects in Cameroon' (2014) 30(2) Information Development 121
Mezey, Naomi, 'The Paradoxes of Cultural Property' (2007) 107 Columbia Law
Review 2004
Model Provisions for National Laws on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore
Against Illicit Exploitation and Other Prejudicial Actions 1982 (United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
World Intellectual Property Organisation)
OseiTutu, J. Janewa, 'A Sui Generis Regime for Traditional Knowledge: The Cultural
Divide in Intellectual Property Law' (2011) 15(1) Marquette Intellectual Property
Law Review 147
31
33