Spiritual but not Intellectual? The Protection of Sacred Intangible Traditional Knowledge (original) (raw)
Related papers
Intellectual property and indigenous culture
2018
This special issue of the Griffith Law Review focuses on Intellectual Property and Indigenous Culture. The first article in this issue, Christine Morris's 'A Full Law', introduces an idea which informs, to varying degrees, most of the other contributions collected here. Morris argues that conflict or friction between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in a range of areas could be assuaged by a greater accommodation between the principles of Indigenous law and those of the common law system. Indigenous laws are organised around the principles of reciprocal obligation, respect and custodianship. The role, rights and responsibilities of the indi\ idual are understood as being subordinate to. considerate of and conditional upon the well-being of the Land and of every aspect of life on Earth. Morris argues that Indigenous law is a 'full law' because it is guided by and responsive to 'the spiritual realm'. In Morris's formulation, the common law system is, by contrast, only a 'half law' because it is only concerned with 'the seen reality'. But the common law collides with Indigenous law, Indigenous people and 'unseen reality' daily in Australia. The articles that follow illustrate man\ such entanglements in the production and reproduction, use and exchange of Indigenous art, intellectual and cultural property. Historically, non-Indigenous systems and institutions of knowledge management, regulation, governance, ethics of conduct or practice in law and commerce have been inadequately and often inconsiderately engaged with Indigenous laws and practices. Consequently, they often deal imperfectly with the most important issue for Australians today: how do we live together in this place? To understand and come to terms with ourselves in this place-Australianon-Indigenous people need to acknowledge that there is much to be gained from the coexistence of Indigenous and non-Indigenous systems of law. In Morris's terms, to become a 'full law', the common law system must welcome and respect Indigenous traditions, beliefs, culture and law on its terms. Respectful coexistence is possible with the appropriate protocols in place for the negotiation of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous law.' Morris's point is that Indigenous intellectual and cultural property is knowledge, and Indigenous law is a system of knowledge managementprimarily about how to care for the Land, and be guided by its spirits and
Intellectual Property and the Protection of Indigenous Knowledge Generally
It is virtually impossible to look at modern America without seeing vestiges of Native American cultural, social, artistic, and political influence. In many cases, these things have become so interwoven with the fabric of American culture that it may be difficult for some to realize that America and Americans did not invent them. In fact, much of the core of American consciousness has as its foundation Native American building blocks. However, that does not make it alright to appropriate all things indigenous as common cultural property simply because certain aspects of indigenous culture have become so fused with our larger culture that we no longer recognize them as indigenous in origin. It is the position of this paper that certain indigenous knowledge deserves and requires legal protection as intellectual property from misappropriation by the larger culture.
2018
The dominant Western culture has created a legal system premised upon an individualistic and commercial foundation for intellectual property rights (IPR). This system necessarily excludes the protection of traditional knowledge and other components of Indigenous cultures, as well as concepts of communal responsibility for the keeping and transfer of such ideas and knowledge. These concepts are foundational to Indigenous knowledge systems in Alaska, as well as throughout the world. Today, a focus on this issue is critical to the preservation of indigenous cultures and their ways of knowing. We examine where national and international intellectual property rights systems are in addressing Indigenous cultural and intellectual property rights (Indigenous CIPR). We also examine opportunities for expansion of such rights in Alaska and around the world.
Intellectual Property and Indigenous/Traditional Knowledge: Issues Paper
ii ing and emerging knowledge management approaches. Indigenous knowledge can no longer be considered a raw-resource from which others benefit. Indigenous people are asking for their cultural systems and ways of governing knowledge access and use to be recognized as legitimate, and to be respected as custodians/owners/nurturers of knowledge that is valuable within and beyond indigenous contexts.
This paper examines the protection of indigenous peoples’ intangible heritage at the international level. It addresses the problem of appropriation and commodification of traditional and artistic cultural expressions (‘TCEs’) through the multiplicity of existing international legal regimes. These include general and indigenous-specific human rights rules, UNESCO conventions and guidelines, as well as international norms of general application such as those pertaining to Intellectual Property (‘IP’). The paper adopts a sceptical approach towards the suitability of international norms and processes to address the question of indigenous heritage. Drawing upon the efforts of regional bodies and national paradigms from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the U.S., it argues that priority in legal planning and decision-making be given to the “localization” of indigenous claims and peoples’ local empowerment.
Communal Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Cultural Expressions
The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 2005
Ibid.. 492. (i991) 1% CLR I. For example, see E Brennan, Mabo and its Implications &r Aborigines and Tones Strait Islanders, in M. Stephenson and S. Ratnapala (eds.), Mabo: A judicial Revolution, Univenity of Queensland Press, Brisbane, 1993. pp. 24-25. *-(1995) Awc 91-116. '' [1977] VR 65 at 70. '' (1995) AIPC 91-116, at 39,081
Indigenous/ Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property
Duke University School of Law, 2010
The relationship between Indigenous/traditional knowledge and intellectual property law is a complicated contemporary legal problem. Questions around indigenous knowledge protection present issues unlike any other that intellectual property law has had to consider.