Open Access Research Article
INDIGENOUS ARTS AND CRAFTS PROTECTION: SAFEGUARDING TRIBAL AND FOLK ART THROUGH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS WHILE ENSURING COMMUNITY BENEFITS
Published Paper
Article Details
INDIGENOUS
ARTS AND CRAFTS PROTECTION: SAFEGUARDING TRIBAL AND FOLK ART THROUGH
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS WHILE ENSURING COMMUNITY BENEFITS
AUTHORED BY
- BHAVYA SREE D
& SAIRAM DOMMETTI
INTRODUCTION
Indigenous arts and crafts are not
merely decorative pieces, but rather they embody the rich cultural heritage,
traditions, and identities of Indigenous peoples worldwide. These forms of
artistic expression often carry profound spiritual significance and serve as a
medium for storytelling, preserving cultural practices, and asserting identity
in a rapidly globalizing world[1].
However, the commodification and appropriation of Indigenous art have
intensified, prompting a need for effective protection mechanisms to safeguard
these cultural expressions. Intellectual property (IP) laws are often proposed
as a route to protect Indigenous arts and crafts from exploitation while
ensuring that the benefits accrue to the Indigenous communities from which they
originate.
The contemporary landscape of
Indigenous arts and crafts protection is characterized by tension between
traditional knowledge systems and modern legal frameworks. Indigenous
communities worldwide have maintained their cultural expressions through
customary laws and practices for millennia, but these systems are increasingly
vulnerable to external pressures in the modern era. The World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) has documented numerous cases of exploitation
where Indigenous motifs, designs, and artwork have been commercialized without
permission or compensation to the originating communities.[2]
These instances of appropriation not only represent economic losses but also
constitute violations of cultural rights and dignities fundamental to
Indigenous identities.
The United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted in 2007, explicitly recognizes
"the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural
heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions."[3]
Despite this recognition, practical implementation of these rights remains
challenging. Conventional IP frameworks, developed primarily to protect
individual innovation in industrialized contexts, often prove inadequate for
communal, intergenerational knowledge systems. This fundamental misalignment
necessitates fresh approaches that bridge conventional legal protections with
Indigenous perspectives on knowledge governance.
UNDERSTANDING
INDIGENOUS ARTS AND CRAFTS
Cultural Significance and Diversity
Indigenous arts and crafts encompass
a diverse range of artistic expressions rooted in the customs, beliefs, and
practices of various Indigenous communities. These creative works include not
only visual arts such as paintings, carvings, and textiles but also performing
arts, music, and traditional crafts like pottery, beadwork, and weaving.[4] The
significance of these art forms goes beyond aesthetic appreciation; they serve
as vital conduits for cultural transmission, acknowledging a collective history
and fostering a sense of community.[5]
Anthropologist Ruth Phillips
characterizes Indigenous art as "inseparable from the totality of cultural
life."[6] This
perspective emphasizes how artistic expressions are integrated into wider
cultural systems, including ceremonial practices, governance structures, and
spiritual beliefs. For example, the Pueblo pottery tradition of the
Southwestern United States represents not merely a decorative craft but
embodies cosmological understanding and historical narratives central to Pueblo
identity.[7]
Similarly, Australian Aboriginal dot paintings serve as complex "maps"
of cultural knowledge, encoding information about Dreamtime stories,
territorial boundaries, and sacred sites.[8]
Symbolic Elements and Knowledge
Systems
Many Indigenous art forms incorporate
symbolic elements unique to tribal narratives and community identities. For
instance, designs and motifs used in Navajo weaving or Haida carving carry
specific historical and cultural meanings. Discerning the significance behind
these elements requires a contextual understanding that honors the traditions
and practices of the creators. Indian anthropologist Verrier Elwin documented
how the Gond paintings of central India serve as visual encyclopedias of forest
knowledge, medicinal plant properties, and ecological relationships.[9]
This characteristic of Indigenous art, encoding practical and cultural
knowledge within aesthetic forms, highlights how artistic expressions function
as sophisticated knowledge systems deserving of protection comparable to other
forms of intellectual property.
Economic Dimensions
The preservation and promotion of
Indigenous arts and crafts contribute not only to cultural identity but also to
socioeconomic development, as they often represent a primary source of income
for many Indigenous artists.[10]
According to a 2018 report by the First Nations Development Institute,
Indigenous arts and crafts in the United States alone generate over $2 billion
annually, providing critical economic opportunities in communities that face
significant socioeconomic challenges.[11]
The International Labour Organization
has identified traditional crafts as an important vehicle for sustainable
development in Indigenous communities, noting that they often represent
"economic activities that are compatible with traditional lifestyles and
environmental stewardship."[12]
This economic dimension adds urgency to the need for effective protection
mechanisms, as exploitation not only represents cultural harm but also
undermines crucial livelihood opportunities for vulnerable communities.
CHALLENGES
OF GLOBALIZATION AND CULTURAL APPROPRIATION
Market Integration and
Commodification
The impact of globalization has been
a double-edged sword for Indigenous arts and crafts. On one hand, it has
facilitated increased visibility and access for Indigenous artists, allowing
them to reach wider audiences and generating interest in their work.[13]
On the other hand, it has led to the commodification and appropriation of
Indigenous cultural expressions, often stripping them of their original context
and meanings. This commodification typically manifests in the mass production
of cultural symbols, reducing unique art forms to commercial goods devoid of
their cultural significance.
Anthropologist Michael Brown observes
that "market integration often transforms sacred objects into secular
commodities," creating profound tensions between economic opportunity and
cultural integrity.[14]
For example, the commercialization of Navajo-inspired patterns by fashion
retailers not only diverts economic benefits from Navajo artisans but also
trivializes deeply meaningful cultural symbols.
Cultural Appropriation and
Misrepresentation
Cultural appropriation presents
another profound challenge. It occurs when elements of one culture are adopted
by members of another culture without permission or understanding, often
resulting in exploitation and misrepresentation. Non-Indigenous artists and
companies may use Indigenous designs, motifs, and stories in their work,
profiting from these creations while the original creators see little to no
benefits from their labor.
Legal scholar Rebecca Tsosie frames
cultural appropriation as "a form of colonialism that continues to extract
resources from Indigenous communities."[15]
This perspective emphasizes how appropriation extends historical patterns of
exploitation into contemporary contexts. High-profile cases illustrate this
dynamic, including the controversial use of Maori Ta Moko designs by
international fashion brands or the unauthorized use of Plains Indian
headdresses as fashion accessories.[16]
The consequences of misrepresentation can be particularly harmful when sacred
or ceremonial elements are commercialized.
Digital Challenges
The digital era has introduced new
complexities to the protection of Indigenous arts. While digital platforms
offer unprecedented opportunities for Indigenous artists to share their work
directly with global audiences, they also facilitate unauthorized reproduction
and dissemination at unprecedented scales. The ease with which digital images
can be copied, modified, and redistributed creates significant challenges for
enforcing IP rights over Indigenous cultural expressions.[17]
Research by the International Council
of Museums has documented how online marketplaces have become significant
channels for the sale of counterfeit Indigenous art, with little effective oversight
or verification mechanisms.[18]
Additionally, algorithms that power social media platforms and search engines
often prioritize commercial content over authentic Indigenous voices, further
marginalizing traditional knowledge holders in digital spaces.
THE ROLE OF
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN PROTECTING INDIGENOUS ARTS
Conventional IP Frameworks
Intellectual property laws, including
copyright, trademark, and patent laws, provide mechanisms to protect creative
works and ensure that creators can control the use of their artistic outputs.
In the context of Indigenous arts, leveraging IP law can offer a way to combat
unauthorized use and ensure that creators receive recognition and financial
compensation for their work.
Copyright law, which protects
original creative expressions, can theoretically protect Indigenous artworks
from unauthorized reproduction. However, as legal scholar Terri Janke points
out, "copyright protection is time-limited and requires identifiable
authors, conditions that often conflict with the communal and intergenerational
nature of Indigenous cultural expressions."[19]
Additionally, copyright typically requires fixation (expression in tangible
form), which may exclude oral traditions and performative elements central to
many Indigenous art forms.
Trademark law offers another
potential avenue for protection, particularly for distinctive symbols or
designs associated with specific Indigenous communities. Several Indigenous
groups have successfully registered collective trademarks to protect their
artistic heritage. For example, the Toi Iho™ certification mark in New Zealand
helps consumers identify authentic Maori-made products.[20]
However, trademark registration requires financial resources and legal
expertise that many Indigenous communities may lack.
Specialized Legislative Approaches
The Indian Arts and Crafts Act (IACA)
of 1990 in the United States serves as a notable example of an IP law tailored
to protect Indigenous artists. The IACA is a truth-in-advertising law that
prohibits the misrepresentation of products as being Indian-produced when they
are not. It empowers Indigenous communities to take action against those who
infringe upon their rights by falsely marketing items as Native American
crafts. Despite its noble intentions, the effectiveness of the IACA has often
been limited by challenges in enforcement and the scope of its legal
protections[21].
Australia's Protection of Cultural
Expressions Act provides another instructive model, establishing specific
protections for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural expressions[22].
The Act creates a special class of rights that can be collectively held by
Indigenous communities and prohibits unauthorized use of protected expressions
without appropriate consultation and consent. Legal scholar Terri Janke's
influential "Our Culture, Our Future" report laid important
groundwork for this legislation by documenting the inadequacies of conventional
IP frameworks for Indigenous cultural protection[23].
International Instruments
At the international level, several
instruments address the protection of Indigenous cultural expressions. The 2003
UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage
recognizes the importance of traditional cultural expressions and establishes
obligations for states to protect these forms of heritage.[24]
Similarly, the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and
Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore has been working toward
an international legal instrument specifically designed to protect traditional
cultural expressions[25].
These international efforts represent
important steps toward recognizing the unique status of Indigenous cultural
expressions. The implementation gap between international recognition and local
protection remains a significant challenge for Indigenous arts and crafts.
STRENGTHENING
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTIONS
Broadening IP Interpretations
To effectively protect Indigenous
arts and crafts in the modern age, several measures can be employed to
strengthen the role of intellectual property laws while ensuring that the
benefits flow back to Indigenous communities.
Current IP laws often focus on
individual ownership, which contradicts many Indigenous cultures that view
creativity and culture as communal rather than individualistic. Efforts to broaden
the interpretation of copyright to include communal ownership of traditional
knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs) should be
prioritized. This shift in perspective acknowledges the collective nature of
cultural heritage and opens avenues for more robust legal protections.
Implementing Sui Generis Systems
Designing new legal frameworks
specifically for the protection of Indigenous TCEs and TK can further safeguard
these cultural assets. Such sui generis systems can allow Indigenous communities
to define their own processes of creation, usage, and ownership, effectively
allowing them to control and protect their cultural expressions in alignment
with their traditions.
The Philippines' Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act offers one model for sui generis protection, establishing community
intellectual rights that explicitly cover "indigenous knowledge systems
and practices."[26]
Similarly, Panama's Law No. 20 creates a special system for registering and
protecting Indigenous knowledge and cultural expressions, including a
prohibition on non-authorized commercialization[27].
Incorporating Local Protocols
Effective collaboration between legal
systems and Indigenous communities is crucial. Laws protecting Indigenous arts
should incorporate community protocols that respect cultural sensitivities and
traditional practices. This includes obtaining free, prior, and informed
consent before using Indigenous cultural expressions—even in academic or
commercial contexts.
Australia's experience with
Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) protocols demonstrates how
such approaches can complement formal legal protections. These protocols,
developed in consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
communities, provide practical guidance for respectful engagement with
Indigenous cultural materials[28].
Their integration into institutional policies at museums, universities, and
cultural organizations has created additional layers of protection beyond
formal IP laws.
Promoting Education and Awareness
Educating both Indigenous artists and
the broader public about IP rights and their importance is critical. This
knowledge empowers Indigenous creators to take action against appropriation and
understand their rights. Additionally, raising public awareness about the
significance of Indigenous arts can foster respect and appreciation, thus
minimizing the risk of exploitation.
The Indigenous Art Code in Australia
represents an important initiative in this direction, promoting ethical trading
practices in the Indigenous art market through education and certification[29].
By raising awareness among collectors, galleries, and the general public, such
programs help create market conditions that favor authentic Indigenous art over
appropriated imitations.
Utilizing Technology for Protection
Digital tools can enhance the
visibility and protection of Indigenous art. Technologies like blockchain can
be used to authenticate artworks and prevent unauthorized reproductions,
offering a level of transparency and traceability significantly beneficial in a
globalized market.
The Australian company Coventry has
developed blockchain-based certification for Aboriginal artworks that creates
an immutable record of provenance and authenticity[30].
Similar initiatives in Canada and the United States use digital watermarking
and QR codes to help consumers verify the authenticity of Indigenous crafts[31].
These technological solutions complement legal protections by making
verification more accessible and counterfeiting more difficult.
Digital rights management systems can
also help Indigenous communities control the use of digitized cultural
expressions. The Mukurtu content management system, developed specifically for
Indigenous communities, includes customizable permissions and protocols that
reflect traditional knowledge governance systems[32].
Such platforms enable communities to share cultural content while maintaining
appropriate controls over access and use.
Collaborative Benefit-Sharing Models
Establishing benefit-sharing
agreements as part of the commercial engagements involving Indigenous creations
can ensure that profits derived from these works are fairly distributed. These
arrangements can take various forms, such as royalties or direct payments,
thereby aligning economic incentives with cultural preservation.
The successful collaboration between
the Tjanpi Desert Weavers and the National Gallery of Australia exemplifies
effective benefit-sharing in practice[33].
The gallery's acquisition and exhibition of contemporary fiber art by Indigenous
women artists included not only fair compensation but also ongoing attribution,
documentation of cultural context, and support for knowledge transmission
within communities.
COMMUNITY-BASED
PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES
Centering Indigenous Governance
An essential aspect of effectively
implementing IP protections for Indigenous arts is engaging Indigenous
communities in the design and enforcement of these laws. Community-based
participatory approaches recognize the unique perspectives of Indigenous peoples,
allowing them to retain agency over their cultural heritage and fostering
community resilience.
Political theorist Glen Coulthard
emphasizes that "meaningful protection of Indigenous cultural heritage
requires recognition of Indigenous sovereignty over cultural governance."[34]
This principle suggests that effective IP protection must acknowledge
Indigenous peoples not merely as stakeholders but as rights-holders with
inherent authority over their cultural expressions.
Involving Indigenous Leaders and
Experts
Consultation with tribal leaders,
artists, and cultural experts when drafting or amending IP laws reflects a
commitment to respecting Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination. Such
inclusive processes ensure that legal frameworks align with local cultural
values and practices.
Anthropologist Julie Hollowell
documents how the involvement of Indigenous experts in developing protection
mechanisms leads to more contextually appropriate and effective outcomes[35].
Their expertise in cultural protocols and community needs helps identify gaps
in conventional IP frameworks and develop targeted solutions that address
specific vulnerabilities of Indigenous cultural expressions.
Cultural Safety and Sensitivity
Training for Legal Practitioners
Legal professionals should receive
training in cultural safety and sensitivity to understand the historical
contexts and current issues facing Indigenous peoples. This will facilitate
respectful and effective legal support for Indigenous artists, ensuring that
their needs are prioritized.
The National Indigenous Cultural
Awareness Training Program in Australia provides specialized training for legal
professionals working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients[36].
This training addresses historical contexts, cultural protocols, and community
priorities to ensure that legal representation is culturally responsive and
effective.
Establishing Indigenous Governance
Structures
Empowering Indigenous nations to
establish their own governance structures for art and cultural property fosters
accountability and respect for traditional practices. These governance systems
can guide the use, promotion, and protection of Indigenous arts, enabling
communities to take the lead in cultural preservation initiatives.
The Hopi Cultural Preservation Office
provides a model for Indigenous-led cultural governance, establishing protocols
for the documentation and use of cultural knowledge and overseeing compliance
with tribal policies on cultural representation[37].
Developing Ethical Guidelines for
Engagement
The establishment of ethical
guidelines that outline best practices for engaging with Indigenous artists is
crucial. These guidelines can direct non-Indigenous organizations or
individuals on how to approach collaborations respectfully, ensuring that
cultural protocols are maintained and that relationships are mutually
beneficial.
The World Intellectual Property
Organization's Toolkit on Traditional Knowledge Documentation similarly
provides practical guidance for researchers and institutions working with
Indigenous knowledge systems[38].
By emphasizing free, prior, and informed consent and community control over
documentation processes, these guidelines help prevent unintentional
appropriation through academic or commercial research.
LEGAL
CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS
Absence of Legislative Support
Despite the potential for IP laws to
serve as tools for protecting Indigenous arts, several legal challenges and
limitations remain that must be addressed to ensure effective protection.
Many Indigenous artists continue to
struggle against the illegal marketing of counterfeit arts and the weak
enforcement of existing laws. There is a pressing need for legislative support
to strengthen laws like the IACA further and hold violators accountable for
cultural appropriation. For example, despite the Indian Arts and Crafts Act's
strong provisions, the U.S. Government Accountability Office has identified
persistent enforcement challenges that limit its effectiveness.[39]
Complexity of International IP Laws
Legal frameworks governing IP are
often complex and fragmented. The lack of harmonization across different
jurisdictions complicates the enforcement of protections for Indigenous arts
that cross borders. Strengthening international agreements on IP law is
essential to facilitate the global recognition of Indigenous rights in cultural
heritage. The territorial nature of IP rights creates challenges when
Indigenous cultural expressions are appropriated in international contexts,
particularly through digital platforms that operate globally.
Efforts to address these challenges
include the ongoing negotiations at WIPO for an international legal instrument
on traditional cultural expressions[40].
However, divergent national interests and competing priorities have slowed
progress toward a comprehensive international framework for Indigenous cultural
protection.
Overcoming Resistance to Change
The existing legal framework often
prioritizes economic variables over cultural considerations, leading to
resistance from stakeholders who benefit from the status quo. Educational
initiatives aimed at changing public perceptions about the importance of
protecting Indigenous rights are essential in building support for necessary
legal reforms.
Resistance comes from within legal
institutions themselves. Legal scholar Christine Haight Farley documents how
"doctrinal orthodoxies in intellectual property law create conceptual
barriers to accommodating Indigenous perspectives on cultural ownership."[41]
Overcoming these barriers requires not only legislative change but also shifts
in how legal practitioners and scholars conceptualize the relationship between
cultural expressions and intellectual property.
Funding Limitations for Enforcement
Local and tribal governments often
lack the financial resources needed to enforce IP laws or engage in legal
battles against large corporations. Allocating funds specifically for
Indigenous arts protection would enable more effective enforcement mechanisms
and provide the necessary support for artists facing infringement.
Economic analyses by the First
Nations Development Institute demonstrate that "enforcement costs
represent a significant barrier to IP protection for many Indigenous
communities."[42]
Legal proceedings can be prohibitively expensive, particularly when pursuing
claims against well-resourced corporate defendants. This resource imbalance can
effectively prevent Indigenous communities from exercising rights that exist on
paper but remain inaccessible in practice.
Innovative funding mechanisms can
help address this challenge. Legal defense funds specifically dedicated to
Indigenous cultural and intellectual property cases, such as Australia's Arts
Law Centre's Artists in the Black program, provide targeted resources for
enforcement actions.[43]
Similarly, pro bono legal initiatives that specialize in Indigenous IP issues
help bridge the resource gap that often prevents effective enforcement.
GLOBAL
PERSPECTIVES ON INDIGENOUS ART PROTECTION
Regional Approaches and Success
Stories
The protection of Indigenous arts and
crafts is not a challenge exclusive to a single region; it transcends borders
and involves a multitude of global considerations. Examining successful models
and practices from different parts of the world provides valuable insights into
how Indigenous art can be effectively protected.
In Australia, the problem of cultural
appropriation has prompted the establishment of the Indigenous Art Code, an
initiative that aims to combat unethical practices in the marketing and sale of
Indigenous art. This self-regulatory model works to ensure fair treatment of
Indigenous artists and promotes the ethical consumption of Indigenous art.[44]
New Zealand's approach to protecting
Maori cultural heritage offers another instructive example. The Trade Mark Act
2002 includes provisions that prevent the registration of trademarks that would
be offensive to Maori, with an advisory committee of Maori cultural experts
guiding these determinations.[45]
This integration of Indigenous governance into mainstream IP systems
demonstrates how conventional frameworks can be adapted to better serve
Indigenous interests.
International Cooperation and
Frameworks
The United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) serves as a comprehensive framework for
the protection of Indigenous rights globally. It emphasizes the rights of
Indigenous communities to maintain control over their cultural expressions,
including arts and crafts, reinforcing the importance of traditional knowledge
and cultural identity[46].
The World Intellectual Property
Organization's Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic
Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) has been working toward
developing international legal instruments for the protection of traditional
knowledge and cultural expressions.[47]
While progress has been slow, the IGC's work represents an important effort to
establish global standards for Indigenous cultural protection.
Future Directions and Emerging Models
Looking forward, several promising
approaches are emerging that may strengthen Indigenous arts protection. Digital
technologies offer new possibilities for documentation, authentication, and
control over cultural expressions. Initiatives like Local Contexts, which has
developed Traditional Knowledge Labels to communicate Indigenous protocols for
accessing and using cultural materials in digital environments, represent
innovative responses to contemporary challenges[48].
Community-based cultural enterprises
that combine commercial engagement with cultural preservation offer another
promising direction. These enterprises, such as the Inuit Art Foundation in
Canada or the Aboriginal Art Centres in Australia, provide economic
opportunities while maintaining community control over how cultural expressions
are shared and commercialized.[49]
Legal scholar Peter Drahos proposes
"networked governance" approaches that connect Indigenous communities
across jurisdictional boundaries to share strategies and resources for cultural
protection.[50] These
transnational networks can help address the limitations of territorially-bound
IP systems and facilitate knowledge exchange about effective protection
mechanisms.
CONCLUSION
The safeguarding of Indigenous arts
and crafts through intellectual property laws is essential in responding to the
challenges of globalization, cultural appropriation, and systemic exploitation
of Indigenous communities. By recognizing the cultural significance of these
art forms and the need for effective protections, policymakers can help
preserve Indigenous heritage while ensuring that the benefits of these artworks
return to the communities that create them.
Firstly, conventional IP frameworks
must be adapted to accommodate the communal, intergenerational nature of
Indigenous cultural expressions. This adaptation requires not only legislative
changes but also shifts in how courts and legal practitioners interpret
existing provisions. Secondly, sui generis systems designed specifically for
Indigenous cultural expressions can complement conventional IP protections, providing
tailored mechanisms that reflect Indigenous perspectives on knowledge
governance. Third, community-based participatory approaches that center
Indigenous voices in policy development are essential for creating culturally
appropriate and effective protection systems.
Strengthening and adapting existing
IP laws to incorporate communal ownership, ethical engagement, and
collaborative benefit-sharing are critical steps towards achieving this goal.
Through inclusive practices that respect Indigenous knowledge and traditions,
legal frameworks can empower Indigenous artists, invigorate local economies,
and enhance cultural resilience in a world that increasingly values integration
and commodification.
Ultimately, the fight to preserve
Indigenous arts is also a fight for cultural survival. By working together to
uphold these rights, we can ensure that Indigenous arts thrive, enriching not
only the communities from which they originate but the broader cultural
landscape we all share. As legal scholar Erica-Irene Daes observed, "the
protection of Indigenous cultural heritage is inseparable from the protection
of Indigenous peoples themselves."[51]
This perspective reminds us that effective IP protection for Indigenous arts
and crafts is not merely a legal or economic issue but a fundamental matter of
justice, dignity, and human rights.
[1] Coombe, R. J. (2009). The
Expanding Purview of Cultural Properties and Their Politics. Annual Review of
Law and Social Science, 5, 393-412
[2] World Intellectual Property
Organization. (2020). Protect and Promote Your Culture: A Practical Guide to
Intellectual Property for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. WIPO
Publication No. 1048E.
[3] United Nations. (2007). United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. UN General Assembly
Resolution 61/295, Article 31.
[4] Brown, M. F. (2003). Who Owns
Native Culture? Harvard University Press, 11-15
[5] Morphy, H. (2012). Becoming Art:
Exploring Cross-Cultural Categories. Routledge, 78-82.
[6] Phillips, R. B. (2018). Museum
Pieces: Toward the Indigenization of Canadian Museums. McGill-Queen's Press, 62
[7] Trimble, S. (2007). Talking with
the Clay: The Art of Pueblo Pottery. School of American Research Press, 23-30
[8] Morphy, H. (1991). Ancestral
Connections: Art and an Aboriginal System of Knowledge. University of Chicago
Press, 101-110.
[9] Elwin, V. (1951). The Tribal Art
of Middle India. Oxford University Press, 45-52.
[10] Filice, M., & Filice, S.
(2021). Indigenous Art Economies in North America. Oxford Research Encyclopedia
of Business and Management, 1-17.
[11] First Nations Development Institute.
(2018). Investing in Native Arts: Indigenous Economic Development in the Arts.
First Nations Development Institute, 8-12
[12] International Labour
Organization. (2019). Implementing the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
Convention No. 169: Towards an Inclusive, Sustainable and Just Future. ILO,
56-60.
[13] Phillips, R. B., & Steiner,
C. B. (Eds.). (1999). Unpacking Culture: Art and Commodity in Colonial and
Postcolonial Worlds. University of California Press, 3-12.
[14] Brown, M. F. (2003). Who Owns
Native Culture? Harvard University Press, 89.
[15] Tsosie, R. (2017). Indigenous
Peoples and Cultural Heritage: The Case for Cultural Appropriation.
International Journal of Cultural Property, 24(3), 347-371.
[16] Nicholas, G., & Bannister,
K. (2004). Copyrighting the Past? Emerging Intellectual Property Rights Issues
in Archaeology. Current Anthropology, 45(3), 327-350
[17] Geismar, H. (2015). Anthropology
and Heritage Regimes. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44, 71-85.
[18] International Council of
Museums. (2018). Trading in Cultural Objects: Guidelines for Museums. ICOM,
35-40.
[19] Janke, T. (2003). Minding
Culture: Case Studies on Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural
Expressions. World Intellectual Property Organization, 30-35.
[20] Sullivan, R. (2012). Protecting
the Expression of Culture in New Zealand. New Zealand Intellectual Property
Journal, 7(1), 18-22
[21] Sheffield, G. K. (2004). The Indian Arts
and Crafts Act: An Incomplete Protection. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and
Society, 34(2), 144-160
[22] Australian Government. (2003). Protection
of Cultural Expressions Act. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
[23] Janke, T. (1998). Our Culture,
Our Future: Report on Australian Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property
Rights. Michael Frankel & Company, Sydney.
[24] UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the
Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris.
[25] World Intellectual Property Organization.
(2019). The Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions: Draft Articles.
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/40/5, Geneva.
[26] Republic of the Philippines. (1997).
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997. Republic Act No. 8371, Section 34.
[27] Republic of Panama. (2000). Law No. 20 of
June 26, 2000, on the Special Intellectual Property Regime Governing the
Collective Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
[28] Australia Council for the Arts. (2007).
Protocols for Producing Indigenous Australian Visual Arts. Australia Council,
Sydney.
[29] Indigenous Art Code Ltd. (2010). The
Indigenous Art Code. Indigenous Art Code Ltd, Sydney.
[30] Coventry, P. (2019). Blockchain
Authentication for Aboriginal Art. National Indigenous Times, 15(4), 8-9.
[31] Indigenous Tourism Association of Canada.
(2018). Authentic Indigenous Artisan Program: Digital Authentication
Initiative. ITAC Annual Report, 23-25.
[32] Christen, K. (2015). On Not Looking:
Digital Tools for Cultural Heritage Management. Archival Science, 15(4),
373-385.
[33] Tjanpi Desert Weavers & National
Gallery of Australia. (2013). Collaborative Agreement for the Acquisition and
Exhibition of Contemporary Indigenous Fiber Art. Unpublished agreement,
Canberra.
[34] Coulthard, G. S. (2014). Red Skin, White
Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. University of Minnesota
Press, 78-82.
[35] Hollowell, J. (2004). Intellectual
Property Protection and the Market for Alaska Native Arts and Crafts. In
Indigenous Intellectual Property Rights: Legal Obstacles and Innovative
Solutions, AltaMira Press, 55-98.
[36] National Indigenous Cultural Awareness
Training Program. (2014). Cultural Safety Training for Legal Professionals. Law
Council of Australia, Canberra.
[37] Hopi Cultural Preservation
Office. (2001). Protocol for Research, Publication and Recordings. Hopi Tribe,
Arizona.
[38] World Intellectual Property Organization.
(2017). Toolkit on Documenting Traditional Knowledge – Consultation Draft.
WIPO, Geneva.
[39] U.S. Government Accountability Office.
(2011). Indian Arts and Crafts: Size of Market and Extent of Misrepresentation
Are Unknown. GAO-11-432, Washington, D.C.
[40] World Intellectual Property Organization.
(2019). Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property: Background Brief. WIPO
Publication No. 920E, Geneva.
[41] Farley, C. H. (2012). Protecting Folklore:
Is Intellectual Property the Answer? In The Future of Copyright, Edward Elgar
Publishing, 125-156.
[42] First Nations Development Institute.
(2018). Investing in Native Arts: Indigenous Economic Development in the Arts.
First Nations Development Institute, 15-18.
[43] Arts Law Centre of Australia. (2021).
Artists in the Black: Annual Report 2020-2021. Arts Law Centre of Australia,
Sydney.
[44] Indigenous Art Code Ltd. (2010). The
Indigenous Art Code. Indigenous Art Code Ltd, Sydney.
[45] Intellectual Property Office of New
Zealand. (2003). Practice Guidelines for the Maori Trade Marks Advisory
Committee. IPONZ, Wellington.
[46] United Nations. (2007). United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. UN General Assembly Resolution
61/295, Article 31.
[47] World Intellectual Property Organization.
(2019). The Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions: Draft Articles.
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/40/5, Geneva.
[48] Christen, K. (2015). Tribal Archives,
Traditional Knowledge, and Local Contexts: Why the "s" Matters.
Journal of Western Archives, 6(1), 1-19.
[49] Inuit Art Foundation. (2020). Strategic
Plan 2020-2025: Supporting Inuit Artists in a Changing World. Inuit Art
Foundation, Toronto.
[50] Drahos, P. (2014). Intellectual Property,
Indigenous People and their Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, 92-98.
[51] Daes, E. I. (2000). Protection of the
Heritage of Indigenous People. Final Report of the Special Rapporteur. United
Nations Publication, E/CN.4/Sub.2/26, 59.
Article Information
INDIGENOUS ARTS AND CRAFTS PROTECTION: SAFEGUARDING TRIBAL AND FOLK ART THROUGH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS WHILE ENSURING COMMUNITY BENEFITS
Authors: BHAVYA SREE D, SAIRAM DOMMETTI
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2025/03/25
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.