Part III Rights to Culture, Ch.11 Intellectual Property and Technologies: Article 31

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stoll Tobias
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
State Action ◽  
Technology And Culture ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
Cultural Expressions ◽  
Traditional Cultural Expressions

This chapter looks at the specific right to intellectual property and technologies in Article 31. Article 31 sets out a number of rights of indigenous peoples relating to their science, technology, and culture, and calls for State action in this regard, which is to be taken with the involvement of those peoples. The provision relates to three different subject matters, between which there obviously exists quite some overlap. It refers, first, to ‘cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions’. Second, it refers to ‘intellectual property’ over such heritage, knowledge, and expressions, and third, to ‘manifestations of…sciences, technologies and cultures’ — representative examples of which find themselves included in an illustrative list. According to Article 31, with a view to each of these subject matters, indigenous peoples have a right to ‘maintain, control, protect and develop’.

Intellectual Property for Mystics? Considerations on Protecting Traditional Wisdom Systems

2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 519-546
Author(s):  
Rosanne Trottier
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Complex Systems ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Intangible Cultural Heritage ◽  
Cultural Expressions ◽  
Traditional Cultural Expressions ◽  
Traditional Communities

AbstractEfforts to protect, if not revitalize, intangible cultural heritage in its traditional communities, cannot succeed without due attention to issues of ownership—cultural, environmental, intellectual, economic … “intellectual property” categories in a wisdom system such as that of the Baul of Bengal show that Traditional Knowledge, Customary Law and Traditional Cultural Expressions are inseparable “property,” and that “ownership” should be understood on traditional terms. Within such an integrated continuum, knowledge itself is not limited to it modern meaning.Is it possible to bring about a true and equitable dialogue between radically antagonistic intellectual property universes—the modern one driven by profit, and traditional ones rooted in complex systems of multiple values?The death of a wise old one is the loss of a whole library—L. S. Senghor

Beyond Unbridled Optimism and Fear: Indigenous Peoples, Intellectual Property, Human Rights and the Globalisation of Traditional Knowledge and Expressions of Folklore: Part II

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-37
Author(s):  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Marlowe Fox
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Traditional Cultural Expressions

Abstract In Part I of this two-part article, we explained why western assumptions built into intellectual property law make this area of law a problematic tool, as a way of protecting traditional knowledge (tk) and expressions of folklore (EoF) or traditional cultural expressions (tce) of indigenous peoples. Part II of this article aims to: 1) provide a brief review of the Convention on Biological Diversity (cbd) and the Nagoya Protocol, and examine the evolution of the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples from the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (trips Agreement) to the cbd to the Nagoya Protocol; and 2) examine possible core principles, inducted (rather than deduced) from actual practices already in place in the areas of patents, copyrights, and trademarks in relation to protecting tk and EoF. These explorations could allow for discussions regarding indigenous peoples, human rights and international trade law to become less adversarial.

Beyond Unbridled Optimism and Fear: Indigenous Peoples, Intellectual Property, Human Rights and the Globalisation of Traditional Knowledge and Expressions of Folklore: Part I

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Marlowe Fox
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Cultural Expression ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Traditional Cultural Expressions

Abstract This article is the first part of a two-part piece, which considers the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples. After establishing pragmatic working definitions of who “indigenous peoples” are and what folklore (or “traditional cultural expression”) is, as compared with, but dialectically related to, “traditional knowledge,” this article does the following: 1) explains why western assumptions built into intellectual property law make this area of law a problematic tool for protecting traditional knowledge (TK) and expressions of folklore (EoF) or traditional cultural expressions (TCE) of indigenous peoples; and 2) creates a general sketch of human rights related legal instruments that could be and have been harnessed, with varying degrees of success, in the protection of the intellectual property of indigenous peoples.

Afro-Cuban Folkloric Dance in the Age of Intellectual Property

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-201
Author(s):  
Carolyn Renée Pautz
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Public Policies ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
Cultural Institutions ◽  
The World ◽  
Cultural Expressions ◽  
Traditional Cultural Expressions

Abstract:This article analyzes drafts put forth by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to examine the gaps that are created when institutions attempt to assign authorship of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions to individuals and communities and how these gaps impact the use of folkloric dance in cultural institutions. The analysis produced via anthropological mappings of policy is underpinned with an examination of terminologies that circulate between fields of discourse, spiraling their way into public policies concerning marginalized peoples’ rights, economies of art, and intellectual property. This is followed by ethnographic accounts of Afro-Cuban folkloric dance classes, for it is in the dancing bodies that gaps between policies of authorship and the reality of unstable streams of transmission and reception materialize. By reproducing and circulating these unstable streams, combined with various legal doctrines put forth by WIPO, cultural institutions appropriate Afro-Cuban folkloric dance to commodify individuals and communities.

Part II Substantive Aspects, Ch.20 Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Property

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Burri Mira
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Traditional Cultural Expressions ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines the protection of both cultural heritage and intellectual property. The relationship between cultural heritage and intellectual property evolves in a profoundly complex setting—with many institutions and actors involved, often with very different or even divergent interests, and within a fragmented legal regime. Although intellectual property law has developed sophisticated rules with regard to a variety of intellectual property forms, it is based on certain author-centred and mercantilist premises that do not work so well with the protection of traditional knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expressions (TCE). Nevertheless, in the fields of patent, trademark, and copyright protection, there are tools that may provide some, albeit imperfect, protection of TK and TCE. The chapter maps the mismatches and the gaps and asks whether these can be addressed in some viable way—be it through adjusting the existing rules or through the creation of new tailored models of protection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document