scholarly journals Branding and Commercialisation of Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions: Customary Law of North East vis-à-vis Contemporary Law

Author(s):  
Moatoshi Ao
2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 519-546
Author(s):  
Rosanne Trottier

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


Author(s):  
Stoll Tobias

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’.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-201
Author(s):  
Carolyn Renée Pautz

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document