Indigenous Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Property Rights

Lai, Jessica C.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02955-9

Cited by 24 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Waitangi Tribunal heard the Wai 262 claim between 1997 and 2007, before releasing its findings and recommendations in 2011, in the Report Ko Aotearoa Tēnei , “This is Aotearoa New Zealand.” The Report found that the Government had failed to fulfil its obligations, under the Treaty of Waitangi, to ensure that the guardianship relationships between Māori and their taonga (their mātauranga Māori and artistic works, and their culturally significant species of flora and fauna, among other things) were acknowledged and protected. It recommends that future laws, policies and practices across a broad range of legal subject matter do acknowledge and respect those relationships (Frankel, ; Lai, , ch. 4; ; Solomon ; Wai 262, ch.…”

Section: Background and Context For Aotearoa New Zealand Australia mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since this Report was released in 2011, there has been little related activity or new official policy from the government. The Patents Act 2013 set‐up a Māori Advisory Committee to advise the Commissioner on whether “(a) an invention claimed in a patent application is derived from Māori traditional knowledge or from Indigenous plants or animals; and (b) if so, whether the commercial exploitation of that invention is likely to be contrary to Māori values.” While more or less consistent with some of the Wai 262 recommendations, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) had already been refusing applications that were “contrary to morality” with respect to Māori (Lai, , pp. 139–140).…”

Section: Background and Context For Aotearoa New Zealand Australia mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This has led to an expanded review of Article 27.3b and the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD . In particular, the establishment of databases (for the purposes of assessing novelty and nonobviousness) and disclosure requirements (regarding origin of GRs and TK used) in the patent process are viewed by some as potential bridging mechanisms between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD (as discussed in Lai, , pp. 148–150 and 269–271).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Māori knowledge under the microscope: Appropriation and patenting of mātauranga Māori and related resources

Lai

Robinson

Stirrup

et al. 2019

World Intellectual Property

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the early 1990s there has been considerable global discussion and debate surrounding biodiscovery activities and the utilisation of both genetic resources (including biochemical derivatives) and associated traditional/Indigenous knowledge (TK/IK). Concerns about misappropriations and biopiracy have often been raised; however it has been difficult to quantify the scale of this problem beyond some common examples and anecdotes. This paper contributes to emerging research in this area (e.g., see Oldham et al. 2013, PLOS One, 8, e78737; and Robinson and Raven, 2017, Aust Geogr, 48, 311) and seeks to quantify patent utilisation of specific GRs where there is documented TK. A patent landscaping approach was undertaken with a focus on plants with associated mātaraunga Māori (Māori knowledge) from Aotearoa New Zealand. We explain our methodology and highlight 77 patent families of interest identified through our search. Although the findings are not definitive about misappropriation without additional analysis of the patents’ specifications and claims, and sources of mātauranga Māori, the data we outline may be useful for drawing out cases of misappropriation and biopiracy. These findings might also be useful for considering the potential implications of these for Māori claims under the Waitangi Tribunal Wai 262, potential access and benefit‐sharing (ABS) systems, and intellectual property regulations or reforms.

show abstract

Section: Background and Context For Aotearoa New Zealand Australia mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Background and Context For Aotearoa New Zealand Australia mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Māori knowledge under the microscope: Appropriation and patenting of mātauranga Māori and related resources

Lai

Robinson

Stirrup

et al. 2019

World Intellectual Property

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…22 Today's battles over intellectual property, including songs and other forms of 'intangible cultural heritage' (Taylor 2008), can be roughly mapped according to three main positions: first, a dominant logic of private ownership represented by the commercial music industry (Kirton in David and Halbert 2015: 591-2); second, an ethics of the commons, supported primarily by tech-orientated groups (e.g. Lessig 2004) and increasingly taken up by public institutions including universities; and third, a politics of custodianship put forward by indigenous communities (Lea 2008;Lai 2014). The commons and custodianship positions are sometimes understood as being in conflict with each other (Jones 2006;Calamai et al 2016), but they can also be allied in creative ways against the dominant commercial position, as in Free Culture Foundation's 'Decolonial Media License'.…”

Section: P R O B L E M S I N S O N G W O R K : S O N G S B O D I E mentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular Identities

Spatz¹

2019

Performance Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

View related articles View Crossmark data 1 This moment is traced in 'Ancestors' (3:30), a short edited video by Ben Spatz with Nazlıhan Eda Erçin and Agnieszka Mendel, http://bit.ly/2HQKjtB (fig. 1). 2 This moment is traced in the final section of 'Diaspora' (Spatz et al. 2018); also available at http://bit.ly/2V2FOyK (fig. 2). 3 This moment is traced in 'Działoszyce', a video essay by Nazlıhan Eda Erçin with Agnieszka Mendel and Ben Spatz. 'Działoszyce' is a work in progress, which has been shown at several public events but is not yet available online. The book is Hage (2017) (fig. 3). 4 The Judaica project was supported by a Leadership Fellow award from the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (2016-18). This article is indebted to Nazlıhan Eda Erçin and Agnieszka Mendel, who were full-time researchers on the project from May to October 2017; as well as to anthropologist and performer Caroline Gatt and other collaborators. The question 'Who owns a song?' was proposed by Erçin; she has also written about the project (Erçin 2018). Open access for this article is provided by University of Huddersfield. Thanks to Santiago Slabodsky for comments on an earlier draft. 5 My decision to lowercase 'jewish' throughout this article is explained below.

show abstract

“…cameras, supplies, other image recording devices) that makes reproduction possible still remains a significant barrier to many individuals, particularly those facing geographical, social, and economic challenges. Moreover, in most countries, the law privileges the rights of the maker of the photograph because a photograph is only viewed as a representation (Lai, 2014; Lydon, 2010; Wiggins, 1996). When Indigenous peoples are dependent on the decisions and actions of particular institutions and other authoritative bodies to relinquish the tools required to reengage with photographs, issues of power, control, and agency become quite complex.…”

Section: Challenges Limitations and Potential Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“But they were never only the master’s tools”: the use of photography in de-colonial praxis

Pedri-Spade

2017

AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The majority of anthropological literature around photography of Indigenous peoples has privileged the actions, agency, and intent of the Western photographer. While one cannot ignore the significant colonizing influences that photographs have had on Indigenous peoples, one cannot presume that these individuals were solely the silenced subject or victim in a one-sided, inferior relationship with the camera and its operator. Recent scholarship is now re-examining the relationship Indigenous peoples have had with photography as a culturally productive technology since its development. In this article, I will address the role of photography in a global context as an object and a method of decolonization in two ways: (a) through archived collections of colonial photography and (b) in the production of contemporary photographs by peoples who experience contemporary colonialism. In both of these contexts, I will explore how various populations or communities with a colonial history use photography to confront ongoing legacies of colonialism, particularly in agendas aimed at repairing and reconfiguring relationships with self, family and kin, colonizer, community, and the natural world. Drawing on examples from several countries and locales, I will address the potentials and challenges of reframing Indigenous peoples’ experience of, and relationship with, photography within the context of de-colonial praxis.

show abstract

Indigenous Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Property Rights

Cited by 24 publications

References 52 publications

Māori knowledge under the microscope: Appropriation and patenting of mātauranga Māori and related resources

Māori knowledge under the microscope: Appropriation and patenting of mātauranga Māori and related resources

Molecular Identities

“But they were never only the master’s tools”: the use of photography in de-colonial praxis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About