World Intellectual Property Organization

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. Ninth Session Geneva, April 24 to 28, 2006. The protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions/Expressions of Folklore: updated draft outline of policy options and legal mechanisms

 

 


E

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 ORIGINAL: English

WIPO

DATE: March 27, 2006

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION

GENEVA

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND GENETIC RESOURCES, TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE

Ninth Session Geneva, April 24 to 28, 2006

THE PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL CULTURAL EXPRESSIONS/ EXPRESSIONS OF FOLKLORE:

UPDATED DRAFT OUTLINE OF POLICY OPTIONS AND LEGAL MECHANISMS

Document prepared by the Secretariat

I. SUMMARY

  1. The Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (the Committee) commissioned the drafting of an outline of policy options and legal mechanisms for the protection of traditional cultural expressions (TCEs)/expressions of folklore (EoF). The Committee first requested this outline at its sixth session, and extensively reviewed an initial draft (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/4) at its seventh session. This document provides the revised draft that the Committee then requested.
  2. If objectives and principles for protection of TCEs/EoF are established internationally, it would still be necessary to determine how they are implemented at the level of national and regional laws. This outline therefore gives updated information on the actual policy options and legal mechanisms that national and regional legal systems have already employed to give effect to the kind of draft objectives and principles set out in document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4, the main working document on TCEs/EoF for this ninth session of the Committee, and in preceding versions (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/3 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/8/4). An outline of policy options and legal mechanisms may serve as an information resource to assist in the choice of appropriate mechanisms to achieve policy objectives and to implement principles such as those set out for consideration in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4.
  3. In line with the directions of the Committee, this draft has been updated “in the light of revisions to the draft objectives and core principles [WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4] and in the light of comments received.” This document is an information resource and a potential capacity building tool only, and no specific decisions in respect of this document are suggested at this stage, beyond noting and commenting on its contents. It would be possible to present further updates to this document to the Committee, should the Committee find this a useful or desirable step.

II. INTRODUCTION

4. At its sixth session (March 2004), the Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare two complementary drafts concerning protection of TCEs/EOF:

(i)
an overview of policy objectives and core principles for protection of TCEs; and
(ii)
an outline of the policy options and legal mechanisms for the protection of TCE subject matter,

based on the full range of approaches already considered by the Committee, together with a brief analysis of the policy and practical implications of each option. 1

5. The first document (the overview of policy objectives and core principles) was circulated as WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/3 and reviewed by the Committee at its seventh session (November 2004). The policy objectives and core principles were revised in the light of guidance from the Committee and the intersessional commentary process mandated by the

Report of Sixth Session, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, par. 66.

Committee. The resulting redraft of this document was circulated as WIPO/GRTKF/IC/8/4 and again as WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4.

  1. The second document (the outline of policy options and legal mechanisms) was prepared as a companion to the first document. It provides information on how national and regional legal systems have actually implemented objectives and principles for protection of TCEs/EoF – the kind of policy options and legal mechanisms that have been used in practice to give effect to the objectives and principles that are being reviewed by the Committee. The objectives and principles define the policy space, including the international dimension of protection; the policy options and legal mechanisms describe how this policy space has been used in practice to protect TCEs/EoF against misappropriation and misuse.
  2. The first version of the outline of policy options and legal mechanisms was submitted to the Committee as WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/4, and reviewed at the seventh session. The Committee requested the preparation of a revised version, to be updated “in the light of revisions to the draft objectives and core principles and in the light of comments received”. 2 The present document is the requested update.
  3. This updated draft document continues the function of providing information on the policy options and legal mechanisms that national and regional legal systems have employed to give effect to the kind of draft objectives and principles set out in document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4, the main working document on TCEs/EoF for this ninth session of the Committee, and in the preceding drafts, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/3 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/8/4.

III. CONTEXT OF THE POLICY OPTIONS AND LEGAL MECHANISMS

  1. This present document may, therefore, be viewed as an information resource or capacity building tool to draw on a wide base of practical experience to assist in the choice of appropriate mechanisms to achieve the draft objectives and to implement the draft principles that are set out in the companion document, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4. Such draft international principles may in practice be implemented by a wide range of distinct national and regional legal mechanisms, ranging over diverse forms of IP right, adapted IP rights, the general law of unfair competition and various general legal mechanisms beyond the scope of IP law proper (such as criminal law, the law of delict/torts, the general law of civil liability, cultural heritage preservation laws, blasphemy laws, customary laws, contract law, employment law and marketing and labeling laws and schemes). National policymakers have a wide choice of policy options and legal mechanisms to give effect to objectives and principles such as those suggested in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4. The present document illustrates the choices by providing draft materials for the Committee’s further review. It illustrates that it is possible to draw from varied existing practical experiences and select specific mechanisms, causes of action, doctrines and other means to achieve such objectives and to implement such principles.
  2. This approach responds to the need to respect that, in addressing the international dimension, effective and appropriate protection may be achieved by a wide variety of legal mechanisms, and that too narrow, detailed or rigid an approach at the level of principle may restrict space for policy development at the national level, constrain effective protection,

Report of Seventh Session, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/15, par. 102.

conflict with existing laws to protect TCEs/EoF, and pre-empt necessary consultation with stakeholders and holders of TCEs in particular. It also concerns the need to draw on a wide range of legal mechanisms to achieve the intended objectives of protection.

  1. This approach is relatively common in the IP field. Previous documents gave examples of IP conventions which establish certain general principles and which give scope for wide variation within the laws of the signatories. 3 This approach is consistent with and expresses most directly the “principle of flexibility and comprehensiveness” suggested in document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 and in its earlier versions.
  2. Actual experience with TCEs/EoF protection has shown that it is unlikely that any single “one-size-fits-all” or “universal” international template will be found to protect TCEs comprehensively in a manner that suits the national priorities, legal and cultural environment, and needs of traditional communities in all countries. 4 Forms of traditional creative expression and customary means of regulating their use, transmission, protection and preservation are diverse. Concerns have been expressed that attempts to codify and institutionalize protection of “cultural identity” are undesirable and that a flexible and inclusive approach is preferable. An indigenous organization has put it best: “Any attempt to devise uniform guidelines for the recognition and protection of indigenous peoples’ knowledge runs the risk of collapsing this rich jurisprudential diversity into a single ‘model’ that will not fit the values, conceptions or laws of any indigenous society”. 5 Provisions for the protection of TCEs/EoF adopted at the international level would also have to accommodate legislative and jurisprudential diversity within current national and regional approaches. 6 In particular, experience has shown that a mix of measures, between proprietary and non-proprietary approaches, and between distinct new measures and adaptations of existing IP rights, is more likely to achieve the objectives of protection.

IV. STRUCTURE OF THIS DOCUMENT

13. In line with the directions of the Committee, to serve as a useful reference and to maintain consistency, this document follows closely the structure proposed in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4. It is structured as follows:

3 See WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/6, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/3, WIPO/GRTKF/7/4 and WIPO/GRTKF/8/4, referring, for example, to the TRIPS Agreement, Article 1.1; Rome Convention, Article 7; the Satellites Convention, Article 2; the Lisbon Convention, Article 8; the Washington Treaty, Article 4; and the Phonograms Convention, Article 3.

4 Venezuela (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 72), African Group (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 73), Canada (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 79), Syrian Arab Republic (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 80), New Zealand (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 88), Kaska Dena Council (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/ 6/14, para. 59).

5 Four Directions Council, ‘Forests, Indigenous Peoples and Biodiversity,’ Submission to the Secretariat for the CBD, 1996.

6 See Final Report on National Experiences with the Legal Protection of Expressions of Folklore (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/ 3/10); Lucas-Schloetter, ‘Folklore’ in von Lewinski, S. (Ed.), Indigenous Heritage and Intellectual Property, 2004 (Kluwer); Kuruk, P., “Protecting Folklore Under Modern Intellectual Property Regimes: A Reappraisal of the Tensions Between Individual and Communal Rights in Africa and the United States,” 48 American University Law Review 769 (1999).

(a) policy options for the protection of TCE/EoF, comprising:

(i)
options for the objectives of protection, recording various ways in which the policy objectives suggested in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 have been expressed in international, regional and national laws and instruments;
(ii)
options relating to the general form of protection, recording the range of legal doctrines and general principles that have been applied to the protection of TCEs/EoF, corresponding broadly to the general guiding principles suggested in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4;
(b)
legal elements of protection of TCEs/EoF, showing how legal provisions that have been developed and used in international, national and regional laws and instruments have implemented the specific substantive principles suggested in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4.
  1. This document gives a provisional outline of options and legal mechanisms. It could evolve and be further developed in line with the further evolution of the objectives and principles set out in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4. However, no specific decisions in respect of this document are suggested at this stage, and the Committee is invited merely to note and comment on it, and call for it to be updated again if it so wishes.
  2. In so far as terminology is concerned, terms such as “traditional cultural expressions” and “expressions of folklore”; “protection”; and, “indigenous peoples and traditional and other cultural communities” are used as discussed in previous documents, notably WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/3, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/4 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/8/4 and as they are used in the companion document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4.

V. BASIS IN PAST DISCUSSION AND ACTUAL EXPERIENCE

16. The document draws directly upon the full range of materials that have served as the basis of the Committee’s work so far, such as previous working documents prepared for the Committee 7 ; interventions and submissions made by Member States, communities and other stakeholders during Committee sessions but also at national and regional workshops and consultations 8 ; reports 9 ; studies 10 ; responses to questionnaires 11; and comments on the earlier working documents made at previous sessions of the Committee. 12 Member State documents and submissions have also been taken into account, such as the proposal put to the Committee by the African Group at the Committee’s sixth session (document

7 Such as documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/10, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/3, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/3, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/3 Add., WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/3, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/4, and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/8/4.

8 See documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/4, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/4 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/7, for example, for lists of these meetings and consultations. See also reports of previous Committee sessions for interventions made. Workshops and consultations that took place since the previous document was written in August 2004, include those in Indonesia (November 2004), Norway (October 2004), Republic of Korea (October 2004), Russian Federation (April 2005), South Africa (May 2005), Panama (October 2005), Greece (October 2005), and Sudan (November 2005).

9 Such as the report of the fact-finding missions conducted by WIPO in 1998 and 1999.

10 Such as ‘Minding Culture’ by Terri Janke and ‘National Experiences of India, Indonesia and the Philippines’ by Valsala Kutty.

11 Such as WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/10.

12 See in particular the reports of previous Committee sessions.

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/12, entitled “Objectives, Principles and Elements of an International Instrument, or Instruments, on Intellectual Property in relation to Genetic Resources and on the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore”), which many delegations welcomed and found helpful as a framework for further discussion and elaboration. 13

17. A wide variety of international, regional and national instruments, measures and laws (many of which are summarized and analyzed in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/INF/3 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/INF/4; see Annex II to this document) have been studied and taken into account, such as:

(i)
the Tunis Model Law on Copyright for Developing Countries, 1976 (‘the Tunis Model Law’);
(ii)
the WIPO-UNESCO Model Provisions for National Laws on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore Against Illicit Exploitation and Other Prejudicial Actions, 1982 (‘the Model Provisions’);

(iii) the Bangui Agreement on the Creation of an African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI), as revised in 1999 (‘the Bangui Agreement’);

(iv)
the Special Intellectual Property Regime Governing the Collective Rights of Indigenous Peoples for the Protection and Defence of their Cultural Identity and their Traditional Knowledge of Panama, 2000 and the related Executive Decree of 2001 (‘the Panama Law’);
(v)
the Pacific Regional Framework for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Expressions of Culture, 2002 (‘the Pacific Regional Framework’);
(vi)
the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 of the Philippines (‘the Philippines Law’);

(vii) the Database of Official Insignia of Native American Tribes of the United States of America, established pursuant to section 2(a) of the Trademark Act, 1946, as amended (the US Native American Insignia Database’);

(viii) section 17 (1) (b) (ii) of the New Zealand’s Trade Marks Act, 2002 which allows the Commissioner of Trade Marks to refuse to register a trademark where its use or registration would be likely to offend a significant section of the community, including Maori; and

(ix) the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, 1990 of the United States of America (‘the USA Arts and Crafts Act’).

  1. For ease of reference a table analyzing and comparing many of these laws is attached as Annex II.
  2. In addition, numerous other national laws have been examined. These are mainly the laws of African and other States which have enacted protection for TCEs/folklore based upon either the Tunis Model Law, 1976 or the Model Provisions, 1982. Particular attention has

Such as Group B (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 191), European Community (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 192), Group of Central and Baltic States (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 193), China (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 194), Syrian Arab Republic (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 203), Canada (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 205), Norway (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 216), Pakistan (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 217), ARIPO (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 225), URTNA (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 227) and the Kaska Dena Council speaking on behalf of several indigenous peoples’ organizations (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 228).

been paid, as examples only, to the copyright laws of Nigeria and Tunisia, which were presented at the panel on TCEs/EoF held during the Committee’s fourth session. The Peruvian Law of 2002 Introducing a Protection Regime for the Collective Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples Derived from Biological Resources (‘the Peru Law, 2002’) has also been analyzed and taken into account.

  1. The work of regional organizations also contributes importantly to the identification and development of options and mechanisms. Most recently, note can be made of the significant initiative of the African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation (ARIPO) and the Organisation Africaine de la Propriete Intellectuelle (OAPI). Towards the end of 2004, the two regional organizations decided to develop draft frameworks for African instruments on the protection of TK and EoF against misappropriation and misuse. Each organization first organized meetings of experts to develop respective ARIPO and OAPI drafts (these were held in Dakar, Senegal in February 2005 and in Harare, Zimbabwe in April 2005). Subsequently, a joint meeting of ARIPO and OAPI experts, which took place in Kampala, Uganda in November 2005, developed harmonized draft frameworks for African instruments on traditional knowledge and expressions of folklore. These draft frameworks have since been submitted to the Member States of each organization for their comments.
  2. The safeguarding, preservation, promotion and protection of expressions of traditional cultures are also addressed in other policy forums, and WIPO/GRTKF/9/4 and this companion document draw on and take into account developments in these forums too. These include:
(a)
in the human rights area, renewed attention by the UN’s Working Group on Indigenous Populations, under the auspices of the UN’s Commission on Human Rights, to draft “Principles and Guidelines on the Heritage of Indigenous Peoples”, last discussed by the Working Group in July 2005; the adoption by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) of a General Comment on Article 15.1(c) of the International Convenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the ICESCR), 1966 in November 2005; and, ongoing discussion of a “Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, by the UN’s Working Group on the Draft Declaration created by the Human Rights Commission;
(b)
in the cultural heritage and cultural diversity areas, the UNESCO International Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2003, which comes into force on April 20, 2006, and the recent adoption in late 2005 of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions;
(c)
in the area of indigenous peoples’ rights, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (the Permanent Forum) continues to provide expert advice and recommendations on indigenous issues, raise awareness and promote the integration and coordination of activities related to indigenous issues within the UN system, and prepare and disseminate information on indigenous issues. In January 2005, the Forum organized an International Workshop on Methodologies Regarding Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Indigenous Peoples, and in September 2005, the Inter-Agency Group on Indigenous Issues (of which WIPO is an active member) convened a Technical Workshop on Indigenous Traditional Knowledge, held in Panama and hosted by the Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean of the United Nations Children’ Fund (UNICEF).
  1. Many of these regional and international processes have drawn ideas and text directly from the draft objectives and principles for the protection of TCEs as set out in this document or in its earlier versions.
  2. Early drafts of this document and of the ideas contained in it were discussed and consulted on as far as possible in a variety of meetings and other occasions. 14 Following suggestions made by the Delegations of Egypt and the Islamic Republic of Iran and other participants at the sixth session 15 , particular efforts were made to obtain the comments and inputs of folklorists and other such experts, including through both formal and less formal meetings and interactions. 16
  3. More recent workshops, seminars and consultations that took place since the previous version of this document was written in August 2004, include those in Indonesia (November 2004), Norway (Permanent Forum/UNESCO/University of Tromso, October 2004), Republic of Korea (October 2004), Senegal (OAPI, February 2005), France (UNESCO workshop, March 2005), Brazil (UNCTAD, April 2005), Russian Federation (RAIPON meeting, April 2005), Zimbabwe (ARIPO, April 2005), South Africa (May 2005), Panama (IASG/Permanent Forum, September 2005), Panama (October 2005), Greece (ICOM-ICME, October 2005), Uganda (ARIPO/OAPI, November 2005), Sudan (November 2005) and Thailand (ONCC/ACCU, December 2005).
  4. While not all of these more recent developments are yet fully reflected in Annex I, that Annex could be progressively updated should the Committee so wish, and more recent developments will then be reflected.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

26. This document remains an information resource concerning the specific options within national policy space to give effect to general international principles, and the kind of legal mechanisms that are available to make the best, tailored use of that policy space. It has been prepared as a supplementary resource, following the basic structure suggested in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4. If this approach is generally acceptable, it would suggest that the further evolution of this material should continue to track the further development of that document. This document may have a continuing role in relation to coordinated capacity-building and policy development at the national and regional levels. The document could be further developed and enhanced based on the overall guidance provided by the Committee regarding the development of WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4.

14 Such as: WIPO and US Copyright Symposium, Washington DC, May 6 and 7, 2004; 43rd Annual Session of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee, Bali, June 21 to 25, 2004; South African Developing Country (SADC) Workshop on Indigenous Knowledge Systems Policy Development and Capacity Building, Pretoria, June 7 to 9, 2004; 3rd Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, May 10 to 21, 2004; OHCHR and ILO Indigenous Fellowship Program, June 10, 2004, Working Group on Indigenous Populations, Geneva, July 2004; WIPO-WTO Colloquium for Teachers of Intellectual Property Law, Geneva, June 28 to July 9, 2004.

15 WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, paras. 42 and 52.

16 Such as “Folklore, Aesthetic Ecologies and Public Domain”, University of Pennsylvania, April 2 and 3, 2004; 8th Congress of the Societé internationale d'ethnologie et de folklore (SIEF) and the 3rd Congress of the Association d'anthropologie méditerranéenne (ADAM), Marseille, April 28, 2004.

27. The Committee is invited: (i) to note and comment on the updated outline of policy options and legal mechanisms for protection set out in Annexes I and II of this document; and (ii) to note the possible further development of this material in the light of further work by the Committee on objectives and principles of protection.

[Annexes follow]

UPDATED OUTLINE OF POLICY OPTIONS AND LEGAL MECHANISMS FOR THE PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL CULTURAL EXPRESSIONS/EXPRESSIONS OF FOLKLORE

A. POLICY OPTIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF TCES/EOF

A.1 Options for realizing the objectives of protection

1. In WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4, the following were suggested as objectives which the protection of traditional cultural expressions or expressions of folklore should aim to achieve:

Recognize value

(i)
recognize that indigenous peoples and traditional and other cultural communities consider their cultural heritage to have intrinsic value, including social, cultural, spiritual, economic, scientific, intellectual, commercial and educational values, and acknowledge that traditional cultures and folklore constitute frameworks of innovation and creativity that benefit indigenous peoples and traditional and other cultural communities, as well as all humanity;
Promote respect
(ii)
promote respect for traditional cultures and folklore, and for the dignity, cultural integrity, and the philosophical, intellectual and spiritual values of the peoples and communities that preserve and maintain expressions of these cultures and folklore;

Meet the actual needs of communities

(iii) be guided by the aspirations and expectations expressed directly by indigenous peoples and by traditional and other cultural communities, respect their rights under national and international law, and contribute to the welfare and sustainable economic, cultural, environmental and social development of such peoples and communities;

Prevent the misappropriation of traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore

(iv)
provide indigenous peoples and traditional and other cultural communities with the legal and practical means, including effective enforcement measures, to prevent the misappropriation of their cultural expressions and derivatives therefrom, control ways in which they are used beyond the customary and traditional context and promote the equitable sharing of benefits arising from their use;
Empower communities
(v)
be achieved in a manner that is balanced and equitable but yet effectively empowers indigenous peoples and traditional and other cultural communities to exercise rights and authority over their own traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore;
Support customary practices and community cooperation
(vi)
respect the continuing customary use, development, exchange and transmission of traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore by, within and between communities;

Contribute to safeguarding traditional cultures

(vii) contribute to the preservation and safeguarding of the environment in which traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore are generated and maintained, for the direct benefit of indigenous peoples and traditional and other cultural communities, and for the benefit of humanity in general;

Encourage community innovation and creativity

(viii) reward and protect tradition-based creativity and innovation especially by indigenous peoples and traditional and other cultural communities;

Promote intellectual and artistic freedom, research and cultural exchange on equitable terms

(ix)
promote intellectual and artistic freedom, research practices and cultural exchange on terms which are equitable to indigenous peoples and traditional and other cultural communities;
Contribute to cultural diversity
(x)
contribute to the promotion and protection of the diversity of cultural expressions;
Promote community development and legitimate trading activities
(xi)
where so desired by communities and their members, promote the use of traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore for community-based development, recognizing them as an asset of the communities that identify with them, such as through the development and expansion of marketing opportunities for tradition-based creations and innovations;

Preclude unauthorized IP rights

(xii) preclude the grant, exercise and enforcement of intellectual property rights acquired by unauthorized parties over traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore and derivatives thereof;

Enhance certainty, transparency and mutual confidence

(xiii) enhance certainty, transparency, mutual respect and understanding in relations between indigenous peoples and traditional and cultural communities, on the one hand, and academic, commercial, governmental, educational and other users of TCEs/EoF, on the other.

2. The following are examples of objectives and preambular language contained in existing laws and instruments for the specific protection of TCEs/EoF. They indicate different ways in which the objectives set out in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 could be expressed at the national and regional levels:

(i) the Preamble to the Model Provisions, 1982 reads as follows:

“Considering that folklore represents an important part of the living cultural heritage of the nation, developed and maintained by the communities within the nation, or by individuals reflecting the expectations of those communities;

Considering that the dissemination of various expressions of folklore may lead to improper exploitation of the cultural heritage of the nation;

Considering that any abuse of commercial or other nature or any distortion of expressions of folklore are prejudicial to the cultural and economic interests of the nation;

Considering that expressions of folklore constituting manifestations of intellectual creativity deserve to be protected in a manner inspired by the protection provided for intellectual productions;

Considering that such a protection of expressions of folklore has become indispensable as a means of promoting further development, maintenance and dissemination of those expressions, both within and outside the country, without prejudice to related legitimate interests”;

(ii) the policy objectives of the Bangui Agreement, 1999 are to promote the effective contribution of IP to the development of Member States [of OAPI], protect IP in an effective and uniform manner, and contribute to the promotion of the protection of literary and artistic property as an expression of cultural and social values;

(iii) the preamble to the Copyright Act of Indonesia, 2002 includes the following statement of objective: “[Considering] that Indonesia is a country which has diversity of ethnics/tribes and culture as well as wealth in the field of arts and literature which needs the protection of copyright for the intellectual property originating from the diversity”;

(iv)
the Panama Law of 2000 and related Decree of 2001 aim at protecting the collective IP rights and knowledge of indigenous communities through the registration, promotion, commercialization and marketing of their rights in such a way as to give prominence to indigenous socio-cultural values and cultural identities and for social justice. Another key objective is the protection of the authenticity of crafts and other traditional artistic expressions (Preamble and Article 1 of the Law; Preamble of the Decree);
(v)
the USA Arts and Crafts Act, 1990 aims to promote the development of American Indian and Alaska Native arts and crafts, improve the economic status of members of Federally-recognized tribes, and help develop and expand marketing opportunities for arts and crafts produced by American Indians and Alaska Natives;
(vi)
the policy objectives in the Nigerian Copyright Act in respect of TCEs/EoF are “to prevent unauthorized use of folklore resources; ensure the honour dignity or the cultural interests of the source community; acknowledge the source of the folklore while not unnecessarily inhibiting the public access to the resources”. 1

Presentation by Nigeria, Fourth Session of the Committee; see WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/INF/2.

A.2 Options relating to the general form of protection

Introduction

  1. This section records the range of legal doctrines and general principles that have been applied to the protection of TCEs/EoF in a variety of international instruments, and regional and national laws. These include use of existing IP systems, adapted IP rights and new, stand-alone sui generis systems, as well as non-IP options. The options selected by various countries have depended to a large degree on the policy objectives and national goals being served. Countries which have already elected to provide specific protection for folklore have elected to do so through specific laws on folklore, within broader laws on copyright, or in conjunction with TK protection.
  2. The debate about the protection of TCEs often centers on whether adequate and appropriate protection is best provided through either the conventional IP system or through an alternative sui generis system. Yet the documented practical experiences of many Member States reflects that existing IP rights and sui generis measures are not mutually exclusive but are complementary options. 2 A comprehensive approach is likely to consider each of these options, and apply them judiciously to achieve the objectives of protection, accepting the practical reality that the boundaries between these options are not rigid. Effective protection may therefore be found in a combined and comprehensive approach, with a menu of differentiated and multiple levels and forms of protection. The options selected by various countries have depended to a large degree on the policy objectives and national goals being served.
  3. This flexibility – encapsulating a comprehensive and combined approach – is a practical articulation of several of the general guiding principles proposed in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4. The suggested ‘Principle of flexibility and comprehensiveness’ underscores that protection should respect the diversity of TCEs/EoF and the wide range of needs of the beneficiaries of protection, should acknowledge diversity in national circumstances and legal systems, and should allow sufficient flexibility for national authorities to determine the appropriate means of achieving the objectives of protection. Protection has accordingly drawn on a comprehensive range of options, combining proprietary, non-proprietary and non-IP measures, and using existing IP rights, sui generis extensions or adaptations of IP rights, and specially-created sui generis IP measures and systems, including both defensive and positive

GRULAC (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/5), European Community (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, paras. 20 and 165), Canada (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, paras. 46 and 166), Norway (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, para. 33), United States of America (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, para. 49), Poland (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, para. 156), the Asian Group (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/10 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/16, para. 170), Ethiopia (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, para. 50), Asian Group (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/16 para. 170), Thailand (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/16, para. 172). African Group (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 62), Brazil (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 63), Venezuela (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 65), Colombia (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 67), Russian Federation (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 68), Iran (Islamic Republic of) (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 69), Indonesia (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 74), Morocco (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 76), Egypt (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 80), and Andean Community (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 82), Peru (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 77), India (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 81), New Zealand WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 88)

measures. Private property rights should complement and be carefully balanced with non-proprietary and non-IP measures.

  1. The other suggested principles are also directly advanced by such an approach. For example, the ‘Principle of responsiveness to aspirations and expectations of relevant communities’ concerns the need to recognize and apply indigenous and customary laws and protocols as far as possible, promote complementary use of positive and defensive protection, address cultural and economic aspects of development, address insulting, derogatory and offensive acts, enable full and effective participation by these communities, and recognize the inseparable quality of traditional knowledge and TCEs/EoF for many communities. Measures for the legal protection of TCEs/EoF should also be recognized as voluntary from the viewpoint of indigenous peoples and other communities who would always be entitled to rely exclusively or in addition upon their own customary and traditional forms of protection against unwanted access and use of their TCEs/EoF.
  2. A ‘Principle of balance’ calls for an equitable balance between the rights and interests of those that develop, preserve and sustain TCEs/EoF, and of those who use and benefit from them; the need to reconcile diverse policy concerns; and the need for specific protection measures to be proportionate to the objectives of protection, actual experiences and needs, and the maintenance of an equitable balance of interests. A ‘Principle of respect for and consistency with other international and regional agreements and instruments’ means that TCEs/EoF should be protected in a way that is consistent with the objectives of other relevant international and regional instruments and processes, and without prejudice to specific rights and obligations already established under binding legal instruments. The ‘Principle of recognition of the specific nature and characteristics of cultural expression’ calls for protection to respond to the traditional character of TCEs/EoF; their collective or communal context and the inter-generational character of their development, preservation and transmission; their relationship to a community’s cultural and social identity and integrity, beliefs, spirituality and values; their often being vehicles for religious and cultural expression; and, their constantly evolving character within a community. It also means that special measures for legal protection should also recognize that in practice TCEs/EoF are not always created within firmly bounded identifiable ‘communities’ that can be treated as legal persons or unified actors. TCEs/EoF are not necessarily always the expression of distinct local identities; nor are they often truly unique, but rather the products of cross-cultural exchange and influence.
  3. A key principle of ‘Respect for customary use and transmission of TCEs/EoF’ expresses that protection should promote the use, development, exchange, transmission and dissemination of TCEs/EoF by the communities concerned in accordance with their customary laws and practices. Customary use, practices and norms should guide the legal protection of TCEs/EoF as far as possible, on such questions as ownership of rights, management of rights and communal decision-making, equitable sharing of benefits, exceptions and limitations to rights and remedies. And, a ‘Principle of effectiveness and accessibility of measures for protection’ indicates that measures for the acquisition, management and enforcement of rights and for the implementation of other forms of protection should be effective, appropriate and accessible, taking account of the cultural, social, political and economic context of indigenous peoples and traditional and other cultural communities.

IP and non-IP options

9. IP-type property rights are not the only way to provide protection for TCEs. Comprehensive protection may require a range of IP and non-IP legal tools. Approaches for TCE protection, both within and beyond the IP system, could include:

(a)
Distinct intellectual property rights, including:
(i)existing IP rights, (ii)modified or adapted IP rights, and (iii)stand-alone sui generis IP systems;
(b)
Unfair competition law;
(c)
Trade practices and marketing laws;
(d)
Use of contracts and licenses;
(e)
Registers, inventories and databases;
(f)
Customary and indigenous laws and protocols;
(g)
Cultural heritage preservation laws and programs;

(h) General law of civil liability and other remedies, such as rights of publicity, unjust enrichment, confidential information and blasphemy;

(i) Criminal law. 3

10. These are not mutually-exclusive options, and each may, working together, have a role to play. Which modalities and approaches are adopted will also depend upon the nature of the TCEs to be protected, and the policy objectives that protection aims to advance.

Current IP systems, adapted IP systems and stand-alone sui generis IP systems

11. It is well documented that some, if not many, of the needs and concerns of indigenous peoples and traditional and other cultural communities and their members may be met by solutions existing already within current IP systems, including through appropriate extensions or adaptations of those systems. 4 For example:

(a)
copyright and industrial designs laws can protect contemporary adaptations and interpretations of pre-existing materials, even if made within a traditional context;
(b) copyright law may protect unpublished works of which the author is unknown;
(c)
the droite de suite (the resale right) in copyright allows authors of work of arts to benefit economically from successive sales of their works;
(d)
performances of TCEs/EoF may be protected under the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), 1996;

3 For example, criminal law has been used to protect performances against bootlegging, and penal sanctions are mentioned as one means of implementing the standards set out in the Phonograms Convention.

4 European Community (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, paras. 20 and 165), Canada (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, paras. 46 and 166), Norway (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, para. 33), United States of America (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, para. 49), Poland (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, para. 156), the Asian Group (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/10 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/16, para. 170).

(e) traditional signs, symbols and other marks can be registered as trademarks;

(f)
traditional geographical names and appellations of origin can be registered as geographical indications;
(g)
the distinctiveness and reputation associated with traditional goods and services can be protected against ‘passing off’ under unfair competition laws and/or the use of certification and collective trade marks;
(h)
secret TCEs/EoF may be protected as ‘confidential information’ or under doctrines such as ‘breach of confidence’.
  1. In many of these cases, international protection is available by virtue of relevant treaties, such as the Berne Convention, the TRIPS Agreement and the WPPT, 1996. Collective and certification trademarks, geographical indications and unfair competition law are particularly attractive options, not only because they already enjoy wide international recognition, but they also, not having been conceived with individuals in mind, can benefit and be used by collectivities such as indigenous communities. Experience with existing mechanisms and standards is also a useful guide.
    1. Many Committee participants have therefore asserted that current IP systems are useful, at least to some extent and in some cases, in meeting the needs of indigenous and traditional communities. 5 They have stated that existing standards and mechanisms should be used because experience with them are a helpful guide and because they offer immediate practical benefits (including international protection under existing treaties). For example, the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States (GRULAC) has noted that use of current IP laws is one option among several:
    2. ‘Many of the protection claims, needs and expectations expressed by the holders of genetic resources and traditional knowledge (including folklore) could be entirely or partly addressed by means of the systems and provisions currently available in the intellectual property field ... The resources offered by intellectual property have not been sufficiently exploited by the holders of traditional cultural knowledge or by the small and medium-sized businesses created by them.’ 6
  2. Tradition-based creativity should also be encouraged and current IP protection for TCEs/EoF and derivative works should be made use of as far as possible by communities and their members. For example, the African Group has noted that the protection of TCEs/EoF should aim to, amongst other things, ‘protect and reward innovations and creative works derived from traditional knowledge and expressions of folklore’. 7
  3. Many Committee participants have also argued that current IP systems are not entirely adequate or appropriate, and that they should be modified and/or sui generis systems should

5 European Community (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, paras. 20 and 165), Canada (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, paras. 46 and 166), Norway (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, para. 33), United States of America (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, para. 49), Poland (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, para. 156), the Asian Group (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/10 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/16, para. 170).

6 WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/5, Annex II, page 2.

7 WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/12. See also European Community (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/11.).

be established. Many participants have argued for the establishment of stand-alone sui generis systems. 8

16. It has also been argued that new measures and systems should first be tested at the national level, 9 and that they should be discussed, developed and implemented with the full and effective participation of affected indigenous peoples and traditional communities. 10

Proprietary and non-proprietary options

  1. Exclusive property rights in TCEs/EoF, and IP-type mechanisms in general, should complement and be carefully balanced and coordinated with other non-proprietary and non-IP measures to reflect the characteristics of traditional forms and processes of creativity, the stakeholder interests involved, customary uses and practices associated with such forms and processes, and community social structures, practices and patterns. 11 Exclusive private property rights in TCEs, even if held by communities, may run counter to the characteristics of traditional forms and processes of creativity and may induce unforeseen side-effects, such as competition within and between communities.
  2. National legislative experiences are instructive. Among the many countries that have already enacted specific protection for TCEs/EoF, few provide for genuine exclusive property rights in TCEs/EoF: most aim rather at the regulation of their exploitation. 12 Thus, IP-type property rights are not the only way to provide protection for TCEs. Comprehensive protection may require a range of proprietary and non-proprietary, including non-IP, tools. Non-proprietary approaches that have been used include unfair competition; equitable remuneration schemes; trade practices and marketing laws; contracts and licenses; registers, inventories and databases; customary and indigenous laws and protocols; cultural heritage preservation laws and programs; and handicrafts promotion and development programs (such as ‘Seals of Excellence’). These are not mutually-exclusive options, and each may, working together, have a role to play in a comprehensive approach to protection. Which modalities

8 Ethiopia (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, para. 50), Asian Group (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/16 para. 170), Thailand (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/16, para. 172). African Group (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 62), Brazil (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 63), Venezuela (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 65), Colombia (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 67), Russian Federation (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 68), Iran (Islamic Republic of) (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 69), Indonesia (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 74), Morocco (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 76), Egypt (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 80), and Andean Community (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15, para. 82)

9 United States of America (WIPO/GRTKF/1/13, para. 49).

10 See WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, paragraph 87; WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/16, paras. 75, 91, 117; Position Paper of the Asian Group and China (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/10). See also WIPO-UNESCO African Regional Consultation on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore, Pretoria, March 23 to 25, 1999 (WIPO-UNESCO/Folk/AFR/99/1) p.3; See WIPO, Intellectual Property Needs and Expectations of Traditional Knowledge Holders: WIPO Report on Fact-finding Missions on Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge (1998-1999) pp. 80, 128, and 142; WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/26, par. 152; WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/16, par. 186. New Zealand (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/15, para. 41).

11 For example, New Zealand (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/ 6/14, para. 41) and Saami Council (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/ 6/14, para. 57).

12 See WIPO/GRTKF/IC/ 3/10 and Lucas-Schloetter, ‘Folklore’ in von Lewinski, S. (Ed.), Indigenous Heritage and Intellectual Property, 2004 (Kluwer), page 291.

and approaches are adopted will also depend upon the nature of the TCEs to be protected, and the policy objectives that protection aims to advance.

    1. Existing laws for the protection of TCEs/EoF evidence a wide range of legal doctrines and mechanisms, which should inform the core principles regarding the scope of protection. Some extend a true exclusive right in TCEs/EoF as such. Many do not offer protection in the form of a true exclusive right, but rather focus on regulating use of the protected TCEs/EoF. These various options are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and could be combined, in conformity with the guiding principle of flexibility and comprehensiveness. One option may, for example, be more relevant or suited for a particular form of TCEs/EoF than another. Most sui generis systems include one, and often more than one, of these options, and comprehensive protection of TCEs/EoF may be afforded through more than one piece of legislation as well as through background common law and general legal codes. The range of existing approaches are, in sum:
    2. Exclusive property rights
  1. Exclusive property rights, such as those found in copyright, give the right to authorize or prevent others from undertaking certain acts in relation to TCEs/EoF. 13 An exclusive rights approach would be one way of giving effect to a principle of ‘prior informed consent’. They are provided for, in varying formulations, in some of the laws that have implemented either the Tunis Model Law, 1976 or the Model Provisions 1982, and many of which assimilateTCEs/EoF to literary and artistic works or provide a form of protection closely analogous to copyright protection. Existing sui generis measures in copyright laws are, however, very diverse in their treatment of rights, and it would be difficult to codify their common elements 14 (see further below under “Acts of Misappropriation (Scope of Protection)”). In many cases, it is not always clear whether a true exclusive right is established by the legislation. However, here follow some examples of laws which contain, or seem to contain, an exclusive right:

(i) the Model Provisions provide in section 3:

“... the following utilizations of the expressions of folklore are subject to authorization by the [competent authority mentioned in Section 9, paragraph 1,] [community concerned]...”;

(ii) the Copyright Law of Senegal, 1973, as amended in 1986, provides that certain uses of TCEs/EoF “shall be subject to prior authorization by the [Copyright Office of Senegal]...”;

13 GRULAC (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/5, Annex I, p. 2 and Annex II, p. 5), Zambia (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, para. 38)

14 See and compare, for example, the laws of Algeria, Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, Qatar, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Togo, and Tunisia. See WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/10, as well as Lucas-Schloetter, ‘Folklore’ in von Lewinski, S. (Ed.), Indigenous Heritage and Intellectual Property, 2004 (Kluwer), pp. 286 to 291, where existing copyright-based systems are extensively analyzed and compared. Also, Kuruk, P., “Protecting Folklore Under Modern Intellectual Property Regimes: A Reappraisal of the Tensions Between Individual and Communal Rights in Africa and the United States,” 48 American University Law Review 769 (1999).

(iii) the Copyright Law of Nigeria, 1992 provides in section 29 that “Any person who, without the consent of the Nigerian Copyright Council, uses and expression of folklore in a manner not permitted by [the Act] shall be in breach of a statutory duty and be liable to the Council in damages, injunctions and any other remedies as the court may deem fit to award in the circumstances”;

(iv)
the Pacific Regional Model, 2002 states that certain uses of TCEs/EoF require “the prior and informed consent” of the “traditional owners” (as defined);
(v)
the Panama Law, 2000 establishes “collective indigenous rights” which may only be exercised “by those natural persons or legal entities, private or public, that the [indigenous peoples] have duly authorized by an instrument, agreement or express authorization in which it is specified that the collective rights are granted under a license contract for use” (article 5, Rules for Use of Collective Rights, Decree, No. 12, 2001);
(vi)
the Tunisian Copyright Act, 1994 provides that “any transcription of folklore with a view to exploitation for profit shall require authorization from the Ministry responsible for culture ... Authorization from the Ministry responsible for culture shall also be required for the production of works inspired by folklore for the full or partial assignment of copyright in a work inspired by folklore or for an exclusive license with respect to such work” (section 7).

Entitlements under a scheme for equitable remuneration/compensatory liability

    1. Equitable remuneration (compulsory licensing or compensatory liability schemes) provide for some form of equitable return to the rightsholders for use of their TCEs/EoF, without creating an exclusive right in the TCEs/EoF. This approach has been used in some systems for protection of TCEs/EoF, often through a domaine public payant system. 15 For example, in the Bangui Agreement of OAPI, as amended in 1999, expressions of folklore and works that have fallen into the public domain are subject to “domaine public payant” (Section 59). The exploitation of expressions of folklore and that of works or productions that have fallen into the public domain on expiry of the terms of protection are subject to the user entering into an undertaking to pay to the national collective rights administration body a relevant royalty. Royalties collected with respect to the exploitation of expressions of folklore are devoted to welfare and cultural purposes.
    2. Moral rights protection
  1. Moral rights normally comprise the rights: of attribution of ownership; not to have ownership falsely attributed; not to have the protected materials subjected to derogatory treatment; and, at least in some jurisdictions, the right to publish or disclose (the right to decide if, when and how the protected materials ought to be made accessible to the public 16 ). Protection of moral rights is found in the Model Provisions, 1982 and the Pacific Regional

15 GRULAC (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/5, Annex I, p. 2 and Annex II, p. 5), Bangui Agreement of OAPI, see WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/INF 3.

16 Droit de divulgation; prominent in French law but not part of the moral rights in the Berne Convention; see Stewart, ‘International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights’, p. 73. Also, Lucas-Schloetter, ‘Folklore’ in von Lewinski, S. (Ed.), Indigenous Heritage and Intellectual Property, 2004 (Kluwer), p. 298.

Model, 2002 (and, in relation to performances of TCEs/expressions of folklore, in the WPPT, 1996). Moral rights protection is obligated by the Berne Convention, 1971 and most copyright and related rights laws already provide moral rights protection for literary and artistic works, or they are provided for through another law or measure. Article 6bis of the Berne Convention provides as follows:

“(1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.

(2)
The rights granted to the author in accordance with the preceding paragraph shall, after his death, be maintained, at least until the expiry of the economic rights, and shall be exercisable by the persons or institutions authorized by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed. However, those countries whose legislation, at the moment of their ratification of or accession to this Act, does not provide for the protection after the death of the author of all the rights set out in the preceding paragraph may provide that some of these rights may, after his death, cease to be maintained.
(3)
The means of redress for safeguarding the rights granted by this Article shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed”.

23. The WPPT, 1996 provides, for the first time in a multilateral instrument, moral rights of identity and integrity to performers. Article 5 of the WPPT provides as follows:

“(1) Independently of a performer's economic rights, and even after the transfer of those rights, the performer shall, as regards his live aural performances or performances fixed in phonograms, have the right to claim to be identified as the performer of his performances, except where omission is dictated by the manner of the use of the performance, and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his performances that would be prejudicial to his reputation.

(2)
The rights granted to a performer in accordance with paragraph (1) shall, after his death, be maintained, at least until the expiry of the economic rights, and shall be exercisable by the persons or institutions authorized by the legislation of the Contracting Party where protection is claimed. However, those Contracting Parties whose legislation, at the moment of their ratification of or accession to this Treaty, does not provide for protection after the death of the performer of all rights set out in the preceding paragraph may provide that some of these rights will, after his death, cease to be maintained.
(3)
The means of redress for safeguarding the rights granted under this Article shall be governed by the legislation of the Contracting Party where protection is claimed”.

24. A number of sui generis systems for protection of TCEs/EoF provide for one or more of the moral rights. For example:

(i)
the Model Provisions, 1982 states in section 5(1) that “In all printed publications, and in connection with any communications to the public, of any identifiable expression of folklore, its source shall be indicated in an appropriate manner, by mentioning the community and/or geographic place from where the expression utilized has been derived.” Failure to comply with this section is a criminal offence (section 6);
(ii)
the Copyright Act of Nigeria, 1992, states that “In all printed publications, and in connection with any communications to the public, of any identifiable expression of folklore, its source shall be indicated in an appropriate manner, and in conformity with fair practice, by mentioning the community or place from where the expression utilized has been derived” (section (28(3));

(iii) the Pacific Regional Model, 2002 provides exceptions in respect of which it is not necessary to obtain the consent of the ‘traditional owners’. In respect of such ‘free uses’, however, the user of the TCE/EoF ‘must make sufficient acknowledgement of the traditional owners by mentioning them and/or the geographical place’ from which the TCE/EoF originated. In addition, section 13 of the Pacific Regional Model states, for example, as follows:

(1)
The traditional owners of traditional knowledge or expressions of culture are the holders of the moral rights in the traditional knowledge or expressions of culture.
(2)
The moral rights of the traditional owners of traditional knowledge and expressions of culture are:

the right of attribution of ownership in relation to their traditional knowledge and expressions of culture; and

the right not to have ownership of traditional knowledge or expressions of culture falsely attributed to them; and

the right not to have their traditional knowledge and expressions of culture subject to derogatory treatment;

(3)
The moral rights of traditional owners in their traditional knowledge and expressions of culture exist independently of their traditional cultural rights.
(4)
Moral rights continue in force in perpetuity and are inalienable, and cannot be waived or transferred.”

Unfair competition/anti-consumer deception approaches

25. Unfair competition and consumer deception approaches provides rights to prevent various acts that constitute ‘unfair competition’ broadly speaking, such as misleading and deceptive trade practices, unjust enrichment, passing off and taking of undue commercial advantage. 17 For example:

(i) common law remedies for passing off, unjust enrichment and the like, as well as trade practices and labeling legislation can often already provide the desired protection. Janke reports on several examples in her ‘Minding Culture’ studies. A specific example is provided by another recent case under trade practices law in Australia: in 2003 a company was prevented from continuing to describe or refer to its range of hand painted or hand carved Indigenous oriented souvenirs as ‘Aboriginal art’ or ‘authentic’ unless it reasonably believed that the artwork or souvenir was painted or carved by a person of Aboriginal descent. Proceedings were instituted against the company because it represented that some of its hand painted Aboriginal-style souvenirs were ‘authentic,’ ‘certified authentic’

GRULAC (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/5, Annex I, p. 2).

and/or ‘Australian Aboriginal art,’ and it was held that these representations were likely to mislead consumers because the majority of the pool of artists who produced the souvenirs were not Aboriginal or of Aboriginal descent; 18

(ii) specific legislation of this nature, aimed directly at TCEs/EoF, can also provide a useful remedy. An example is the Arts and Crafts legislation of the United States of America, which protects Native American artisans by assuring them the authenticity of Indian artifacts under the authority of an Indian Arts and Crafts Board. The IACA, a “truth-inmarketing” law, prevents the marketing of products as “Indian made” when the products are not made by Indians as they are defined by the Act; 19

(iii) in the Model Provisions, 1982, protection against misleading acts that could constitute ‘unfair competition’ is provided by means of treating such acts as criminal offences (see below);

(iv) various trade mark-related remedies may be mentioned here too, such as those established by the United States of America and New Zealand to prevent the registration of marks that would be offensive to indigenous peoples or falsely suggest a connection with them (see details further below).

A penal sanctions (criminal law) approach

26. A penal sanctions approach, where certain acts and omissions are treated as criminal offences, is found in, for example:

(i)
the Model Provisions, 1982, provide that willful (or negligent, as an additional option) failure to acknowledge the source, utilization of TCEs/EoF without authorization, deception in respect of the source of TCEs, presenting artifacts or the like as expressions of folklore of a certain community, from where, in fact, they have not been derived, and distortion of TCEs/EoF in a way prejudicial to the cultural interests of the community concerned, should be criminal offences (section 6(1));
(ii)
the Pacific Regional Model provides for certain criminal offences. For example, it provides:
“26 Offence in relation to traditional cultural rights
If:
(a) a person makes a non-customary use of traditional knowledge or an expressions
of culture (whether or not such use is of a commercial nature); and
(b) the traditional owners have not given their prior and informed consent to that
use; the person is guilty of an offence punishable on conviction by a fine not
exceeding an amount equivalent to [Enacting country to determine] or a term of
imprisonment not exceeding [Enacting country to determine] years, or both.”

It also provides offences in relation to moral rights (section 27), to sacred-secret material (section 28) and to importation and exportation (section 29)

18 See further WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/3 and <http://www.accc.gov.au/> (April 7, 2003). 19 WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/10, par. 122 (i).

B. LEGAL ELEMENTS OF PROTECTION OF TCES/EOF

27. This section sets out the specific legal provisions that have been developed and used in national and regional laws and legal systems, corresponding in general to the substantive specific principles, describing the legal essence of protection, that are suggested in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4.

1. Subject matter of protection

28. Document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 suggests the following principle:

ARTICLE 1:

SUBJECT MATTER OF PROTECTION

(a)
“Traditional cultural expressions” or “expressions of folklore” are any forms, whether tangible and intangible, in which traditional culture and knowledge are expressed, appear or are manifested, and comprise the following forms of expressions or combinations thereof:
(i)
verbal expressions, such as: stories, epics, legends, poetry, riddles and other narratives; words, signs, names, and symbols;

(ii) musical expressions, such as songs and instrumental music;

(iii) expressions by action, such as dances, plays, ceremonies, rituals and other performances,

whether or not reduced to a material form; and,

(iv) tangible expressions, such as productions of art, in particular, drawings, designs, paintings (including body-painting), carvings, sculptures, pottery, terracotta, mosaic, woodwork, metalware, jewelry, baskets, needlework, textiles, glassware, carpets, costumes; handicrafts; musical instruments; and architectural forms;

which are:

(aa) the products of creative intellectual activity, including individual and communal creativity;

(bb) characteristic of a community’s cultural and social identity and cultural heritage; and

(cc) maintained, used or developed by such community, or by individuals having the right or responsibility to do so in accordance with the customary law and practices of that community.

(b) The specific choice of terms to denote the protected subject matter should be determined at the national and regional levels.

Discussion of options and mechanisms

    1. Unlike the draft provision in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/3, the draft provision now incorporates both a description of the subject matter as well as what were referred to earlier as “Criteria for protection”. Following the basic structure of WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/4, these two aspects are dealt with separately.
    2. Subject matter
  1. Several delegations have pointed to the desirability of clarity on the scope of ‘TCEs/EoF’. 20 Therefore, a specific proposal, above, has been made in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4, which is based on earlier drafts in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/3 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/8/4 and comments thereon, as a possible basis for ongoing discussion and the development of a substantive provision or principle.
  2. However, many international IP standards defer to the national level for determining the precise scope of protected subject matter. This practice also conforms with the principles of flexibility and of responsiveness to the aspirations and expectations of relevant communities. Existing laws show diversity in the terms used to refer to this subject matter, and this practice should also be continued – noting, also, that “folklore” is widely used in existing laws and instruments, but that some communities prefer to avoid this term. The question of terminology was extensively surveyed in document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/9. Existing and draft regional and national laws, as well as relevant international instruments, could be drawn upon to modify or further develop this description. 21 In addition, it may be desirable in due course, given the particular attention paid to handicrafts, to work with a specific description or definition of “handicrafts”. 22
  3. Existing and draft regional and national laws, as well as relevant international instruments, for example, contain descriptions of protected TCE-subject matter such as the following.
  4. The Model Provisions, 1982, describe the protected subject matter as follows:

‘For the purposes of this [law], “expressions of folklore” means productions consisting of characteristic elements of the traditional artistic heritage developed and maintained by a community of [name of the country] or by individuals reflecting the traditional artistic expectations of such a community, in particular:

verbal expressions, such as folk tales, folk poetry and riddles;

20 At the sixth session for example, the United States of America (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 35), the Islamic Republic of Iran (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 36), Switzerland (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 37), Nigeria (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 43), Russia (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 45), International Publishers Association (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 65).

21 See for example the laws of Panama, the Pacific Island countries, the draft law of China (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14, para. 32) and others. See WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/INF 3.

22 See, for example, Chapter 2, ITC/WIPO, ‘Marketing of Crafts and Visual Arts: The Role of Intellectual Property – A Practical Guide’.

musical expressions, such as folk songs and instrumental music;

expressions by action, such as folk dances, plays and artistic forms or rituals; whether or not reduced to a material form; and

tangible expressions, such as:

(a) productions of folk art, in particular, drawings, paintings, carvings, sculptures, pottery, terracotta, mosaic, woodwork, metalware, jewelry, basket weaving, needlework, textiles, carpets, costumes;

(b)
musical instruments;
(c)
[architectural forms].’;

34. the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, 1997 of the Philippines provides protection for “community intellectual property rights” described as:

(a)
the past, present and future manifestations of their [indigenous cultural communities and indigenous peoples] cultures, such as but not limited to, archeological and historical sites, artifacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature as well as religious and spiritual properties;
(b)
science and technology including but not limited to, human and other genetic resources, seeds, medicines, health practices, vital medicinal plants, animals, minerals, indigenous knowledge systems and practices, resource management systems, agricultural technologies, knowledge of the properties of flora and fauna, and scientific discoveries; and
(c)
language, music, dance, script, histories, oral traditions, conflict resolution mechanisms, peace building processes, life philosophy and perspectives and teaching and learning systems. 23

35. The Pacific Regional Model describes the protected subject matter, expressions of culture, as any way in which traditional knowledge appears or is manifested, irrespective of content, quality or purpose, whether tangible or intangible, including:

(a)
names, stories, chants, riddles, histories and songs in oral narratives; and
(b)
art and craft, musical instruments, sculpture, painting, carving, pottery, terra-cotta mosaic, woodwork, metalware, painting, jewelry, weaving, needlework, shell work, rugs, costumes and textiles; and
(c)
music, dances, theatre, literature, ceremonies, ritual performances and cultural practices; and
(d)
the delineated forms, patterns and details of designs and visual compositions; and
(e)
architectural forms.

Section 10, Rule VI, Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 8371.

  1. In the Tunis Model, ‘folklore’ means “all literary, artistic and scientific works created on national territory by authors presumed to be nationals of such countries or by ethnic communities, passed from generation to generation and constituting one of the basic elements of the traditional cultural heritage”;
  2. The Arts and Crafts Act of the United States of America applies to ‘Indian products’ (see further below under ‘Criteria for protection’);
  3. Panama’s sui generis regime covers indigenous peoples’ creations, such as inventions, designs and innovations, cultural historical elements, music, art and traditional artistic expressions;
  4. Decision 486 on the Biological and Genetic Heritage and Traditional Knowledge (Andean Community) 24 also provides protection for “the name of indigenous, African American, or local communities, or of such denominations, words, letters, characters, or signs as are used to distinguish their products, services or methods of processing, or that constitute an expression of their culture or practice... ”
  5. The numerous countries which provide sui generis protection for TCEs/EoF in their copyright laws (reported on in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/10) each contain descriptions of the protected subject matter based in general upon the Tunis Model Law, 1976 or the Model Provisions, 1982. Yet, there are differences between them. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/9 surveyed many of these laws, and only a few examples are provided here:
(i)
in Malawi, the Copyright Act, 1989, states that “folklore” means all literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works belonging to the cultural heritage of Malawi created, preserved and developed by ethnic communities of Malawi or by unidentified Malawi authors (section 2);
(ii)
in Lesotho, the Copyright Order of 1989 provides that expressions of folklore” means productions consisting of characteristic elements of the traditional artistic heritage developed and maintained over generations by a community or by individuals reflecting the traditional artistic expectations of their community (section 2);

(iii) in Nigeria, section 28(5) of the Copyright Act, 1992 provides that “folklore” means a group – oriented and tradition-based creation of groups or individuals reflecting the expectation of the community as an adequate expression of his cultural and social identity, its standards and values as transmitted orally, by imitation or by other means including –

(a)
folklore, folk poetry, and folk riddles;
(b)
folk songs and instrumental folk music;
(c)
folk dances and folk plays;
(d)
productions of folk arts in particular, drawings, paintings, carvings, sculptures, pottery, terracotta, mosaic, woodwork, metalware, jewelry, handicrafts, costumes, and indigenous textiles;

(iv) in Tunisia, the Law of 1994 on Literary and Artistic Property states in Article 7 that ‘Folklore forms part of the national heritage. Folklore within the meaning of

Decision 486 Common Intellectual Property Regime (Unofficial translation).

this Law shall be any artistic heritage bequeathed by preceding generations and bound up with customs and traditions and any aspect of folk creation such as folk stories, writings, music and dance’;

(v)
in Panama, the Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights and Enacting Other Provisions, 1994 states in Article 2.11 that “expressions of folklore” means productions of characteristic elements of the traditional cultural heritage, constituted by the whole store of literary and artistic works created on the national territory by unknown or unidentified authors presumed to be nationals or to belong to the country’s ethnic communities, and which are handed down from the traditional artistic or literary aspirations of a community;
(vi)
in Bolivia, the Law on Copyright of 1992 provides, in article 21, that ‘... folklore being understood in the strict sense of the body of literary and artistic works created within the national territory by unknown or unidentified authors presumed to be nationals of the country or of its ethnic communities, which are handed down from generation to generation and thereby constitute one of the fundamental elements of the traditional cultural heritage of the nation’;

(vii) in Benin, the Law on the Protection of Copyright of 1984, states in article 10 that “Folklore shall mean all literary, artistic, religious, scientific, technological and other traditions and productions created by the national communities, passed on from generation to generation and thus constituting the basic elements of the national cultural heritage.” The descriptions in the copyright laws of Angola, Congo, Burundi, Guinea, Kenya and Mali are similar;

(viii) in Cameroon, the Law on Copyright of 1990 states in section 10 that folklore means ‘all productions involving aspects of traditional cultural heritage, produced and perpetuated by a community or by individuals who are clearly responding to the expectations of such community, comprising particularly folk tales, folk poetry, popular songs and instrumental music, folk dances and shows, as well as artistic expressions, rituals and productions of popular art;’

(ix)
in Ghana, the Copyright Law of 1985 states in section 53 that (...) folklore means all literary, artistic and scientific work belonging to the cultural heritage of Ghana which were created, preserved and developed by ethnic communities of Ghana by unidentified Ghanaian authors, and any such works designed under this Law to be works of Ghanaian folklore;
(x)
in Côte d’Ivoire, the Law on the Protection of Intellectual Works of 1978 states that folklore means all literary and artistic productions, passed from generation to generation, which form part of the traditional cultural heritage of the Côte d’Ivoire, the identity of whose author is unknown, but where there is every reason to presume him to be a national of the Côte d’Ivoire. Works derived from folklore means any work composed of elements borrowed from the traditional cultural heritage of the Côte d’Ivoire;
(xi)
in Senegal, the Copyright Act, 1973 states that folklore means all literary and artistic works created by authors presumed to be Senegalese nationality, passed from generation to generation and constituting one of the basic elements of the traditional Senegalese cultural heritage. A work inspired by folklore means work composed exclusively of elements borrowed from the Senegalese traditional cultural heritage;

(xii) in Togo, the Law on the Protection of Copyright, Folklore and Neighboring Rights of 1991 states that folklore is an original component of the national heritage, and consists of all literary and artistic products created on the national territory by anonymous, unknown or forgotten authors presumed to be Togolese nationals or ethnic communities, handed down from generation to generation and constituting one of the fundamental elements of the national cultural heritage;

(xiii) in Sri Lanka, the Code of Intellectual Property Act, 1979 as amended up to 1990, states that ... folklore means all literary and artistic works created in Sri Lanka by various communities, passed on from generation to generation and constituting one of the basic elements of traditional cultural heritage;

(xiv) in Barbados, the Copyright Act, 1981-1982, describes, in Section 13, folklore as all literary and artistic works that (a) constitute a basic element of the traditional and cultural heritage of Barbados, (b) were created in Barbados by various groups of the community, and (c) survive from generation to generation.

41. Descriptions and definitions of TCE-related subject matter contained and used in certain multilateral instruments, organizations and processes also provides material from which options on the scope of protected subject matter can be developed:

(a)
the revised draft “Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of the Heritage of Indigenous Peoples” developed under the auspices of the United Nations (UN) Working Group on Indigenous Populations 25 states that: ““Indigenous cultural heritage” means both tangible and intangible creations, manifestations and production consisting of characteristic elements of the cultural heritage developed and maintained by an indigenous people, or indigenous individuals if the creation reflects the traditional literary, artistic or scientific expectation of the people. Such creations, manifestations and productions include the practices, representations, expressions – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts, sites and cultural spaces associated therewith – that indigenous peoples and individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. It further includes the knowledge that is the result of intellectual activity and insight in a traditional context, and includes the know-how, skills, innovations, practices and learning that form part of traditional knowledge systems, as well as knowledge that is embodied in the traditional lifestyle of an indigenous people, or is contained in codified knowledge systems passed between generations. Cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by indigenous peoples in response to changes in their environment and their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity. . . “Cultural heritage” as outlined . . . manifests itself, inter alia, in the following domains: (a) Traditional lands, waters - including historical, sacred and spiritual sites – natural resources, including genetic resources, such as seeds, medicines and plants; (b) Traditional knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe;
(c)
Literary works and oral traditions and expressions, such as tales, poetry and riddles, aspects of language such as words, signs, names, symbols and other indications;
(d)
Musical expressions, such as songs and instrumental music; (e) Performances or works such as dances, plays and artistic forms or rituals, whether or not reproduced in material form;
(f)
Art, in particular drawings, designs, paintings, carvings, sculptures, pottery, mosaics, woodwork, metalwork, jewellery, musical instruments, basket weaving, handicrafts, needlework, textiles, carpets, costumes, architectural forms; and (g) Social practices, rituals

25 UN document number E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/3.

and festive events;

(b)
the latest draft of the United Nations (UN) Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 26 states in Article 29 that: “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of flora and fauna, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions. In conjunction with indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights.”;
(c)
the UNESCO Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore of November 15, 1989 provides as follows: “Folklore (or traditional and popular culture) is the totality of tradition-based creations of a cultural community, expressed by a group or individuals and recognized as reflecting the expectations of a community in so far as they reflect its cultural and social identity; its standards and values are transmitted orally, by imitation or by other means. Its forms are, among others, language, literature, music, dance, games, mythology, rituals, customs, handicrafts, architecture and other arts.”;
(d)
UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2003, states that the “intangible cultural heritage” means: “(T)he practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development.” Furthermore, the Convention states that the intangible cultural heritage, as defined above, is manifested inter alia in the following domains: oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage; performing arts; social practices, rituals and festive events; knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; and traditional craftsmanship.
    1. Many national laws dealing with arts and crafts promotion contain definitions of ‘arts and crafts’, ‘handicrafts’ ‘craft products’, ‘artisanal products’ and similar terms. The ITC (UNCTAD and WTO) and WIPO Guide ‘Marketing Crafts and Visual Arts: the Role of Intellectual Property’ contains relevant definitions too. These could all be drawn from to establish a definition for IP protection purposes.
    2. Choice of term(s)
  1. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/9 surveyed the range of terms used in international, regional and national laws relating to ‘traditional knowledge’, used there in its widest sense to include both

26 UN document number E/CN.4/2006/79.

TK stricto sensu and cultural expressions. Terms of particular proximity to TCE-subject matter include: Aboriginal Tradition; Cultural Patrimony; Folklore; Expressions of Folklore; Cultural Heritage; Cultural Property; Indigenous Heritage (Rights); Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (Rights); Indigenous Intellectual Property; Customary Heritage Rights; Popular Culture; Arts and Crafts, Handicrafts; Craft Products; artisanal Products; the Intangible Component.

Criteria for protection

Discussion of options and legal mechanisms

  1. The Committee’s discussions have clarified the distinction between the notion of TCEs/EoF in general, and those TCEs/EoF that are eligible for protection under a specific legal measure. Laws typically achieve this by stipulating the substantive criteria that TCEs/EoF should display in order to be protectable.
  2. The suggested principle aims at providing some objective legal or practical criterion by which imitations, as opposed to “authentic” TCEs/EoF, can be identified. Such a criterion would be practically useful in implying a clear and ongoing link between the TCE/folklore and an identifiable indigenous, traditional or other cultural community. It would also articulate the often collective and communal nature of TCEs/EoF. A broader conception of equity and the repression of unfair practices would suggest a focus on those TCEs/EoF that are linked with, maintained by and are distinctively associated with specific communities. “Authenticity” as such is a contested term in folkloristics, and its use in international and national processes has been problematic. 27 Yet, at least in so far as it connotes “actual character”, “genuine” and “not false or an imitation” 28 , it edges towards being an appropriate criterion establishing the desired linkage between the TCE/EoF and a community (or that the TCE/EoF is an “attribute” of a particular community).
  3. Most if not all current systems for the protection of TCEs/EoF establish a criterion seeking to establish some form of linkage between the TCE/EoF and the community. Criteria may differ but they all seek to distinguish somehow between “authentic” and “non-authentic” TCEs/EoF. The following are examples of how such a criterion has been articulated in international, regional and national laws and instruments to date:

(a) the USA’s Indian Arts and Crafts Act provides protection only to arts and crafts that are “Indian products”. “Indian products” are in turn defined with reference almost exclusively to the identity of their maker (the “labor component” of the product must be “Indian”). A product is an “Indian product” if the maker is a member of an “Indian tribe” or has been certified as an Indian artisan by such a tribe. In particular, the Act deals with the question of criteria as follows:

27 See, generally, discussions at ‘Folklore, Aesthetic Ecologies and Public Domain’, University of Pennsylvania, April 2 and 3, 2004 and 8th Congress of Société Internationale d’Ethnologie et de Folklore/3rd Congress Association d’Anthropologie Mediterraneenne, Marseille, April 28, 2004; Personal communications with, amongst others, Professor Dorothy Noyes, Associate Professor of Folklore, Ohio State University and Valdimar Hafstein, Researcher, Reykjavik Academy, Iceland and Adjunct Lecturer in Ethnology and Folklore, University of Iceland.

28 See for example Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Concise Oxford Dictionary.

“Indian products” -any art or craft product made by an Indian (term “made by an Indian” means that an Indian has provided the artistic or craft work labor necessary to implement an artistic design through a substantial transformation of materials to produce the art or craft work. This may include more than one Indian working together). The labor component of the product, however, must be entirely Indian for the Indian art or craft object to be an “Indian product”. (Section 309.2 (d) P.L. 101-497)

“Indian product” includes, but is not limited to:

(i) Art made by an Indian that is in a traditional or non-traditional style or
medium;
(ii) Craft work made by an Indian that is in a traditional or non traditional style
or medium;
(iii) Handcraft made by an Indian (i.e. an object created with the help of only

such devices as allow the manual skill of the maker to condition the shape and design of each individual product). (Section 309.2 (2) P.L. 101-497)

Examples of non-qualifying products. An “Indian product” under the Act does not include any of the following, for example:

(i)
A product in the style of an Indian art or craft product made by non-Indian labor;
(ii)
A product in the style of an Indian art or craft product that is designed by an Indian but produced by non-Indian labor;

(iii) A product in the style of an Indian art or craft product that is assembled from a kit;

(iv)
A product in the style of an Indian art or craft product originating from a commercial product, without substantial transformation provided by Indian artistic or craft work labor;
(v)
Industrial products, which for this purpose are defined as goods that have an exclusively functional purpose, do not serve as a traditional artistic medium, and that do not lend themselves to Indian embellishment, such as appliances and vehicles. An industrial product may not become an Indian product.
(vi)
A product in the style of an Indian art or craft product that is produced in an assembly line or related production line process using multiple workers not all whom are Indians. (For example, if twenty people make up the labor to create the product(s), and one person is not Indian, the product is not an “Indian product.”) (Section 309.2 (3) P.L. 101-497)

“Commercial product can become an Indian product when the Indian labor expended to the craft work or object is sufficient to substantially transform the qualities and appearance of the original commercial item Section 309.6 P.L. 101-497

“How can an individual be certified as an Indian artisan?

(a) In order for an individual to be certified by an Indian tribe as a non-member Indian artisan for purposes of this part

(1) The individual must be of Indian lineage of one or more members of such Indian tribe; and

(2)
The certification must be documented in writing by the governing body of an Indian tribe or by a certifying body delegated this function by the governing body of the Indian tribe.
(b)
As provided in section 107 of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, Public Law 101-644, a tribe may not impose a fee for certifying an Indian artisan” (Section 309.4

P.L. 101-497)”

(b)
Australia’s Label of Authenticity, reported on by Janke, may be used only by “Certified Indigenous Creators”, as defined; 29
(c)
the Toi Iho ‘Maori Made’ mark of New Zealand, a registered trade mark “of authenticity and quality for Maori arts and crafts”, is licensed to artists of “Maori descent to be used on works produced by them which comprise an explicit or implicit Maori referent...”. 30

47. The essence of a TCE/expression of folklore is that it represents, identifies and is recognized as characteristic of the traditional heritage of a particular community. This suggests that, to be protectable, TCE subject matter should be “characteristic” of a distinct traditional heritage of a particular community. Once again, examples of how such a criterion has been expressed in practice are (almost all of the copyright laws cited above under “Subject matter of protection” contain some similar criterion; only one or two of those examples are repeated here):

(i)
the Model Provisions, 1982 apply to productions consisting of ‘characteristic elements of the traditional artistic heritage section developed and maintained by a community…’;
(ii)
the Tunis Model Law, 1976 includes a requirement that the TCEs/EoF consist of ‘basic elements’ of the heritage of a particular community;

(iii) the Law of Panama, 2000 and the associated Executive Decree of 2001 provide that the protected subject matter must be based upon ‘tradition’ and ‘collective’, meaning that the subject matter must, amongst other things, constitute the heritage of an entire indigenous people, or must be regarded as belonging to one or more of the indigenous communities of Panama;

(iv)
the Pacific Regional Model provides that the TCEs/EoF must be ‘traditional’, meaning that the TCEs/EoF must have been created for traditional purposes, be inter-generational, pertain to a particular group and be collectively held;
(v)
in Tunisia, Law No. 94-36 of 1994 on Literary and Artistic Property states in Article 7 that ‘Folklore forms part of the national heritage. Folklore within the meaning of this Law shall be any artistic heritage bequeathed by preceding generations and bound up with customs and traditions and any aspect of folk creation such as folk stories, writings, music and dance;
(vi)
in Nigeria, section 28(5) of the Copyright Act, 1992 provides that “folklore” means a group-oriented and tradition-based creation of groups or individuals reflecting the expectation of the community as an adequate expression of his cultural and social identity, its standards and values as transmitted orally, by imitation or by other means.

29 Janke, Terri, ‘Minding Culture’, pages134 to 158.

30 Rules Governing Use by Artists of the Toi Iho Maori Made Mark, at www.toiiho.com (August 18, 2004).

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex I, page 24

2. Beneficiaries

48. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 suggests the following:

ARTICLE 2:

BENEFICIARIES

Measures for the protection of traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore should be for the benefit of the indigenous peoples and traditional and other cultural communities:1

(i)
in whom the custody, care and safeguarding of the TCEs/EoF are entrusted in accordance with their customary law and practices; and
(ii)
who maintain, use or develop the traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore as being characteristic of their cultural and social identity and cultural heritage.

Discussion of options and legal mechanisms

    1. Many Committee participants have emphasized that TCEs are generally regarded as collectively originated and held, so that any rights and interests in this material should vest in communities rather than individuals 31 (conforming with the principles of responsiveness to the aspirations of relevant communities and of recognition of the specific characteristics and forms of cultural expression). It may be necessary to clarify the allocation of rights or distribution of benefits among communities which share the same or similar folklore in the same country or in different countries (so-called “regional folklore”).
    2. Recognizing communal rights and benefits
  1. There are various ways in which such a principle could be achieved in practice. Specific rights may be granted directly to communities and/or rights may be vested in an office, agency other authority which is obliged to exercise the rights in close consultation with and for the benefit of relevant communities. Precedents for group-rights protection can be found in existing copyright standards concerning anonymous, unpublished, joint and collective works, 32 and in related non-IP policy areas, including cultural properties and heritage laws (such as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 1990; the Law on the Protection of Cultural Assets of the Republic of Korea, 1962; and the Law on the Protection and Preservation of Cultural Goods of Croatia, 1999).
31 GRULAC (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/5, Annex II, p. 5), SAARC (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, para. 26),
Indonesia (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/13, para. 29).
32 See Article 15, Berne Convention, 1971.

Drawing from sui generis and copyright laws for the specific protection of TCEs/EoF, the following examples are mentioned among others:

(a)
the beneficiaries of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, 1990 are “Indian tribes”, Indian arts and crafts organizations and individual Indians, as defined;
(b)
the Law of Panama, 2000 and the associated Executive Decree of 2001 vests collective rights in indigenous Congress(es) or Traditional Indigenous Authority(ies);
(c)
the Philippines Law, 1997 provides recognition, respect and protection for and of the rights of the indigenous cultural communities and indigenous peoples (referred to as “ICCs/IPs”). This is provided by Section 34 of the Act which states that:
“Indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples are entitled to the recognition of the full ownership and control and protection of their cultural and intellectual rights. They shall have the right to special measures to control, develop and protect their sciences, technologies and cultural manifestations, including human and other genetic resources, seeds, including derivatives of these resources, traditional medicines and health practices, vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals, indigenous knowledge systems and practices, knowledge of the properties of flora and fauna, oral traditions, literature, designs and visual and performing arts.”
(d)
the Model Provisions, 1982 provides that rights may be granted directly to a community or to a competent authority. Section 3 states: “... the following utilizations of the expressions of folklore are subject to authorization by the [competent authority mentioned in Section 9, paragraph 1,] [community concerned]...”;
(e)
the Pacific Regional Framework, 2002 vests “traditional cultural rights” in “traditional owners,” defined as “the group, clan or community of people, or an individual who is recognized by a group, clan or community of people as the individual, in whom the custody or protection of the expressions of culture are entrusted in accordance with the customary law and practices of that group, clan or community”;
(f)
specific sui generis provision within copyright legislation could also provide for communal rights. Australia is, for example, developing legislation to grant communities “legal standing” to exercise moral rights to protect against inappropriate, derogatory or culturally insensitive use of tradition-based copyright material; 33
(g)
communal beneficiaries can also be recognized in case-law. As an example, courts in Australia have been prepared to recognize communal interests in a copyright work; 34
(h)
rights are vested in a statutory body under the Tunis Model Law, 1976 and this is also an option under the Model Provisions, 1982, as noted above. Most of the national laws which have followed these models vest rights in the State or a statutory body, or at least provide that the rights should be managed and exercised by the State. In most of these cases, proceeds from the granting of such rights are applied towards national heritage, social welfare

33 WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/15, para. 131.

34 See Janke, Terri, ‘Minding Culture – The Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions’, WIPO.

and culture-related programs. The African Group’s submission made at the sixth session of the Committee stated as one of its Principles, “Recognize the role of the State in the preservation and protection of traditional knowledge and expressions of folklore”. 35 For example:

the Copyright Law of Nigeria, 1992 states that ‘The right to authorize [use of folklore as provided for in the Act] shall vest in the Nigerian Copyright Commission.’ (section 28(4));

the Copyright Law of Tunisia, 1994 states that “folklore forms part of the national heritage and any transcription of folklore with a view to exploitation for profit shall require authorization from the Ministry responsible for culture against payment of a fee for the benefit of the welfare fund of the Copyright Protection Agency established pursuant to this Law. Authorization from the Ministry responsible for culture shall also be required for the production of works inspired by folklore for the full or partial assignment of copyright in a work inspired by folklore or for an exclusive license with respect to such work” (section 7).

3. Acts of misappropriation (Scope of protection)

51. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 suggests the following principle:

ARTICLE 3:

ACTS OF MISAPPROPRIATION (SCOPE OF PROTECTION)

Traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore of particular value or significance

(a)
In respect of traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore of particular cultural or spiritual value or significance to a community, and which have been registered or notified as referred to in Article 7, there shall be adequate and effective legal and practical measures to ensure that the relevant community can prevent the following acts taking place without its free, prior and informed consent:
(i)
in respect of such traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore other than words, signs, names and symbols:

q the reproduction, publication, adaptation, broadcasting, public performance, communication to the public, distribution, rental, making available to the public and fixation (including by still photography) of the traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore or derivatives thereof;

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/12.

q any use of the traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore or adaptation

thereof which does not acknowledge in an appropriate way the community as the source

of the traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore;

q any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore; and

q the acquisition or exercise of IP rights over the traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore or adaptations thereof;

(ii)
in respect of words, signs, names and symbols which are such traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore, any use of the traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore or derivatives thereof, or the acquisition or exercise of IP rights over the traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore or derivatives thereof, which disparages, offends or falsely suggests a connection with the community concerned, or brings the community into contempt or disrepute;
Other traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore
(b)
In respect of the use and exploitation of other traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore not registered or notified as referred to in Article 7, there shall be adequate and effective legal and practical measures to ensure that:
(i)
the relevant community is identified as the source of any work or other production adapted from the traditional cultural expression/expression of folklore;
(ii)
any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, a traditional cultural expression/expression of folklore can be prevented and/or is subject to civil or criminal sanctions;

(iii) any false, confusing or misleading indications or allegations which, in relation to goods or services that refer to, draw upon or evoke the traditional cultural expression/expression of folklore of a community, suggest any endorsement by or linkage with that community, can be prevented and/or is subject to civil or criminal sanctions; and

where the use or exploitation is for gainful intent, there should be equitable remuneration or benefit-sharing on terms determined by the Agency referred to in Article 4 in consultation with the relevant community; and

Secret traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore

There shall be adequate and effective legal and practical measures to ensure that communities have the means to prevent the unauthorized disclosure, subsequent use of and acquisition and exercise of IP rights over secret traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore.

Discussion of options and mechanisms

    1. The acts of misappropriation (the scope of protection) concerns both the legal form that protection may take and the scope of protection itself (the rights, being the nature of the acts and omissions that would be prohibited, require authorization or be regulated in other ways. Options and mechanisms relating to the legal form of protection was discussed above, and this section will address in particular options and mechanisms for the nature of the protection.
    2. Economic rights of a copyright and related rights nature
  1. The suggested principle above proposes amongst other things economic rights in respect of TCEs/EoF of particular cultural or spiritual value or significance to a community. Following the example set by most copyright-inspired national laws for the protection of TCEs/EoF, rights over traditional literary and artistic materials could extend to acts such as reproduction, adaptation, public performance, distribution, public recitation, communication to the public, the making of derivative works and importation (of unauthorized copies and adaptations under the law of the importing country). Existing sui generis measures in copyright laws are, however, very diverse in their treatment of rights, and it would be difficult to codify their common elements. 36 These rights could be assigned and licensed (although laws could restrict such assignment to ensure that rights remain with the traditional communities, such as the Pacific Regional Model 37 , or to require the consent of a competent authority 38 ).
  2. Key policy and legal questions pivot on the adaptation right, the right to make derivative works and on the setting of appropriate exceptions and limitations. The Model Provisions do not provide an adaptation right, and allow a wide exception in respect of “the borrowing of expressions of folklore for creating an original work of an author or authors.” 39 National sui generis laws for the protection of TCEs differ on this point: some grant an adaptation right and others do not. The Pacific Regional Framework has an adaptation right, and places upon external creators certain obligations towards the relevant community (such as to acknowledge the community and/or share benefits from exploitation of the copyright and/or respect some form of moral rights in the underlying traditions used).
  3. Most existing national laws for the protection of TCEs/EoF provide copyright-style economic rights because the protection for TCEs/EoF has been conceived within copyright. For example:

36 See and compare, for example, the laws of Algeria, Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, Qatar, Central African Republic, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Togo, and Tunisia. See WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/10, as well as Lucas-Schloetter, ‘Folklore’ in von Lewinski, S. (Ed.), Indigenous Heritage and Intellectual Property, 2004 (Kluwer), pp. 286 to 291, where existing copyright-based systems are extensively analyzed and compared. Also, Kuruk, P., “Protecting Folklore Under Modern Intellectual Property Regimes: A Reappraisal of the Tensions Between Individual and Communal Rights in Africa and the United States,” 48 American University Law Review 769 (1999).

37 Section 10.

38 Mali, Morocco, Rwanda, Tunisia. See Lucas-Schloetter, ‘Folklore’ in von Lewinski, S. (Ed.), Indigenous Heritage and Intellectual Property, 2004 (Kluwer), ibid.

39 Section 4 (1) (iii), Model Provisions, 1982.

(a)
in the Nigerian Copyright Act, “expressions of folklore are protected against reproduction, communication to the public by performance, broadcasting, distribution by cable or other means, and adaptations, translations and other transformations, when such expressions are made either for commercial purposes or outside their traditional or customary context” (section 28(1));
(b)
in Ghana, section 5 (1) of the Copyright Act, 1985 states that ‘works of Ghanaian folklore are hereby protected by copyright’;

(c) In the Pacific Regional Model, the following uses of TCEs/EoF require the prior

and informed consent of the traditional owners: to reproduce the traditional knowledge or expressions of culture; to publish the traditional knowledge or expressions of culture; to perform or display the traditional knowledge or expressions of culture in public; to broadcast the traditional knowledge or expressions of culture to the public by radio, television, satellite, cable or any other means of communication; to translate, adapt, arrange, transform or modify the traditional knowledge or expressions of culture; to fixate the traditional knowledge or expressions of culture through any process such as making a photograph, film or sound recording; to make available online or electronically transmit to the public (whether over a path or a combination of paths, or both) traditional knowledge or expressions of culture;

to create derivative works; to make, use, offer for sale, sell, import or export traditional knowledge or expressions of culture or products derived therefrom; to use the traditional knowledge or expressions of culture in any other material form; if such use is a non-customary use (whether or not of a commercial nature)’;

Prevention of insulting, derogatory and culturally and spiritually offensive uses

56. Prevention of insulting, derogatory and culturally and spiritually offensive uses of TCEs/EoF, particularly TCEs of particular cultural or spiritual significance, can be achieved in various ways. Non-IP laws, such as cultural heritage laws and blasphemy laws might achieve the desired objective. Drawing on actual experiences with IP and IP-like legislation to date:

(a)
the Tunis Model Law, 1976 provides in section 5(1) for moral rights, which are also applicable to TCEs/EoF, as being the rights of an ‘author’ to claim authorship, to object to and seek relief in connection with distortion, mutilation, modification or any other action which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation;
(b)
the Model Provisions, 1982 create an offense relating the prejudicial distortions of TCEs/EoF. They provide that willful (or negligent, as an additional option): failure to acknowledge the source; utilization of TCEs/folklore without authorization; deception in respect of the source of TCEs; presenting artifacts or the like as expressions of folklore of a certain community, from where, in fact, they have not been derived; and the distortion of
TCEs/folklore in a way prejudicial to the cultural interests of the community concerned, are criminal offences;
(c)
the Pacific Regional Model, 2002 establishes both economic and moral rights in TCEs/EoF (the moral rights are quoted elsewhere in this document); 40
(d)
as noted, Australia is developing legislation to introduce communal moral rights into its copyright law;
(e)
the WPPT, 1996 provides moral rights for performers of expressions of folklore. The relevant article 5 of the Convention reads as follows:
“(1)Independently of a performer's economic rights, and even after the transfer of those rights, the performer shall, as regards his live aural performances or performances fixed in phonograms, have the right to claim to be identified as the performer of his performances, except where omission is dictated by the manner of the use of the performance, and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his performances that would be prejudicial to his reputation.
(2)
The rights granted to a performer in accordance with paragraph (1) shall, after his death, be maintained, at least until the expiry of the economic rights, and shall be exercisable by the persons or institutions authorized by the legislation of the Contracting Party where protection is claimed. However, those Contracting Parties whose legislation, at the moment of their ratification of or accession to this Treaty, does not provide for protection after the death of the performer of all rights set out in the preceding paragraph may provide that some of these rights will, after his death, cease to be maintained.
(3)
The means of redress for safeguarding the rights granted under this Article shall be governed by the legislation of the Contracting Party where protection is claimed.”

Failure to acknowledge source/ misleading indications as to source

57. The Model Provisions provide as follows:

“1. In all printed publications, and in connection with any communications to the public, of any identifiable expression of folklore, its source shall be indicated in an appropriate manner, by mentioning the community and/or geographic place from where the expression utilized has been derived.

2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply to [certain free uses]”.

58. The Copyright Act of Nigeria, 1992 provides in section 28 (3) that “In all printed publications, and in connection with any communications to the public, of any identifiable expression of folklore, its source shall be indicated in an appropriate manner, and in conformity with fair practice, by mentioning the community or place from where the expression utilized has been derived”;

See Section 13.

Prevention of false and misleading claims to ‘authenticity’, origin or link or endorsement by a community

59. The prevention of false and misleading claims to ‘authenticity’, origin or link or endorsement by a community can be achieved through a number of different legal mechanisms. A few examples follow:

(a)
through registration of certification trade marks, the authenticity of genuine goods and services can be safeguarded. In Australia, certification marks have been registered by the National Indigenous Arts Advocacy Association (NIAAA)) 41 and in New Zealand the Maori Arts Board, Te Waka Toi, is making use of trademark protection through the development of the Toi Iho ™ Maori Made Mark 42 ). The Indian Arts and Crafts Act, 1990 of the USA allows the Indian Arts and Crafts Board to register trademarks of genuiness and quality;
(b)
‘truth in advertising’, trade practices and labeling laws (for example, the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, 1990 43 , reported on elsewhere in this document);
(c)
geographical indications (Portugal, Mexico and the Russian Federation have provided relevant examples of the registration of geographical indications with respect to TCEs and related TK 44 ); and
(d)
unfair competition or trade practices law (for example, see above discussion on the company in Australia that was prevented from continuing to describe or refer to its range of hand painted or hand carved indigenous oriented souvenirs as ‘Aboriginal art’ or ‘authentic’ unless it reasonably believed that the artwork or souvenir was painted or carved by a person of Aboriginal descent. 45

Prevention of acquisition of IP over TCEs/EoF

60. Once again, the acquisition of IP rights over TCEs/EoF, or certain TCEs/EoF, if deemed desirable, can be achieved in a variety of ways. For example, certain regional organizations and States have already taken steps to prevent as far as possible the unauthorized registration of indigenous marks as trademarks (these seek to achieve one of the forms of what was referred to as ‘defensive protection’). Three examples are the Andean Community, the United States of America and New Zealand:

(a) Article 136(g) of Decision 486 of the Commission of the Andean Community provides that “signs, whose use in trade may unduly affect a third party right, may not be registered, in particular when they consist of the name of indigenous, Afro-American or local communities, denominations, words, letters, characters or signs used to distinguish their products, services, or the way in which they are processed, or constitute the expression of their culture or practice, except where the application is filed by the community itself or with its

41 See Minding Culture case studies by Terri Janke, “Indigenous Arts Certification Mark”, <http://www.wipo.int/globalissues/studies/cultural/minding-culture/index.html>

42 For more information on the Toi Iho ™ Mark see <http://www.toiiho.com>

43 WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/10, par. 122 (i).

44 See WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/3.

45 See further WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/3 and <http://www.accc.gov.au/> (April 7, 2003).

express consent.” In Colombia, a case has been presented in which the mark has been rejected as a result of the exception mentioned above. The case concerned an application for registration as a mark of the expression “Tairona”, which coincides with an indigenous culture that inhabited Colombian territory. It was decided that the expression “Tairona” was protected as part of the culture’s heritage and of the country as such. In that regard, only representatives of this culture or persons with the authorization of those representatives would be entitled to request consent to use the expression as a distinctive sign and, in this particular case, as a mark;

(b)
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (the USPTO) has established a comprehensive database for purposes of containing the official insignia of all State and federally recognized Native American tribes. 46 Under Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act, 1946, as amended, a proposed trademark may be refused registration or cancelled (at any time) if the mark consists of or comprises matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute. The USPTO may refuse to register a proposed mark which falsely suggests a connection with an indigenous tribe or beliefs held by that tribe. Such provision provides not only protection for folklore aspects of Native American tribes, but also “those of other indigenous peoples worldwide.” The Trademark Law Treaty Implementation Act, 1998 required the USPTO to complete a study on the protection of the official insignia of federally and state-recognized Native American tribes. As a direct result of this study, 47 on August 31, 2001 the USPTO established a Database of Official Insignia of Native American Tribes. The Database of Official Insignia of Native American Tribes may be searched and thus prevent the registration of a mark confusingly similar to an official insignia. “Insignia” refers to “the flag or coat of arms or other emblem or device of any federally or State recognized Native American tribe” and does not include words; 48
(c)
In New Zealand, the Trade Marks Act, 2002 now contains a provision which allows the Commissioner of Trade Marks to refuse to register a trademark if it is considered by the Commissioner that, on reasonable grounds, the use or registration is likely to offend a significant section of the community, including the Indigenous people of that country, Maori. Under the section which lists grounds for not registering trademarks the Act states:

“(1) The Commissioner must not do any of the following things:

(b) register a trademark or part of a trade mark if –

(i) the Commissioner considers that its use or registration would be likely to offend a significant section of the community, including Maori”. 49

61. The prevention of the grant of patent rights over TCEs/EoF and non-inventive derivatives thereof may be achieved, for example, through the documentation and publication of information concerning the TCEs/EoF such as would destroy novelty and thus prevent anyone from acquiring a patent. In WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/3 Add. it was reported that work is underway on the possible development of industrial property classification tools for the purposes of the defensive protection of TCEs/EoF, concerning the possible use of patent

46 See “Report on the Official Insignia of Native American Tribes”, September 30, 1999. 47 Available at <http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/current.html> (30Nov99 entry). 48 Ibid., pp. 24-26. 49 The Act is available at http://rangi.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/public/text/2002/an/049.html

classification tools to facilitate the searching of patent documents covering TCEs that are relevant to claimed inventions. Use of such classification tools could assist in including patent documents relevant to TCEs within searchable ‘prior art’, thereby reducing the likelihood of patents being granted over or in respect of TCEs that have already been disclosed. More specifically, a Task Force on Classification of Traditional Knowledge, established by a Committee of Experts of the Special Union for the International Patent Classification (IPC) 50 , has, as requested by the Committee of Experts, prepared a report which contains a survey on ‘possible classification aspects relating to ... traditional cultural expressions’. This report was discussed at a meeting of the Committee of Experts which took place from February 23 27, 2004. 51 The Committee of Experts of the IPC is responsible for the revision of the IPC. A new edition of the IPC is expected to come into force on January 1, 2006 (it was initially expected to come into force a year earlier but for technical reasons the coming into force has been postponed). 52 The revised IPC will contain an extended classification scheme for traditional medicinal knowledge, as has been discussed for some time in the Committee of Experts and the Intergovernmental Committee. See further document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/8 which reports on the substantial progress made in this respect, as well as on other related and complementary activities aimed at the defensive protection of TK. It is recalled, however, that ‘TK’ for purposes of the work of the Intergovernmental Committee, the IPC’s Committee of Experts and other WIPO bodies refers only to technical and scientific knowledge formations, such as medicinal knowledge, to which the patent system in particular is of direct and most extensive relevance. In so far as TCEs are concerned, the survey, which appears as an appendix to the report of the Task Force, 53 provides a general overview of how the current IPC relates to and covers components of TCEs. As the report shows, several existing sub-classes of the IPC could cover certain tangible TCEs, such as jewellery, furniture, weaving, decorative arts, lace-making and musical instruments. The Task Force concluded in its report that it could use this overview “as a basis when considering its work on further development of classification tools for traditional knowledge and other relevant areas”. At its meeting that took place from February 23 to 27, 2004, the Committee of Experts agreed with these conclusions of the Task Force and instructed it to “continue its work on further development of classification tools for traditional knowledge and other relevant areas …” 54 , “other relevant areas” being TCEs for example. Earlier documents on TCEs prepared for the Intergovernmental Committee had alluded to the use and development of industrial property classification tools as a possible contribution to the defensive protection of TCEs (see for example WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/3 paras. 164 to 167 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/3, paras. 269 to 272). These passages referred mainly to the possible

50 The International Patent Classification (IPC) is based on an international multilateral treaty administered by WIPO. This treaty is called the Strasbourg Agreement Concerning the International Patent Classification, which was concluded in 1971 and entered into force in 1975. On March 1, 2004, 54 States were party to the Strasbourg Agreement. However, the industrial property offices of more than 100 States, four regional offices and the International Bureau of WIPO under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) actually use the IPC. The classification is indispensable for the retrieval of patent documents in the search for ‘prior art’, in order to verify the novelty and evaluate the inventive step of patent applications. Such retrieval is needed by patent-issuing authorities, potential inventors, research and development units, and others concerned with the application or development of technology. See

http://www.wipo.int/classifications/en/ipc/ipc_ce/34/index.htm 51 See http://www.wipo.int/classifications/en/ipc/ipc_ce/34/index.htm 52 See draft report of Committee of Experts Meeting IPC/CE/34/10 Prov., paras. 36 to 47. 53 Available as WIPO document IPC/CE/34/8. 54 Ibid., para. 55.

updating and expansion of the existing international classification system for industrial designs 55 in view of the particular relevance of industrial design protection for TCEs.

Prevention of exploitation of sacred and secret materials

  1. Protection of sacred or secret materials can draw upon principles dealing with unfair competition, undisclosed and confidential information, breach of trust and confidence and other such areas. For example, Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement provides that in the course of protecting against unfair competition under Article 10bis of the Paris Convention, members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) must protect “undisclosed information”, as defined in the Article, against unlawful acquisition, disclosure or use in a manner contrary to honest commercial practices.
    1. As an example, in the Australian case of Foster v Mountford 56 the common law doctrine of confidential information was used to prevent the publication of a book containing culturally sensitive information. The case concerned an anthropologist, Dr. Mountford, who undertook an expedition to the Northern Territory outback in 1940. Local Aboriginal people revealed to him tribal sites and objects possessing deep religious and cultural significance for them. The defendant recorded this information some of which he published in a book in 1976. The plaintiffs successfully sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the publication of the book on the basis of breach of confidence. (The plaintiffs could not bring an action for copyright infringement because the work in question, the book, had not been written by them and they had not acquired the copyright in it). The Court held that the publication of the book could disclose information of deep religious and cultural significance to the Aborigines that had been supplied to the defendant in confidence and the revelation of such information amounted to a breach of confidence.
    2. Communal control over derivative works
  2. Previous discussions have focussed on the possibility of communal regulation of the exploitation of derivative works created by individuals, particularly those not connected with the traditions and cultural materials they adapted or were inspired by:
(a)
the Tunis Model Law, the Bangui Agreement, and other sui generis systems and national laws do generally not regulate the exploitation of derivative works;
(b)
the Model Provisions, 1982 contain no right of adaptation and have a wide “borrowing exception”;
(c)
by contrast, the Pacific Regional Framework places upon the creators of derivative works certain obligations towards the relevant community (such as, in this case, to acknowledge the community, to share benefits from commercial exploitation of the IP in the derivative works, and to respect some form of moral rights in the underlying traditions and heritage used).
55 The Locarno Agreement Establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs,
1979.
56 (1976) 29 FLR 233.
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex I, page 35
4. Management of rights
65. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 suggests the following:

ARTICLE 4:

MANAGEMENT OF RIGHTS

(a)
Prior authorizations to use traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore, when required in these provisions, should be obtained either directly from the community concerned where the community so wishes, or from an agency acting at the request, and on behalf, of the community (from now on referred to as “the Agency”). Where authorizations are granted by the Agency:
(i)
such authorizations should be granted only in appropriate consultation with the relevant community, in accordance with their traditional decision-making and governance processes;
(ii)
any monetary or non-monetary benefits collected by the Agency for the use of the traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore should be provided directly by it to the community concerned.
(b)
The Agency should generally be tasked with awareness-raising, education, advice and guidance functions. The Agency should also:
(i)
where so requested by a community, monitor uses of traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore for purposes of ensuring fair and appropriate use as provided for in Article 3 (b); and,
(ii)
establish the equitable remuneration referred to in Article 3 (b) in consultation with the relevant community.

Discussion of options and legal mechanisms

    1. This suggested principle seeks to address the need to clarify how authorizations to use TCEs are applied for, to whom applications are addressed, public notification, identification of beneficiaries and allocation of benefits, how disputes are resolved, and similar issues. These should apply regardless of whether communities or State appointed bodies are the beneficiaries of protection (see “Beneficiaries” above). Some existing laws have detailed provision for management of rights and the processing of applications for authorization (such as the Pacific Regional Model). Existing examples suggest a possible role of an “authority” established by the State, at least in some circumstances, to: grant authorizations to use TCEs/EoF, monitor uses of TCEs/EoF to ensure that these are appropriate (especially where the focus is on regulation of their use and not on an exclusive property right); advise and assist relevant communities; resolve disputes as to ownership and benefit-sharing; raise awareness of the need to respect and protect TCEs/EoF; institute civil or criminal proceedings on behalf of communities if needed. Where some form of notification system is
    2. adopted (see “Formalities” below), such an authority could also maintain it. Many countries already have offices, boards, agencies and other authorities performing these or similar functions.
  1. While WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 suggests a draft provision that could apply, clearly the practical elaboration of such a principle will depend greatly on community factors: options for more detailed provisions could be further developed at the national and community levels, but some initial examples are:
(a)
the Model Provisions, 1982 provide that rights may be granted directly to a community or to a competent authority. Section 3 states: ‘... the following utilizations of the expressions of folklore are subject to authorization by the [competent authority mentioned in Section 9, paragraph 1,] [community concerned]...’. They provide guidance on how authorizations should be applied for and obtained. They make provision for written or oral applications, as well as individual and blanket licenses (article 10). They do not give any guidance as regards the information any application for authorization has to contain, nor provisions concerning the process of granting the authorization. Paragraph 2 of Article 10 allows, but does not make mandatory, the collecting of fees for authorizations, and also deals with the purpose for which the collected fees must be used. It offers a choice between the promoting or safeguarding of national culture or of national folklore. Paragraph 3 of Article 10 provides that any decision of the competent authority is appealable. The decisions of a community are not subject to appeal;
(b)
the Tunis Model Law requires that rights in folklore shall be exercised by a Government appointed authority (section 6);
(c)
many States (based upon the Tunis Model Law, 1976 and the Model Provisions, 1982) designate a statutory body as the holder of the rights in TCEs and empower that body to grant authorizations for use. 57 For example, under the Tunisian Copyright Act, 1994 “... any transcription of folklore with a view to exploitation for profit shall require authorization from the Ministry responsible for culture against payment of a fee for the benefit of the welfare fund of the Copyright Protection Agency established pursuant to this Law” (section 7). In the Nigerian Copyright Act, 1997, the right to authorize acts in relation to folklore vest in the Nigerian Copyright Commission (section 28);
(d)
the Peru Law, 2002 provides for the registration of license contracts entered into under the law and directs matters such as the contents of the contracts. 58 Provision is also made for a ‘Competent National Authority’ and an ‘Indigenous Knowledge Protection Board’, each having various specific duties;
(e)
the Pacific Regional Model, 2002 provides for prior informed consent and for the establishment of a “Cultural Authority”, to which application must be made by a prospective user of a TCE to obtain the prior and informed consent of the “traditional owners”. 59 The authority acts in the interests of the relevant communities and mediates between the communities and users. The authority, referred to as a “Cultural Authority”, receives

57 See responses to folklore questionnaire and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/10, and GRULAC

(WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/5, Annex II, p. 5). 58 Articles 25 to 33. 59 See generally Part 4 of the Regional Model.

applications from prospective users of a TCE to obtain the prior and informed consent of the “traditional owners”. The authority has inter alia to identify the ‘traditional owners’ and to resolve uncertainties or disputes as to ownership and oversee the conclusion of ‘authorized user agreements’ between the user and the traditional owners. Disputes as to ownership must be resolved according to customary law or other means. If no “traditional owners” can be found or there is no agreement as to ownership, the cultural authority can be determined to be the traditional owner. This model also specifies the information that applications for authorization must contain and the terms and conditions that the authorized user agreement should contain; 60

(f)
the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, 1990 of the USA vests various rights and responsibilities in an “Indian Arts and Crafts Board”, which has been in existence sine 1935 under earlier legislation. Its main function is to implement the Act and it is empowered to provide various forms of assistance to Indian tribes. Although Indian tribes, Indian arts and crafts organizations and individual Indians have a right to bring civil suit under the Act, the Board can also receive complaints and act upon them, including by way of referring criminal matters to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the US Attorney General;
(g)
furthermore, existing collective management organizations (CMOs) are potentially the most practical means of administering rights in TCEs. Committee participants 61 and CMOs themselves 62 have expressed interest in exploring this possibility further.

60 See generally Part 4 of the Regional Model. 61 GRULAC (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/5, Annex II, p. 5). 62 Such as the International Federation of Reprographic Rights Organizations (IFRRO).

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex I, page 38
5. Exceptions and limitations
68. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 suggests the following principle:

ARTICLE 5: EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

(a) Measures for the protection of TCEs/EoF should:

(i)
not restrict or hinder the normal use, transmission, exchange and development of TCEs/EoF within the traditional and customary context by members of the relevant community as determined by customary laws and practices;
(ii)
extend only to utilizations of TCEs/EoF taking place outside the traditional or customary context, whether or not for commercial gain; and,

(iii) not apply to utilizations of TCEs/EoF in the following cases:

-by way of illustration for teaching and learning; -non-commercial research or private study; -criticism or review; -reporting news or current events; -use in the course of legal proceedings; -the making of recordings and other reproductions of TCEs/EoF for purposes of

their inclusion in an archive or inventory for non-commercial cultural heritage safeguarding purposes; and -incidental uses,

provided in each case that such uses are compatible with fair practice, the relevant community is acknowledged as the source of the TCEs/EoF where practicable and possible, and such uses would not be offensive to the relevant community.

(b) Measures for the protection of TCEs/EoF could allow, in accordance with custom and traditional practice, unrestricted use of the TCEs/EoF, or certain of them so specified, by all members of a community, including all nationals of a country.

Discussion of options and mechanisms

69. Examples of exceptions typically found in laws for the protection of TCEs/EoF deal inter alia with three questions relevant to determining which utilizations of TCEs/EoF should be subject to some form of authorization:

(a) whether there is gainful intent;

(b) whether the utilization is made by members or non-members of the relevant community from which the expression comes; and

(c) whether the utilization occurs outside the traditional or customary context.

70. For example:

(a)
the Model Provisions, 1982 apply only to uses of TCEs/EoF that take place within the customary or traditional context and with gainful intent. They also contain typical copyright exceptions;
(b)
the Pacific Regional Model does not apply to customary uses by ‘traditional owners’ (sections 5 and 7(3)). The Panama Law, 2000 and the Peru Law, 2002 also contain similar provisions. The Pacific Regional Model also contains typical copyright exceptions.

71. Other examples of exceptions typically found in laws for the protection of TCEs/EoF are:

(a)
the ‘borrowing’ of an expression of folklore in order to create an original work of authorship (Model Provisions, 1982, and Lesotho, Malawi and Nigeria 63 );
Angola, Congo, Djibouti, Kenya and Togo 64 );
(d)
uses by citizens of the country (as opposed to non-citizens; Indonesian Copyright Law, 2002).
(b) uses by folkloric dance groups and small non-indigenous artisans (the Panama
Law);
(c) uses by public entities for non-commercial purposes (the Tunis Model Law, and

6. Term of protection

72. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 suggests the following principle:

ARTICLE 6:

TERM OF PROTECTION

Protection of traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore should endure for as long as the traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore continue to meet the criteria for protection under Article 1 of these provisions, and,

(i)
in so far as TCEs/EoF referred to in Article 3 (a) are concerned, their protection under that sub-article shall endure for so long as they remain registered or notified as referred to in Article 7; and,
(ii)
in so far as secret TCEs/EoF are concerned, their protection as such shall endure for so long as they remain secret.

Discussion of options and legal mechanisms

73. A principle on term of protection could be implemented through the following options and possible mechanisms:

63 See Lucas-Schloetter, ‘Folklore’ in von Lewinski, S. (Ed.), Indigenous Heritage and Intellectual Property, 2004 (Kluwer), p. 289.

64 See Lucas-Schloetter, ‘Folklore’ in von Lewinski, S. (Ed.), Indigenous Heritage and Intellectual Property, 2004 (Kluwer), p. 289.

(a)
while the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement stipulate 50 years as a minimum period for protection, countries are free to protect copyright for longer periods (and many do so). Rights to the famous work “Peter Pan” vest in perpetuity under United Kingdom copyright law for the benefit of a charitable cause, and a proposal has been made in Australia to grant perpetual protection to the art works of a renowned indigenous artist for the benefit of his descendants;
(b)
in so far as sui generis legislation goes, no time limit is set in the Model Provisions, the Panama Law and the Pacific Regional Framework;
(c)
the Panama Law seems to link the term of protection to the protected subject matter continuing to display the characteristics that qualify it for protection in the first place (as protection is indefinite rather than unlimited; see section 7). This is the essence of the principle suggested in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4. This entails a trademark-like emphasis on current use, so that once the community that the TCE identifies no longer uses the TCE or no longer exists as a defined entity (analogous too to abandonment of a trademark), protection for the TCE would lapse. 65 Such an approach has the merit of giving effect to customary laws and practices and drawing upon the very essence of the subject matter of protection (it being recalled that at the heart of TCEs/EoF is that they are characteristic of and identify a community (see above)). When a TCE ceases to do so, it ceases by definition to be a TCE and it follows that protection should lapse. There is something of this line of thinking also in the USA’s Arts and Crafts Act, 1990 which excludes from protection products which are no longer ‘Indian’, because, for example, they have become ‘industrial products’. The Act sets out in some detail what constitutes an “Indian product”.

Scafidi, S., ‘Intellectual Property and Cultural Products,’ 81 B.U.L. Rev. 793.

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex I, page 41
7. Formalities
74. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 suggests the following principle:

ARTICLE 7:

FORMALITIES

(a)
As a general principle, the protection of traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore should not be subject to any formality. Traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore as referred to in Article 1 are protected from the moment of their creation.
(b)
Measures for the protection of specific traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore of particular cultural or spiritual value or significance and for which a level of protection is sought as provided for in Article 3(a) should require that such traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore be notified to or registered with a competent office or organization by the relevant community or by the Agency referred to in Article 4 acting at the request of and on behalf of the community.
(i)
To the extent that such registration or notification may involve the recording or other fixation of the traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore concerned, any intellectual property rights in such recording or fixation should vest in or be assigned to the relevant community.
(ii)
Information on and representations of the traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore which have been so registered or notified should be made publicly accessible at least to the extent necessary to provide transparency and certainty to third parties as to which traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore are so protected and for whose benefit.

(iii) Such registration or notification is declaratory and does not constitute rights. Without prejudice thereto, entry in the register presumes that the facts recorded therein are true, unless proven otherwise. Any entry as such does not affect the rights of third parties.

The office or organization receiving such registrations or notifications should resolve any uncertainties or disputes as to which communities, including those in more than one country, should be entitled to registration or notification or should be the beneficiaries of protection as referred to in Article 2, using customary laws and processes, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and existing cultural resources, such as cultural heritage inventories, as far as possible.

Discussion of options and legal mechanisms

  1. One option would be to require automatic protection without formalities, so that protection would be available as of the moment a TCE is created, similarly to copyright (the Model Provisions, 1982 and the Pacific Regional Framework, 2002).
  2. A second option is to require some form of notification, which could have merely declaratory effect, in which case proof of registration would be used to substantiate a claim of protection. Some form of registration may provide useful precision, transparency and certainty on which TCEs are protected and for whose benefit. The many copyright laws which require the notification of copyright works also provide models for ways in which to implement such a principle:
(a)
for example, the Copyright Act of Mexico provides a copyright registration system. According to section 162 of the Act, “The purpose of the Public Copyright Register is to ensure the legal security of authors, owners of neighboring rights, the holders of the economic rights concerned and their successors in title, and also to afford sufficient publicity to works, instruments and documents through registration. Literary and artistic works and neighboring rights shall be protected even if they are not registered”;
(b)
the Indonesian Copyright Act, 2002 allows for non-compulsory registration of copyright works, and the Copyright Office reports receiving many applications for registration of new batik motifs each month, mainly from Indonesian small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs).

77. Another example is database for purposes of containing the official insignia of all State and federally recognized Native American tribes established by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the USPTO). 66 Under Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act, 1946, as amended, a proposed trademark may be refused registration or cancelled (at any time) if the mark consists of or comprises matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute. The USPTO may refuse to register a proposed mark which falsely suggests a connection with an indigenous tribe or beliefs held by that tribe. Such provision provides not only protection for folklore aspects of Native American tribes, but also “those of other indigenous peoples worldwide”. The Trademark Law Treaty Implementation Act, 1998 required the USPTO to complete a study on the protection of the official insignia of federally and state-recognized Native American tribes. As a direct result of this study, 67 on August 31, 2001, the USPTO established a Database of Official Insignia of Native American Tribes. The Database of Official Insignia of Native American Tribes may be searched and thus prevent the registration of a mark confusingly similar to an official insignia. “Insignia” refers to “the flag or coat of arms or other emblem or device of any federally or State recognized Native American tribe” and does not include words. 68

66 See “Report on the Official Insignia of Native American Tribes,” September 30, 1999. 67 Available at <http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/current.html> (30Nov99 entry). 68 Ibid., pp. 24-26.

8. Sanctions, remedies and enforcement

78. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 suggests the following principle:

ARTICLE 8:

SANCTIONS, REMEDIES AND EXERCISE OF RIGHTS

(a)
Accessible, appropriate and adequate enforcement and dispute-resolution mechanisms, border-measures, sanctions and remedies, including criminal and civil remedies, should be available in cases of breach of the protection for traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore.
(b)
The Agency referred to in Article 4 should be tasked with, among other things, advising and assisting communities with regard to the enforcement of rights and with instituting civil, criminal and administrative proceedings on their behalf when appropriate and requested by them.

Discussion of options and legal mechanisms

  1. This issue, which concerns which civil and criminal sanctions and remedies may be made available for breaches of the rights provided, is not elaborated on in detail at this stage. Existing IP and sui generis legislation, case law and other sources provide a basis for developing appropriate principles, options and mechanisms at a later stage, perhaps once core principles for protection have been further discussed. The Pacific Regional Model, for example, sets out detailed provisions on enforcement of rights. 69 See also the copyright law of Nigeria, 1992. Reference has been made above to the possible role of an ‘authority’ in assisting communities to enforce their rights.
  2. It is noted, however, that communities and others argue that the remedies available under current law may not be appropriate to deter infringing use of the works of an indigenous artist-copyright holder, or may not provide for damages equivalent to the degree of cultural and non-economic damage caused by the infringing use. Damages awarded by courts could take such cultural issues in to account, as in the case George M*, Payunka, Marika and Others v Indofurn Pty. Ltd. 70 References have also been made to the desirability of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in this area, 71 and the Pacific Regional Model makes specific reference to ADR. 72
69 Sections 26 to 34.
70 30 IPR 209. See Janke, ‘Minding Culture’.
71 GRULAC (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/1/5, Annex I, p.9), Asian Group (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/10,
African Group (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/15).
72 Section 33.
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex I, page 44
9. Transitional Measures
81. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 suggests the following:

ARTICLE 9:

TRANSITIONAL MEASURES

(a)
These provisions apply to all traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore which, at the moment of the provisions coming into force, fulfill the criteria set out in Article 1.
(b)
Continuing acts in respect of traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore that had commenced prior to the coming into force of these provisions and which would not be permitted or which would be otherwise regulated by the provisions, should be brought into conformity with the provisions within a reasonable period of time after they enter into force, subject to respect for rights previously acquired by third parties.

Discussion of options and mechanisms

82. This issue concerns whether protection should have some retroactive effect, and in particular how to deal with utilizations of TCEs/EoF that are continuing when the law or instrument enters into force and had lawfully commenced before entry into force. Such a principle as suggested in WIPO/GRTKF/IC/ 7/3 in its various forms may be implemented in a range of ways. For example:

(a) the Panama Law, 2000 states that rights previously obtained shall be respected and not affected by the Law;

(b) the Pacific Regional Model, 2002 provides in article 3 as follows:

“This Act applies to traditional knowledge and expressions of culture that: were in

existence before the commencement of this Act; or are created on or after that

commencement. This Act does not affect or apply to rights that exist immediately

before the commencement of this Act, including intellectual property rights. This Act

does not affect or apply to contracts, licences or other agreements entered into by

traditional owners before the commencement of this Act in relation to the use of

traditional knowledge or expressions of culture.”

(c) the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, 1990 only operates prospectively (as from 1935, when the predecessor Act came into force).

10. Relationship with intellectual property protection and other forms of protection, preservation and promotion

83. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 suggests the following principle:

ARTICLE 10:

RELATIONSHIP WITH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND OTHER FORMS OF PROTECTION, PRESERVATION AND PROMOTION

Protection for traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore in accordance with these provisions does not replace and is complementary to protection applicable to traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore and derivatives thereof under other intellectual property laws, laws and programs for the safeguarding, preservation and promotion of cultural heritage, and other legal and non-legal measures available for the protection and preservation of traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore.

Discussion of options and legal mechanisms

84. Existing laws provide for numerous examples of how such a principle could be implemented:

(a)
many laws distinguish between TCEs/EoF and works derived therefrom. The former receive sui generis protection, the latter conventional copyright or other IP protection. Previous documents 73 highlighted the distinction made by copyright and other IP laws between contemporary expressions, adaptations and interpretations of traditional cultures and folklore (which are often protected by copyright, industrial designs and other IP laws) and other expressions of traditional cultures or folklore which are not so protected (which have been referred to as ‘pre-existing’ or ‘underlying’, or ‘expressions of traditional cultures/ folklore stricto sensu’). For example, the Tunis Model Law on Copyright protects ‘works derived from national folklore’ as original copyright works, whereas folklore itself, described as ‘works of national folklore,’ is accorded a special (sui generis) type of copyright protection because they are unprotected by copyright. The Model Provisions and the Bangui Agreement of OAPI both make a similar distinction. This distinction is also reflected in national laws, for example those of Tunisia (which refers to both ‘folklore’ and ‘works inspired by folklore’) 74 , Hungary, Indonesia and many others;
(b)
Article 12 of the Model Provisions, 1982 provides that “This [law] shall in no way limit or prejudice any protection applicable to expressions of folklore under the copyright law, the law protecting performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations, the laws protecting industrial property, or any other law or international treaty to which the country is party; nor shall it in any way prejudice other forms of protection provided for the safeguard and preservation of folklore”;

73 See WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/3 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/3. 74 Law 94-36 of February 24, 1994 on Literary and Artistic Property.

(c) Articles 11 and 12 of the Pacific Regional Model are relevant:

“11 Additional rights

The traditional cultural rights in traditional knowledge or expressions of culture are in addition to, and do not affect, any rights that may subsist under any law relating to copyright, trademarks, patents, designs or other intellectual property.

12 Derivative works

(1)
Any copyright, trademark, patent, design or other intellectual property right that exists in relation to a derivative work vests in the creator of the work or as otherwise provided by the relevant intellectual property law.
(2)
If a derivative work, traditional knowledge or expressions of culture are to be used for a commercial purpose, the authorized user agreement must:
(a)
contain a benefit sharing arrangement providing for equitable monetary or non-monetary compensation to the traditional owners; and
(b)
provide for identification of the traditional knowledge or expressions of culture on which the derivative work is based in an appropriate manner in connection with the exploitation of the derivative work by mentioning the traditional owners and/or the geographical place from which it originated; and
(c)
provide that the traditional knowledge or expressions of culture in the derived work will not be subject to derogatory treatment.”

B.11. International and regional protection

85. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 suggests the following principle:

ARTICLE 11:

INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL PROTECTION

The rights and benefits arising from the protection of traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore under national measures or laws that give effect to these international provisions should be available to all eligible beneficiaries who are nationals or habitual residents of a prescribed country as defined by international obligations or undertakings. Eligible foreign beneficiaries should enjoy the same rights and benefits as enjoyed by beneficiaries who are nationals of the country of protection, as well as the rights and benefits specifically granted by these international provisions.

Discussion of options and legal mechanisms

86. The Model Provisions, 1982 provide as follows: “Protection of Expression of Folklore of Foreign Countries

Expressions of folklore developed and maintained in a foreign country are protected under this [law]

(i)
subject to reciprocity, or
(ii)
on the basis of international treaties or other agreements.”

87. The Pacific Regional Model states that:

“In accordance with reciprocal arrangements, this Act may provide the same protection to traditional knowledge and expressions of culture originating in other countries or territories as is provided to traditional knowledge and expressions of culture originating in the [Enacting country]”.

‘Regional folklore’

88. Options and legal and practical mechanisms for addressing communities in different countries and even regions who may lay claim to the same or similar folklore ( ‘regional folklore’), include inter alia the use in such cases of national and/or international folklore registers and databases, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), systems of registration and notification, collective management and the establishment of dispute-resolution organizations, or maybe combinations of these. 75 Certain commentators, such as Kuruk, have suggested that regional systems, institutions and dispute resolution be established and used to deal with these questions, 76 and a Sub-Regional seminar on TCEs/EoF held in Rabat, Morocco in May 2003 recommended inter alia that Arab countries who share popular and traditional cultural patrimony should create joint commissions to study and put in place equitable strategies for protection of TCEs/EoF. Existing regional organizations and mechanisms (such as ARIPO and OAPI in Africa, who, together with Zambia, have raised this issue in the Committee 77 ) may be important stakeholders in resolving the ‘regional folklore’ question.

[Annex II follows]

75 See for example the responses to the WIPO Questionnaire of 2001 of Canada, Colombia, Egypt, Gambia, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Romania and the Russian Federation. See WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/10.

76 Kuruk, P., “Protecting Folklore Under Modern Intellectual Property Regimes: A Reappraisal of the Tensions Between Individual and Communal Rights in Africa and the United States,” 48 American University Law Review 769 (1999).

77 WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/15, paras. 48, 50 and 51.

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 ANNEX II COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF SUI GENERIS LEGISLATION

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian Arts and
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in 1999) (June 26, 2000) National Laws Crafts Act of 1990
Copyright (1976) Annex VII, Title I (copyright and Executive Decree No. 12 (2002)
(parts of relevance to folklore only) and related rights) (March 20, 2001)
POLICY CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES In so far as “folklore” is concerned, protection is provided “to prevent any improper exploitation and to permit adequate protection of the cultural heritage known as folklore which constitutes not only a potential for economic expansion, but also a cultural legacy intimately bound up with the individual character of the community.” (Notes to Section 6) Folklore is an important part of living cultural heritage of nations. Dissemination of folklore can lead to improper exploitation of cultural heritage, and any abuse or any distortion of folklore prejudices the cultural and economic interests nations. Expressions of folklore manifesting intellectual creativity deserve IP-type protection. Such protection of expressions of folklore is indispensable for their development, maintenance and dissemination. Therefore: Protection is provided for expressions of folklore against illicit exploitation and other prejudicial actions. Preamble and Section 1. Promote the effective contribution of IP to the development of Member States. Protect IP in an effective and uniform manner. Contribute to the promotion of the protection of literary and artistic property as an expression of cultural and social values. The objective is to protect the collective IP rights and TK of indigenous communities through the registration, promotion, commercialization and marketing of their rights in such a way as to give prominence to indigenous socio-cultural values and cultural identities and for social justice (Preamble and Article 1 of the Law; Preamble of the Decree). Another key objective is the protection of the authenticity of crafts and other traditional artistic expressions. The objective is to protect rights of traditional owners in their TK and expressions of culture and permit tradition-based creativity and innovation, including commercialization thereof, subject to prior and informed consent and benefit-sharing. The Model Law also reflects the policy that it should complement and not undermine IP laws. (1) IACA: -To promote the development of Indian arts and crafts and to create a board to assist therein, and for other purposes; (2) Database of Official Insignia: -To address issues surrounding the protection of the official insignia of federally and State recognized Native American tribes. (Section 302(a), Trademark Law Treaty Implementation Act) The legal protection provided in the United States is, in summary, intended: -To protect and preserve cultural heritage; -To prevent commercial interests from falsely associating their goods or services with indigenous peoples.

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF 4 Annex II, page 2

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian Arts
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws and Crafts Act of
Copyright (1976) 1999) and Executive Decree No. 12 (2002) 1990
(parts of relevance to folklore only) Annex VII, Title I (copyright and related rights) (March 20, 2001)
SUBJECT MATTER (The protected subject matter) “Folklore” is defined in Section 18 -all literary, artistic and scientific works created on national territory by authors presumed to be nationals of such countries or by ethnic communities, passed from generation to generation and constituting one of the basic elements of the traditional cultural heritage. Productions consisting of characteristic elements of traditional artistic heritage developed and maintained by a community, in particular, verbal expressions, (folk tales, folk poetry, riddles); musical expressions (folk songs and instrumental music); “Expressions of folklore” are defined as productions of characteristic elements of the traditional artistic heritage developed and perpetuated by a community or by individuals recognized as meeting the expectations of such community, including folk tales, folk poetry, folk songs, instrumental music, folk dancing and entertainment as also the artistic expressions of rites and productions of folk art (Article 2 (xx)). Expressions of folklore and works derived from folklore seem to be protected as copyright works (Article 5(xii)). Customs, traditions, beliefs, spirituality, cosmovision, folkloric expressions, artistic manifestations, TK and any other type of traditional expressions of indigenous communities which are part of their cultural assets (cultural heritage) (Law, Article 2). “Collective IP rights” and “traditional knowledge” embodied in creations such as inventions, models, designs and drawings, innovations contained in images, figures, graphic symbols, petroglyphs and other material, cultural elements of history, music, arts and traditional artistic expressions (Decree, Article 1). Collective indigenous rights” means the indigenous cultural and IP rights relating to art, music, literature, biological, medical and ecological knowledge and other Cultural expressions are the main focus of the Law. Expressions of culture are defined as any ways in which TK appears or is manifested, including inter alia names, stories, chants, riddles, histories, songs in oral narratives, art and craft, musical instruments, sculpture, painting, carving, pottery, terracotta mosaic, woodwork, metalware, painting, jewelry, weaving, needlework, shell work, rugs, costumes and textiles, music, dances, theatre, literature, ceremonies, ritual performances, cultural practices, designs, architectural forms. (1) IACA: The Implementing Regulations for the Act provide that, in general, the term “Indian product” means “any art or craft product made by an Indian.” (Section 309.2(d)(1)). The Regulations furthermore illustrate that Indian products include, but are not limited to: (i) Art works that are in a traditional or nontraditional Indian style or medium; (ii) Crafts that are in a traditional or non-traditional Indian style or medium; (iii) Handcrafts, i.e. objects created with the help of only such devices as allow the manual skill of the maker to condition the shape and design of each individual product.

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF 4 Annex II, page 3

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian Arts
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws and Crafts Act of
Copyright (1976) 1999) and Executive Decree No. 12 (2002) 1990
(parts of relevance to folklore only) Annex VII, Title I (copyright and related rights) (March 20, 2001)
Folklore receives sui generis protection. On the other hand, works derived from folklore are treated as copyright works. expressions by action (folk dances, plays and artistic forms or rituals); and tangible expressions (productions of folk art, drawings, paintings, carvings, sculptures, pottery, terracotta, mosaic, woodwork, metalware, jewelry, basket-weaving, needlework, textiles, carpets, costumes, musical instruments, and [architectural forms.] (Section 2). Translations, adaptations, arrangements and other transformations of expressions of folklore also seem to be protected as copyright works, as are collections and databases of works and expressions of folklore (Article 6 (1) (i) & (ii)). “Performances” as defined include performances of “expressions of folklore” (Article 46). subject matter and manifestations that have no known author or owner and no date of origin and constitute the heritage of an entire indigenous people (Article 2, Decree). “Traditional knowledge” means the collective knowledge of indigenous people based on the traditions of centuries, and indeed millennia, which are tangible and intangible expressions encompassing their science, technology and cultural manifestations, including their genetic resources, medicines and seeds, their knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, designs and visual and representative arts. (Article 2 Decree). Only subject matter capable of commercial use appears covered (Law, Article 1). (Section 309.2(d)(2)) Exeptions and limitations: The Implementing Regulations exclude any art or craft products made before 1935 from the scope of application of the Act. (Section 309.2(d)(3), Implementing Regulations, dated October 21, 1996) (2) Database of Official Insignia: The term “Official insignia of Native American tribes” means the flag or coat of arms or other emblem or device of any federally or state-recognized Native American tribe, as adopted by tribal resolution and notified to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF 4 Annex II, page 4

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian Arts
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws and Crafts Act of
Copyright (1976) 1999) and Executive Decree No. 12 (2002) 1990
(parts of relevance to folklore Annex VII, Title I (copyright (March 20, 2001)
only) and related rights)
A classification system is created
by the Decree
(Article 3) and several examples
of protected subject matter are
given by the Law and the Decree,
such as traditional dresses of
certain named indigenous
communities, musical
instruments, music, dances,
performances, oral and written
expressions, working instruments
and traditional art and techniques
for making them, such as basket
and bead work (Law, Articles 3, 4
and 5).

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF 4 Annex II, page 5

CRITERIA FOR Fixation not required None specified. Expressions of folklore and The subject matter must: The subject matter must be (1) IACA:
PROTECTION (Section 5bis); originality not required. works inspired by them are regarded as “original” (i) be capable of commercial use (Law, “traditional” i.e., (i) created, acquired or inspired for To be protected under the Act a
(Conditions that copyright works (Article 5). Article 1); traditional economic, spiritual, product must meet
the subject No criteria specifically stated. (ii) be based upon tradition, ritual, narrative, decorative or the following
matter must Need not be fixed on material although it need not be recreational purposes; requirements:
meet for medium (Article 4(2)). ‘old’ (Law, Article 15); -it must be an
protection. (iii) fit within the “Indian product” as
Examples: classification system defined in the Act
originality, established by Article 3 and the
novelty, of the Decree; Implementing
distinctiveness, Regulations;
fixed form etc). -is must have been produced after 1935; -the producer of the concerned Indian product must be resident in the United States. (2) Database of Official Insignia: -if signs or symbols contain tribal names, recognizable likenesses of Native Americans or symbols perceived as being Native American in origin they are included in the database.

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF 4 Annex II, page 6

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian Arts and
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws Crafts Act of 1990
Copyright (1976) 1999) and Executive Decree No. 12 (2002)
(parts of relevance to Annex VII, Title I (copyright (March 20, 2001)
folklore only) and related rights)
(iv) be “collective”, i.e., the subject matter must have no known author or owner and no date of origin and constitute the heritage of an entire indigenous people (Decree, Article 2), or (ii) transmitted from generation to generation; (iii) regarded as pertaining to a particular traditional group, clan , or community of people; and (iv) is collectively originated and held (Section 4).
must be regarded as belonging to one or more of the indigenous Need not be in material form (Section 8).
communities of Panama
(Decree,
Article 5 and 6).

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 7

HOLDER Rights in folklore exercised Either a “competent authority” or The author is the first holder The relevant indigenous Traditional owners of TK or IACA:
OF RIGHTS by a competent authority (Sections 6 and 18). relevant community. of the economic and moral rights. Specific provisions deal with collaborative works, collective works, the works of employees, and other cases – there are no specific provisions dealing with expressions of folklore (Articles 28 to 33). communities represented by their general congresses or traditional authorities. More than one community can be registered collectively as holders of the rights (Decree, Article 5). expressions of culture, being the group, clan or community, or individual recognized as part of group, clan or community, in whom the custody or protection of the TK or expressions of culture are entrusted in accordance with customary law and practices (Section 4). The term “Indian” is defined as “any individual who is a member of an Indian tribe; or for the purposes of this section is certified as an Indian artisan by an Indian tribe.” (Section 6(d)(3)) The term “Indian tribe” means: “(A) any Indian tribe, band, nation, Alaska Native village, or other organized group or community which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians;

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 8

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian Arts and
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws Crafts Act of 1990
Copyright (1976) 1999) and Executive Decree No. 12 (2002)
(parts of relevance to Annex VII, Title I (copyright (March 20, 2001)
folklore only) and related rights)
If a derivative work is created, IP in work vests in creator or as provided for by IP law (see further below). or (B) any Indian group that has been formally recognized
as an Indian tribe by a State legislature or by a State commission or similar organization legislatively vested
with State tribal recognition authority.” (Section 6(d)(3))
The term “Indian arts and crafts organization” means any legally
established arts and crafts marketing organization composed of
members of Indian tribes. (Section 6(d)(4)).
Database of Official
Insignia: The beneficiaries of the Database are federally-and state-
recognized tribes.

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 9

RIGHTS Section 6 – works of The following uses when made Expressions of folklore and Collective rights to authorize or The Model Law establishes
CONFERRED national folklore enjoy with both gainful intent and works inspired by them are prevent: “traditional cultural rights” and
rights referred in Section outside the traditional or regarded as copyright works (i) use and “moral rights” in TK or expressions
(Including exemptions and free uses) 4 and 5(1) and are exercised by the competent authority. customary context, require prior authorization: publication, reproduction, distribution of copies, public recitation, in respect of which economic and moral rights as understood in the copyright sense seem to apply (Article 8 commercialization; (Article 15). (ii) industrial reproduction (Law, Article 20). of culture. Traditional cultural rights are rights to authorize or prevent the
Section 4 – Economic performance, transmission by and 9). following uses:
Rights: author has wire or wireless means and any Collective right to apply for IP (i) to reproduce the TK or
exclusive right to other form of communication to Performances of expressions over protected subject matter expressions of culture;
reproduce, make the public (Section 3). of folklore are accorded the (Law, Article 2). (ii) to publish the TK or
translation, adaptation, same protection as is expressions of culture;
arrangement, Acknowledgement of source accorded to other Collective right to prevent or (iii) to perform or display the
transformation, (Section 5) -source must be performances (Article 48). authorize third parties from TK or expressions of culture
communicate work to acknowledged in appropriate acquiring exclusive IP over in public;
public either through manner (mentioning community In addition, however, protected subject matter (Law,
performance or and/or geographic place from expressions of folklore and Article 2).
broadcasting. where expression utilized has works that have fallen into the
derived from) in all printed public domain are subject to
publications, in any domaine public payant
communications to the public. (Section 59).

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 10

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian Arts and
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws Crafts Act of 1990
Copyright (1976) 1999) and Executive Decree No. 12 (2002)
(parts of relevance to folklore only) Annex VII, Title I (copyright and related rights) (March 20, 2001)
Section 5(1) -Moral Rights: to claim authorship, to object to and seek relief in connection with distortion, mutilation, modification or any other action which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. Rights do not apply however when works of national folklore are used by a public entity for noncommercial purposes (Section 61bis). Domain public payant system also introduced (Section 17). Users of works of national folklore must pay percentage of receipts to competent authority for specified purposes (Section 17). Exceptions (Section 4 and 5(2)): No authorization required for: (i) purposes of education (ii) utilization “by way of illustration” in original work (iii) where expressions of folklore are “borrowed” for creating an original work of author (iv) (iv)“incidental utilization” such as reporting on current events, located permanently in public place. The exploitation of expressions of folklore and that of works or productions that have fallen into the public domain on expiry of the terms of protection shall be subject to the user entering into an undertaking to pay to the national collective rights administration body a relevant royalty. Royalties collected with respect to the exploitation of expressions of folklore shall be devoted to welfare and cultural purposes. Collective right to consent to the certification of cultural expressions as works of indigenous traditional art or handicraft and handmade by natives (Law, Article 10, Decree, Article 15). Exemptions for folkloric dance groups (Law, Article 16) and small non-indigenous artisans in certain cases –they are able to manufacture and market reproductions, but they will not be able to claim the collective rights recognized by this Law (Law, Articles 23 and 24; Decree, Articles 26 and 27) Registration of collective rights in an object or in TK shall not affect the traditional exchange of the object or the knowledge in question between indigenous peoples (Decree, Article 11). (iv) to broadcast the TK or expressions of culture to the public by radio, television, satellite, cable or any other means of communication; (v) to translate, adapt, arrange, transform or modify the TK or expressions of culture; (vi) to fixate the TK or expressions of culture through any process such as making a photograph, film or sound recording;

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 11

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian Arts and
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws Crafts Act of 1990
Copyright (1976) 1999) and Executive Decree No. 12 (2002)
(parts of relevance to Annex VII, Title I (copyright (March 20, 2001)
folklore only) and related rights)
(vii) to make available online or electronically transmit to the public (whether over a path or a combination of paths, or both) TK or expressions of
culture;
(viii) to create derivative works;
(ix) to make, use, offer for sale, sell, import or export TK or expressions of culture or products derived therefrom;
(x) to use the TK or expressions of culture in any other material form, if such uses are a non-customary (whether or not of
a commercial nature). (Section 7).

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 12

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws Arts and Crafts
Copyright (1976) 1999) and Executive Decree No. 12 (2002) Act of 1990
(parts of relevance to Annex VII, Title I (copyright (March 20, 2001)
folklore only) and related rights)
“Moral rights” refers to rights
of attribution of ownership; the
right not to have ownership
falsely attributed; right not to
have TK subject to derogatory
treatment (Section 13).
If cultural expressions and
derivative works are used for
commercial purposes, user must
share benefits with traditional
owners, acknowledge source
and respect moral rights
(Section 12).
Traditional cultural rights do not
prevent uses of cultural
expressions by traditional
owners (Section 7(3), nor to
face-to-face teaching, criticism
or review, reporting news or
current events, judicial
proceedings, and incidental use,
although sufficient
acknowledgement is needed in
these cases (Section 7(4) and
(5)).

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 13

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws Arts and Crafts
Copyright (1976) 1999) and Executive Decree No. 12 (2002) Act of 1990
(parts of relevance to folklore only) Annex VII, Title I (copyright and related rights) (March 20, 2001)
PROCEDURES AND FORMALITIES None stated. License agreements authorized by the competent authority but must be proceeded by negotiations with parties concerned. Uses as contemplated in Section 3 subject to authorization (section 9). Competent authority grants authorization, fee required (section 10(2)). Appeals against decisions made by person applying for authorization and/or representative of interested community section (section 10(3)). No particular procedures for expression of folklore. A special registration system is established (Law, Article 1). Applications for registration must specify that a collective right is involved, that the object applied for belongs to an indigenous community, the technique used, and the history and brief description of the object (Decree, Article 6). Registration must be made by the indigenous community or by its general congresses or indigenous traditional authority (Law, Article 7). The application must contain certain prescribed information (Decree, Article 7) and the form is publicly available. The application must include a specimen of the object. Uses of cultural expressions require prior and informed consent. Applications for consent may be made directly to a “Cultural Authority” or directly to traditional owners. Applications to the Cultural Authority must be in prescribed form; specify manner in which applicant proposes use; state purpose for which use intended; prescribed fee. The Cultural Authority must finalize application in prescribed period. If not, it is deemed that consent not given by traditional owners. Applications are published by means of copy to traditional owners, copy in national newspaper, and if (1) IACA: The Indian Arts and Crafts Board may register Government trademarks of genuineness and quality for Indian products in the USPTO without charge (Section 2(g)) (2) Database of Official Insignia: In August 2001 the USPTO established a Database of Official Insignia of Native American Tribes. The database is for notice purposes, and relies on self-certification.

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 14

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian Arts
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws and Crafts Act of
Copyright (1976) 1999) and Executive Decree No. 12 (2002) 1990
(parts of relevance to Annex VII, Title I (copyright (March 20, 2001)
folklore only) and related rights)
The application procedure does not required broadcast on radio and
require legal services and is exempt TV.
from payment (Law, Article 7).
Appeals relating to application
Registrations are published and appeals must be made within 28 days of
against them may be lodged (Decree, publication.
Article 10).
In the event of direct
The register of collective rights is negotiations between the user
public, with the exception of and the owners, the Cultural
experiments and cognitive processes Authority must still be provided
conducted by indigenous peoples and with a copy of the proposed
the traditional production techniques or authorized user agreement
methods used (Decree, Article 12). (Section 25(2)).
The position of an examiner on Potential users of cultural
indigenous collective rights is expressions must enter into an
established in the industrial property authorized user agreement with
office to examine all applications filed the traditional owners should
to ensure that industrial property they agree to the proposed use.
registrations are not granted that are An authorized user agreement
against the Law (Law, Article 9). should include terms and
conditions about the following:

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 15

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian Arts
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws and Crafts Act of
Copyright (1976) 1999) And Executive Decree No. 12 (2002) 1990
(parts of relevance to Annex VII, Title I (copyright (March 20, 2001)
folklore only) and related rights)
(i) sharing of financial and other benefits arising from the use of the TK or expressions of culture;
(ii) compensation, fees, royalties or other payments for the use;
(iii) whether the use will be exclusive or non-exclusive;
(iv) duration of the use to be allowed and rights of renewal;
(v) disclosure requirements in relation to the use;
(vi) the possible sharing by the traditional owners of any IP rights arising from the use of the TK or expressions of culture;
(vii) access arrangements for the traditional owners;

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 16

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian Arts
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws and Crafts Act of
Copyright (1976) 1999) And Executive Decree No. 12 (2002) 1990
(parts of relevance to Annex VII, Title I (copyright (March 20, 2001)
folklore only) and related rights)
(viii) education and training
requirements for the
applicant;
(ix) controls on
publication;
(x) specify whether the
rights arising under the
agreement can be
assigned;
(xi) choice of law in
relation to disputes under
the agreement;
(xii) respect for moral rights
of the traditional owners.
If a prospective user
and the traditional owners enter
into an authorized user
agreement, the traditional
owners are deemed to have
given their prior and informed
consent to the proposed use.
The Cultural Authority is to
keep a register of
authorized user
agreements.

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 17

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian Arts
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws and Crafts Act of
Copyright (1976) 1999) And Executive Decree No. 12 (2002) 1990
(parts of relevance to Annex VII, Title I (copyright (March 20, 2001)
folklore only) and related rights)
RESPONSIBILITIES Competent authority – Competent authority No particular provisions Applications for registration are made The cultural authority must:
OF NEW OR proposed that authority be determined by enacting concerning expressions of to the industrial property office or the (i) receive and process
EXISTING body responsible for country folklore. copyright office (Law, Article 4). applications;
AUTHORITIES AND administration of authors’ (Section 9(1)) (ii) identify traditional
INSTITUTIONS rights within country A Department of Collective Rights and owners;
(Notes). Court has jurisdiction to hear Expressions of Folklore is established (iii) monitor compliance
appeals against decisions of within the industrial property office to and inform of breaches;
User of work of folklore competent authority approve applications and maintain the (iv) develop standard terms
must obtain authorization (Section 11(1)). register (Law, and conditions for
from competent authority Article 7). authorized user
OR agreements;
Competent authority defined in Section 18. Sums collected by the competent authority must be used inter alia to protect and disseminate national folklore (Section Court has jurisdiction in case of offences under Section 6 to Section 11(2). Officials of the industrial property office and the Department of Collective Rights and Expressions of Folklore may go to indigenous communities to gather information necessary for prosecution of applications they may wish to file. (v) keep a register of authorized user agreements; (vi) provide training and education for traditional owners and users; (vii) develop Code of
17). Ethics;
(viii) issue advisory
guidelines;
(ix) liaise with regional
bodies;
(x) maintain record of
traditional owners and
knowledge;
(xi) provide guidance on
meaning of “customary
use.”

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 18

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian Arts
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws and Crafts Act of
Copyright (1976) 1999) And Executive Decree No. 12 (2002) 1990
(parts of relevance to folklore only) Annex VII, Title I (copyright and related rights) (March 20, 2001)
SANCTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES Importation of copies of protected work into national territory constitutes an infringement and can be seized. Person infringing rights obliged to cease infringement; liable for damages; if willful be punishable by fine or imprisonment or both (Section 15(1)). Infringement of rights mentioned which are considered as violation of national cultural heritage and may be curbed by all legitimate means (Section 15(2)). Infringement materials subject to seizure (Section 15(3)). Offences determined by enacting country (section 6). Seizure of objects which violate law (section 7). Fees collected used for purpose of safeguarding national culture. (section 10(3)). Omissions to acknowledge source in cases where required subject to fine (Section 6). No particular provisions for expressions of folklore The importation, smuggling, industrial reproduction of protected objects and other violations of the Law are prohibited and the proceeds of fines are shared with the respective indigenous community (Law, Articles 17 to 21). Apart from the affected indigenous communities, the regional governor or the country governor may take preventative action (Law, Article 22). Various offences are created, punishable on conviction by fine or term of imprisonment, or both. Traditional owners may also institute civil proceedings. Remedies: injunction, damage for loss, public apology, cease or reverse false attribution of ownership or derogatory treatment, order for account for profits, seizure of objects, other. Nothing prevents recourse to mediation procedures, ADR, customary laws. IACA: Within the United States, the IACA empowers the Indian Arts and Crafts Board (IACB), a federal agency, to refer violations to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The IACB may independently recommend to the Attorney General of the United States that criminal proceedings be instituted. The IACB may also recommend that the Secretary of the Interior refer a matter to the Attorney General for civil

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 19

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian Arts
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws and Crafts Act of
Copyright (1976) 1999) And Executive Decree No. 12 (2002) 1990
(parts of relevance to Annex VII, Title I (copyright (March 20, 2001)
folklore only) and related rights)
Material proof of infringement may be provided by statements of enforcement action. The criminal and civil
police officers or certified statements of sworn agents of authors’ organization (Section 15(4)). penalties for violating the IACA are as follows: first time individual
offenders are subject to fines of up to $250,000 or five years’
imprisonment; businesses are subject to fines of up to $1,000,000;
subsequent violations expose individual offenders to fines
of up to $1,000,000 or fifteen years’ imprisonment,
while business offenders face up to $5,000,000 in fines.

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 20

TERM OF PROTECTION Without limitation in time (Section 6(2)). No time limit stated. Economic rights: lifetime of author + 70 years after death. Moral rights without limit in time. After expiry of economic rights, collective rights administrative body (Article 60) entitled to ensure compliance with moral rights. Anonymous author = 70 years after first publication or making of the work / lawfully accessible to public (Article 24). Rights are indefinite (not unlimited) (Law, Article 7). Moral rights and traditional cultural rights continue in force in perpetuity, are inalienable, and cannot be waived or transferred (Sections 9 and 13(4)).

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 21

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian Arts
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws and Crafts Act of
Copyright (1976) 1999) and Executive Decree No. 12 (2002) 1990
(parts of relevance to folklore only) Annex VII, Title I (copyright and related rights) (March 20, 2001)
INTERACTION WITH EXISTING IP LAWS (and other laws, such as cultural heritage laws) Works derived from folklore are regarded as copyright works (Section 2). Under section 12, there is no limit or prejudice to any protection applicable to expressions of folklore under other existing laws or other forms of protection provided. Provides for the protection of expressions of folklore as copyright works and performances thereof as protected performances under related rights. However, domain public payment also provided for. Title II deals with cultural heritage and provides as follows: “Cultural heritage” concerns folklore, sites and monuments, and ensembles (Article 67). Under Article 68, “folklore” means literary, artistic, scientific, technological and other traditions and productions as a whole created by communities and handed down from generation to generation. Examples are given in Articles 68 to 71. The Panamanian Copyright Act, 1984, does not provide copyright protection for “objective expressions of folklore” (Article 9). Also relevant are Law 27 of July 30, 1997 “Establishing the Protection, Promotion and Development of Handicraft” and Law No. 14 of May 5, 1982 “Enacting Measures on the Custody, Conservation and Administration of the Historical Heritage of the Nation.” The Law and Decree refer also to the Fiscal Code, customs law and the trademarks legislation The Law does not affect rights existing immediately before the commencement of the law (in each country), including IPRs. Traditional cultural rights are in addition to and do not affect IP rights. IPRs in derivative works (tradition-based creations) vest in the IP holder under relevant IP laws. However, if a derivative work is commercialized, certain duties arise (see above).

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 22

Article 73 prohibits the “denaturing” (distortion), destruction, exploitation, sale, disposal and illegal transfer of any part or a part of the property that makes up the cultural heritage except with authorization by competent authority (Article 73)(1)). Under 73(2), the following acts are prohibited when undertaken for profitable purposes: (i) publication, reproduction, distribution of copies of cultural property; and (ii) recitation, public performance, transmission by wire or wireless means and any other form of communication to the public. Several limitations to these rights are provided for, notably the borrowing of cultural heritage for the creation of original works (Article 74 (1)(c)).

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 23

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian Arts
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws and Crafts Act of
Copyright (1976) 1999) And Executive Decree No. 12 (2002) 1990
(parts of relevance to Annex VII, Title I (copyright (March 20, 2001)
folklore only) and related rights)
States shall inventorize,
determine, classify, place in
security and illustrate the
elements that make up the
cultural heritage (Article 72).
Establishment of a High
Commission for the Cultural
Heritage (Article 97), to be
consulted on all matters
concerning the protection,
safeguard and promotion of
cultural heritage.
CUSTOMARY No reference. No reference Registration does not affect the In case of dispute, customary No express
LAWS AND traditional exchange of the object of laws and practices can be provisions.
PROTOCOLS knowledge between indigenous peoples applied as a means to resolve
(Decree, Article 11). the dispute.

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 24

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian Arts
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws and Crafts Act of
Copyright (1976) 1999) and Executive Decree No. 12 (2002) 1990
(parts of relevance to folklore only) Annex VII, Title I (copyright and related rights) (March 20, 2001)
REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION (including the question of the protection of the same or similar cultural expressions from neighboring countries (so-called “regional folklore”)). Copies, adaptations etc of works of national folklore made abroad without authorization, shall not be imported or distributed in national territory (Section 6(3)). Section 16 (2) Alternative X – law applies to all works which, by virtue of treaties entered into by the country, are to be protected, as well as to works of national folklore. Alternative Y adds further application of the law to include national folklore of countries promulgated. Subject to reciprocity (Section 14 (i)). Basis of international treaties or other agreements (Section 14 (ii)). Article 3 (1): Rights relating to the fields of IP, as provided for in the Annexes to the Agreement, are independent national rights subject to the legislation of each of the Member States in which they have effect. Article 4 (2) -the Agreement and Annexes applicable in their entirety to every State that ratifies or accedes to the Agreement. Artistic and traditional expressions of other countries have the same benefits of law, when made by means of reciprocal international agreements (Law, Article 25). The importation of non-original reproductions of protected objects is prohibited (Article 17). In accordance with reciprocal arrangements, Act provides same protection to TK and expressions of culture originating in other countries or territories as is provided within the country itself. No express provisions.

WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/4 Annex II, page 25

Tunis Model Law Model Provisions Bangui Agreement Panama Law No. 20 South Pacific Model Law for U.S.A Indian Arts
on (1982) of OAPI (as amended in (June 26, 2000) National Laws and Crafts Act of
Copyright (1976) 1999) and Executive Decree No. 12 (2002) 1990
(parts of relevance to folklore only) Annex VII, Title I (copyright and related rights) (March 20, 2001)
TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS No particular provisions relating to folklore. No specific transitional rules. Depends on the laws of the individual countries. Legislator may choose either: (i) retroactivity of law (ii) non-retroactivity of law (iii) intermediate solution = utilization subject to authorization under law but commenced without authorization before entry into force of laws should be brought to end before expiry of certain period if no relevant authority obtained by user in meantime. (Commentary to the Model Provisions). Provisions apply to works that were created, to performances that took place, or were fixed etc. prior to the date of entry into force of Annex VII, on condition that such works have not yet fallen into public domain by reason of expiry of term of protection enjoyed under preceding legislation (Article 66 (1)). Legal effects of acts and contracts concluded or stipulated prior to date of entry into force of Annex remain unaffected (Article 66 (2)). The Law provides that rights accorded previously under the relevant legislation shall be respected and shall not be affected. The Law applies to expressions of culture that were in existence before the commencement of the Act (in the relevant country) and those created on or after that commencement (Section 3). The Law does not affect existing IP (as noted above) nor existing contracts and licenses (Sections 3(2) and 3(3)). Persons making non-customary uses of cultural expressions at the time the Act comes into force (in the relevant country) have 60 days to apply for the required consent under the Act (Section 35).

[End of Annex II and of document]

 

Explore WIPO