documentation and digitization of intangible cultural heritage: the experience of wipo international...
TRANSCRIPT
Documentation and Digitization of Intangible Cultural Heritage: the Experience of WIPO
International Conference on Intellectual Property and Cultural Heritage in the Digital WorldMadrid, Spain October 29-30, 2009Brigitte Vézina Traditional Knowledge DivisionWIPO
Structure of Presentation
Terminology: How will Terms be Used?
Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) and IP: What are Some of the Issues?
Normative Work at WIPO: the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee (IGC)
TCEs and Digitization and Documentation of ICH: Issues, Options and Practical Tools
TK, TCEs and ICH
ICHTCEs
TKTK
A working description of TCEs
. . . any forms, whether tangible and intangible, in which traditional culture and knowledge are expressed, appear or are manifested, which are:
the products of creative intellectual activity, including individual and communal creativity;
characteristic of a community’s cultural and social identity and cultural heritage; and
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
Include: art, music, designs, symbols, performances, rituals, narratives
(Art. 1, WIPO Draft Provisions on the Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions, 2006)
TCEs:
embody communal identities and linked to the continued vitality of indigenous cultures
reflect a community’s history, traditions, values and beliefs
integral to cultural diversity
TCEs should therefore be preserved and safeguarded: but should they be “protected” as a form of “intellectual property”?
TCES and intellectual property
Some forms of TCEs already protected:
Derivatives/contemporary adaptations Performances of TCEs Recordings of TCEs Compilations and databases of TCEs
But, TCEs “as such” are in the “public domain” – should they be “protected” and, if so, what does “protection” mean? What options are there?
See WIPO, Gap Analysis, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/13/4(b), available at www.wipo.int/tk/en/igc/gap-analyses.html
What could “protection” of TCEs mean?
an exclusive property right → to prevent or authorize use of TCEs, incl. for exploitation to support economic development
prevention of inappropriate, unwanted use and commercialization by others
remuneration for third party uses acknowledgement of source defensive protection (protection
against IP rights)
Normative developments: WIPO Intergovernmental Committee (IGC)
first session in April 2001members and participants:
• member states • intl. organizations • NGOs (over 200)
• eg., ICOM• indigenous and local communities: speedy
accreditation and WIPO Voluntary Fund
New IGC Mandate for 2010-2011
International legal instrument for effective protection of TK and TCEs
Text-based negotiations Including on WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4
Clearly defined work program for the 2010/2011 biennium
2011 GA: text submitted Diplomatic Conference IGC 15
December 7-11, 2009
Draft provisions for protection of TCEs Sui generis provisions – collective rights, no formalities, indefinite protection. . .
WIPO Draft Provisions on TCEs Art 1: Subject matter Art 2: Beneficiaries Art 3: Scope of rights Art 4: Management of rights Art 5: Exceptions and limitations Art 6: Term of protection Art 7: Formalities Art 8: Sanctions and remedies Art 9: Transitional measures Art 10: Relationship with IP protection Art 11: International protection
See WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/4 available at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=55137
1. Cultural expressions of particular cultural/spiritual value – exclusive right if TCE registered
2. Other cultural expressions – no formalities - moral rights and reasonable royalty
Draft Article 3
3. Secret TCEs
Documentation and Digitization: TCE and IP Issues Documentation and digitization of TCEs valuable for their safeguarding
Museums and archives as repositories of indigenous and other cultural materials – fulfill vital preservation, educational, scholarly and public access functions
However, indigenous communities question control over, access to, ownership of, control over and authorship of indigenous materials held by museums and archives
“The crux of the problem is that information about us is not owned by us”
a problem is that IP rights in documentation and recordings of TCEs vest in those who made the documentation/recordings – communities see themselves as legally disenfranchised
complex ethical, cultural and legal questions
Museums and archives are pivotal spaces within which issues of access, control, authorship, ownership and re-use of indigenous cultural materials can be discussed
emerging forms of collaboration between libraries and communities
role of guidelines and protocols – building relationships
Recognizing sensitivities surrounding documentation/digitization of TCEs and IP management, WIPO has developed practical tools, complementing normative work of the IGC:
WIPO Creative Heritage Training Program for Indigenous Communities on Cultural Documentation, Archiving and IP Management
WIPO Surveys and Database of Practices, Protocols and Policies
WIPO Guide on “Intellectual Property and Safeguarding Traditional Cultures: Legal Issues and Practical Options for Museums, Libraries and Archives” (draft)
WIPO Creative Heritage Training Program on Cultural Documentation
WIPO, American Folklife Center/LOC and Duke University
Hands-on technical training IP trainingCamera, sound recording equipment, laptop
and softwarePilot program successfully completed, for
Maasai community, with National Museums of Kenya, Kenya
WIPO Guide on IP and Safeguarding Traditional Cultures (draft)
complex and sensitive issues
Who “owns” collections of indigenous materials?
Which legal and ethical rules apply? How can museums/archives and
communities develop mutually-beneficial relationships?
What role does IP management play? What “good practices” are there?
Table of contents (to come)
Thank you!
Sign up for the WIPO TK Division’s Newsletter by writing to:
or