About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Publishes Cases Studies On Use Of Intellectual Property By Indigenous Communities

Geneva, March 15, 2004
Press Releases PR/2004/377

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) published on Monday, March 15, 2004, a collection of practical case studies on the use of the intellectual property system by indigenous communities in Australia.

The publication, entitled, ‘"Minding Culture: Case Studies on Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions" PDF, Minding Culture case studies, was written for WIPO by Ms. Terri Janke, an Australian lawyer and a descendant of the Meriam people of the Torres Strait Islands, Australia.

The publication was planned to guide the work of WIPO on how the intellectual property system can respond to the needs and expectations of the custodians of traditional cultures and knowledge. It therefore contributes to a process of exploration, dialogue and policy development aimed at enhancing the protection, promotion and preservation of traditional creativity and expressions of traditional cultures (or ‘expressions of folklore'). The case studies provide traditional communities, as well as policymakers, legislators and other stakeholders, with realistic, empirically-based options and new ideas for future policy development.

WIPO's work in this area goes back several decades, but received fresh impetus in 1998 when a series of fact-finding missions met with many indigenous communities and other stakeholders to learn from them about their needs and expectations in relation to the intellectual property system. Many indigenous communities called for more practical information, based on actual cases, on the usefulness and the limitations of intellectual property in relation to traditional knowledge and cultural expressions/expressions of folklore, particularly information reflecting the perspectives and experiences of indigenous peoples. This publication responds directly to that request.

‘Minding Culture' gives actual examples of how industrial designs, copyright and trademarks have been used by indigenous Australian communities to protect and promote their artworks, cultures and identities, as well as their economic interests. The case studies point out where traditional communities found existing systems useful and where they were found inadequate. The studies convey the suggestions of these communities for policy and practical measures that could improve the protection of traditional cultural expressions by intellectual property. For example, many communally owned traditional artistic productions are not protected under copyright law, and the limited period of protection under most forms of intellectual property poses a problem for indigenous communities, since the customary conception of custodianship is not time-bound.

Yet the case studies show that current intellectual property laws can operate to meet the needs of indigenous communities and individuals, and shows how legal concepts have been adapted and extended to respond to these needs. For instance, trademark and unfair competition laws have been used by indigenous communities to safeguard the authenticity of arts and crafts; copyright protection is available for contemporary tradition-based art; indigenous designers have received industrial design protection; and the courts have accommodated claims for the recognition of communal rights and cultural interests, the application of customary laws and the development of culturally-sensitive remedies. The studies point out that non-intellectual property measures (such as customary laws, contracts and protocols, cultural heritage preservation programs and marketing and trade practices laws) also play a role in securing comprehensive and effective protection, so that the intellectual property system need not operate in isolation.

The publication feeds directly into the ongoing deliberations of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC), which is holding its sixth session from March 15 to 19, 2004. Along with the experience of many other countries and communities, the practical examples, options and suggestions it contains have already begun to be integrated into the working documents on legal and policy options for the protection of traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore prepared for the IGC's consideration. The case studies provide a solid, empirical platform for the IGC's further policy development.

For further information, please contact the Media Relations and Public Affairs Section at WIPO:

  • Tel: (+41 22) - 338 81 61 or 338 95 47
  • Fax: (+41 22) - 338 88 10
  • Email: publicinf@wipo.int.