Indigenous intellectual property

Knowledge about land, seas, places and associated songs, stories, social practices, and oral traditions are important assets for Indigenous communities.

[10] The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) has set out several goals around treaty law and intellectual property, with board member Professor Rebecca Tsosie stressing the importance of these property rights being held collectively, not by individuals:[11] The long-term goal is to actually have a legal system, and certainly a treaty could do that, that acknowledges two things.

They are transmitted from one generation to the next, and include handmade textiles, paintings, stories, legends, ceremonies, music, songs, rhythms and dance".

[19][20][21] In 1980, spiritual leaders of the Northern Cheyenne, Navajo, Hopi, Muskogee, Chippewa-Cree, Haudenosaunee and Lakota Nations met on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation in Montana,[19] and issued the Resolution of the 5th Annual Meeting of the Traditional Elders Circle, resolving that:[19] These [non-Native] individuals are gathering non-Indian people as followers who believe they are receiving instructions of the original people.

[23] Under the heading, "Culture, Science and Intellectual Property", among other matters, it is asserted:[24] 99: The usurping of traditional medicines and knowledge from Indigenous peoples should be considered a crime against peoples... 102: As creators and carriers of civilizations which have given and continue to share knowledge, experience, and values with humanity, we require that our right to intellectual and cultural properties be guaranteed and that mechanisms for each be in favour of our peoples... 104: The protection, norms and mechanism of artistic and artisan creation of our peoples must be established and implemented in order to avoid plunder, plagiarism, undue exposure, and use...[3]At the Lakota Summit V, an international gathering of US and Canadian Lakota, Dakota and Nakota Nations, about 500 representatives from 40 different tribes and bands of the Lakota unanimously passed a "Declaration of War Against Exploiters of Lakota Spirituality".

We urge traditional people, tribal leaders, and governing councils of all other Indian Nations, as well as all national Indian organizations, to join us in calling for an immediate end to this rampant exploitation of our respective American Indian sacred traditions by issuing statements denouncing such abuse; for it is not the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota people alone whose spiritual practices are being systematically violated by non-Indians.On 18 June 1993, 150 delegates from fourteen countries, including Indigenous representatives from Japan (Ainu), Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, India, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Suriname, United States and Aotearoa (New Zealand) met at Whakatane (Bay of Plenty region of New Zealand).

Under Section 2 of their declaration, the Mātaatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples, they specifically ask state, national and international agencies to:[25]2.1: Recognise that Indigenous peoples are the guardians of their customary knowledge and have the right to protect and control dissemination of that knowledge.

Their position was that they would only permit such uses selectively and with express permission of the living relatives of the human remains and grave goods the museums wished to exhibit.

[29] Vernon Masayesva, CEO of the Hopi Tribe, and a consortium of Apache tribes demanded a number of American museums end all public exhibition of, and access to, materials from their tribal cultures; including "images, text, ceremonies, music, songs, stories, symbols, beliefs, customs, ideas, concepts and ethnographic field-notes, feature films, historical works, and any other medium in which their culture may appear literally, imagined, expressed, parodied or embellished.

[30] A regional meeting was held at Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, where Indigenous peoples from South America concerned about the way internationally prevailing intellectual property systems and regimes appeared to be favouring the appropriation of Indigenous peoples' knowledge and resources for commercial purposes, agreed in their Santa Cruz de la Sierra Statement on Intellectual Property:[31] For members of indigenous peoples, knowledge and determination of the use of resources are collective and intergenerational.

No...individuals or communities, nor the Government, can sell or transfer ownership of [cultural] resources which are the property of the people and which each generation has an obligation to safeguard for the next...

Unauthorized use and misappropriation of traditional knowledge is theft.At the United Nations General Assembly's 61st session, on 13 September 2007, an overwhelming majority of members resolved to adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), a legally non-binding resolution delineating and defining the individual and collective rights of Indigenous peoples.

Copyright law in Australia covers music, literature and art by people who are living or have died within 70 years, and individual creators' work is also protected by moral rights.

[38] While it has no legal force, it explains the gaps in legislation, and "encourages culturally appropriate working practices and promotes communication between all Australians with an interest in Indigenous creative arts".

[39] Among the many organizations to have published their own sets of protocols are the Government of New South Wales,[40] National and State Libraries Australasia,[41] Screen Australia[42] and the University of Tasmania.

[47] In 2009, as a part of a wider settlement of grievances, the New Zealand government agreed to:[48][49] In 2001 a dispute concerning the popular LEGO toy-line "Bionicle" arose between Danish toymaker Lego Group and several Māori tribal groups (fronted by lawyer Maui Solomon) and members of the online discussion forum (Aotearoa Cafe).

"[53] Critics of the movement for granting Indigenous Intellectual Property Rights note that the indefinite duration of such a context is "unorthodox and unmanageable" within the current IP legal structure.