Structured Legal Framework Must Protect Indigenous Intellectual Wealth

World | Indigenous Rights | Intellectual Property

Unlike tangible artefacts that can be physically transported back to their place of origin, intellectual property theft is a deeply insidious crime, often veiled under legal loopholes, creative expression, media wordplay, globalisation, and the pervasive influence of multinational corporations, writes Gajanan Khergamker.

The recent return of stolen artefacts worth millions from the United States to India marks a commendable step towards repatriating tangible heritage. However, it is but a fragment of a much larger issue that looms globally—one that involves the theft, exploitation, and misappropriation of intellectual property from indigenous peoples and cultures.

For centuries, indigenous knowledge systems, traditional practices, and cultural symbols have been exploited for profit by external agents with little or no benefit accruing to the rightful owners. Medicinal practices passed down through generations are patented by pharmaceutical giants; tribal art is commercialised and mass-produced; sacred symbols are reduced to mere commodities in fashion lines; ethnic cuisines are appropriated by dominant cultures, often masquerading the heritage as their own or, at best, claiming it as an influence. This exploitation transcends borders, occurring with such frequency and impunity that it appears almost normalised. Yet, it remains a gross violation of the legal and moral rights of indigenous communities.

The disparity between the tangible and the intangible lies in enforcement and recognition. Artefacts can be identified, located, and returned, albeit often after prolonged legal battles and significant political will. Intellectual property, on the other hand, is far more challenging to reclaim. It is abstract, difficult to trace, and frequently recontextualised to suit the commercial interests of its exploiters. Worse, it is often cloaked in a veneer of legitimacy, with patents and trademarks granted to those who never created the original work, while the rightful owners remain sidelined.

The need for robust legal frameworks to address this issue has never been more urgent. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol, which advocate for fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources, are steps in the right direction but remain inadequate.

Shamefully, alongside the Vatican—a city-state with vastly different priorities—the U.S. remains the only nation that has not ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the most comprehensive global treaty aimed at conserving nature. This absence is particularly striking given the urgency of the ecological crisis and the pivotal role the treaty plays in safeguarding the planet's biodiversity.

Importantly, what is required is a globally enforceable legal mechanism that not only prevents the theft of intellectual property but also ensures reparative justice for those communities whose cultural heritage has been commodified without consent.

Such a mechanism must prioritise the inclusion of indigenous voices in decision-making processes. It must redefine "ownership" to align with communal and cultural understandings rather than the Western notion of individual property rights. And, it should mandate that proceeds from the commercial use of indigenous intellectual property be channelled back to the communities.

Repatriation of intellectual property must also extend beyond legalistic measures to encompass a moral reckoning. Multinational corporations, research institutions, and even governments must acknowledge the historical injustices they have perpetuated. They must commit to transparency in sourcing cultural and traditional knowledge and ensure that due credit and benefits reach the rightful owners. 

A voluntary, yet regulated, code of conduct for the ethical use of indigenous intellectual property could supplement legal frameworks, fostering accountability and respect for the rich diversity of global cultural heritage.

As we celebrate the return of tangible artefacts, we must confront the larger, more complex issue of intellectual property theft with equal vigour. It is not merely a matter of economic justice but a recognition of the intrinsic value of cultural heritage as a cornerstone of identity, history, and humanity itself. Only when intellectual property is treated with the same sanctity as tangible property will the global community truly honour its commitment to justice and equity.

In an era where creativity is celebrated, it is ironic how the unique essence of a product or process indigenous to a place or its people is flagrantly hijacked, cloaked under the guise of creative license or an overzealous brand of expansive diplomacy. This diplomacy, often self-serving, forces an incongruous marriage of ideas and ideologies that were never meant to converge. 

It’s a phenomenon that doesn’t merely blur the lines of originality but obliterates the cultural sanctity and intellectual wealth of communities, leaving them stripped of their rightful identity and credit.


UNREGULATED EXPLOITATION AND THE FAÇADE OF CREATIVE FREEDOM

At the heart of this issue lies the glaring absence of a structured and clearly defined legal framework that can unequivocally demarcate the rights of a people and their place. These rights must extend beyond territorial confines to embrace the intangible – the art, techniques, and traditions painstakingly developed over generations. 

Current intellectual property laws fall short of addressing these complexities, particularly when they lean towards a westernised notion of innovation that often disregards the communal and evolutionary aspects of indigenous knowledge.

Imitation, often dismissed as flattery, becomes theft when it infringes upon the economic, cultural, and moral rights of its creators. Yet, the current legal paradigms fail to acknowledge such acts as violations of intellectual property law. This loophole has become the foundation upon which opportunists build their exploitative practices, targeting rich cultures and their intellectual wealth with impunity.

The argument of creative freedom is frequently wielded as a shield by those appropriating indigenous intellectual wealth. Whether it is a multinational fashion house "inspired" by tribal art or a gourmet chef touting ancient cooking techniques as their own innovation, the commodification of culture underlines a disturbing trend: the erasure of the origin in favour of profit-driven narratives. While global platforms often applaud such "creative endeavours," the true custodians of these traditions are left marginalised, their voices drowned in a cacophony of commercial celebration.

This misappropriation not only dilutes the value of the original creation but also deprives indigenous communities of their rightful economic benefits. For instance, a traditional weaving technique from a small village, replicated and mass-produced, might fetch millions for a conglomerate, while the original artisans struggle to make ends meet. Such stark inequalities underscore the urgent need for legislative intervention.

TOWARDS A COHESIVE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The solution lies in a robust, cohesive, and enforceable legal framework that recognises the unique characteristics of indigenous intellectual wealth. This framework must:

Firstly, define ownership: Establish ownership of indigenous knowledge, whether it be a specific community, a group of artisans, or a geographical region. This demarcation ensures accountability and preserves authenticity.

Secondly, it must acknowledge transgressions: Identify and penalise not just outright theft but also subtle appropriations disguised as collaborations or inspirations. A standardised process for assessing and addressing such violations is critical.

Thirdly, it should promote awareness: Foster a global understanding of the cultural significance of indigenous creations. This involves encouraging buyers and consumers to value authenticity over commodified imitations.

Finally, it must also encourage beneficial collaborations: Where collaborations are inevitable, they must be conducted transparently and equitably, ensuring that the primary stakeholders – the indigenous creators – reap their rightful share of recognition and revenue.

However, even the most watertight legal framework cannot operate in isolation. It requires a cultural shift – an acknowledgment of the value inherent in preserving authenticity. Policymakers, businesses, and consumers alike must move towards a mindset where indigenous knowledge is a collective responsibility.

The preservation of indigenous intellectual wealth transcends the confines of legal statutes; it is a responsibility that must be embraced by society as a whole. Governments need to not only legislate but actively implement policies that protect cultural heritage. Educational institutions must embed the importance of respecting cultural origins in their curriculum, fostering a generation that values authenticity over appropriation.

Corporates and creators, too, must introspect. The allure of profit often blinds even the most well-intentioned entities, but the long-term sustainability of cultural products lies in equitable partnerships. For instance, if a luxury brand seeks inspiration from traditional motifs, it must collaborate directly with the artisans, compensating them fairly and ensuring their communities benefit. Such practices not only uphold ethical standards but also resonate deeply with a growing demographic of consumers who prefer authenticity over mass-market replicas.


GLOBAL BENCHMARKS FOR CULTURAL PRESERVATION

Countries like India, with its vast repository of traditional knowledge and practices, have made strides in protecting geographical indications (GI). From Darjeeling tea to Kanjeevaram silk, the GI tag serves as a marker of authenticity and origin. However, the scope of protection must expand to include processes, techniques, and even folklore that cannot be boxed into commercial product categories.

Internationally, models like New Zealand’s approach to protecting Maori cultural expressions can serve as benchmarks. The Maori IP framework integrates communal ownership and cultural integrity into legal protections, balancing tradition with modern commercial needs. Similarly, Australia’s protection of Aboriginal art against exploitative practices offers lessons in addressing cultural misappropriation through both legislation and advocacy.

The challenge lies in adapting these frameworks to the global stage. A universal treaty recognising and enforcing the rights of indigenous creators across borders could bridge the gaps left by disparate national laws. Such a treaty must account for the complexities of communal ownership, intangible heritage, and evolving interpretations of intellectual property.

BRIDGING THE MORAL AND THE LEGAL

The dichotomy between moral and legal transgressions remains a thorny issue in addressing intellectual theft. While existing intellectual property laws focus on tangible violations – patents, trademarks, copyrights – the ethical dimensions of cultural appropriation often elude their scope. For example, while the unauthorised use of a tribal motif on a commercial product may not constitute a legal violation, it undeniably breaches the moral right of the originating community to control how their heritage is represented.

This calls for an evolved understanding of intellectual property law that incorporates ethical considerations. The inclusion of moral rights in international treaties like the Berne Convention is a step forward but remains insufficient in the context of communal and indigenous intellectual wealth. The concept of “cultural restitution” – compensating communities for past appropriations and preventing future transgressions – must gain traction in global forums.

The theft of indigenous intellectual wealth is not an isolated issue; it is a symptom of a larger problem – the commodification of culture in a hyper-globalised world. To counter this, the narrative must shift from exploitation to empowerment. Initiatives like UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage list are a positive start, but their impact is limited without strong enforcement mechanisms.

Communities, too, must be empowered to protect their heritage. This includes access to legal resources, awareness campaigns, and platforms to showcase their creations on their terms. Governments must work closely with these communities to document their knowledge and secure it against misuse.

Finally, as individuals, our choices matter. Opting for authentic products, questioning the origins of what we consume, and demanding accountability from brands can collectively create a market where cultural appropriation finds no buyers.

The unique nature of indigenous products and processes is not merely a relic of the past; it is a living testament to human ingenuity and diversity. Protecting it is not about drawing lines of exclusion but about ensuring that the custodians of this wealth are recognised, respected, and rewarded.

In safeguarding these treasures, we are not only preserving history but also enriching the future – one where cultures coexist, collaborate, and thrive without fear of erasure. For in the words of Mahatma Gandhi, “A nation’s culture resides in the hearts and in the soul of its people.” Let us ensure that the soul of our shared humanity remains intact.

THE ERA OF CLICKBAIT CULTURE

In an age of hyperconnectivity, where digital platforms wield the power to shape narratives and influence public opinion, the Internet has emerged as both a boon and a bane. While it democratises access to information and amplifies voices that might otherwise remain unheard, it also lays fertile ground for the rampant theft of ideas, distortion of truths, and the systematic erasure of cultural originality. What masquerades as creative freedom or innovation often turns out to be little more than a shallow facade, a cover for appropriating the intellectual, cultural, and creative wealth of others without research, attribution, or accountability.

The unchecked proliferation of such practices, particularly among influencers and media channels, has spawned an ecosystem where the truth itself becomes a casualty. Ideas are stolen, processes are diluted, and cultures are relegated to the background in the race for clicks, views, and viral fame. It is a phenomenon that, if left unaddressed, risks dismantling the very foundations of originality and cultural relevance, leaving behind a hollow shell of what once constituted human creativity and integrity.

THEFT IN THE DIGITAL AGE

In the digital age, theft is no longer confined to the physical or the tangible. It has extended its grasp to the intangible – ideas, narratives, and even cultural symbols. Influencers, armed with the veneer of relatability and charisma, often lift content from original sources without acknowledgment, presenting it as their own. 

Media channels, driven by the insatiable hunger for traffic and revenue, churn out clickbait headlines and regurgitated content devoid of substance or accuracy.

This culture of intellectual and creative theft is particularly insidious because it operates under the radar, cloaked in the sheer volume of content that floods the digital space daily. Unlike traditional forms of theft, where the victim can often identify and pursue the perpetrator, digital theft is diffuse, anonymous, and pervasive. The original creators – whether they are artists, writers, researchers, or cultural custodians – are left grappling with the dual loss of credit and economic benefit.

THE PARALLEL ‘TRUTHS’ OF THE FAKE WORLD

Adding to this chaos is the alarming rise of parallel "truths" – narratives constructed without basis in fact but designed to cater to specific agendas or appeal to certain audiences. These fabricated realities are not merely the domain of fringe elements; they are propagated and legitimised by influencers, platforms, and even mainstream media in their quest for engagement.

The consequences of these parallel truths are profound. They erode public trust in reliable sources, blur the lines between fact and fiction, and create an environment where misinformation thrives. For cultures and communities, the impact is even more devastating. Their histories, traditions, and intellectual wealth are appropriated, misrepresented, or diluted beyond recognition, reducing them to mere commodities in the global marketplace of ideas.

The paradox here is stark: the Internet, hailed as a bastion of freedom and expression, increasingly requires regulation to safeguard the very freedoms it promises. To protect the rights of smaller, weaker stakeholders – the creators, researchers, and indigenous communities whose voices are drowned out by the cacophony of digital noise – the Internet must be monitored and held accountable.

This does not imply blanket censorship or the stifling of legitimate expression. Instead, it calls for targeted interventions that prioritise transparency, accountability, and the protection of intellectual and cultural property. Algorithms must be reined in to prioritise verified, original content over clickbait. Platforms must enforce stringent policies against plagiarism and misrepresentation, with real consequences for offenders.

PRESERVING CULTURAL RELEVANCE IN A DIGITAL WORLD

At the heart of this battle lies the urgent need to preserve cultural relevance and originality. Cultures are not static entities; they evolve and adapt over time. However, this evolution must be organic, driven by the communities that own and live these cultures, rather than imposed by external forces seeking to exploit them for profit or fame.

One way to achieve this is through robust legal frameworks that extend the principles of intellectual property law to the digital realm. These frameworks must:

Firstly, define digital ownership: Establish clear guidelines on the ownership and attribution of digital content, ensuring that original creators retain control over their work.

Combat misinformation: Mandate platforms to actively identify and address misinformation, holding them accountable for the content they host.

Promote cultural awareness: Encourage educational initiatives that highlight the importance of respecting cultural and intellectual property, fostering a sense of responsibility among creators and consumers alike.

And, finally, support original creators: Provide platforms and resources for original creators to showcase their work, ensuring they receive due credit and compensation.

A CALL FOR ETHICAL DIGITAL PRACTICES

Beyond regulation, there is a pressing need for a shift in the ethics and practices of digital creators and platforms. Influencers and media channels must move away from the exploitative practices of lifting content and towards fostering collaboration, attribution, and innovation. Consumers, too, have a role to play: by choosing to engage with and support authentic content, they can create a demand for integrity and originality in the digital space.

The Internet, for all its flaws, remains a powerful tool for connectivity, creativity, and cultural exchange. However, its potential will only be fully realised when it operates as a space of accountability and respect – respect for the truth, for originality, and for the diverse cultures that enrich our shared humanity.

The fight against the theft of ideas and the creation of parallel truths is not merely a battle for intellectual property or cultural preservation; it is a battle for the soul of the digital world. As stakeholders in this interconnected reality, it is our collective responsibility to ensure that the Internet remains a force for good, a platform for innovation and inclusivity rather than exploitation and erasure.

Published on:
Categories: , , , , , , , , ,