Docstoc

Intellectual Property_ Traditional Knowledge and Genetic Resources - Including the Non-Governmental Stakeholders.ppt

Document Sample
Intellectual Property_ Traditional Knowledge and Genetic Resources - Including the Non-Governmental Stakeholders.ppt Powered By Docstoc
					 Intellectual Property, Traditional
Knowledge and Genetic Resources
    Including the Non-Governmental
              Stakeholders
 Where do the rights of heritage groups meet
         the world of commerce?
Despite our discussion of tourism and its importance, the
   principal engagement of heritage and commerce lies in the
   realm of intellectual property.
Intellectual property is the term that covers copyright, patents,
   industrial design protection, and so forth. It offers strong
   protection to creations that are original, novel, and attributable
   to an individual creator/owner (person or corporation).
                      What is copyright?
Copyright is the legal protection extended to the owner of the rights
  in an original work that he or she has created. It comprises two
  main sets of rights: the economic rights and the moral rights.
The economic rights are the rights of reproduction, broadcasting,
  public performance, adaptation, translation, public recitation,
  public display, distribution, and so on. The moral rights include
  the author's right to object to any distortion, mutilation or other
  modification of his work that might be prejudicial to his or her
  honor or reputation.
The general principle is that copyright protected works cannot be
  used without the authorization of the owner of rights. Limited
  exceptions to this rule, however, are contained in national
  copyright laws. In principle, the term of protection is the creator's
  lifetime and a minimum of 50 years after his death.
               International Protection

At the international level, the economic and moral rights are
   conferred by the Berne Convention for the Protection of
   Literary and Artistic Works, commonly known as the
   "Berne Convention".
This Convention, which was adopted in 1886, has been revised
   several times to take into account the impact of new
   technology on the level of protection that it provides. It is
   administered by the World Intellectual Property
   Organization (WIPO), one of the specialized international
   agencies of the United Nations system.
                      What is a Patent?
A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a
    product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing
    something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem.
An invention must, in general, fulfill the following conditions to be
    protected by a patent.
It must be of practical use;
 it must show an element of novelty, that is, some new characteristic
    which is not known in the body of existing knowledge in its technical
    field. This body of existing knowledge is called " prior art".
The invention must show an inventive step which could not be deduced
    by a person with average knowledge of the technical field.
Finally, its subject matter must be accepted as "patentable" under law. In
    many countries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, plant or
    animal varieties, discoveries of natural substances, commercial
    methods, or methods for medical treatment (as opposed to medical
    products) are generally not patentable.
            Heritage: Traditional Knowledge
Concepts of intellectual property systematically exclude products of the
   creativity of a large part of humankind-creations that may be
   considered traditional knowledge.
The imbalance between the strongly protected rights of individuals and
   lack of protections for cultural properties of “traditional knowledge
   holders” has led to a series of meetings by the Intergovernmental
   Committee on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and
   Folklore (shortened often to ICG) at the Geneva headquarters of the
   World Intellectual Property Organization (shortened to WIPO).
Differences of opinion between participants focus on whether current
   copyright laws offer sufficient protection. Would the problem
   disappear if the third-world countries adopted first-world copyright
   laws? Would the problem be solved by greater enforcement of
   copyright laws and treaties?
   Third-world countries and non-governmental groups (NGOs) insist
   that specially tailored (sui generis) international procedures must be
   promulgated.
     Who composes a folksong, creates a folk
                  remedy?
If one holds that folklore is an individual act within a community,
   then the communal rights are not sustainable. However, if one
   emphasizes that individuals recreate from the learned
   traditions, then communities do have a right of ownership and
   new laws are necessary.
Vladimar Hafstein terms this “communal origination through
   individual re-creation” (this is the reading for this class on the
   reserve page)
If a Kwakiutl artist designs a pattern or symbol,
   drawing on his or her native tradition, it is
   not unlikely that I may run across that very
   design a few weeks later in a tourist store in
   downtown Vancouver, stamped onto an
   ashtray. The artist is not consulted, nor does
   he or she receive any royalties. Why?
   Because the design is traditional! It is, in
   other words, a node in a network of relations:
   not an isolated original, but a reproduction, a
   copy. The unstated assumption here is, of
   course, that a white Canadian artist is not
   working within a tradition, that his or her art
   is original (the adjective appears to be an
   antonym of “aboriginal”). According to this
   logic, a design by a member of the majority
   population is an individual achievement, a
   thing unto itself. It is a “work”: a production,
   not a reproduction.
                         Koskimo house-post, ca 1910
                              Bioprospecting.
Endemic to the isle of Madagascar, the rosy periwinkle (Catharanthus roseus) is a
  leafy plant with pink flowers that has long been part of the native population’s
  traditional pharmacopoeia. In the 1950s, researchers from Eli Lilly
  Pharmaceuticals were led to the rosy periwinkle by local medicine men. In
  subsequent laboratory testing, the plant was found to have properties valuable
  in the treatment of various cancers. The pharmaceutical company developed
  the drugs vinblastine and vincristine from the rosy periwinkle; the former has
  brought remission rates for Hodgkin’s disease to 80 percent, and the latter has
  increased remission rates for childhood leukemia from 20 percent to 90
  percent. In the 1990s, these two drugs combined produced sales of $100 million
  annually; however, even though both the plant and the knowledge of its
  medicinal properties were obtained from the inhabitants of Madagascar, they
  do not share in the revenue generated by these drugs. Needless to say,
  purchasing the drugs produced by Eli Lilly is beyond the means of the citizens
  of Madagascar (also, ironically, as a result of the patent system). In fact, as a
  result of poor health care and limited access to clean drinking water, an
  average child in Madagascar stands poorer chances of surviving beyond the
  age of five than a Western child diagnosed with leukemia stands of remission.
                Is this really a problem?
An NGO delegate at WIPO representing the Indigenous Peoples’
  Biodiversity Network illustrated this charge with a striking
  contrast. According to him, drugs made from plants that come
  from indigenous peoples grossed $485 million in sales in 2001
  alone. “Meanwhile,” this delegate said, “indigenous people are
  dying every day in destitute poverty from diseases curable with
  a few aspirins.”
                          World Music
One strand of World Music in particular brought attention to this
  dilemma-so-called ethno-techno, popular in dance clubs in
  Europe and America in the 1990s. In a public relations stunt in
  1992, Sony successfully promoted musical exploitation of this
  variety into a major media event. Using ethno-musicological
  recordings, Michel Sanchez and Eriq Mouquet fused “digital
  samples of music from Ghana, the Solomon Islands and African
  pygmies with ‘techno-house’ dance rhythms”, producing the
  album Deep Forest (1992). In addition to selling two million copies
  of this album, Sony Music and the producers also licensed tracks
  from “Deep Forest” to Coca-Cola, Porsche, Neutrogena, and the
  Body Shop for advertisements, reaping a generous profit-none of
  which benefited musicians in Ghana, the Solomon Islands, or
  among African pygmies. Sanchez and Mouquet have since
  released several albums based on the same formula, sampling
  traditional music from various parts of the world, including
  Boheme (1995) on which they fused music from Mongolia,
  Eastern Europe, East Asia, and Native Americans.
                     What is the issue?

The case of “Deep Forest” also bears witness to the global nature of
  the problem at hand. Whereas the “primary circulation” of
  ethno-musicological recordings may be acceptable to traditional
  communities whose music circulates through them, or at least
  less objectionable than the “secondary circulation” of
  commercial records without benefit sharing, neither is tied to
  national borders, least of all to the borders of those countries
  where the music is traditional. This is an important part of the
  rationale for putting folklore on the agenda of international
  organizations such as UNESCO and WIPO. At the fourth
  meeting of WIPO’s Intergovernmental Committee in December
  2002, the Ghanaian delegation, in fact, cited “Deep Forest” as an
  example of “inappropriate and unauthorized exploitation of
  Ghanaian cultural heritage by the music industry.”
                         Hafstein concludes
It seems we are faced here with a categorical distinction-originality versus
    traditionality-that runs very much counter to the interests of those less
    privileged.
This classification is manifest in our common conceptual apparatus as well
    as in legislation that systematically and a priori rules out the knowledge
    and resources of local communities, indigenous populations, and the
    inhabitants of poorer states.
It places value only on knowledge and resources that persons (natural or
    corporate) in richer countries can privatize. The importance granted to
    this distinction attests to the persistence of colonialism in a postcolonial
    era.
Alternatively, as businesses have become more complex they have
    increasingly recognized creativity as a social process. Large laboratories
    create new knowledge through teams of researchers, not an individual.
    As the processes of innovation have become more systemic, the
    products appear to be generated more like tradition-based recreation.
     Who ever heard of the American Folklore Society?
The American Folklore Society believes that the issues in front of the
  IGC are deserving of international assessment, and we applaud the
  work of the IGC in addressing issues of considerable concern to
  communities and peoples throughout the world. In order that the
  IGC best achieve its objectives in a process that provides input
  from all relevant stakeholders, the AFS recommends the following:
  The impacts of intellectual property regimes on traditional
  knowledge and folklore, and especially on those individuals and
  groups who actively maintain the dynamic traditions and lore that
  contribute to the world’s knowledge and diversity. This knowledge
  has been, and continues to be, a significant source of social,
  cultural, economic, and political power.
The AFS believes that the IGC-GRTKF must consistently strive to be
  sensitive to the needs of diverse knowledge systems and
  communities, as well as to issues of social and political justice
  bound up in diverse forms of expressive culture.
Formal intellectual property systems are becoming more dominant in today’s
   society and have important and widespread implications for the social,
   cultural, and economic well-being of individuals and groups.
WIPO should recognize that traditional knowledge and folklore are part of the
   culture of both indigenous peoples and non-indigenous peoples. The latter
   includes groups who have developed significant traditional knowledge and
   folklore over the course of generations in locations different from their
   historical places of origin.
WIPO must recognize the tangible and intangible values of traditional
   knowledge and folklore. Any mechanisms recommended and developed
   that attempt to place a “value” on traditional knowledge and folklore must
   include provisions that recognize tangible and intangible values, and that
   recognize that commodification and privatization of these values may run
   counter to the rights and desires of holders of traditional knowledge and
   folklore.
WIPO should recognize that compensation issues (e.g., benefit sharing) should
   reflect procedures and criteria acceptable to and required by indigenous
   people and traditional knowledge communities. Support should be given to
   develop systems and standards that allow indigenous peoples and
   traditional knowledge communities to directly negotiate commercial use of
   their traditional knowledge and folklore.
WIPO doctrines covering “informed prior consent” should recognize
  the core right of relevant indigenous peoples and traditional
  knowledge communities to grant or not grant free, prior, and
  informed consent.

Scholarly research of all kinds-by native and outside scholars and
  leading to the creation and communication of artistic, cultural,
  humanistic, and/or scientific insight-is essential to the increase of
  human knowledge and to the informed pursuit of the WIPO
  enterprise.
WIPO should clearly advocate for responsible scholarship-carried out
  in the spirit of partnership with indigenous people and traditional
  knowledge communities and in terms of personal standards and
  institutional codes of ethics and professional practice-and the
  consonance of scholarship carried out in this manner with the needs
  of indigenous people and traditional knowledge communities.
         Who should have a right to participate?
Nation-states are by their construction heterogeneous societies.
  Should the majority or power-controlling polity have a right to control,
  sell, or appropriate the traditional knowledge of social and heritage
  communities within their boundaries?

What should be the rights of non-governmental organizations to speak in
  world discourse on intellectual property?
   These would include socially, culturally, religiously based communities
  within a nation state.

What about the communities of heritage or culture whose members live
  within multiple nation states?

The goal of international organizations who seek to improve the welfare of
  all peoples cannot solely operate through the lens of national
  governments.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:1/13/2014
language:English
pages:17