Advertisement

A Cultural Economic Analysis of Crafts: A View from the Workshop of the World

  • John Ballyn
Chapter

Abstract

Most craft production is a pre-industrial cultural heritage which involves informal sector SME family enterprises producing for supplementary income or making crafts full time. Many artisans have less formal education, dislike taking risks, rely on intuitive understanding of domestic markets. They use modern technologies, so global access is not necessarily beyond their reach; but lack knowledge of Intellectual Property Protection (IPP), which is handled by lawyers or agencies using complex legal language. IPP Registration fees seem expensive, and low-cost crafts are not easy to protect. High legal costs challenging IP infringements can be prohibitive. In such a context the paper explores what criteria should be considered when helping crafts producers protect their IP?

Keywords

Intellectual Property Protection Crafts Informal sector Traditional knowledge and skill 

References

  1. ACID, Anti-Copying in Design. Available at http://www.acid.uk.com/. Accessed May 2017.
  2. Arzuza, Johana Melgarejo, and Alessandra Giuliani. 2014. Tropentag 2014, Prague: Geographical Indications of Handicrafts: A Tool to Improve Livelihood and Protect Biodiversity in Remote Communities? p. 1.Google Scholar
  3. Bhat, Jahangir Ahmad, and Pushpender Yadav. 2016. The Sector of Handicrafts and Its Share in Indian Economy. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review S3: 4.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, Emma. 2012. Intellectual Property Protection Options for Traditional Communities. International Intellectual Property Institute.Google Scholar
  5. El Benni, Nadja, and Sophie Reviron. 2009. Geographical Indications: Review of Seven Case-Studies World Wide. Trade Working Paper No 2009/15, Swiss National Centre for Competence in Research, p. 19.Google Scholar
  6. Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts (EPCH). Brief Summary on Competitive Study on Handicrafts Sector in China: EPCH.pdf. Available at http://www.epch.in/ChinaStudy/Summary.pdf.
  7. Hindustan Times. 2011. Original Sin: Chinese Copies Ruin Banarasi Saris Weavers. January 5.Google Scholar
  8. International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO (ITC) and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). 2003. Marketing Crafts and Visual Arts: The Role of Intellectual Property: A Practical Guide. Geneva: ITC/WIPO. xiii, 135 p., p. 10.Google Scholar
  9. International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO (ITC). World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). 2003. Marketing Crafts and Visual Arts: The Role of Intellectual Property: A Practical Guide. Geneva: ITC/WIPO. xiii, 135 p., p. 119.Google Scholar
  10. Janke, Terri. 2003. Case Studies on Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions. World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). Available at www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/tk/781/wipo_pub_781.pdf. Accessed May 2017.
  11. Saez, Catherine. Panel: Protection of Handicrafts Gains Global Interest; Challenges Persist in the South. Intellectual Property Watch, 09/12/2013, para 6.Google Scholar
  12. Singh, Sanjiv. 2014. Geographical Indication; A Case Study of Kashmir Pashmina (Shawls). 12. IGNOU, New Delhi. SanjivSingh.doc.pdf, p. 2. November.Google Scholar
  13. Suthersanen, Uma. 2015. Protection of Handicraft Goods and Traditional Cultural Expressions. Queen Mary University of London, p. 9. Available at 04_IP4GROWTH TM2_Handicraft and Copyright Feb 2015_Suthersanen.pdf. February.Google Scholar
  14. World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). http://www.wipo.int/portal/en/index.html. Accessed May 2017.
  15. World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). 2016. Source: Intellectual Property and Traditional Crafts. Wipo_pub_tk_5.pdf, p. 2. Accessed May 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Ballyn
    • 1
  1. 1.Independent ConsultantLondonUK

Personalised recommendations