Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intellectual Property System: Is It Enough to Protect Folklore?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Intellectual Property Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions

  • 1006 Accesses

Abstract

It is easy to see from its definition that a large amount of folklore is in areas of literature, music and art, such as folk tales, songs and handicrafts. Literary, musical and artistic features are significant when considering a suitable IP system to protect folklore. Copyright seems to be the best IP law to protect folklore and trademarks may also provide limited protection. Nevertheless, the IP system, as a regime designed especially for individual rights, does not perform this function as effectively in collective rights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Zhang (2007), p. 40.

  2. 2.

    Consolidated Analysis of the Legal Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions, WIPO Doc WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/3 (2003).

  3. 3.

    Zhang (2007), p. 40.

  4. 4.

    Zhang (2007), p. 40.

  5. 5.

    Zhang (2007), p. 40.

  6. 6.

    Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 301.

  7. 7.

    Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 301.

  8. 8.

    Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 301.

  9. 9.

    Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 301.

  10. 10.

    Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 291.

  11. 11.

    Lucas-Schloetter (2004), pp. 293–294.

  12. 12.

    Blain and Silva (1991), p. 5. See also Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 293.

  13. 13.

    Milpurrurru v Indofurn Ltd (1994) 130 ALR 659.

  14. 14.

    130 ALR 659, 4–6.

  15. 15.

    130 ALR 659, 6.

  16. 16.

    130 ALR 659, 16.

  17. 17.

    130 ALR 659, 16.

  18. 18.

    130 ALR 659, 6.

  19. 19.

    130 ALR 659, 16.

  20. 20.

    Xiu-e Bai v State Post Bureau (2001). Law Info China. http://eproxy.lib.tsinghua.edu.cn/rewriter/CHINALAWINFO/http/uho9bghm-k-vhmen9bnl/case/displaycontent.asp?Gid=117458923&Keyword=%B0%D7%D0%E3%B6%F0. Accessed 24 December 2013.

  21. 21.

    Copyright Law of 2001, Art. 6.

  22. 22.

    Xiu-e Bai v State Post Bureau (2001).

  23. 23.

    Xiu-e Bai v State Post Bureau (2001).

  24. 24.

    Xiu-e Bai v State Post Bureau (2001).

  25. 25.

    Fu-yuan Hong v Lin-hai Qing (2008). Law Info China. http://eproxy.lib.tsinghua.edu.cn/rewriter/CHINALAWINFO/http/uho9bghm-k-vhmen9bnl/case/displaycontent.asp?Gid=117611188&Keyword=%BA%E9%B8%A3%D4%B6. Accessed 24 December 2013.

  26. 26.

    A work shall not only achieve the originality requirement but also be reproduced by a certain tangible form if this work is protected by Chinese copyright law. Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China 2002, Art. 2. Chinese Government’s Official Web Portal. http://english.gov.cn/laws/2005-07/25/content_16940.htm. Accessed 11 September 2013.

  27. 27.

    Fu-yuan Hong v Lin-hai Qing (2008).

  28. 28.

    Fu-yuan Hong v Lin-hai Qing (2008).

  29. 29.

    Fu-yuan Hong v Lin-hai Qing (2008).

  30. 30.

    Xian Guo v State Post Bureau (2000). Law Info China. http://eproxy.lib.tsinghua.edu.cn/rewriter/CHINALAWINFO/http/uho9bghm-k-vhmen9bnl/case/displaycontent.asp?Gid= 117452680&Keyword=%B9%F9%CF%DC%CB%DF%B9%FA%BC%D2%D3%CA%D5%FE%BE%D6%C7%D6%B7%B8%C3%C0%CA%F5%D7%F7%C6%B7. Accessed 24 December 2013. The work involved in this case is also a Chinese paper-cut work.

  31. 31.

    Apple Computer Inc v Computer Edge Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 171. See also Martin (1995), p. 594.

  32. 32.

    University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd (1916) 2 Ch 602. See also Martin (1995), p. 594.

  33. 33.

    Merchandising Corp of America Inc & ors v Harpbond Ltd & ors (1983) FSR 32. In this case, the key issue is whether the plaintiff Adam Ant’s makeup could be a “painting” for the purpose of the Copyright Act 1956, United Kingdom. The Judge held that facial make-up was not a painting within s 3 of the Copyright Act 1956. It was a question of fact in any particular case whether what was being considered was or was not a painting. Moreover, a painting must be on a surface of some kind. If there were a painting, it must be the marks plus the plaintiff’s face. If the marks were taken off the face, there could not be a painting. In China, however, Chinese copyright law does not regulate the fixation being as a requirement of a copyrighted work.

  34. 34.

    Meng-lin Zhao v Yonghe King Catering Company (2002). Baidu. http://wenku.baidu.com/view/e5b9b0dc5022aaea998f0f0c.html. Accessed 24 December 2013.

  35. 35.

    Meng-lin Zhao v Beijing World Friends Shopping Mall Co, Ltd (2004). Law Info China. http://eproxy.lib.tsinghua.edu.cn/rewriter/CHINALAWINFO/http/uho9bghm-k-vhmen9bnl/case/displaycontent.asp?Gid=117450631&Keyword=%D5%D4%C3%CE%C1%D6%CB%DF%B1%B1%BE%A9%BA%C3%D3%D1%CA%C0%BD%E7%C9%CC%B3%A1. Accessed 24 December 2013; Meng-lin Zhao v CCTV International Networks Co, Ltd (2007). Law Info China. http://eproxy.lib.tsinghua.edu.cn/rewriter/CHINALAWINFO/http/uho9bghm-k-vhmen9bnl/case/displaycontent.asp?Gid=117531796&Keyword=%D5%D4%C3%CE%C1%D6%CB%DF. Accessed 24 December 2013; Meng-lin Zhao v Beijing Qingmeiya Art Works Company (2007). Law Info China. http://eproxy.lib.tsinghua.edu.cn/rewriter/CHINALAWINFO/http/uho9bghm-k-vhmen9bnl/case/displaycontent.asp?Gid=117531972&Keyword=%D5%D4%C3%CE%C1%D6%CB%DF. Accessed 24 December 2013; Meng-lin Zhao v Dragon Star Meikai Furniture Expo Square Company (2010). Law Info China. http://eproxy.lib.tsinghua.edu.cn/rewriter/CHINALAWINFO/http/uho9bghm-k-vhmen9bnl/case/displaycontent.asp?Gid=117761017&Keyword=%D5%D4%C3%CE%C1%D6%CB%DF%B1%B1%BE%A9%BA%EC%D0%C7%C3%C0%BF%AD%C1%FA. Accessed 24 December 2013; Meng-lin Zhao v Beijing Sohu Network Information Company (2010). Law Info China. http://eproxy.lib.tsinghua.edu.cn/rewriter/CHINALAWINFO/http/uho9bghm-k-vhmen9bnl/case/displaycontent.asp?Gid=117731517&Keyword=%D5%D4%C3%CE%C1%D6%CB%DF%B1%B1%BE%A9%CB%D1%BA%FC%BB%A5%C1%AA%CD%F8. Accessed 24 December 2013; Meng-lin Zhao v Beijing Gongmei Co, Ltd (2010). Law Info China. http://eproxy.lib.tsinghua.edu.cn/rewriter/CHINALAWINFO/http/uho9bghm-k-vhmen9bnl/case/displaycontent.asp?Gid=117739531&Keyword=%D5%D4%C3%CE%C1%D6%CB%DF%B1%B1%BE%A9%B9%A4%C3%C0%BC%AF%CD%C5. Accessed 24 December 2013.

  36. 36.

    Meng-lin Zhao v Beijing Elong and Boya Hand-Painted Art Jewellery Co, Ltd (2007). Law Info China. http://eproxy.lib.tsinghua.edu.cn/rewriter/CHINALAWINFO/http/uho9bghm-k-vhmen9bnl/case/displaycontent.asp?gid=117670595. Accessed 24 December 2013.

  37. 37.

    Meng-lin Zhao v Beijing Elong and Boya Hand-Painted Art Jewellery Co, Ltd (2007).

  38. 38.

    Meng-lin Zhao v Beijing Elong and Boya Hand-Painted Art Jewellery Co, Ltd (2007).

  39. 39.

    Meng-lin Zhao v Beijing Elong and Boya Hand-Painted Art Jewellery Co, Ltd (2007).

  40. 40.

    Meng-lin Zhao v Beijing Elong and Boya Hand-Painted Art Jewellery Co, Ltd (2007).

  41. 41.

    Random. Oxford Dictionaries. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/random?q=random. Accessed 10 October 2013.

  42. 42.

    Wufjum Halitan v Xinjiang Luobin Cultural Art Development Co, Ltd (2006). Law Info China. http://eproxy.lib.tsinghua.edu.cn/rewriter/CHINALAWINFO/http/uho9bghm-k-vhmen9bnl/case/displaycontent.asp?Gid=117621504&Keyword=%D0%C2%BD%AE%C2%E5%B1%F6%CE%C4%BB%AF. Accessed 24 December 2013.

  43. 43.

    Wufjum Halitan v Xinjiang Luobin Cultural Art Development Co, Ltd (2006).

  44. 44.

    Wufjum Halitan v Xinjiang Luobin Cultural Art Development Co, Ltd (2006).

  45. 45.

    Wufjum Halitan v Xinjiang Luobin Cultural Art Development Co, Ltd (2006).

  46. 46.

    Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law, Art. 15.

  47. 47.

    Article 15.

  48. 48.

    Wufjum Halitan v Xinjiang Luobin Cultural Art Development Co, Ltd (2006).

  49. 49.

    Wufjum Halitan v Xinjiang Luobin Cultural Art Development Co, Ltd (2006).

  50. 50.

    International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, opened for signature 26 October 1961 (entered into force 18 May 1964).

  51. 51.

    Article 3(a).

  52. 52.

    WPPT, Arts. 5–10; Beijing Treaty, Art. 5–11.

  53. 53.

    Zhang (2007), p. 41.

  54. 54.

    Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 293.

  55. 55.

    Many interviewees in the author’s survey research admit that their inspirations are often from the works made by members of local community.

  56. 56.

    Zhang (2007), p. 41.

  57. 57.

    Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 270.

  58. 58.

    Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 270.

  59. 59.

    WPPT, Art. 2(a).

  60. 60.

    In the survey research, some interviewees show the author their recording documents in relation to their folklore. For example, a recording of the Bao family belt records details of the history of the belt, different patterns and their meanings, and methods of weaving. See Sect. 3.4.2.

  61. 61.

    WPPT, Art. 2(d).

  62. 62.

    WPPT, Art. 11–14.

  63. 63.

    Beijing Treaty, Art. 2(b).

  64. 64.

    Berne Convention, Art. 2(5).

  65. 65.

    Berryman (1994), pp. 310–311. See also Fuentes (2003), p. 91.

  66. 66.

    Long (2006), p. 318.

  67. 67.

    Berne Convention, Art. 7(1).

  68. 68.

    Long (2006), p. 321.

  69. 69.

    Long (2006), p. 321.

  70. 70.

    Long (2006), p. 321.

  71. 71.

    Moran (1998), p. 103. See also Fuentes (2003), p. 95.

  72. 72.

    Farley (1997), p. 18. See also Fuentes (2003), p. 95.

  73. 73.

    Fuentes (2003), p. 96.

  74. 74.

    Farley (1997), p. 21. See also Fuentes (2003), p. 95.

  75. 75.

    Original. Oxford Dictionaries. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/original?q=original. Accessed 24 December 2013.

  76. 76.

    Garner et al. (2004), p. 1133.

  77. 77.

    Fuentes (2003), p. 96.

  78. 78.

    Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 293.

  79. 79.

    Berne Convention, Art. 7(3).

  80. 80.

    Nordmann (2001), p. 184. See also Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 295.

  81. 81.

    Fuentes (2003), p. 97; Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 296.

  82. 82.

    Fuentes (2003), p. 97; Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 296.

  83. 83.

    Bulun Bulun v Textiles Pty Ltd (1998) 41 IPR 513.

  84. 84.

    41 IPR 513, 525. See also Janke (2003), p. 57.

  85. 85.

    41 IPR 513, 525. See also Janke (2003), p. 57.

  86. 86.

    Collective Marks. WIPO. http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/collective_marks/collective_marks.htm. Accessed 24 December 2013.

  87. 87.

    Janke (2003), p. 36.

  88. 88.

    Certification Marks. WIPO. http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/collective_marks/certification_marks.htm. Accessed 24 December 2013.

  89. 89.

    Lucas-Schloetter (2004), pp. 259, 309.

  90. 90.

    Annas (1997), p. 5. See also Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 309.

  91. 91.

    Janke (2003), p. 135.

  92. 92.

    Janke (2003), p. 136.

  93. 93.

    Janke (2003), p. 136.

  94. 94.

    Janke (2003), p. 136.

  95. 95.

    Janke (2003), p. 136.

  96. 96.

    Janke (2003), p. 142.

  97. 97.

    Janke (2003), p. 143.

  98. 98.

    Janke (2003), pp. 142–143.

  99. 99.

    Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 307.

  100. 100.

    WIPO (2001), pp. 69–191.

  101. 101.

    Nordmann (2001), p. 173. See also Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 310.

  102. 102.

    Nordmann (2001), p. 173. See also Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 310.

  103. 103.

    Wiseman (2001), pp. 20–21. See also Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 311.

  104. 104.

    Janke (2003), p. 145.

  105. 105.

    Lucas-Schloetter (2004), pp. 259, 316–317.

  106. 106.

    Owens and Odibo (1999), p. 48. See also Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 317.

  107. 107.

    WIPO (2001), p. 60.

  108. 108.

    WIPO (2001), p. 60.

  109. 109.

    WIPO (2001), p. 64.

  110. 110.

    WIPO (2001), p. 64.

  111. 111.

    Bulun Bulun v Textiles Pty Ltd (1998) 41 IPR 519.

  112. 112.

    Bulun Bulun v Textiles Pty Ltd (1998) 41 IPR 519.

  113. 113.

    Daes (1997), p. 3. See also Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 318.

  114. 114.

    Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 318.

  115. 115.

    Kuruk (1999), p. 786. See also Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 318.

  116. 116.

    Mabo v State of Queensland (No. 2) (1992) CLR 175.

  117. 117.

    Strelein (2009), p. 11. See also Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 318.

  118. 118.

    Milpurrurru v Indofurn Ltd (1994) 130 ALR 659, 25.

  119. 119.

    Lucas-Schloetter (2004), p. 319.

References

  • Annas M (1997) The label of authenticity: a certification mark for goods and services of indigenous origin. Aboriginal Law Bull 3:4–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Berryman AC (1994) Toward more universal protection of intangible protection of intangible cultural property. J Intellect Prop Law 1:293–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Blain G, Silva DL (1991) Aboriginal arts and copyright. Australian Copyright Council, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Daes AE (1997) Protection of the heritage of indigenous people human rights study series 10. United Nations, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley HC (1997) Protection folklore of indigenous peoples: is intellectual property the answer? Conn Law Rev 30:1–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuentes AJ (2003) Protecting the rights of indigenous cultures under the current intellectual property system: is it a good idea? John Marshall Rev Intellect Prop Law 3:88–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner AB, Jacson T, Newman J (2004) Black’s law dictionary, 8th edn. Thomson West, St. Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • Janke T (2003) Minding culture: case studies on intellectual property and traditional cultural expressions. WIPO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuruk P (1999) Protection folklore under modern intellectual property regimes: a reappraisal of the tensions between individual and communal rights in Africa and the United States. Am Univ Law Rev 48:769–850

    Google Scholar 

  • Long ED (2006) Traditional knowledge and the fight for the public domain. John Marshall Rev Intellect Prop Law 5:317–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas-Schloetter A (2004) Folklore. In: von Lewinski S (ed) Indigenous heritage and intellectual property: genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 259–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin M (1995) What’s in a painting? The cultural harm of unauthorised reproduction: Milpurrurru & Ors v Indofurn Pty Ltd & Ors. Sydney Law Rev 17:591–598

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran ML (1998) Intellectual property law protection for traditional and sacred “Folklife Expressions”—will remedies become available to cultural authors and communities? Univ Baltimore Intellect Prop Law J 6:99–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordmann M (2001) Rechtsschutz von folkloreformen (Legal protection of Folklore). Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens R, Odibo F (1999) Presentation on global intellectual property issues and the LDCs. In: WIPO (ed) The new millennium, intellectual property and the least developed countries (LDCs). WIPO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Strelein L (2009) Recognising native title in Australia law: Mabo v Queensland (No 2). In: Strelein L (ed) Compromised jurisprudence: native title cases since Mabo. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, pp 10–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiseman L (2001) The protection of indigenous art and culture in Australia: the labels of authenticity. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 23(1):14–25

    Google Scholar 

  • World Intellectual Property Organization (2001) Intellectual property needs and expectations of traditional knowledge: WIPO report on fact-finding missions on intellectual property and traditional knowledge (1998–1999). WIPO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang G (2007) minjian wenxue yishu de zhishi chanquan baohu yanjiu (Research on intellectual property protection of folklore). Law Press China, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. London, UK

    Luo Li

Authors
  1. Luo Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Li, L. (2014). Intellectual Property System: Is It Enough to Protect Folklore?. In: Intellectual Property Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04525-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation