…so do you mean obviously yes, you do extend that agreement to indigenous intellectual property?
Are you talking about a physical print of the photo of the headdress? Or the digital image I put online? You do realize that there are people (some who have participated in this thread) that don’t agree with you that the digital image is property?
Not indigenous intellectual property? Why not?
Because there is no monolithic “indigenous” to claim ownership of such intellectual property nor any individual who has the authority to speak for all these “indigenous” as a group.
…a company can claim ownership of intellectual property. A company can delegate individuals to speak on behalf of that company. So why cannot Ngāti Koura claim ownership of intellectual property, and why cannot they delegate an individual to speak on behalf of that iwi?
I said exactly the opposite.
Kinda so what. The current state of the law defines intellectual property. It has to be specific, and cannot be generic. i.e., I can copyright/trademark a specific image of a Navajo-style rug, but no one can register the “property” of Navajo-style rugs as a protected idea.
Because it’s not a specific image, but a broad category of images, and the current state of the law doesn’t allow you to copyright/trademark those.
Rolling Rock Beer can protect the specific images of their beer bottles, but they can’t stop anyone else from also selling beer in green-glass bottles. The concept is too broad to be registered as “property.”
FWIW, this is all fine with me, and I would be very much opposed to changing the law to allow people to register broad image-concepts as property.
Cultures can’t keep stuff to themselves. That’s an absurdity. For one cultures are in some ways competing. Why would cultures deliberately hamstring themselves by ignoring anything that may be of utility?
If I must get permission to utilize aspects of someone else’s culture then who grants said permission? Could I find anyone with any degree of connection and ask their permission?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
And, conversely, if the tribal council, collectively, owns the rights, then this could end up dispossessing an individual of that tribe from access to his own cultural property.
One guy might want to sell rugs, or figurines, or t-shirts, and the council might tell him he cannot…even though he is a member of the tribe and has rights in the imagery invested in him as part of that culture.
Somebody tell PF Changs they need to shut their doors down.
Also is ‘Tex-Mex’ cultural appropriation?
…nope. You specifically did not. It appears that you still don’t understand what indigenous intellectual property actually is.
The current state of the law differs from country to country. New Zealand is signatory to a number of international indigenous intellectual property agreements. If you are only speaking from a certain legal framework, then please indicate what framework you are speaking from. Intellectual property law is constantly evolving and differs from country to country. IP protection of Maori cultural elements is managed by government department.
Coca Cola can’t stop people from selling cola in clear bottled bottles. But they do have a trademark (in the US) for the distinctive shape of the bottle. The shape of a bottle might be pretty “broad”: but they were still allowed to register the concept as “property.” But in Europe their arguments were rejected. So by your terms, the shape of the bottle is only “property” in the United States, but it isn’t property in Europe.
Your mistake appears to be conflating intellectual property only with copyright and trademarks. Intellectual property is a much broader thing than just those two things, so your examples really aren’t relevant.
…why not? JK Rowling keeps Harry Potter to “herself”. Western culture has developed a range of protections that allow her to own the intellectual property and to decide how the IP is used by others. 3M Pharmaceuticals keeps their IP to themselves. Kentucky Fried Chicken keep their IP to themselves. Why can’t Ngāti Koura? Why is that so absurd?
How are cultures hamstringing themselves by asking people to request permission before using their IP, and asking them to do it properly? Especially when in most case, those requests are non-binding?
The far end of the whole ‘Cultural Appropriations’ is a complete ignorance of history and how cultures interact. Every culture learns and takes things from the cultures it interacts with. That’s how humans work. We watch, we learn, we do.
Chilies and potatoes don’t belong to Incans.
Horses didn’t belong to Eurasians.
Gunpowder didn’t belong to China.
…you live in a world where “asking permission to utilize aspects of someone else’s culture” isn’t mandatory. Its a request. Its about being polite. But you can pretty much ignore the request if you like.
In New Zealand the first step would be to read the guidelines at IPONZ. They acknowledge that their can be difficulties in finding the right person to grant permission. But the first step would be to approach the relevant Māori elders or iwi representatives from the iwi or hapu whose IP you were interested in using.
U.S.A. New Zealand can do what they want.
And, yes, certainly, by this I suggest that an idea can be “property” in one jurisdiction and not in another.
Is it your contention, then, that Miss Rowling is a culture? :dubious:
Yes, because she created it.
Yes, because they created those things.
Again, KFC created those things.
Which one of them created whatever it is that they want to protect?
And who gets to decide who is and who is not part of a particular culture?
Also, what constitutes a culture? Can I declare that no one not approved by me can ever write a punk rock song, since I am a punk rocker?
Okay, no more spoons for any culture that traditionally uses chopsticks. No more books if you aren’t European. No, you can’t have vaccines; that’s an ancient Chinese thing. You can only make or watch movies if you’re French or American. No jazz if you’re not from America. No fireworks if you’re not Chinese. I guess white Americans will have to give rock and roll back to… who?
Cultural appropriation, when used as a euphemism for “IP theft”, is an idiotic concept; it quickly spirals out of control.
…yes, of course yes, that is entirely my contention. :rolleyes:
Well DUH.
I’ve already cited an example of cultural IP, its protection in law, which contains a record of how and when that IP was created. So why is the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Act 2014 wrong?
In the case of Ngāti Koura: I’ve explained the concept of whakapapa, and provided links that expand on the concept. Its a fundamentally different way of understanding “ownership.” Its a different paradigm.
Can I suggest before we go any further, you take the time to read my posts? Because I’ve addressed your questions. In the quote you quoted I specifically was not talking about a generic “culture” but a specific iwi, in particular Ngāti Koura. Your question is answered by not looking at the general, but looking at the specifics.
This is a strawman. With all due respect its lazy debating, and it doesn’t address any of the issues I spent many hours patiently writing about. If you want to argue with what I have said, then maybe start with the words I’ve actually written. You are capable of far better than lazily reciting talking points. Nothing is spiraling out of control. Things certainly aren’t **quickly **spiraling out of control. The discussion on indigenous IP has been ongoing for decades. Your right to appropriate indigenous culture has not been abridged. You are probably never going to have to deal with anything more than the occasional news article about stolen tacos that will cause OUTRAGE!!! So you can cut the hyperbole.
This messageboard is about fighting ignorance. I have never suggested that we need to change your laws. I’m merely providing insight into “the other side of the story.” You very rarely hear indigenous voices not only on these boards, but in society in general, and I think thats a shame. And hostile responses like this are part of the reason why. I don’t think I’ve said anything unreasonable in this thread. And the fact that you had to resort to attacking arguments I have never ever made just prove that. I don’t expect you to agree with what I am saying. But at the very least I would hope that you make an attempt to understand it, and not just dismiss it with lazy talking points.
Why can’t a particular group, corporation, or person patent, copyright, or whatever something for ever? Because society doesn’t think it’s useful.
And nothing stops an indigenous group from using the same IP protections. I don’t see how extending IP protection overly broadly and for an unlimited amount of time is a good idea though.
It’s a stupid paradigm. It replaces an individual with a perpetual lineage that could theoretically last for thousands of years, enabling individuals who had nothing to do with the creation of something the exclusive right to profit from it. That’s stupid. We don’t even let individuals inherit everything from their parents, ffs, and that’s as direct a lineage as there can be.
It’s a semi-hostile response because the accusation inherent in your use of the phrase “cultural appropriation” is “theft of an idea”; the inflammatory language and stance was there before I ever responded.
The concepts you keep bringing up were possibly fine for a small society living in relative isolation, but in today’s world they are the conceptual equivalent of wampeters, foma and granfalloons.
I have no more desire to allow a loosely-cohesive group to lay claim to something that an ancestor or group of ancestors created than I do to allow Disney to own the copyright to Mickey Mouse for all eternity.
And again, who gets to decide what is a culture and what is not? Why can’t “punk rocker” be a culture, or “comic book nerd” or “surfer”?
…thats a topic for a different debate, don’t you think? I’m on record as thinking that copyright protections should be extended, not limited. If you want to have that debate please feel free to start that thread.
And nothing stops the Western world from listening to indigenous people, and reconsidering how they handle indigenous intellectual property.
…it doesn’t replace anything. Its the way things were done. Maori existed perfectly fine for thousands of years without having to worry about protecting their intellectual property. Then Captain Cook arrived. And now the paradigm that had existed for thousands of years is adapting to the system of the dominant culture.
Your invented paradigm that bears no relation to anything I’ve said? Yes it is stupid.
Maybe western culture doesn’t allow this. But thats my point. Your “direct lineage” is tiny compared to Maori whakapapa. 1400 names. 20 generations. Its a massive difference in paradigm.
The thread is called wtf is cultural appropriation exactly? I’ve answered that question. If you didn’t think “theft of an idea” was an inherent part of what cultural appropriation is, and why people get upset over it, then now you know. There is no need to get hostile over learning something new.
Your “western privilege” is showing. You aren’t really arguing with anything I’m saying. You’ve just declared it “unworkable” without showing your work. Maori are not going to abandon centuries of tradition and family values because someone on the internet doesn’t want to make the effort to understand it. Maori are making it work. This relatively small society in an increasingly interconnected world are making it work. And by and large they are doing it without the need for legislation. A massive effort has been made into simply providing information and education. You are simply wrong.
The claim that iwi are a “loosely-cohesive group” is simply laughable.
What makes a company a company? There are accepted legal definitions, and “culture” is no different. Here is a very brief overview of the difference between whanau, hapu and iwi. Here is a bit more about how different iwiare classified. This isn’t as difficult a question as you are pretending it to be. The Crown have been negotiating with the various iwi over a very long time. It isn’t arbitrary, and has been defined.
If you feel strongly that “punk rocker” should be a culture, then who am I to stop you? But I think you will struggle to get recognition from the government, from companies, from people around the world. But if it is something that you feel strongly about, then don’t let me stop you.
It’s clear to me that you haven’t thought thru the consequences of allowing a “culture” to monopolize an idea.
You keep wanting to talk about a specific group, while many of us are talking about a concept. When the concept is applied to anything outside of your specific group, the tenets quickly become unbearable and indefensible.
So what? Should I be impressed by this? Why? Is a person who can recite their lineage any better than someone who doesn’t know what their lineage is? Why should anyone’s ancestors matter? It’s a stupid way to apportion rights.
Again, I’m not hostile; I’m reacting to the hostility inherent in the phrase “cultural appropriation” because it implies theft and no one owns ideas; they cannot be stolen.
That massive effort will fail. Maybe not this week, this year or this decade, but it will fail. To think otherwise is to not understand history.
The definition in your link is a descriptor of a loosely-cohesive group, just like anyone’s family tree in the 20th generation (or whatever #) would be. My father’s sister’s daughter’s son’s son’s daughter’s son is someone I may meet at a family reunion, but to call us a “close-knit” group would be laughable. I stand by my statement.
What makes a company a company? There are accepted legal definitions, and “culture” is no different. Here is a very brief overview of the difference between whanau, hapu and iwi. Here is a bit more about how different iwiare classified. This isn’t as difficult a question as you are pretending it to be. The Crown have been negotiating with the various iwi over a very long time. It isn’t arbitrary, and has been defined.
[/quote]
That culture has been defined, perhaps, but not “what is a culture” and not “how do we determine who is a member of a culture”. Again, you keep pointing to this specific culture, without considering any of the over-arching questions about how this could or would be applied in general.
Those examples were provided to illustrate how ridiculous the concept is and what a shitty world it would be to live in, as were the examples of forbidden things in my previous post.
No one owns an idea.