Indigenous Rights and Intellectual Property Law: A Comparison of the United States and Australia

By Grad, Rachael | Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Winter 2003 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Indigenous Rights and Intellectual Property Law: A Comparison of the United States and Australia


Grad, Rachael, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law


SYNOPSIS

"Works of art are the property of mankind and ownership carries with it the obligation to preserve them. He who neglects this duty ... will be punished with the contempt of all educated people, now and in future ages."--Attributed to J.W. von Goethe (1)

"Much of what they want to commercialize is sacred to us. We see intellectual property as part of our culture. It cannot be separated into categories, as [Western] lawyers would want."--North American Indian Congress, Ray Apoaka (2)

"The indigenous view of the world ... is the antithesis to the Western paradigm: communitarian, not individual, focused on sharing rather than shielding things, respect for land and all living things as sacred rather than as objects ripe for exploitation and consumption." (3)

These statements illustrate a fundamental tension between individualist, or "Romantic," views of property rights typically associated with Western thought, and the communal view of property rights held by indigenous peoples. Goethe's view of works of art is in keeping with the "Romantic" view of authorship, a perception that highly values the individual experience of artistic production. (4) The traditional indigenous view, in contrast, envisions property, knowledge and nature as part of an interconnected world. (5)

Indigenous concerns are common throughout the world. What qualifies as an "indigenous" concern? The United Nations (UN) defines indigenous peoples according to three general characteristics. (6) First, indigenous peoples have a historical continuity with the societies that developed in particular territories before they were conquered or colonized. Second, they consider themselves to be a distinct and non-dominant sector of the present society of the territory. Third, they are "determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems." (7)

The UN's definition provides a starting point for analyzing indigenous concerns. But it should be kept in mind that other factors are also relevant. For example, a 1993 International Labour Organization (ILO) (8) report revealed that, as compared to national populations, the world's indigenous people have higher rates of infant mortality, unemployment, alcoholism, disease, ill health, and incarceration. (9) Sadly, as a general rule, "indigenous and tribal peoples are always, always at the bottom of the social and economic heaps." (10)

The historical backgrounds and unique characteristics of indigenous people require and justify special protection). (11) Can intellectual property rights help rectify this problem? This paper addresses this essential question by analyzing and comparing the divergent legal systems of the United States and Australia. Although these legal regimes faced similar requirements relative to indigenous populations, they have responded quite differently. In this article I will closely examine the United States and Australia's diverging legal developments in order to illuminate the underlying factors that may shape legal responses in the future. Part I will compare and contrast the respective legal systems of the United States and Australia. Part II will identify key legal decisions from each of these countries and will analyze them with respect to the "individualist" and the indigenous, communal view of intellectual property. Part III will consider certain international approaches to indigenous intellectual property rights, and will compare this to U.S. and Australian experiences. Finally, Part IV will propose how the heritage and culture of indigenous peoples can indeed be preserved through expanded intellectual property rights.

I. DIVERGENT APPROACHES TO INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS: THE LEGAL REGIMES OF THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA

In certain respects, the United States and Australia share similar colonial histories.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Indigenous Rights and Intellectual Property Law: A Comparison of the United States and Australia
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?