Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 84

12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 1

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 2

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

Texas Wesleyan Law Review


Fall 2005

Symposium
The Power of Stories: Intersections of Law, Literature, and Culture
The Dick Whittington Story: Its Influences & Its Impacts
*5 DICK WHITTINGTON AND CREATIVITY: FROM TRADE TO FOLKLORE, FROM FOLKLORE TO
TRADE
Susanna Frederick Fischer [FNd1]

Copyright © 2005 Texas Wesleyan Law Review; Susanna Frederick Fischer

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ........................................................ 6

II. The Real Richard Whittington and the Origins of the Dick

Whittington Story .................................................. 9

III. A Parentless State: A Problem for Dick Whittington and for

Copyright Protection for Folk Tales ............................... 18

IV. Like Mr Fitzwarren's Efforts to Protect Dick, Attempts to

Strengthen Intellectual Property Protection for Folklore .......... 26

A. 1960s Revision to the Berne Convention: Article 15(4) .......... 27

B. National Copyright Legislation in the 1960s and 1970s .......... 29

C. Efforts to Protect Folklore at the International Level

Culminating in the 1982 Model Provisions .......................... 31

D. Implementation of the Model Provisions into National Laws ...... 35

V. Like Rats, Cruel Colleagues, and Poverty: Difficulties for

Intellectual Property Protection for Folklore ..................... 39

VI. The Recipe for Overcoming Difficulties: Hard Work, Luck, and

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 3

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

Patronage ......................................................... 44

A. Discussion and Consultation in and by WIPO and UNESCO on an

International Instrument for Intellectual Property Protection for

Folklore: 1984-1999 ............................................... 46

B. The WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property

and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore:

2000-2005 ......................................................... 49

C. The Current Draft Revised Objectives and Principles Under

Consideration at the Most Recent WIPO Intergovernmental Committee

Session in June 2005 .............................................. 55

D. Efforts in the World Trade Organization to Amend TRIPS to

Implement Specific Intellectual Property Protections for Folklore

and Traditional Knowledge: 2001-2005 .............................. 59

E. UNESCO's Initiatives to Protect Folklore ....................... 62

VII. A Happy Ending for Folklore? ....................................... 63

A. The Impossibility of Determining What is Protected ............. 64

B. Harm to the Public Domain ...................................... 65

VIII. Conclusion ......................................................... 65

*6 I. Introduction
One of the most famous examples of folklore in the English speaking world is the Dick Whittington story of a young
lad who made his fortune with the help of his cat. [FN1] This folk tale is based on the life of a medieval English
merchant, Sir Richard Whittington. The real Richard Whittington made his fortune from trade in luxury cloth. The story
of his life became folklore, and that folklore has in turn given rise to more trade, this time in new creative works.

The extent of intellectual property protection for stories, legends, and other types of folklore [FN2] has become an

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 4

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

increasingly contentious *7 international trade and policy issue. Creative works, often based on folklore, have become
increasingly lucrative products in the global economy. [FN3] As long as these derivative works are sufficiently original,
most legal systems around the world provide copyright protection for many types of them, including books and films
based on folk tales and legends. [FN4] Such copyright protection usually lasts for decades after the creation or
publication of a derivative work, even though it often extends only to new creative additions to a work of folklore and not
to the underlying folklore itself. But much intangible folklore, like stories passed down orally from one generation to
another as living heritage, receives little or no intellectual property protection in many national legal systems, especially
in industrialized western countries. There is no international convention in effect that directly provides for intellectual
property rights for folklore. Many people, especially those living in developing countries and members of indigenous
communities, have grown increasingly dissatisfied with the current state of intellectual property protection for folklore at
both the national and international levels.

Proponents of greater intellectual property protection for folklore have two main concerns. The first is to ensure that
indigenous communities*8 and other developers of folklore share equitably in the economic profits generated by
folkloric works, especially those used as the basis for valuable new creative works like the Disney film Mulan. [FN5]
The second is to maintain respect for traditional culture and protect it from loss or distortion outside of its traditional
context. [FN6] Both concerns are related to the desire to close the global development divide. [FN7] National
governments, regional bodies, and international organizations have increasingly responded to growing pressure to
provide stronger legal protections for folklore, including stories and folktales. Over the past few decades, accelerating
over the last few years, there has been a marked global trend at the national and international levels toward implementing
intellectual property protections for folklore. [FN8] For stories, this protection takes the form of copyright law and sui
generis legal regimes. But many countries, especially in the industrialized west, are currently opposed to providing
enhanced intellectual property protection for folklore in their laws or through new multinational treaties or conventions.

In this essay, I consider whether such increased intellectual property protection for stories and folktales is the wisest
policy course. While accepting the validity of the two major concerns that underpin the effort to implement greater
intellectual property protection, I argue here that greater intellectual property protections risk serious harm to innovation
and creativity by narrowing the public domain and are not the best means to achieve these desired ends. To make my
argument, I will draw on the Dick Whittington story as both an example of a folktale in danger of overprotection by
expanded intellectual property regimes and also as an analogy to the legal treatment of folklore over the past several
decades.

Part II focuses on the Dick Whittington story as an example of folklore that has spawned a wealth of creative works.
It traces how the life of a real historical figure, Sir Richard Whittington, became a folktale. Just as the real Richard
Whittington's money still funds many charities, for hundreds of years the folktale based on his life has served as the basis
for many new creative works, especially children's books and pantomimes.

The remainder of the essay draws parallels between the Dick Whittington folk tale and the legal protection of folk
stories at the national, *9 regional, and international level. Part III shows how traditional western copyright law doctrines
bar protection for many folk stories handed down orally from generation to generation like Dick Whittington. Part IV
delineates early efforts from the late 1960s to early 1980s to establish stronger national and international intellectual
property protections for folklore despite the doctrinal problems posed by traditional copyright law. These efforts
culminated in joint UNESCO-WIPO Model Provisions, which, although not law themselves, were designed to be
incorporated into national laws to give sui generis intellectual property protection to folk stories and other kinds of
folklore. Part V shows how these efforts did not succeed in broadly implementing intellectual property protections for
folklore in national laws across the globe, although the Model Provisions did influence some jurisdictions, including a
majority of African countries, to incorporate greater intellectual property protections for folk stories and other

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 5

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

expressions of folklore into their laws. Part VI describes the latest attempts to set up an international regime for
intellectual property protection for folklore, which is currently under discussion in a World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) committee as well as, to a more limited extent, in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Part VII
contends that implementing specific intellectual property protections such as the current draft principles and objectives
under consideration in WIPO are not clearly a happy ending for folklore because of the impossibility of determining what
is protectable and the serious danger of hindering future creativity and artistic development. The essay concludes by
advocating a cautious approach to the problem that will better respect the importance of a robust public domain and the
importance of encouraging future cultural development.

II. The Real Richard Whittington and the Origins of the Dick Whittington Story
It is not surprising that Richard Whittington's life became a folk tale because it really did have legendary aspects.
Richard Whittington was not only a self-made man who succeeded in acquiring great wealth and status. Unlike many
other successful medieval merchants who are now forgotten, he used his wealth to benefit society both during his lifetime
and after his death. This combination of wealth and philanthropy fascinated people. After Richard Whittington's death,
stories continued to circulate about his life.

The exact year of Richard Whittington's birth is unknown, but it probably occurred sometime around 1350. [FN9]
This was a very turbulent time in British history. England was embroiled in the Hundred Years' *10 War with France (ca.
1337-1453). [FN10] An outbreak of bubonic plague, the notorious "Black Death," broke out in England in 1348 and
raged across the country, killing around one third of the population. [FN11] Many other calamitous events followed the
Black Death, including further epidemics of disease, population decline, economic crisis, increased crime, peasant
rebellion, and political instability. [FN12]

Unlike his mythical counterpart Dick, Richard Whittington did not begin his life in abject poverty but was born into
a landed gentry family in the medieval middle class between the nobility and the peasantry. [FN13] Richard Whittington
was the third son of Sir William Whittington, the owner of a very modest manor at Pauntley, Gloucestershire, which was
probably Richard Whittington's birthplace. [FN14] The Whittington family had limited means when Richard Whittington
was a child. One reason for this was the King's outlawry of William Whittington for not responding to a plea of debt
brought against him by a *11 clerk. [FN15] William Whittington was still an outlaw when he died a few days later. To
remove this encumbrance from the estate required the payment of a large fee. [FN16] Another charge on the estate after
William Whittington's death was the jointure upon the Pauntley estate held by Richard Whittington's mother, Lady Joan
Whittington. [FN17] These financial burdens likely made the estate incapable of supporting Richard Whittington as a
younger son. [FN18] Subject to the jointure, William Whittington's lands passed entirely to Richard Whittington's eldest
brother William, according to the rules of primogeniture of the time. [FN19] When William died without heirs, these
rules caused the property to descend to the middle brother, Robert. [FN20] Almost certainly lacking in financial resources
after the death of his father, Richard Whittington went to London to seek work. [FN21] It is very possible that he actually
walked there just as his counterpart Dick Whittington famously did in the folk story. [FN22]

In London, Richard Whittington became a very successful cloth mercer, or medieval cloth merchant, reflecting a
more general historical trend of increased social mobility. [FN23] He made the modern equivalent of millions of dollars
by selling silk, velvet, cloth of gold, and other luxury fabrics, first to various nobles and eventually to the royal
household. Richard II (1377-1400) made his first known purchase of cloth from Richard Whittington in 1389, the same
year that the young king announced that he was now of full age and would rule as monarch. [FN24] Richard II liked fine
clothes, and he spent lavishly *12 on Richard Whittington's wares. [FN25] Royal records for the period 1392-1394 show
that Richard Whittington's mercery amounted to more than a quarter of the expenditures of Richard II's Great Wardrobe
department. [FN26]

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 6

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

Such profligate spending contributed to the royal court's deteriorating financial situation, which Richard Whittington
saw as a new business opportunity. [FN27] In 1388 he launched a new enterprise as a royal financier. [FN28] It seems
quite likely that he did not decide to lend money to Richard II for financial gain because usury was then illegal, and there
is every indication that Richard Whittington was extremely morally upstanding. [FN29] Rather, his goal seems to have
been to attain greater power and influence. [FN30] He certainly achieved this aim even if his loans did not fully alleviate
the king's financial or other woes. When Richard II was deposed in 1399, he still owed Richard Whittington
approximately £1000. [FN31]

Richard Whittington attained powerful positions during the reigns of Richard II and both of his successors. After
receiving his first large loan from Richard Whittington, Richard II chose him to replace the Mayor of London, who had
died in office. [FN32] He was elected Mayor in the following year and won reelection two more times, in 1406 and 1419.
[FN33] He served on the council of King Henry IV (1399-1413), [FN34] who apparently did not begrudge his loyalty to
Richard II. During the reigns of Henry IV and his successor Henry V (1413-1422), Richard Whittington served on a
number of special royal commissions. [FN35] He *13 continued to lend money to both Henry IV and Henry V, [FN36]
presumably to maintain his influence and status. [FN37] Richard Whittington also continued to sell cloth to the royal
household, including fabric for the wedding trousseaus of two of Henry IV's daughters. [FN38] He was prominent in the
leadership of the politically prominent Mercers' Company, one of the guilds that originated in the medieval period to
serve the interests of merchants and served as its master in 1395-1396, 1401- 1402, and 1408-1409. [FN39] During this
period, he became actively involved in the export trade in wool, and in exchange for his large loans to the crown, he
obtained permission to export wool without having to pay customs duties on it. [FN40]

Richard Whittington died a wealthy man in 1423, predeceased by his wife Alice Fitzwarren, who came from a
landowning gentry family that owned property in many southwestern English counties (Gloucestershire, Somerset,
Wiltshire, and Dorset). [FN41] He never remarried and probably never had any children, or if he did, none who survived
him. [FN42] Apparently formal and somewhat chilly in manner, he seems not to have made any close friends after the
death of his great patron and probable friend, Richard II, who was also cold and remote in manner. [FN43] Richard
Whittington's will did not make any specific bequests to friends or family members, but provided for the vast portion of
his estate to be left to charity. [FN44] The document states that "the remainder of all my possessions, wherever they may
be, after the payment *14 of my debts has been given priority and my bequests have been fulfilled, I leave to my
executors to dispose of in works of charity for [the good of] my soul, such as they would wish me to do for their souls if
our situation were reversed." There is some evidence that during his lifetime Richard Whittington also gave generously
for charitable causes. [FN45]

Richard Whittington's executors used the proceeds of his estate, which probably amounted to around £7,000 (the
equivalent of about seven million dollars today), to fund a number of charitable enterprises, some of which continue to
benefit the poor nearly six centuries later. [FN46] These enterprises included the foundation of a College of Priests
associated with the parish church and St. Michael Paternoster Royal, where Richard Whittington and his wife Alice were
buried. [FN47] The executors also used Richard Whittington's money to reconstruct Newgate Gaol, to build a gate to St.
Bartholomew's hospital, to establish a library at the Guildhall, and to build a public lavatory, known as "Whittington's
Longhouse." [FN48] The most enduring charity funded with Richard Whittington's money is an almshouse set up in 1424
by his executors, apparently acting on his deathbed instructions. [FN49] The preamble to the Ordinances for
Whittington's Almshouse provides that *15 the almshouse is to house thirteen of those "pouer persones whiche grevous
penurie and cruelle fortune have oppressed and be not of power to gete their lyvyng either by craft or by eny other bodily
labour"; in other words, the deserving poor. [FN50]

Typical of the medieval period in which Richard Whittington lived, an important purpose motivating Richard
Whittington's posthumous charitable bequests was the welfare of his soul after his death. [FN51] The thirteen poor

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 7

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

people housed in the almshouse had to spend a considerable amount of their time praying for the souls of Richard
Whittington, his wife, parents, patrons, and others to whom he was indebted "in any manner wise" during his lifetime.
[FN52] At least once a day, where possible, they were required to stand in a circle around the tomb of Richard and Alice
Whittington and recite a psalm and several prayers. [FN53] But the trust that Richard Whittington's executors set up was
less religious in nature than typical foundations by medieval benefactors, and later served as an important model for other
London merchants in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. [FN54]

As a result of the foresight of Richard's executors in setting up an endowment for the almshouse and investing it
well, the almshouse still survives today, though it has moved several times. Now known as Whittington College, since
1966 it has been located in East Grinstead, Sussex, where it provides 56 homes for elderly ladies and couples. [FN55]
Richard Whittington's Charity is now amalgamated with Lady Mico's Almshouse Charity. [FN56] Its main objective is to
administer the almshouses at Whittington College, as well as almshouses in Felbridge, Surrey, and at Stepney in the
London borough of Tower Hamlets. The Charity also makes payments to needy individuals and institutions, as well as to
support community welfare, elderly, education, and the *16 handicapped and disabled. [FN57] For the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2003, it distributed over £500,000 to a variety of charitable causes, as well as, in conjunction with another
charity, over £1 million to support almshouses. [FN58]

Richard Whittington's generous philanthropy and self-made wealth were undoubtedly a source of fascination to the
general public in his day, just as that of Bill Gates and Richard Branson is of great interest to people today. There must
have been much curiosity about how Richard Whittington succeeded in amassing such a large fortune. But the largely
illiterate, medieval peasantry had little access to written sources of information. [FN59] Many people had to rely on oral
communications, such as storytelling. At some unknown date in the sixteenth century, a story began to circulate about a
young boy named Dick Whittington who walked to London and became rich and powerful with his cat's help. [FN60]

Some aspects of this Dick Whittington folk story were certainly historically accurate, such as Richard Whittington's
Gloucestershire origins and the name of his wife, Alice Fitzwarren. [FN61] The truth of other elements is less clear and
probably impossible to ascertain on the surviving evidence. For example, although there is no extant direct evidence that
Dick Whittington ever owned a cat that helped him to attain wealth and status, there is some circumstantial evidence
supporting this, so it cannot be definitively established as fictional. [FN62] The historical truth of Richard Whittington's
poverty is also impossible to *17 assess with certainty. Although he was the scion of a landed gentry family, his family
was not wealthy; and because he inherited no land on the death of his father, he may have been financially very badly off
at that time. [FN63] Whether Richard Whittington actually walked from Gloucester to London is also not possible to say
with certainty on the existing evidence, although it is certainly possible. [FN64]

Regardless of the truth of the Dick Whittington folktale, it flourished. In 1605, Thomas Heywood published a play
on the life of Elizabeth I that had a scene introducing Richard Whittington, as well as various other good citizens, and
referring to the story that Whittington "raised himself by venture of a cat." [FN65] From the late seventeenth to early
nineteenth centuries, the Dick Whittington folktale became very well known through the inclusion of different versions
of it in chapbooks. [FN66] These were wildly popular cheap books sold by traveling peddlers across England to children
and poorly educated adults. [FN67] Many different versions of the Dick Whittington story are still on sale in modern
bookstores. [FN68] In 1668, Samuel Pepys wrote in his diary, "To Southwark Fair, very dirty, and there saw the puppet
show of Whittington, which was pretty to see . . . ." [FN69] By the eighteenth or early nineteenth century, the Dick
Whittington story also became the basis for pantomimes, [FN70] which frequently added new characters like King Rat.
The Dick Whittington story continues to generate many new creative works. Pantomimes based on the Dick Whittington
story are extremely popular in the United Kingdom today, especially during *18 the Christmas season. [FN71] In May
and June 2005, BBC Radio Gloucestershire broadcast a series of nine radio plays, The Hitherto Unrecorded Memoirs of
Dick Whittington, to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the first play based on the Dick Whittington story. [FN72]

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 8

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

As long as the authors of such adaptations do not copy original elements of other adaptations of the Dick
Whittington story, they can use the underlying folk tale without risking liability under the copyright laws of the United
Kingdom or the United States. [FN73] The next section draws on one version of the Dick Whittington story to show how
traditional Anglo-American copyright doctrine operates to bar protection for many folk stories like Dick Whittington.
[FN74]

III. A Parentless State: A Problem for Dick Whittington and for Copyright
Protection for Folk Tales
Once upon a time a boy named Dick Whittington lived in Gloucester. Dick had no mother and no father to look
after him. He was very poor and often had to go to sleep hungry. After hearing people talk about a great city,
London, where the streets were paved in gold, Dick decided to go there to seek his fortune.

At the beginning of the folk tale, Dick Whittington's major problem was his parentless state. As an orphan, he lacked
financial support and status in society. A similar difficulty exists for folk tales like the Dick Whittington story. Such a tale
can be viewed as lacking parents in the sense it has no identifiable individual authors or group of individual authors, but
is rather the product of community development over many years. This parentless state creates serious problems for
protecting folk tales under intellectual property law. The primary type of intellectual property protection for stories is
copyright law. [FN75] *19 Most copyright regimes provide protection for original literary, artistic, dramatic, or musical
works based on folk stories like the Dick Whittington story, provided they have identifiable authors. [FN76] But under
traditional Anglo-American copyright doctrine, many underlying folk tales have no, or only very weak, copyright
protection. [FN77]

When modern western copyright law originated in early eighteenth-century England, it protected individual and
identifiable authors of books, not collaborative creators of folk stories. [FN78] The first modern copyright statute, the
Statute of Anne (1710), gave authors "the sole Liberty of printing or reprinting" their books or of assigning these rights
for a limited period. [FN79] After this period expired, the works would fall into the public domain to be freely used by
anyone. Modern United Kingdom and American copyright doctrine is still premised on the romantic notion of the
individual author as genius-*20 creator that clearly undergirds the Statute of Anne. [FN80] The copyright statute
currently in force in the United Kingdom, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), provides that an author
is generally the first owner of copyright in a work. [FN81] This statute defines an "author" as "the person who creates" a
work. [FN82] This definition reveals that the drafters of the statute must have perceived an author as an individual
identifiable person. The current United States federal copyright act protects "original works of authorship fixed in any
tangible medium of expression." [FN83] Although this statute leaves "authorship" undefined, it is predicated on the
assumption that authors are identifiable individuals. [FN84] The major copyright law treaty, the Berne Convention,
provides that its protection for literary and artistic works extends to "authors," who must be individuals and identifiable.
[FN85] Most countries in the world are members of the Berne Convention. [FN86]

Although most western copyright regimes protect works of joint authors, this protection does not extend to collective
or collaborative works that were not created by individuals who are identified or capable of being identified. For
example, the current United States copyright statute defines a protectable "joint work" as "a work prepared by two or
more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary
whole." [FN87] To be treated as a joint author under United States copyright law requires individually meeting the
standard for authorship by making an independently copyrightable contribution. [FN88] Additionally, *21 there is a
stringent requirement of mutual intent, that is, that the parties "entertain in their minds the concept of joint authorship."
[FN89] Many collaborative contributions to works of folklore would not meet this high standard. [FN90] Moreover, the
fact that the term of protection for a joint work is measured from the death of the last surviving joint author indicates that

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 9

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

joint authors must be individuals and cannot be communities creating a work collectively. [FN91] The United Kingdom
CDPA also protects joint works subject to a similar duration provision [FN92] and requires that each author contribute a
significant part of the skill and labor that the copyright protects. [FN93] In the case of a literary work like a story, a joint
author must contribute to the written expression of the work. [FN94] The Berne Convention has a similar duration
provision for joint works. [FN95] Consequently, the traditional doctrine of joint works cannot be viewed as an exception
to the identifiable author requirement that would operate to extend copyright protection to works of folklore where the
authors are not identifiable or capable of being identified. [FN96]

Nor does the protection given by many western copyright systems to anonymous works create a broad extension of
protection to collective works of folklore. For example, the current United States copyright statute clearly contemplates
that the "anonymous" and "pseudonymous" works to which it extends protection are the works of identifiable individuals,
not collective community products. The statute defines an "anonymous work" as "a work on the copies or phonorecords
of which no natural person is identified as author." [FN97] But the anonymous works protected by the statute do not
include collaborative works developed over time by unidentifiable community members. This is clear from the provision
providing for a change in the duration of copyright protection if an anonymous author's identity becomes known. [FN98]
This provision clearly manifests an underlying requirement *22 that an anonymous author be an identifiable individual.
[FN99] The United Kingdom CDPA also protects "works of unknown authorship," and makes clear that the protection for
anonymous works does not extend to collaborative community works where the authors are not capable of being
identified. [FN100] Like the United States copyright statute, the United Kingdom CDPA provides for a similar shift in the
copyright term where unknown authors become known. [FN101] The Berne Convention has a similar provision. [FN102]

The lack of an individual author or group of individual authors is just one of several doctrinal barriers to copyright
protection for folklore under many traditional western copyright regimes. Other doctrines that may bar protection for
many works of folklore are the limited duration of copyright protection, the fixation requirement, and the originality
requirement.

The traditional Anglo-American conception of copyright is a limited monopoly, granted only for a limited period of
time. The Statute of Anne provided for a copyright term of fourteen years after a book's publication, and this term was
renewable for another fourteen years if the author was still living. [FN103] The United States Constitution bars Congress
from enacting perpetual copyright protection. [FN104] The current United States Copyright Act provides that the basic
term of copyright protection is the life of the author plus seventy years. [FN105] The United Kingdom CDPA protects
literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works for the life of the author plus fifty years. [FN106] All Berne Convention
member states must grant a minimum basic term of copyright protection of life of the author plus fifty years. [FN107]
These terms are certainly usually very long--well over a century for many works. [FN108] *23 But, they are not long
enough to protect folk stories created hundreds of years ago, like the Dick Whittington folktale.

The fixation requirement is another barrier to protection for many folk tales like the Dick Whittington story. Some
western copyright systems, including that of the United States, require that works be "fixed in any tangible medium of
expression" as a prerequisite for copyright protection. [FN109] The Berne Convention permits its members to implement
a fixation requirement, although it does not make this mandatory. [FN110] The current United States copyright statute
has a broad fixation requirement for all types of works. It defines "fixed" as "when its embodiment in a copy or
phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived,
reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration." [FN111] A story will be fixed
when it is written down on paper or spoken into a tape recorder. The United Kingdom CDPA has a more limited fixation
requirement that only applies to some works, but these include literary works like stories. [FN112] An unwritten folk tale
created and developed orally through storytelling would not satisfy the fixation requirement.

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 10

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

Such a folk story might also run afoul of the traditional copyright requirement that works be sufficiently original.
Although the Berne Convention does not specifically provide for originality as a prerequisite for protection, most
member states have an originality and independent creation requirement. [FN113] For example, both the United States
and United Kingdom have originality requirements. The United States Copyright Act limits copyright protection to
"original *24 works of authorship." [FN114] The Supreme Court has stated that originality is the "sine qua non of
copyright." [FN115] The statute does not define originality, but courts have held that to be original does not require that a
work be novel or a work of artistic genius. [FN116] Originality does not require novelty, only independent creation and
some minimal "creative spark," even if "crude, humble or obvious." [FN117] A work based on a preexisting work must
have some distinguishable variation from the prior work that is more than merely trivial. [FN118] Even though the
Supreme Court has described the originality requirement as "not particularly stringent," [FN119] many works of folklore
that develop incrementally over time based on preexisting works may not meet the originality requirement. [FN120]
Even if they do, only the new aspects will be protected and not the preexisting work. [FN121] United Kingdom copyright
law also requires stories to be "original" to be protected. [FN122] As under United States law, neither novelty nor artistic
merit is necessary. All that is required is the independent creation of a work through the exercise of sufficient skill, labor,
or judgment. [FN123] As the English Court of Appeal has recently stated, a work "may be complete rubbish and utterly
worthless, but copyright protection may be available for it, just as it is for the great masterpieces of imaginative literature,
art and music." [FN124]

Because current United States copyright law does not grant copyright protection to "sweat of the brow," or hard
work expended in creating a work unless there is some minimal level of creativity, simply writing down an oral folk story
will not be enough to obtain copyright rights in the folk story itself, although a particular selection or arrangement of folk
stories in an anthology could be copyrightable as a *25 compilation. [FN125] The position in the United Kingdom and
other Commonwealth countries may be different because copyright can protect skill and labor, but even under this
slightly different originality test, writing down a folk story would still not result in the grant of broad copyright rights in
that story. [FN126] In 1989, Lord Oliver stated obiter, in the Privy Council decision in Interlego A.G. v. Tyco Industries
Inc., that originality requires something more than the effort expended to make an exact or literal copy like a tracing or an
enlargement of a photograph from a positive print. [FN127] But in the early twentieth century case of Walter v. Lane, the
House of Lords found that a verbatim shorthand report for a newspaper of a political speech was entitled to copyright
protection because the reporter had expended skill and labor to accurately take down the words. [FN128] However, since
the speech was in the public domain, any other newspaper reporter was also free to make her own shorthand report of it.
[FN129] Although Walter v. Lane was decided before the originality requirement had been put into statute (in the
Copyright Act of 1911), [FN130] later English and Australian decisions have held it to be good law. [FN131] Very
recently, in Sawkins v. Hyperion Records Ltd., the English Court of Appeal followed the approach of Walter in
dismissing an appeal brought by the producer and seller of sound recordings against a judgment of copyright
infringement in several performing editions of works of a seventeenth-century composer, Michel-Richard de Lalande,
that a modern musicologist had prepared. [FN132] The musicologist had not composed or arranged any music himself,
but had attempted to accurately reproduce the Lalande works, which required considerable scholarship and interpretation.
[FN133] Since Lalande died in the eighteenth century, his musical works had long been in the public domain, but the
Court of Appeal found the performing editions, completed in 2001 and thus still within the term of copyright protection,
were sufficiently original to be protected by copyright because of the skill, effort, and labor that the musicologist *26 had
invested in making them. [FN134] But the copyright in the performing editions did not include copyright in Lalande's
musical works, and would not prevent other musicologists from copying those works themselves or making their own
performing editions. [FN135]

The cumulative result of the authorship, duration, fixation, and originality doctrines in the United States and the
United Kingdom, as well as in many other western copyright regimes, is that many folk stories, like the Dick Whittington
folk tale, have no or only very thin copyright protection. Although some tribal and customary laws protect community-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 11

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

generated oral folklore, the protection of such customary law is weak because the customary norms of a traditional
society can only bind members of that society, not outsiders, and many members of indigenous communities are
increasingly less respectful of these norms. [FN136]

IV. Like Mr Fitzwarren's Efforts to Protect Dick, Attempts to Strengthen


Intellectual Property Protection for Folklore
When Dick arrived in London, footsore and weary after walking all the way from Gloucester, he searched in
vain for a street paved in gold. Utterly exhausted, he fell asleep on the steps of a grand house belonging to a wealthy
merchant, Mr. Fitzwarren. Dick's random choice of a resting place was a lucky one. Mr. Fitzwarren was a good-
hearted and generous man who gave Dick a room in his home as well as a job as a scullery boy. Mr. Fitzwarren
always treated Dick kindly.

Like Mr. Fitzwarren's efforts to look after Dick and treat him well, from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, there were
quite a few legal initiatives on the national and international level to implement stronger legal protections for folk stories
and other types of folklore than traditional western copyright law or tribal/customary law provided. These efforts
included a late 1960s revision to the major international copyright treaty, the Berne Convention. From the late 1960s
through the 1970s, several countries, mainly in the developing world, enacted national copyright laws that gave specific
protection to works of folklore notwithstanding the difficulties posed by traditional copyright doctrine. Additionally, in
the early 1980s, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) [FN137] and *27
WIPO [FN138] drafted Model Provisions designed to overcome doctrinal barriers to protection in copyright law through
the implementation of sui generis intellectual property protection for folklore into national laws. Some countries,
particularly in the developing world, have used the Model Provisions as the basis for enacting more extensive intellectual
property laws protecting folklore. This trend has been especially pronounced in Africa, where the majority of countries
have implemented, or are in the process of implementing, national laws giving copyright or sui generis protection to
unpublished folk stories handed down orally from generation to generation.

A. 1960s Revision to the Berne Convention: Article 15(4)

As previously discussed, when the Berne Convention was originally concluded in 1886, it only protected works
created by identifiable authors, thus excluding many folk tales and other folkloric works from protection. [FN139] But by
the late 1960s, some developing countries successfully exerted pressure to revise the treaty to give additional protection
to works of folklore. At the Stockholm Diplomatic Conference for the revision of the Berne Convention in 1967, the
Indian delegation proposed adding "works of folklore" to the list of protected literary and artistic works in Article 2(1) of
the Berne *28 Convention. [FN140] The proposal encountered successful opposition, especially from the Australian
delegation, which argued that it would undermine the basic structure of the Berne Convention that was set up to protect
identifiable authors. [FN141] A special Working Group on Folklore, set up after the Indian proposal failed, came up with
a more successful alternate proposal that resulted in the addition of a new Article 15(4) to the treaty. [FN142] This
provides:
(a) In the case of unpublished works where the identity of the author is unknown, but where there is every
ground to presume that he is a national of a country of the Union, it shall be a matter for legislation in that country to
designate the competent authority which shall represent the author and shall be entitled to protect and enforce his
rights in the countries of the Union.

(b) Countries of the Union which make such designation under the terms of this provision, shall notify the Director
General by means of a written declaration giving full information concerning the authority thus designated. The Director
General shall at once communicate this Declaration to all other countries of the Union. [FN143]

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 12

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

The new Article 15(4) does not include the term "folklore" because it was considered too difficult to define, but
applies to all works that are unpublished and whose author(s) is unidentified. [FN144] There is clear evidence in the
legislative history, however, that the purpose of adding this new provision was to protect folklore in particular. [FN145]
Nevertheless, Article 15(4)'s new protection was quite weak because it left it up to individual countries to make a
designation of an official representative for the author of works of folklore. Only one country, India, has ever made such
a designation. [FN146]

*29 B. National Copyright Legislation in the 1960s and 1970s

In the 1960s and 1970s, a few countries, mostly in the developing world, enacted copyright laws specifically
extending protection to collective and collaborative works of folklore. These included Tunisia (1966), Bolivia (1968),
Chile (1970), Iran (1970), Morocco (1970), Algeria (1973), Senegal (1973), Kenya (1975), Mali (1977), and Burundi
(1978). [FN147] These laws attempted to circumvent the doctrinal problem of a lack of an identifiable individual author
by treating the national government as the author, based on the rationale that folklore is part of the national cultural
heritage. [FN148] These laws applied a domaine public payant system, under which users of folklore had to make
payments to the national government, like royalty payments to authors. [FN149] The majority of these laws required the
approval of a government body to use folklore in derivative works that adapted folklore for commercial purposes or to
fix folklore for commercial purposes. [FN150] These laws did not uniformly define the folklore they protected. For *30
example, they differed as to whether such folklore was limited only to unpublished works. [FN151] They also used
different terminology as to what was protected, including: "folklore," "works of folklore," and "expressions of
folklore." [FN152]

These laws had a number of weaknesses, both substantive and practical. Some of these national laws were vague as
to what folklore they protected. For example, the laws of Chile, Mali, and Tunisia simply indicated that they were
protecting the common national heritage without attempting to define folklore. [FN153] These national laws did not
specifically state how they overcame the traditional copyright barrier of a copyright term that was limited in duration,
although some observers interpreted their protection to folklore as unlimited in time. [FN154] These laws' domaine
public payant system was also subject to criticism for failing to ensure that payments for use of folklore went to the
communities that had created it. [FN155] Some jurisdictions did not make their copyright protections of folklore
effective in practice. For example, the Kenyan statute included a provision that empowered the Attorney General to make
regulations setting out terms and conditions governing specified uses of folklore other than by national public entities for
non-commercial purposes or importation of foreign works that embodied folklore. [FN156] But these regulations were
never made. [FN157]

Most jurisdictions did not endorse the approach of these national laws, and continued to follow the traditional
western author-centric copyright model that provided no protection to folklore that was not the product of an identifiable
individual author or group of such authors. Traditional creations by communities, such as folktales, were left without
protection. Traditional duration requirements left older folkloric works created by identifiable individual authors without
protection, *31 and traditional fixation requirements did not protect stories that were not written down.

C. Efforts to Protect Folklore at the International Level Culminating in the 1982 Model Provisions

By the early 1970s, some developing countries also came to the view that there was a need for stronger international
protection of folklore. In 1973, Bolivia put pressure on UNESCO to draft an international instrument to protect folklore.
[FN158] In 1976, a Committee of Governmental Experts convened in Tunisia and, with the help of WIPO and UNESCO,
adopted a model copyright law providing protection for works of national folklore that radically altered some traditional
Anglo-American copyright doctrines. [FN159] This Tunis Model Law gave perpetual ownership type protection to such

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 13

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

works and did not require them to be fixed to receive protection. [FN160]

After the creation of the Tunis Model Law, UNESCO convened a Committee of Experts on the Legal Protection of
Folklore in Tunis in the summer of 1977. [FN161] This Committee agreed that there should be a more comprehensive
assessment of the problems of protecting folklore. [FN162] UNESCO and WIPO then convened a Working Group of
sixteen invited experts that met in Geneva in January of 1980 to consider a draft of a model law designed to be used in
national legislation to better protect folklore. [FN163] The Working Group agreed that adequate legal protection for
folklore was desirable. [FN164] It supported the use of model provisions that could be incorporated into national laws,
viewing these as a first step to regional and international protections for folklore. [FN165] The Working Group's
amended draft of the model law was considered by a Committee of Government Experts convened by UNESCO and
WIPO, which adopted the "Model Provisions for National *32 Laws on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore Against
Illicit Exploitation and Other Prejudicial Actions" (Model Provisions) in 1982. [FN166]

Certainly recognizing the doctrinal difficulties with protecting folklore under copyright law, the drafters of the
Model Provisions preferred a sui generis type of protection. They chose to use the term "expressions of folklore" in the
Model Provisions rather than the more typical copyright law term "works of folklore" in order to make clear that the
protection was sui generis, not copyright. [FN167] Under the Model Provisions, certain utilizations of expressions of
folklore, with both gainful intent and outside their traditional or customary context, generally require authorization of a
"competent authority," or if a particular country prefers, the "community concerned." [FN168] These uses include various
public disseminations of expressions of folklore, including publication and reproduction of copies, as well as
communication to the public by performance, recitation, and broadcast. [FN169] A country can also give authority to a
supervisory body to set a tariff of fees payable for authorized utilizations of expressions of folklore. [FN170] The choice
of supervisory or competent authority, including possibly a representative body for a community, is left to the individual
country. [FN171]

By implementing this authorization requirement, the Model Provisions sought to strike a balance that would ensure
traditional communities could continue to use and develop their traditional cultural heritage in traditional and customary
ways, and that expressions of folklore could be preserved by archivists or studied by researchers. [FN172] The Model
Provisions exempt some utilizations from the authorization requirement: utilizations for educational purposes;
utilizations "by way of illustration" in the original works of an author; utilizations by "borrowing" expressions of
folklore for creating an original work of authorship; and "incidental utilizations," including reporting on current events
and displaying expressions of folklore in museums visited by the public. [FN173] These exceptions are also directed
toward striking the right balance between protecting folklore against abuse and ensuring that it could be used for socially
beneficial purposes, such as *33 education and the free development of individual creativity inspired by folklore.
[FN174]

The Model Provisions also manifest a concern for giving communities the means for greater control over uses of
their expressions of folklore. Even where a use of an expression of folklore does not require authorization, the Model
Provisions provide that in many cases, it will require an acknowledgment of the source of the expression of folklore.
[FN175] Where an expression of folklore is used in a printed publication or otherwise communicated to the public,
mention must be made of "the community and/or geographic place from where the expression utilized has been derived."
[FN176] No acknowledgment of source is required where there is an "incidental use" of an expression of folklore or
where it is borrowed to create a new original work of authorship. [FN177] Nor will an acknowledgment of source be
required if it is impossible for a user to know the geographic place or community that was the source of the expression of
folklore. [FN178] The Model Provisions further provide that they do not obviate the need for permission under copyright
law if an expression of folklore being used is protected by copyright law. [FN179]

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 14

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

The Model Provisions also provide that willful, and possibly negligent, failure to comply with its requirements for
acknowledging a source shall be a criminal offense. [FN180] Violating the authorization requirements is also a criminal
offense under the Model Provisions. [FN181] Additionally, they provide that willfully deceiving the public about the
source of expressions of folklore or willfully distorting any expression of folklore in the course of a public use in a
manner that is prejudicial to the cultural interests of the community concerned shall be a criminal offense. [FN182] The
Model Provisions leave it up to the particular country to determine what sanctions should be imposed for these offenses,
though the accompanying commentary indicates that fines and imprisonment would be the main possible sanctions.
[FN183] As for the offense of use without authorization, civil remedies may also be awarded for violations of the source
acknowledgment provisions. [FN184]

Unlike traditional western copyright laws, the Model Provisions provide for an unlimited term of protection for
expressions of folklore. *34[ FN185] The Commentary to the Model Provisions gives the reason for this as being that the
beneficiaries of the protection are not individuals with a finite lifespan but a community. [FN186] It also states, however,
that the unlimited duration of protection does not exclude application of a country's ordinary statute of limitations.
[FN187]

The Model Provisions do not fully explain the concept of protectable folklore. Protection under the Model
Provisions is limited to "artistic heritage" developed by a community and does not extend to the entire cultural heritage of
a nation. [FN188] This can include "verbal expressions, such as folk tales, folk poetry and riddles . . . ." [FN189] The
Commentary to the Model Provisions states that one example of traditional cultural heritage that would not fall into the
narrower "artistic heritage" category is the "substance of legends," giving as a specific example the "commonly known
course of life of traditional heroes like King Arthur and his knights." [FN190] However, a verbal expression "which
would qualify as literature if created individually by an author," a musical expression, or an "expression[ ] by action and
[a] tangible expression[ ]" could qualify for protection as an expression of folklore if it were a "characteristic element" of
a particular community's traditional artistic heritage. [FN191] Unlike traditional copyright protection, the Model
Provisions do not require that expressions of folklore be fixed in order to be protected. [FN192]

The extent to which the Model Provisions would protect the Dick Whittington folktale as an "expression of folklore"
is not entirely clear from the confusing and vague discussion of artistic heritage in the Commentary to the Model
Provisions. The Commentary does not explain how it is to be determined whether a particular verbal expression qualifies
as representing a distinct traditional heritage of a community. [FN193] It appears from the Commentary that the general
subject matter of the Dick Whittington story would not be protected as an expression of folklore, but that a verbal
expression of that subject matter would be protected. The Model Provisions state that an example of a "verbal
expression" is a "folk tale." [FN194] But, they do not specify any test or method for separating what is a protectable
expression in a folk tale from the unprotectable substance of the legend. It seems that the Model Provisions are
attempting to set up something like the *35 idea-expression dichotomy in United States copyright law. [FN195] But, they
do not make clear how an unprotectable idea is to be separated from a protectable expression, especially when it cannot
be determined which elements of a folktale, like the Dick Whittington story, are really historical facts. [FN196] The
Model Provisions do not require that a competent authority or community keep an inventory of its folklore. [FN197]

D. Implementation of the Model Provisions into National Laws

Some countries, particularly in the developing world, have used the Model Provisions as the basis for enacting more
extensive intellectual property laws protecting folklore. A majority of African countries have either implemented or are in
the process of implementing copyright or sui generis intellectual property protections for folk stories and other types of
folklore into their national laws. Many of these laws are based on the Model Provisions. One example is a recent
copyright and neighboring rights statute enacted in the United Republic of Tanzania. [FN198]

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 15

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

Under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act of 1999, Tanzania gives intellectual property protection to
"expressions of folklore developed and maintained in the United Republic of Tanzania." [FN199] Following the Model
Provisions, Tanzania also extends such protection to foreign expressions of folklore under a national treatment rule
requiring that the jurisdiction where the foreign expression of folklore originated give protection equivalent to that of
Tanzania. [FN200]

The Tanzanian statute defines the scope of protected folklore very similarly to the Model Provisions. It also protects
"expressions of folklore," which it defines using almost identical language to that of the Model Provisions, as productions
"consisting of characteristic elements of the traditional artistic heritage developed and maintained over generations by a
community or by individuals reflecting the *36 traditional artistic expectations of their community." [FN201] The
examples of expressions of folklore supplied in the Tanzanian statute are also very similar to the Model Provisions in that
they are stated to be non-exclusive and include folk tales, folk poetry, riddles, folk songs, instrumental folk music, folk
dances, plays, artistic forms of rituals, productions of folk art in drawings, paintings, carvings, sculptures, pottery,
terracotta, mosaic, wood work, metal ware, jewelry, baskets, costumes, and traditional musical instruments. [FN202]

The Tanzanian law also closely follows the Model Provisions in making certain uses of expressions of folklore
subject to authorization of a competent authority, the National Arts Council. These include the reproduction and
distribution of copies or communication to the public by, for example, broadcasting, performing, or public recitation
where the folklore is used both "with gainful intent and outside their traditional and customary context." [FN203] The
Tanzanian exceptions to this authorization requirement are virtually identical to those in the Model Provisions, including:
uses of expressions of folklore for educational purposes, as illustrations in original works (as long as this is "compatible
with fair practice"), "borrowing" expressions of folklore for use in original derivative works, and certain incidental uses,
such as in news reports or in museum displays open to the public. [FN204] The Model Provisions leave the determination
of whether such authorization has to be in writing to the national government implementing them. [FN205] The
Tanzanian law requires that such an application be in writing. [FN206] Tracking discretionary wording in the Model
Provisions, the Tanzanian statute provides for payment of authorization fees that correspond to a tariff set by the National
Arts Council which is to be used to promote or safeguard national culture. [FN207]

*37 Like the Model Provisions, the Tanzanian statute also requires an acknowledgment of source, akin to a moral
right of attribution, in certain situations. Also similar to the Model Provisions, the Tanzanian law requires users of
expressions of folklore like folk tales to indicate their source by "mentioning the community and/or geographic place
from which the expression utilized has been derived" in "all printed publications, and in connection with any
communications to the public." [FN208]

The Model Provisions leave it up to national governments to determine applicable sanctions. [FN209] Under the
Tanzanian statute, violations are subject to terms of imprisonment and fines, which can be hefty. [FN210] Unauthorized
importation, distribution, reproduction, or adaptation of expressions of folklore are subject to a fine of up to 10 million
shillings or imprisonment of up to ten years. [FN211] The offense of using expressions of folklore that "willfully
distort[ ] the same in a way prejudicial to the cultural interests of the community concerned" is punishable with a fine of
up to five million shillings or imprisonment of up to three years. [FN212] A person found guilty of willfully violating the
attribution requirement is also subject to the same term of imprisonment or fine. [FN213]

Other African nations have enacted, or are in the process of enacting, enhanced legal protections for folklore that
either specifically include folk stories or are broadly expressed enough to include folk stories. These include Algeria,
[FN214] Angola, [FN215] Benin, [FN216] Botswana, [FN217] *38 Burkino Faso, [FN218] Burundi, [FN219]
Cameroon, [FN220] Côte d'Ivoire, [FN221] Djibouti, [FN222] Egypt, [FN223] Ghana, [FN224] Mali, [FN225] Malawi,

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 16

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

[FN226] Morocco, [FN227] Namibia, [FN228] Nigeria, [FN229] Niger, [FN230] Senegal, [FN231] Seychelles, [FN232]
Togo, [FN233] *39 and Zimbabwe. [FN234] Most of these laws are based, to varying degrees, on the Model Provisions
and implement a kind of sui generis protection into their copyright statutes as a neighboring right. But a few jurisdictions,
such as Angola and the Seychelles, have stretched traditional copyright doctrine to extend perpetual copyright protection
to unwritten folk tales and some other unwritten works of folklore handed down from generation to generation. [FN235]
The most recent Kenyan copyright statute has a provision authorizing the minister responsible for copyright to regulate
specified uses of folklore except use by a national public entity for non-commercial purposes, as well as the importation
of foreign-made works that embody certain works of folklore, including folk stories, created within Kenya by unknown
authors, handed down between the generations, and which constitute a "basic element of the traditional cultural heritage
of Kenya." [FN236] But no such regulations have yet been promulgated.

V. Like Rats, Cruel Colleagues, and Poverty: Difficulties for Intellectual


Property Protection for Folklore
Despite Mr. Fitzwarren's kindness, Dick's problems were far from over in his new London home. His room was
infested with rats that ran across his bed at night, making it impossible for him to get a good night's sleep. Dick's
immediate supervisor, Mr. Fitzwarren's cook, was a cruel man who made Dick's life miserable. And Dick was still
very poor.

Just as Dick's difficulties were not over even after Mr. Fitzwarren gave him a home, significant obstacles still faced
those seeking to increase intellectual property protection for folk tales and other kinds of folklore even after the creation
of the Model Provisions. The lack of clarity in the Model Provisions about what aspects of a folk story they protect is not
their only weakness. Even proponents of stronger protection for folklore have expressed additional reasons for
dissatisfaction *40 with the Model Provisions. One concern is that the Model Provisions are not broad enough and that
they should extend not only to folklore but also other types of traditional knowledge, such as traditional medicine or
agricultural knowledge. [FN237] Another criticism of the Model Provisions is that they are not powerful enough because
they do not provide for exclusive ownership rights for folklore and are not broad enough to protect, for example, against
digital use of folk stories. [FN238] Still another is that the more than twenty year old Model Provisions are now out of
date, especially given the significant technological, legal, social, and cultural developments since that time. [FN239]

Of even greater practical significance is the fact that the Model Provisions are not law and thus not themselves
capable of enforcement unless they have been implemented into national law. Even though as discussed above, some
countries have been willing to implement protections based on the Model Provisions into their national laws, a recent
WIPO study found that "it appears that there are few countries in which it may be said that such provisions are actively
utilized and functioning effectively in practice." [FN240] Additionally, many countries in the developed world have been
far less willing to implement or use these types of protections.

Some take the view that specific intellectual property protections for intangible works of folklore, like the sui generis
protections in the Model Provisions, are not necessary or desirable. Many industrialized western nations, such as the
United States and the United Kingdom, do not provide comprehensive intellectual property protection for intangible
works of folklore such as folk tales that, like the Dick Whittington story, were created years ago by an unknown author
and transmitted orally from generation to generation. [FN241] The United States has enacted a few highly specific
provisions protecting specific types of folklore against disparagement or counterfeiting, such as the Indian Arts and
Crafts Act that seeks to ensure the authenticity of Indian artifacts that are marketed as "Indian made." [FN242] Section
2(a) of the Lanham Act permits the United States Patent and Trademark Office to refuse registration of trademarks that
falsely suggest a connection *41 with an indigenous tribe or beliefs held by that tribe. [FN243] But neither of these
specific laws would give protection to folk stories. [FN244] The United Kingdom CDPA has a provision, section 169,
providing that where a Berne Union country has designated a competent body to represent the interests of unknown

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 17

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

authors of certain unpublished works of folklore, including folk tales under Article 15(4) of the Berne Convention, the
United Kingdom, through a designation by Her Majesty's Order in Council, may recognize the power of that body to
enforce copyright in the work. [FN245] In practice, this exception will almost never apply because only India has ever
made such a designation under the Berne Convention and no United Kingdom Order in Council has yet been made.
[FN246]

Some countries' laws explicitly bar folklore from receiving copyright protection, although they may still permit
protection for original derivative works based on folklore. An example is the Republic of Armenia's Law on Copyright
and Related Rights. [FN247] Other countries that exclude folklore from copyright protection are: Azerbaijan, [FN248]
Belarus, [FN249] Bosnia-Herzegovina, [FN250] Bulgaria, [FN251] Estonia, [FN252] Kazakhstan, *42[ FN253]
Madagascar, [FN254] Lithuania, [FN255] Moldova, [FN256] Russia, [FN257] and Ukraine. [FN258]

Jurisdictions that do not provide specific protections for expressions of folklore apparently do so for two main
reasons. [FN259] The first is the belief that existing intellectual property rights provide adequate protection to folklore.
[FN260] The second is the view that it is inappropriate or unnecessary to protect expressions of folklore because they are
part of the national cultural heritage and should be in the public domain for use by everyone. [FN261]

The first reason, the perceived adequacy of existing intellectual property laws, has motivated many industrialized
western countries not to implement specific intellectual property protections for folklore. [FN262] These include
Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland, and the United States of
America. [FN263] According to this rationale, folktales are adequately protected by copyright law because they are not
entirely excluded from protection. A folk story is protected in a copyright system applying traditional western copyright
doctrines if an individual author created the story, it was sufficiently original, it had not yet fallen into the public *43
domain by reason of expiration of the copyright term, and it was fixed in some tangible medium of expression. [FN264]

Countries that have stated the second rationale, inappropriateness of protection, as a reason for their reluctance to
provide specific legal protections for folklore also include quite a few developed countries, including Australia, Belgium,
Canada, the Czech Republic, Italy, Netherlands, the Russian Federation, and Japan. [FN265] The Russian Federation has
stated that "[c]ultural heritage is universal property, therefore prohibition of its use is inappropriate since elements of
traditional knowledge and culture are interwoven into everyday life in all places." [FN266] Not only developed countries
have been persuaded by these two rationales: one or both of them have also motivated some lesser developed countries,
including Honduras, Kyrgystan, Vietnam, and Gambia. [FN267]

As the Model Provisions have failed to spur universal specific national sui generis intellectual property protections
for folklore, many people, especially from developing countries and indigenous communities, have grown increasingly
concerned about exploitation of folk stories and other forms of folklore outside of their traditional cultures. One example
is Disney's use of an ancient Chinese folktale, the "Ballad of Mulan," in the animated 1998 film, Mulan. [FN268] The
film received considerable criticism for distorting the original folk story and Chinese history, [FN269] as well as racial
stereotyping. [FN270] For example, Weimin Mo and Wenju Shen, two professors of education who are originally from
China, have charged that the "Disney bulldozer rolls over the Chinese culture" because the filmmakers "lacked the sense
of an organic cultural context." [FN271] Mo and Shen consider the motive for Mulan's decision to go to war in the
Disney film, to "be true to herself," as a fundamental misrepresentation of Chinese culture because the original "Ballad of
Mulan" was a celebration of Mulan's Confucian filial piety and self-sacrifice. [FN272] They point out other cultural
inaccuracies in the film, such as the false portrayal of cross-dressing as taboo in Chinese culture; the use of music
purporting to be Chinese but not *44 using the traditional Chinese pentatonic scale; the depiction of Mulan in supposedly
traditional Chinese makeup, which in fact appears Japanese; the inaccurate depiction of the work of Chinese
matchmakers; and the depiction of a cricket as a symbol of good luck. [FN273] According to Mo and Shen, Disney

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 18

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

"rob[bed] the story of its soul and in its place they put jokes, songs, and scary effects." [FN274] Such concerns have put
increasing pressure on international organizations to develop stronger protections for folklore at the international level.

Indigenous peoples have expressed their concerns about protecting folklore and traditional knowledge from
commercial exploitation in a number of declarations. These include the Mataatua Declaration (1993) [FN275] and the
Beijing Declaration of Indigenous Women (1995). [FN276] The Mataatua Declaration called on state, national, and
international agencies to recognize that existing intellectual property laws are insufficient for the protection of indigenous
peoples' cultural and intellectual property rights. The Declaration also recommended the development of a stronger
intellectual property rights regime that would protect collective works, provide a "multi-generational coverage span,"
provide retroactive protection, and protect against debasement of items that were culturally significant. [FN277] The
Beijing Declaration of Indigenous Women demanded that "our inalienable rights to our intellectual and cultural heritage
be recognized and respected" and also demanded that "the western concept and practice of intellectual property rights as
defined by the TRIPS in GATT, not be applied to Indigenous peoples [sic] communities and territories." [FN278] These
declarations did not specifically refer to folk stories, but were worded broadly enough to encompass them as well as
many other kinds of folklore and traditional culture.

VI. The Recipe for Overcoming Difficulties: Hard Work, Luck, and Patronage
Resourcefulness, luck, and the kindness of his benefactor led to Dick's success in overcoming his difficulties.
One day Dick earned a small sum of money shining a rich gentleman's shoes. He spent it on a cat that chased away
all the rats in his room. This hard work *45 and canny purchase solved the problem of the rats, so Dick could finally
sleep at night. The kind-hearted Mr. Fitzwarren then set a chain of events in motion that ended Dick's other problems
too. One day Mr. Fitzwarren called all of his servants together and offered them an opportunity to make some money
of their own. One of the merchant's ships was about to depart for the Indies on a trading mission. Mr. Fitzwarren told
his servants that they could send something on the ship to be traded. Dick only had one possession that could be sent,
his cat. With a heavy heart, he gave it to Mr. Fitzwarren. Meanwhile, Cook continued to make Dick's life miserable.
One day Dick could bear the situation no longer, and ran away from Mr. Fitzwarren's home. Reaching the edge of
the city at Highgate Hill, he heard Bow Bells [FN279] chime "Turn again, Whittington, thrice Lord Mayor of
London." Amazed and awed, Dick obeyed the command of the bells, and returned to Mr. Fitzwarren's home. When
he arrived, he was greeted with the news that the King of Barbery had purchased his cat for a huge sum of money
because he was desperate to rid his palace of mice. Dick was suddenly a wealthy man.

If proponents of increased folklore protection are to succeed in their efforts to obtain greater folklore protection on
the international level, they will need great effort, patronage, and a large measure of luck, just as Dick Whittington
needed these things to overcome his difficulties. This section's examination of the current efforts to set up an
international regime providing specific intellectual property protection for folklore and other kinds of traditional
knowledge will demonstrate that hard work has not been lacking. A form of patronage can be said to exist in that WIPO
has set up an Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and
Folklore to try to establish the necessary international consensus for an international intellectual property agreement for
the protection of folklore and other kinds of traditional knowledge. Some WTO members are also trying to revise the
TRIPS Agreement to incorporate protection of traditional knowledge. But, it is too early to know whether those in favor
of greater international legal protections for folklore will have the requisite luck to succeed in negotiating an international
instrument protecting folk stories and other kinds of folklore.

*46 A. Discussion and Consultation in and by WIPO and UNESCO on an International Instrument for Intellectual
Property Protection for Folklore: 1984-1999

In December 1984, WIPO and UNESCO convened a Group of Experts to consider a draft treaty based on the Model

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 19

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

Provisions. [FN280] Although the participants recognized that globalization and technological developments were
increasing the use of folklore across geographical boundaries and considered this development to be problematic, they
generally shared the view that it was premature to establish an international treaty. [FN281] They saw two main
problems. First, there were insufficient sources for identifying the expressions of folklore that would be protected.
Second, there was no mechanism to determine how national laws should deal with expressions of folklore that were
traditionally used in more than one country. [FN282]

In 1996, WIPO adopted an international treaty that provided some protection for performances of folk tales and other
types of folklore. The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) explicitly protected performances of
"expressions of folklore" in general, unlike the earlier Rome Convention which had only protected performances of
folklore qualifying as literary or artistic works. [FN283] The WPPT did not give general protection to folk tales and other
forms of folklore themselves, just to performances of them. But at the diplomatic conference at which the WPPT was
adopted, the WIPO Committee of Experts on a Possible Protocol to the Berne Convention and the Committee of Experts
on a Possible Instrument for the Protection of the Rights of Performers and Producers of Phonograms adopted the
recommendation that "provision should be made for the organization of an international forum in order to explore issues
concerning the preservation and protection of expressions of folklore, intellectual property aspects of folklore, and the
harmonization of the different *47 regional interests." [FN284] The Nigerian delegation suggested that UNESCO should
also be involved in this international forum. [FN285]

In the next year, UNESCO and WIPO held a joint World Forum on the Protection of Folklore in Phuket, Thailand,
which took place from April 8 to 10, 1997. [FN286] Around 180 participants from some fifty countries attended this
forum to discuss preservation and conservation of folklore, economic exploitation of expressions of folklore, legal
protection for folklore in national legislation, and international protection for expressions of folklore. [FN287] The
majority of participants adopted a Plan of Action stating that there was a need for international legal protection for
folklore and that such protection should strike a balance between the community owning the folklore and users of the
folklore. [FN288] The Plan of Action also noted that the "participants from the Governments of the United States of
America and the United Kingdom expressly stated that they could not associate themselves with [it]." [FN289]

In 1997, WIPO hired a new director general, Kamil Idris, from the developing country of Sudan. [FN290] Starting in
the next year, WIPO included many activities on protection for folklore and other kinds of traditional cultural expressions
and knowledge into its program and biannual budget. [FN291] Initially, WIPO took what it described as an "exploratory
approach" to the intellectual property aspects of protecting folklore. [FN292] In 1998 and 1999, WIPO carried out nine
fact-finding missions to twenty-eight countries across the globe. [FN293] These missions *48 were designed to
systematically assess the intellectual property needs and expectations of the holders of traditional knowledge and
folklore. [FN294] WIPO published a final report on these fact-finding missions, revised to incorporate comments, in
April 2001 (FFM Report). [FN295] The FFM Report states that the fact-finding missions revealed that traditional
knowledge holders and their representatives had two primary grounds for wanting better protection of folklore and
traditional knowledge: (1) the desire for "positive protection" to ensure that they profited economically from their
cultural expressions; and, (2) the desire for "defensive protection" to control and prevent harm to traditional cultures
through the commercial exploitation of folklore. [FN296] The FFM Report also identified needs and expectations
relevant to folklore, including better clarity on what folklore is to be protected; the identification and documentation of
folklore; the study of how customary law applies to folklore and would interact with intellectual property standards;
training for folklore holders and government officials; the development of national protections for expressions of
folklore followed by regional and international protections; the alteration of intellectual property standards to ensure that
traditional culture is not abused or mistreated; and economic valuation of folklore. [FN297]

In 1999, WIPO, in conjunction with UNESCO, organized four regional consultations on the protection of

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 20

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

"expressions of folklore," held in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and the Caribbean. [FN298] At these
consultations, national representatives of WIPO member states discussed WIPO's work on protection of folklore. In
general, the recommendations of these regional conferences were that WIPO should increase its work to protect folklore
and should focus on: (1) the need to develop sui generis protection through national law, international treaty, or
international guidelines; (2) the need to identify and document expressions of folklore and develop national standards for
such documentation; and (3) the need to study a regional approach to protecting rights in expressions of folklore that
have been traditionally developed or used by more than one country. [FN299] The Asia/Pacific and Arab regional
consultations recommended *49 the Model Provisions serve as a starting point for developing folklore protection.
[FN300] Most of the regional consultations also suggested that WIPO and UNESCO set up a Standing Committee on
Traditional Knowledge and Folklore to work on establishing legal protections for folklore, as well as traditional
knowledge. [FN301]

B. The WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and
Folklore: 2000-2005

WIPO accepted that there should be a forum for discussion to develop the necessary consensus between member
states to set up an international regime of folklore protection. [FN302] The WIPO General Assembly established the
WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and
Folklore (hereinafter "Intergovernmental Committee") in October 2000, and its first session was held from April 30 to
May 3, 2001. [FN303] The Intergovernmental Committee's members are WIPO member states, as well as inter-
governmental, international, and regional non-governmental organizations who are accredited as observers. [FN304] That
*50 there are over 100 such accredited observers shows the very high level of interest in this subject. [FN305]

At the first session of the Intergovernmental Committee, many delegations expressed support for three tasks: (1)
updating the Model Provisions; (2) improving protection for handicrafts; and (3) working to establish an international
system of sui generis protection for expressions of folklore. [FN306] But other delegations, especially developed
countries including Australia, Canada, and the United States, expressed concerns that some of these tasks were
premature. [FN307] For example, at this first session, the United States delegation expressed the view that it was
inadvisable to set up an international regime for the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore before many
members had incorporated such protections into national law and had gained experience from their effects. [FN308] It
also opined that intellectual property law was not the best fit for the protection of traditional knowledge because
intellectual property law was a forward-looking mechanism designed to create incentives for production of creative
works and inventions. The United States delegation also pointed out that intellectual property laws, even newer ones like
database protection and integrated circuit protection, only protected known creators with a known creation date and gave
protection lasting for a limited duration within defined parameters. [FN309] While the United States recognized the
importance of the concerns of indigenous and local communities in seeking to protect traditional knowledge and folklore,
its position was that these concerns, which included self-determination, health, justice, cultural heritage, and land issues,
were not within WIPO's area of expertise and were not really intellectual property issues. [FN310] Despite such
concerns, the Intergovernmental Committee's co-chair summarized the discussions by stating that there was some support
for the tasks and that the issue seemed to be how work should proceed on the tasks, rather than whether it should
proceed. [FN311]

The WIPO Secretariat responded to a number of delegation requests for more information on the experiences of
different countries with the legal protection of folklore by preparing and distributing a *51 questionnaire on national
experiences. [FN312] By January 31, 2002, the WIPO Secretariat had received sixty-four responses to the questionnaire.
[FN313] The Intergovernmental Committee considered these responses at its third session in June 2002. [FN314]

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 21

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

Of the sixty-four respondents to the WIPO questionnaire, twenty-three (36%) had national laws providing specific
intellectual property protection for folklore. [FN315] Most of these provided such protection under copyright laws. These
copyright laws varied as to the extent of protection given to folklore. Some of these national laws, such as those of
Barbados, Indonesia, and Iran, specifically included expressions of folklore as copyrightable works but did not make
many changes to their copyright laws for such expressions of folklore, other than giving them perpetual copyright
protection. [FN316] Other jurisdictions, including Burkino Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Namibia, Mozambique, Mexico,
Senegal, Sri Lanka, Togo, and the United Republic of Tanzania, had laws based, to varying degrees, on the Model
Provisions. [FN317] A few countries--Croatia, Panama, Philippines, and Vietnam--gave sui generis intellectual property
protection to expressions of folklore. [FN318]

More than half of the respondents indicated that their nations did not provide specific legal protection for folklore.
These countries included the United States, Zimbabwe, Jamaica, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Italy, Netherlands, and
Japan. Various reasons for this were provided. These reasons could be grouped into three main categories: (1) existing
intellectual property rights provided sufficient protection; (2) specific legal protections for folklore were not appropriate
or requested; and (3) such protections were under consideration or pending enactment. [FN319]

*52 The WIPO Final Report concluded that "there are few countries in which it may be said that such provisions
[giving specific legal protection for expressions of folklore] are actively utilized and functioning effectively in practice."
[FN320] The Intergovernmental Committee could not identify a single reason for this but concluded that there was a need
to strengthen and employ more effective implementation of such national legislative protections. [FN321] It also
concluded that there was a need for greater awareness and training for indigenous peoples and communities in using and
understanding existing intellectual property laws to protect folklore and traditional knowledge. [FN322] There was also a
need to study when non-intellectual property measures, such as cultural property laws, could adequately protect folklore.
[FN323] The WIPO Final Report proposed that WIPO should, subject to budgetary constraints, provide legal and
technical assistance to more effectively implement legislative provisions protecting folklore (the "First Proposed Task").
[FN324] It also proposed that WIPO should work on updating and improving the Model Provisions in light of the
technological changes since the 1980s (the "Second Proposed Task"). [FN325]

The WIPO Final Report also reported that many respondents had expressed a need for an international agreement for
the protection of expressions of folklore, although some respondents, such as the United States, took the view that it was
premature to develop such an agreement. [FN326] The Final Report proposed that the Intergovernmental Committee
should "examine elements of possible measures, mechanisms or frameworks for the functional extra-territorial protection
of expressions of folklore" (the "Third Proposed Task"). [FN327] This should include examining Article 15(4) of the
Berne Convention and practical limitations on its use, as well as the practical application of the Bangui Agreement, an
African regional agreement with fifteen members that provides protection to expressions of folklore through a domaine
public payant system. [FN328] Finally, the WIPO Final Report provided that there was a need for additional information
on how customary laws operate to regulate the ownership, control, and management of expressions of folklore and how
such laws could be effectively recognized and enforced as part of a larger global system of legal protection for
expressions of folklore. [FN329] It proposed a practical case *53 study of the relationship between customary laws and
intellectual property laws (the "Fourth Proposed Task"). [FN330]

At the third session of the Intergovernmental Committee, held in June 2002, there was discussion of all four of these
proposed tasks. [FN331] A number of developing countries, including the United States, Canada, Switzerland, and
Australia only supported the First and Fourth Proposed Tasks, not the Second and Third. [FN332] The Chair concluded
that the Intergovernmental Committee had only adopted and approved the First and Fourth Proposed Tasks. Egypt
requested, however, that the Second and Third Proposed Tasks not be barred from examination in the future, and the
Chair agreed. [FN333]

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 22

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

The Intergovernmental Committee continued to develop and consider materials on national experiences with legal
protections for folklore. At its fourth session, held in December 2002, the Intergovernmental Committee considered a
number of case studies, presentations, and other information on this subject, including a systematic analysis of national
experiences. [FN334] The Intergovernmental Committee focused its work on the First and Fourth Proposed Tasks, and
did not make any decisions about the Second or Third Proposed Tasks. [FN335] But it was laying the groundwork for
future discussions on an international agreement for legal protection of folklore, as well as creating a resource for WIPO
to provide legal and technical assistance for the strengthening and effective implementation of national protections of
folklore. This work continued at the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Committee, held in July 2003. [FN336] At this
session, the Intergovernmental Committee discussed an updated version of the systematic analysis of national
experiences, as well as a comparison of existing sui generis protection for expressions of folklore and an update *54 on
technical cooperation on the legal protection of traditional expressions of folklore. [FN337]

At its more recent meetings, the Intergovernmental Committee started to work on the development of policy
objectives and core principles for the protection of folklore. At its sixth session, held in March 2004, the
Intergovernmental Committee considered a document on legal and policy options and decided to develop an overview of
policy objectives and core principles. [FN338] The Intergovernmental Committee requested the Secretariat prepare a
draft overview of these policy objectives and core principles, as well as an outline of the policy options and legal
mechanisms for the protection of expressions of folklore that included some brief analysis of the policy and practical
implications of each option. [FN339] At its seventh session in November 2004, the Intergovernmental Committee
examined this draft overview of policy objectives and core principles. [FN340] The Intergovernmental Committee also
reviewed the Secretariat's outline of the policy options and legal mechanisms for protection of expressions of folklore.
*55[ FN341] Additionally, the Intergovernmental Committee noted the detailed comments and drafting suggestions that
had already been made on the draft objectives and core principles and called for further comments to be provided prior to
February 25, 2005. [FN342] The Committee also asked the Secretariat to produce a revised draft for consideration at the
next session. [FN343] At its most recent session, the eighth session, held in early June 2005, the Committee considered
this revised draft. [FN344] It did not make any decisions on the draft objectives and core principles but simply noted the
diversity of viewpoints expressed on the issues. [FN345]

C. The Current Draft Revised Objectives and Principles Under Consideration at the Most Recent WIPO
Intergovernmental Committee Session in June 2005

The draft Revised Objectives and Principles under consideration at the eighth session includes substantive standards
that could form the content of new international standards providing for protection against misappropriation or misuse of
expressions of folklore without necessarily providing for distinct property rights (though not preventing those from being
included later). [FN346] Some participants expressed the view that the Intergovernmental Committee is not taking the
right approach to protection. For example, the United States delegation opined that the Intergovernmental Committee's
use of the term "protection" is too narrow and should also include the concepts of preservation, conservation, and
promotion of expressions of folklore. [FN347] Other members disagree, believing that these can be left to other
intergovernmental and non-governmental efforts. [FN348] Another view of *56 the draft is that it fails to give strong
enough protections to expressions of folklore. [FN349] However, its substantive standards are broader in many respects
than those of the Model Provisions, including the scope of the expressions of folklore that are protected and the extent of
protection for at least certain kinds of them.

For example, although both the draft and Model Provisions protect "expressions of folklore," not just folklore,
[FN350] and neither require fixation, the draft does not limit the scope of its protection to "traditional artistic heritage
developed and maintained by a community," as the Model Provisions do. [FN351] Instead, the draft extends protection

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 23

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

more broadly to traditional cultural expressions of folklore (these terms are used synonymously in the draft) with
sufficient links to a community's cultural and social heritage. [FN352] The draft describes this link requirement using the
adjective "characteristic" that the Model Provisions also use to describe the requisite link with "artistic heritage."
[FN353] The commentary to the draft indicates that to have such a link, an expression of folklore must be passed through
at least two generations. [FN354] But assuming this is the case, the removal of the "artistic heritage" limit would protect
a much broader array of folk stories than the Model Provisions. The Model Provisions draw a distinction between a
protectable artistic form of expression of a legend and an unprotectable underlying legend. [FN355] The draft, in
contrast, does not make this distinction, instead specifically stating that stories, epics, and legends are protectable
expressions of folklore. [FN356]

The extent of protection is also broader under the draft than the Model Provisions, at least for some expressions of
folklore. Unlike the Model Provisions, the draft provides for different "layers" of protection for different kinds of
expressions of folklore. Those which are "of particular cultural or spiritual value or significan[t] to a community" can be
registered, and if so, require prior informed consent for certain uses. [FN357] Such uses include various public
disseminations of the expression of folklore, the exercise of intellectual property rights over *57 the expression of
folklore, uses of the expression of folklore that do not acknowledge the source community, and distortion or
modification or other derogatory actions of the expression of folklore. [FN358] This is stronger protection than that
given by the Model Provisions because it effectively grants a right of adaptation for registered or notified expressions of
folklore of particular cultural or spiritual value. [FN359] Certain performances that qualify as expressions of folklore are
also given this strong protection, provided that they are notified or registered. [FN360] There is a slightly different level
of protection in the draft for secret expressions of folklore, which would have a right of first dissemination. [FN361] The
Model Provisions do not have this type of protection.

The draft gives folklore that is not registered or notified a lower level of protection. Uses of such folklore do not
require prior consent under the draft, but the way in which they are used would be regulated. In particular, there should
be "adequate and effective legal and practical measures" to ensure that certain moral rights are respected, including a
right of attribution requiring identification of the community that is the source of an expression of folklore, as well as an
integrity right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or other modification or derogatory action in relation to an expression of
folklore. [FN362] There should also be similar legal measures to prevent certain types of unfair competition, such as
falsely suggesting a link with traditional cultural expression of a particular community. [FN363]

This lower level of protection under the draft is still broader, in certain respects, than the scope of protection under
the Model Provisions. Although the Model Provisions require authorization for certain uses of any expressions of
folklore that qualify for protection, the draft only requires authorization for registered or notified expressions of folklore.
Additionally, the Model Provisions have much more extensive exceptions from protection. They exclude many
adaptations of an expression of folklore (both "utilization by way of illustration in the original work of an author or
authors, provided that the extent of such utilization is compatible with fair practice"; and "borrowing of expressions of
folklore for creating an original work of an author or authors"). [FN364] But the draft does not contain similar exceptions
for adaptations. [FN365]

The scope of the draft's protection is narrower than the Model Provisions in a few respects. For example, unlike the
Model Provisions, *58 the draft requires some level of creativity for expressions of folklore to be protected. [FN366]
This need not be individual creativity, but could include communal creativity. [FN367] The test to be applied to
determine whether a work is sufficiently creative is not specified in the draft. Most copyright laws, however, have a very
low creativity requirement, and it is likely that this low standard would be mirrored by national law should this
requirement of the draft ever be implemented in an international instrument. Additionally, while the protection under the
Model Provisions is not limited in time, [FN368] the draft limits the term of protection in the following ways: (1)

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 24

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

registered or notified expressions of folklore are given the higher level of protection only so long as they remain
registered or notified; (2) secret expressions of folklore are given the special level of protection only so long as they
remain secret; and (3) other expressions of folklore are protected only so long as they meet the criteria for protection
under Article I. [FN369] Thus, the commentary to the draft describes the term of protection as not indefinite, but only
"potentially indefinite." [FN370]

The draft seeks to apply what it terms "an intermediate solution" to one issue relating to the public domain--the
extent of retroactivity of protection. The draft's treatment of this issue, in reality, is weighted against the public domain. A
westerner applying traditional copyright concepts to expressions of folklore created hundreds of years ago would
generally conclude that these have fallen into the public domain due to the expiration of the copyright term. But many
indigenous peoples think otherwise. They believe that if customary law protected expressions of folklore, they would
never have fallen into the public domain. [FN371] The commentary to the draft states that it seeks to implement a
compromise between these two viewpoints by providing that
continuing acts in respect of traditional cultural expressions/expressions of folklore that [ ] commenced prior to
the coming into force of these provisions and which would not be permitted or which would be otherwise regulated
by the provisions, should be brought into conformity with the provisions within a reasonable period of time after
they enter into force, subject to respect for rights previously acquired by third parties. [FN372]

But this supposed compromise is really not much of a compromise because it effectively destroys the public domain,
albeit after some unspecified period of time.

*59 Not just the substantive standards in the revised draft remain undecided. The Intergovernmental Committee also
has yet to decide what kind of international instrument would be appropriate for expression of the substantive elements of
protection upon which they may agree. Possibilities include an international convention or treaty, a protocol or special
agreement to an existing convention (such as that contemplated by Article 20 of the Berne Convention for the Protection
of Literary and Artistic Works, 1971), a statement or declaration, a recommendation, a set of guidelines or model
provisions, or an authoritative interpretation of existing conventions. [FN373] A legally binding instrument like a
convention could also be phased in gradually, starting with a nonbinding agreement. [FN374] The Intergovernmental
Committee also has not decided whether additional input on the draft principles and objectives should be permitted and
encouraged from the holders of traditional knowledge and other experts. [FN375] Further, the Intergovernmental
Committee must still determine whether it will endorse the current draft approach of stating broad principles which leave
to member states the decision as to what legal mechanisms are to be used to implement the provisions. [FN376]

D. Efforts in the World Trade Organization to Amend TRIPS to Implement Specific Intellectual Property Protections for
Folklore and Traditional Knowledge: 2001- 2005

WIPO is not the only international organization that has served as a forum for efforts to negotiate stronger
international protections for folklore and other kinds of traditional knowledge. Some WTO members, mainly developing
countries, have recently sought to do this by negotiating revisions of the TRIPS Agreement. [FN377] The TRIPS
Agreement part of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) made intellectual
property protections part of the world trade system. [FN378] The TRIPS Agreement requires WTO members to
implement minimum intellectual property standards and enforcement procedures into their national laws. [FN379] If they
fail to do *60 so, they can be disciplined by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, which can award trade sanctions, among
other things. Even though TRIPS does contain some provisions providing for delayed implementation of its required
minimum intellectual property standards for developing and least-developed countries, many people in these countries
are unhappy about being required to implement new western-style intellectual property protections into their national
legal systems, not to mention the possibility of trade sanctions for noncompliance. [FN380] They are also concerned that

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 25

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

the existing intellectual property system of TRIPS fails to give adequate protection to folklore and traditional knowledge.

The concerns of developing countries have been center stage at the most recent round of WTO trade negotiations, the
Doha Round. In November 2001, the WTO members adopted the Ministerial Declaration that gave rise to a new round of
trade negotiations. As part of the Declaration, Ministers instructed the TRIPS Council to "examine, inter alia, the
relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and . . . the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore." The Ministerial
Declaration further advised that, "[i]n undertaking this work, the TRIPS Council shall be guided by the objectives and
principles set out in Articles 7 and 8 of the TRIPS Agreement and shall take fully into account the development
dimension." [FN381]

In March 2002, the TRIPS Council asked the WTO Secretariat to prepare a paper on the protection of traditional
knowledge and folklore. This paper, completed in August 2002, summarized the points made by delegations in the TRIPS
Council regarding the protection of *61 traditional knowledge and folklore. [FN382] It noted that there were two main
categories of concern behind the effort to revise TRIPS to protect traditional knowledge and folklore: (1) concern that
traditional knowledge was being used without authorization and without sharing of the economic benefits from such use
with the source communities; (2) concern that intellectual property rights were being granted for traditional knowledge to
people other than the indigenous peoples or communities who had originated such traditional knowledge. [FN383] It also
noted that there had been very little discussion of folklore, such as folk stories, in the TRIPS Council; most of the
discussion had concerned other types of traditional knowledge. [FN384]

Doubts have been expressed as to whether the WTO is the appropriate forum for the development of protections for
traditional knowledge and folklore, especially given the work being done in WIPO. [FN385] Those objecting to the WTO
as such a forum have argued, inter alia: (1) that WIPO's efforts should not be duplicated; (2) that indigenous communities
are involved in WIPO; (3) that it is premature to negotiate such protections in the WTO until some international
consensus has been reached on basic standards and principles; and finally, (4) that traditional knowledge and folklore
does not involve trade, so WIPO is a better forum than the WTO. Others have contended, however, that the issue should
be discussed in all relevant international organizations, because among other things, it is a problem that comes out of the
TRIPS Agreement. Graham Dutfield has rather cynically suggested that developing countries are using the issue of
traditional knowledge and folklore as a weapon to obtain trade concessions unrelated to TRIPS and to slow down their
compliance with the hated western intellectual property standards that TRIPS requires. [FN386]

Whatever the motivation, since the Doha Declaration, WTO members have continued to circulate discussion
documents on protections for traditional knowledge and folklore. Most of these have focused almost exclusively on
traditional knowledge and patent rights, rather than folklore such as folk songs that would not be patentable. [FN387]
This is because Article 27(3)(b) of TRIPS, the subject of review, deals with the patentability or non-patentability of plant
and animal inventions and the protection of plant varieties, and does not currently make any provision for folklore.
[FN388]

*62 E. UNESCO's Initiatives to Protect Folklore

UNESCO has enacted several conventions that give some protection to cultural property and folklore, but these do
not provide for specific intellectual property protections. For example, the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of
Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property attempts to protect
"cultural property," or property designated by member states as being culturally significant on religious or secular
grounds, from being stolen or wrongfully appropriated. [FN389] The 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the
Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage provides protection for certain cultural sites, including works of
monumental sculpture and painting that are included on a World Heritage List. [FN390]

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 26

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

UNESCO has also worked to safeguard intangible folklore, including oral expressions like folk stories. In 1989,
UNESCO issued a recommendation advocating international cooperation in identifying, inventorying, conserving,
preserving, widely disseminating (without distorting), and protecting folklore. [FN391] UNESCO also has several
programs designed to accomplish the preservation and protection of traditional forms of culture, including recording
traditional music and honoring particularly significant forms of traditional culture, such as oral literature, games, dances,
and rituals. [FN392]

*63 In 2003, UNESCO adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003
Convention), which provides for member states to prepare national inventories of the intangible cultural heritage,
including oral traditions and expressions and performing arts. It also calls for the establishment of an intergovernmental
committee to safeguard intangible cultural heritage and to draw up a Representative List of the International Cultural
Heritage of Humanity and a List of International Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding. [FN393] The 2003
Convention emphasizes the link between cultural heritage and sustainable development. It also provides for the adoption
of "appropriate legal . . . measures" to ensure that there is access to intangible cultural heritage while simultaneously
respecting "customary practices governing access to specific aspects of such heritage." [FN394] This Convention consists
of only 15 members, and it will not go into force until three months after the 30th ratification. [FN395]

The 2003 Convention does not directly address intellectual property rights or other forms of legal protection of
groups or communities, but rather, states that its provisions will not affect the rights and obligations of States Parties
deriving from any international instrument related to intellectual property rights. To ensure this is so, UNESCO intends to
closely cooperate with WIPO as it works on the possibility of creating an international instrument dealing with, among
other things, intellectual property rights in the field of folklore and intangible cultural heritage.

VII. A Happy Ending for Folklore?


Dick's story had a happy ending. He married Mr. Fitzwarren's daughter Alice. Just as the bells had predicted, he
became Lord Mayor of London three times, and lived happily ever after.

To some people with an interest in the controversy over the extent of legal protection for folklore, an international
instrument providing for specific intellectual property protection for folklore would be a happy ending. Paul Kuruk, for
example, has advocated a binding international agreement to protect folklore through a sui generis intellectual property
regime even though he considered it unrealistic to expect such an agreement to be successfully concluded in the mid-
1990s. As a stepping stone towards such an international agreement, *64 Kuruk has argued for an African regional
agreement that would regulate the use of folklore outside of the region through a regional enforcement agency. [FN396]

I do not share Kuruk's opinion that specific intellectual property protection for folk stories that have been handed
down orally from generation to generation is necessarily a happy ending. I see two significant difficulties with providing
specific intellectual property protections for folk stories that go beyond any protection already afforded by existing
copyright laws. These difficulties are: (1) the impossibility of determining what is protected, and (2) the likely harm to
creativity and innovation.

A. The Impossibility of Determining What is Protected

As Daniel Gervais has pointed out, folklore (such as folk tales) is not fully inventoried and documented; therefore,
intellectual property protection for it would protect an undocumented right. [FN397] Gervais admits that this may create
legal uncertainty and unpredictability over what is protected. [FN398] I am also concerned that there are serious

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 27

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

evidentiary barriers to establishing whether folk stories, or aspects of folk stories, are able to be protected. Overprotection
could also likely result.

For example, as noted in Section II's analysis of Richard Whittington's life, there is clearly insufficient extant
evidence to determine whether many aspects of the Dick Whittington story were historical fact or fiction. It is extremely
unlikely that we will ever discover whether Dick Whittington really had a cat that helped him to become wealthy, or
whether Dick Whittington really walked all the way to London from Gloucester. Because we cannot be sure of the
historical accuracy of the folk tale, we should not simply make the assumption that it is fictional folklore. The folk tale is
equally likely to be largely factual in nature and if so, should be in the public domain for everyone to draw upon.

Another kind of evidentiary problem for protecting folk stories like Dick Whittington is the difficulty of determining
which aspects of the folk story really were originated by a particular community. This is a practical impossibility in the
case of the Dick Whittington folk tale because so many other communities have very similar stories, also originating in
the mists of time. There are Breton, Norwegian, and Russian folk stories about a boy who becomes wealthy through the
assistance of a cat. [FN399] There is a somewhat similar Tuscan tale about a Genoese merchant who obtained great
wealth after presenting two *65 cats to the king. [FN400] There also exists a slightly different Persian story about a
widow who becomes wealthy by selling her cat, thus making her sons wealthy enough to become traders and ultimately
pirates. [FN401]

B. Harm to the Public Domain

As discussed in Section II, the Dick Whittington folk tale has generated an outpouring of subsequent creative works
based on it, including books, puppet shows, and pantomimes. New creative works continue to be generated hundreds of
years later. National laws strengthening the protection of folklore, such as the standards proposed in the Model
Provisions and currently under discussion in WIPO, pose a threat to this creativity. Many authors will not be in a
financial position to pay to license a work like Dick Whittington, even if they intend to sell the derivative work.
Requiring even a simple authorization may deter usage of a folk tale as a source for a subsequent work.

Even traditional societies may be harmed by authorization requirements if they were to become applicable. Christine
Haight Farley has noted that sui generis protection could risk damage to the public domain by "freezing" cultural
development and making it more difficult for traditional artists and story tellers to create new works based on traditional
culture. [FN402] This "freezing" would be a problem whether or not protection is made retroactive.

VIII. Conclusion
This essay has traced the fortunes of efforts to implement specific legal protection for folk stories like the Dick
Whittington story and other forms of folklore since they began in the late 1960s up to the present time. Although these
fortunes, like Dick Whittington's, have waxed and waned over time, there has recently been a growing trend, particularly
in developing countries, of implementing specific copyright or sui generis protections for folk tales and other kinds of
folklore. There have also been growing efforts to implement stronger international standards of protection for folklore
through some type of international agreement. Two major international organizations, WIPO and WTO, have recently
been willing to serve as fora for international discussions over whether stronger specific protections for folk stories and
other types of folklore and traditional knowledge should be implemented at the global level. A number of developing
countries strongly advocate changing the international intellectual property system to incorporate such protections. But
this essay has argued that, for folk stories at least, this outcome may be undesirable. *66 There are at least two reasons
why this is so: (1) the impossibility of accurately determining whether folk stories are the creative product of a particular
community or factual stories; and (2) the harm to the public domain, creativity, and innovation that protection would
likely cause.

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 28

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

In light of these dangers, a happier ending for folklore would be to take a very cautious approach to the question of
whether specific intellectual property protections should be implemented at the international level. As the United States
delegation has repeatedly pointed out in meetings of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee, there is still only limited
experience with how such protections work in practice at a national level. The international community should wait until
that experience can be gained. In the meantime, the focus of international discussions on the protection for folklore
should be to continue efforts to train indigenous peoples and communities to use current intellectual property laws to
protect their works and also to further efforts to preserve intangible cultural heritage, such as those initiated by UNESCO.
This cautious approach may be unpalatable to many indigenous groups and communities who believe that their culture is
being plundered and distorted by greedy western corporations. But, moving too quickly to protect folk stories risks
serious damage to the development of new cultural works. It is worth bearing in mind a statement submitted by the Holy
See to the First Session of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee: "The raison d'etre of intellectual property protection
systems is the promotion of literary, scientific or artistic production and inventive activity for the sake of the common
good." [FN403]

[FNd1]. Assistant Professor, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America, Washington DC 20064, tel:
202-319-5568, fax: 202-319-4459, email: fischer@law.edu.

[FN1]. This essay was written as part of a celebration to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the first recorded play
based on the Dick Whittington folk tale. It is an expanded version of a presentation delivered on July 25, 2005 in
Gloucester, England, at a conference entitled "The Power of Stories: Intersections of Law, Culture, and Literature" jointly
sponsored by Texas Wesleyan University School of Law, University of Gloucestershire, Central Gloucester Initiative, and
the City of Gloucester. I would like to thank Frank Snyder and Susan Ayres for organizing such a wonderful event, Marin
Ashton and Diane Phillips for hospitality provided to me and my family in Gloucester, and all my fellow conference
attendees for making the event such an interesting experience and providing me with a wealth of constructive feedback
on my conference presentation. Special thanks are due to Megan Richardson and Edward Phillips for their particularly
helpful suggestions. I am also grateful to my husband, Erik Thomas Mueller, and my son, Matthew Edward Mueller, for
their support and companionship at the Gloucester conference.

[FN2]. See Paul Kuruk, Protecting Folklore Under Modern Intellectual Property Regimes: A Reappraisal of the Tensions
Between Individual and Communal Rights in Africa and the United States, 48 Am. U.L. Rev. 769, 777 (1999) (pointing
out that some people have used "folklore" in a disparaging way to connote materials from what they have termed
"barbarous" or "uncivilized" areas of the world); Symposium, Global Intellectual Property Rights: Boundaries of Access
and Enforcement, 12 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 675, 756-57 (2002) (noting various objections by
representatives of developing countries to the use of the term "folklore"). No such pejorative meaning is intended to be
read into my use of the term "folklore" in this essay. I have chosen to use the term "folklore" because it remains in
widespread use in current World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) discussions, and I do not think there is a
universally accepted alternative term. Although WIPO now uses the term "traditional cultural expressions"
interchangeably with "expressions of folklore," I chose not to use "traditional cultural expressions" because I think
"folklore" is more readily understandable to readers who may not already be familiar with this area of the law.

[FN3]. See Stephen E. Siwek, Int'l Intellectual Prop. Alliance, Copyright Industries in the U.S. Economy iii, iv, vi (2004),
available at http:// www.iipa.com/pdf/2004_SIWEK_FULL.pdf (reporting that foreign sales and exports of the core U.S.
copyright industries--industries whose primary purpose is to produce or distribute copyrighted materials--in 2002 were
$89.2 billion, which surpassed many other major industry sectors including the automobile and agricultural sectors, and
also stating that the percentage of U.S. GDP for the copyright industries grew 46.3% more than the rest of the economy
between 1997 and 2002); U.K. Trade and Investment, Information Sheet, Creative Industries 2 (2003), http://

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 29

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

www.invest.uktradeinvest.gov.uk/Uploads/InfoSheets/CreativeIndNov03.pdf (stating that the gross value added (the


major component of gross domestic product) of the creative industries in the United Kingdom grew by an average of 8%
between 1997 and 2001, compared to 2.6% for the whole economy and that exports from the creative industries
contributed U.S. $18.1 billion to the balance of trade, growing 15% per annum between 1997 and 2001, as compared to
4% growth for goods and services as a whole). See Canadian Minister of Industry, Copyright Act Section 92 Report,
Supporting Culture and Innovation: Report on the Provisions and Operation of the Copyright Act i (2002), available at
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/pics/rp/section92eng.pdf (stating that in Canada, the percentage of GDP for the copyright
industries in 2000 was 7.4%, totaling an estimated U.S. $65.9 billion, and these industries, which grew at a rate double
that of the rest of the economy between 1992 and 2000, were the third most significant contributor to Canada's economic
growth in 2002). Copyright industries also have great economic significance in many less developed countries. See
International Intellectual Property Alliance, Initial Survey of the Contribution of the Copyright Industries to Economic
Development 9-10 (2005), http://www.iipa.com/pdf/2005_Apr27_Economic_Development_Survey.pdf (reporting
statistics showing that the copyright industries amounted to more than 5% of GDP in India, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico,
Taiwan, and Uruguay at various dates in the 1990s).

[FN4]. See infra Part III.

[FN5]. See Christine Haight Farley, Protecting Folklore of Indigenous Peoples: Is Intellectual Property the Answer?, 30
Conn. L. Rev. 1, 14 (1997); Kuruk, supra note 2, at 770-72.

[FN6]. See Farley, supra note 5, at 14-15; Kuruk, supra note 2, at 772 ("[T]raditional communities are harmed by forms
of exploitation, which can lead to the permanent loss of irreplaceable property to museums and art houses.").

[FN7]. For a general discussion of the global development divide issue, see Susanna Frederick Fischer, The Global
Digital Divide: Focusing on Children, 24 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 477, 479, 497-99 (2002).

[FN8]. See infra Parts IV and VI.

[FN9]. Samuel Lysons, The Model Merchant of the Middle Ages 16-17 (London, Hamilton, Adams, & Co. 1860);
English parish records of births did not exist until sometime in the sixteenth century. Id. at 10.

[FN10]. See generally Christopher Allmand, The Hundred Years' War: England and France at War, c. 1300-c. 1450
(1988); Anne Curry, The Hundred Years' War, 1337-1453 (Routledge, 2d ed. 2003) (2002); Desmond Seward, The
Hundred Years' War: The English in France, 1337-1453 (1978); 1 Jonathan Sumption, The Hundred Years War: Trial by
Battle (Univ. of Pa. Press 1999) (1999); 2 Jonathan Sumption, The Hundred Years War: Trial by Fire (Univ. of Pa. Press
1999). More than a century of war did not ultimately result in much success for England, which at the end of the war
retained none of its French conquests except Calais.

[FN11]. See Ralph A. Griffiths, The Later Middle Ages, in The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain 186 (Kenneth O.
Morgan ed., 1984); Roger Hart, English Life in Chaucer's Day 77 (1978).

[FN12]. See David Hackett Fischer, The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History 42-49 (1996);
Griffiths, supra note 11, at 187-90; Hart, supra note 11, at 101, 107-08; Barbara Tuchman, A Distant Mirror: The
Calamitous 14th Century 285 (1978) (describing the lawlessness that ensued following the Black Death).

[FN13]. See Lysons, supra note 9, at 12-13; Roy Porter, London: A Social History 31 (1995). In the fourteenth century,

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 30

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

society was generally comprised of three estates: clergy, knights, and peasants. See Diana Childress, Chaucer's England
17 (2000). But by the late fourteenth century, this traditional hierarchy began to break down as a result of increased social
mobility, especially for wealthy merchants. See id. at 43.

[FN14]. Caroline M. Barron, Richard Whittington: The Man Behind the Myth, in Studies in London History: Presented
to Philip Edmund Jones 198 (A.E.J. Hollaender & William Kellaway eds., 1969) (stating that Richard Whittington was
born at Pauntley, although noting that his father also owned some property in Hertfordshire); Lysons, supra note 9, at 9-
13 (pointing out that there were several claimed birthplaces for Richard Whittington, but concluding that he was born at
Pauntley). See also Alastair Sawday's Special Places to Stay, Bed and Breakfast for Garden Lovers (Nicola Crosse ed., 3d
ed. 2005) (stating that the manor house at Pauntley is still standing as of the time of writing and presently serves as a bed
and breakfast called Pauntley Court); Press Release, Gloucester City Council, Turn Again--to Gloucester (Jan. 20, 2005),
http:// www.gloucester.gov.uk/libraries/templates/page.asp?URN=3095 (stating that the Whittington family apparently
also owned St. Nicholas House in Gloucester, site of the Dick Whittington pub today).

[FN15]. Barron, supra note 14, at 199; see also Lysons, supra note 9, at 18 (admitting that the author does not know the
reason for Sir William's outlawry).

[FN16]. Lysons, supra note 9, at 18.

[FN17]. Id.

[FN18]. Barron, supra note 14, at 199; Lysons, supra note 9, at 18.

[FN19]. See Lysons, supra note 9, at 13; see also A.W.B. Simpson, A History of the Land Law 51, 56-59 (2d ed. 1986).

[FN20]. Lysons, supra note 9, at 13.

[FN21]. Barron, supra note 14, at 199 (stating that the first record of Richard Whittington in London was in 1379); see
also Lysons, supra note 9, at 18 (stating that Richard Whittington's mother remarried shortly after her first husband's
death, possibly motivating Richard Whittington to relocate to London in order to avoid living in the home of his new
stepfather).

[FN22]. Lysons, supra note 9, at 19 (doubting that Richard Whittington could have afforded his own horse, and stating
that coaches did not come into existence until Elizabethan times); Childress, supra note 13, at 6 (stating that the most
common forms of transportation at the time were by foot or horseback). See also BBC Gloucestershire, The Dick
Whittington Adventure, http://www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/content/articles/2005/05/20/dick_
whittington_progress_feature.shtml (last visited Sept. 13, 2005) (showing a reenactment by Mark Cummings of BBC
Radio Gloucester, in the late spring of 2005, of Dick Whittington's trip from London to Gloucester by foot, horse, and
boat; it took nine days); Dick Whittington Walks Again, http:// www.gloucesterconference.com/dick_whittington_1.htm
(last visited Sept. 13, 2005) (displaying photos of the walk).

[FN23]. See Childress, supra note 13, at 43 (discussing the threat social mobility posed to traditional society).

[FN24]. See Barron, supra note 14, at 200; see also Griffiths, supra note 11, at 191.

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 31

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

[FN25]. See Griffiths, supra note 11, at 192 (stating that Richard II was extravagant toward his friends); see generally
Nigel Saul, Richard II (1997).

[FN26]. Barron, supra note 14, at 200.

[FN27]. See Saul, supra note 25, at 259 (describing Richard's spending habits). See also William Shakespeare, King
Richard II act 1, sc. 4 ("And, for our coffers, with too great a court And liberal largess are grown somewhat light.").

[FN28]. Barron, supra note 14, at 203, 205.

[FN29]. Id. at 203, 219-20, 254.

[FN30]. Id. at 203-04.

[FN31]. Id. at 200.

[FN32]. Id. at 205, 210-11; Caroline M. Barron, The Quarrel of Richard II with London 1392-7, in The Reign of Richard
II: Essays in Honour of May McKisack 173, 198 (F.R.H. DuBoulay & Caroline M. Barron eds., 1971) (stating the king
had never previously appointed a mayor). The current job title, "Lord Mayor of London," which features in the folk tale,
was not yet in use when Richard Whittington was alive. At that time, the governments of the City of London and
Westminster were separate. The fifteenth century Mayor of London was only mayor of the City of London and was based
in the Guildhall, which remains the seat of the Corporation of London today. See Museum of London,
http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/MOLsite/learning/features_facts/viking_1.html (last visited Sept. 13, 2005).

[FN33]. Lysons, supra note 9, at 50-51; Barron, supra note 14, at 212-13 (stating that among his efforts as Mayor were
battles against illegal fish weirs in the Thames and regulation of beer prices).

[FN34]. Barron, supra note 14, at 216.

[FN35]. Id. at 216-17.

[FN36]. Id. at 206.

[FN37]. See Lysons, supra note 9, at 62-63.

[FN38]. Barron, supra note 14, at 201; see also Lysons, supra note 9, at 87 (showing a copy of the order of payment to
Richard Whittington for pearls and cloth of gold for Princess Philippa's wedding).

[FN39]. Barron, supra note 14, at 215. See 1 G.M. Trevelyan, Illustrated English Social History 80 (David McKay Co.
1969) (1942) (stating that the Mercers' Company was one of the major merchant companies, with many of its members
playing leading roles in local government, including serving as a large number of London's mayors and alderman); The
Mercers' Company, http:// www.mercers.co.uk/ (last visited Sept. 13, 2005) (Livery Company of the City of London).

[FN40]. Barron, supra note 14, at 207-09.

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 32

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

[FN41]. Jean Imray, The Charity of Richard Whittington: A History of the Trust administered by the Mercers' Company,
1424-1966, at 3-4 (1968); see also Lysons, supra note 9, at 73.

[FN42]. Barron, supra note 14, at 233.

[FN43]. See id. at 230, 233-34; see also Saul, supra note 25, at 454 (stating that Richard was cold and remote).

[FN44]. See Barron, supra note 14, at 233 (stating that Richard made no personal bequests). See also Lysons, supra note
9, at 80-81 (displaying a reproduction of the original Latin version of Richard Whittington's will, made on September 5,
1421); 2 Henry Chichele, The Register of Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury 1414-1443, at 240-44 (E.F. Jacob
ed., Clarendon Press 1938) (1937) (reciting Richard Whittington's will in Latin); Florilegium Urbanum, On-line
Reference Book for Medieval Studies, Whittington's Charity, http://the-
orb.net/encyclop/culture/towns/florilegium/community/cmreli17.html (last visited Sept. 13, 2005) (online edition of
Richard Whittington's will, translated into English). Richard Whittington had four executors: John Carpenter, the Town
Clerk of London; John Coventry, a mercer, alderman, and former sheriff; John White, the Master of St. Bartholomew's
Hospital; and William Grove, a scrivener. Imray, supra note 41, at 13.

[FN45]. Imray, supra note 41, at 1 n.4 (citing the Preamble to the foundation ordinances for Whittington's Almshouse,
reproduced in their earliest English version in app. I at 109-21) [hereinafter Foundation Ordinances].

[FN46]. Id. at 24 (asserting that the value of the estate was around £ 7,000 at the time); see also London Bridge Museum
& Educational Trust website, http://www.oldlondonbridge.com/mrcrs.shtml (last visited Sept. 13, 2005) (stating the value
of Richard Whittington's estate was around £5,000 and that this was the modern equivalent of five million pounds).

[FN47]. Imray, supra note 41, at 6, 9, app. I. The College of Priests was dissolved in 1548, during the Reformation. Id. at
44. See also The City of London Churches, http:// www.cityoflondonchurches.com/stmichaelpaternosterroyal.htm (last
visited Sept. 13, 2005) (stating that the church has a stained glass window displaying Dick Whittington with his cat);
Worshipful Company of Farriers, http:// www.wcf.org.uk/links.html (last visited Sept. 13, 2005) (stating that the Great
Fire of London destroyed the Church of St. Michael Paternoster Royal, which was rebuilt by Sir Christopher Wren);
Barron, supra note 14, at 235 (stating that excavations in 1949 to locate the tomb of Richard and Alice Whittington
proved unsuccessful).

[FN48]. Imray, supra note 41, at 6; London Metropolitan Archives, City Communities, A Medieval Public Convenience,
http:// www.corpoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/lma_learning/schoolmate/City/sm_city_ stories_detail.asp?ID=316 (last
visited Sept. 14, 2005). The tides of the Thames flushed Whittington's longhouse, which was quite large, having 64 seats
for women and 64 for men. After the Great Fire of London of 1666 destroyed it, it was rebuilt on a smaller scale. For
some plans, see London Topographical Society, Whittington's Longhouse; Four Fifteen Century London Plans, 23
London Topographical Rec. (1972).

[FN49]. See Foundation Ordinances in Imray, supra note 41, at 109. The copy of the Preamble to the foundation
ordinances for Whittington's Almshouse made for the Mercers' Company in 1442 included a famous illustration of
Whittington on his deathbed, surrounded by his executors as well as thirteen beneficiaries of his charity, presumably the
residents of the Almshouse. Id. at 56 (reproducing the illustration of Richard Whittington on his death bed); see also
Lysons, supra note 9, at 68-70 (reproducing the same illustration).

[FN50]. Foundation Ordinances in Imray, supra note 41, at 109. In keeping with the attitude that only the deserving poor

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 33

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

should receive charity, the foundation ordinances for Whittington's Almshouse provided that lepers and those suffering
from other incurable illnesses or madness were not permitted to reside in the Almshouse. Id. at 118. Nor could the
Almshouse residents engage in misbehavior such as habitual drunkenness, gluttony, frequenting taverns, or wandering
the streets without a good reason. Id. at 119.

[FN51]. See Imray, supra note 41, at 3, 6.

[FN52]. See Foundation Ordinances in id. at 115.

[FN53]. Id. at 116 (stating that the required psalm is called "De Profundis," Psalm 129, which is often recited at funerals).

[FN54]. See Imray, supra note 41, at 3.

[FN55]. Id. at 106; The Mercers' Company, The Charity of Sir Richard Whittington, http://
www.mercers.co.uk/netbuildpro/process/223/TheCharityofSirRichardWhittington.php (last visited Sept. 14, 2005).

[FN56]. The Mercers' Company, supra note 55 (stating that this amalgamated entity is known as the Charity of Sir
Richard Whittington (charity number 1087167) and is regulated by a Scheme of the Charity Commission dated April
2001).

[FN57]. Id.

[FN58]. See The Mercers' Company, Charitable Grants Report 2002-2003,


http://www.mercers.co.uk/downloads/68051_Mercers_Grants_Report_1.pdf (last visited Sept. 14, 2005).

[FN59]. See Gervase Mathew, The Court of Richard II 102 (1968) (stating that unlike the peasantry, the burgesses were
literate and articulate).

[FN60]. Barron, supra note 14, at 197 (asserting, without providing evidence, that the tale of Dick Whittington and his
cat first appeared in the late sixteenth century).

[FN61]. See id. at 233 (stating that Dick Whittington's wife was Alice "Fitzwaryn"); Lysons, supra note 9, at 73.

[FN62]. See, e.g., Lysons, supra note 9, at 27-48 (arriving at the conclusion that a cat did help Richard Whittington make
a large fortune based on the "ancient and generally received tradition," the scarcity of domestic cats during this period of
history, the existence of other similar stories of fortunes made with the help of cats, and pictorial and sculptural
representations of Richard Whittington with a cat that Lysons believed to have been created not very long after his
death); cf. Steve Johansen, Professor, Lewis & Clark Law Sch., Did Richard Whittington Even Own a Cat?: The Ethics
of Telling Stories to Unwitting Clients, Presentation at the University of Gloucestershire, Gloucester Conference: The
Power of Stories: Intersections of Law, Culture, & Literature (July 25, 2005) (contending that Richard Whittington's
business success was likely not assisted by a cat, but rather by his family connections with the wealthy and powerful).
Oliver Goldsmith would have approved of Johansen's argument because Johansen complained that the Dick Whittington
story would be more appropriate for children without the cat. See F.J. Harvey Darton, Children's Books in England: Five
Centuries of Social Life 96 (Brian Alderson ed., 3d ed. rev., British Library 1999) (1932) (stating that Oliver Goldsmith
"proposed that Whittington should be deprived of his cat").

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 34

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

[FN63]. See supra notes 13-22 and accompanying text.

[FN64]. See supra note 22 and accompanying text.

[FN65]. Thomas Heywood, If You Know Not Me, You Know No Bodie: Or, The Troubles of Queene Elizabeth act. 1, sc.
1 (1605); see also Lysons, supra note 9, at 37-38.

[FN66]. See Darton, supra note 62, at 81.

[FN67]. See generally id. at 68-81 (discussing chapbooks).

[FN68]. See Alan Broadhurst, Young Dick Whittington (1964); Marcia Brown, Dick Whittington and His Cat (1950);
Rene Cloke, Dick Whittington (1991); Eva Moore, Dick Whittington and His Cat (1974); Osbert Sitwell, The True Story
of Dick Whittington: A Christmas Story for Cat-Lovers (1945); Vera Southgate, Dick Whittington and His Cat (1986);
Catherine Storr, Great Tales from Long Ago: Dick Whittington (1986) (adaptations of the Dick Whittington story
available on Amazon.com as of July 8, 2005). For additional book adaptations of the Dick Whittington folk tale, see
Amazon.com, http:// www.mercers.co.uk/downloads/68051_Mercers_Grants_Report_1.pdf (last vis
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/103-0574990-2252668 (last visited Oct. 5, 2005).

[FN69]. 3 Samuel Pepys, The Diary of Samuel Pepys 282 (John Warrington ed., rev. 1953, reprint 1964) (1906) (diary
entry for Sept. 21, 1668).

[FN70]. See R.J. Broadbent, A History of Pantomime 206 (Benjamin Blom, Inc. 1964) (1901), available at
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13469/13469-h/13469- h.htm (stating that a pantomime based on the Dick Whittington
story was performed in the eighteenth century); BBC Local Legends, Oh yes he was! Oh no he wasn't!,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/myths_legends/england/london/article_ 3.shtml (last visited Sept. 14, 2005) (stating that
the first recorded performance of a pantomime based on the Dick Whittington story was Harlequin Whittington at Covent
Garden in 1814).

[FN71]. It's Behind You, The History of Pantomime, http://www.its-behind-you.com/Factsheets/The%20History


%CC20of%20Pantomime.pdf (last visited Sept. 14, 2005). See also It's Behind You, BBC Television Pantomimes,
http://www.its-behind-you.com/tvpanto.html (last visited Sept. 14, 2005) for a listing of pantomimes based on the Dick
Whittington story that were shown on British television.

[FN72]. Press Release, BBC Press Office, Following in the Footsteps of Dick Whittington (Mar. 18, 2005), http://
www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/03_ march/18/whittington.shtml; see also BBC Gloucestershire,
The hitherto unrecorded memoirs of Dick Whittington, http://
www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/content/articles/2005/06/16/dick_whittington_ plays_feature.shtml (last visited Sept. 14,
2005) (down- loads available for these plays, written and recorded by Alan Morgan).

[FN73]. See infra Part III.

[FN74]. The author of this essay created the version of the Dick Whittington folktale that appears in this essay.

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 35

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

[FN75]. See generally Robert P. Merges, et al., Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age (3d ed. 2003). Some
other types of intellectual property law or related laws protect certain elements or aspects of some stories in some
jurisdictions. For instance, trademark law protects titles or characters where they serve as source-identifying symbols for
goods or services used in commerce, trade secrets that have economic value and that are not generally known can be
protected, and unfair competition may protect against certain misrepresentations about products or services, such as
passing off one product as a competitor's product. See id. at 31, 536-37. Because copyright and related rights, such as
moral rights, are the only forms of traditional intellectual property that provide general protection for stories themselves,
as opposed to source-identifying elements of a story or secret traditional knowledge, I focus on copyright law in my
discussion in this section.

[FN76]. See Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 103 (2000); Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
art. 2(3), Sept. 9, 1886, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-27 (1986), available at http://
www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html [hereinafter Berne Convention] ("Translations, adaptations,
arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without
prejudice to the copyright in the original work."); Hatton v. Kean, (1859) 7 C.B.N.S. 268, 274, 824; Eng. Rep. 819, 822
(holding an adaptation of public domain play to be copyrightable under English law); 1 Hugh Laddie et al., The Modern
Law of Copyright and Designs § 3.65, at 88-89 (3d ed. 2000) (stating that English copyright law protects translations,
adaptations, compilations, and new editions of old works provided that there is a sufficient addition of skill, labor, taste,
or judgment); Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, c. 48, § 3(1)(a) (U.K.) (protecting compilations), available at
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htmend; Silke von Lewinski, The Protection of Folklore,
11 Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. L. 747, 760 (2003).

[FN77]. See Farley, supra note 5, at 29-35; Peter Jaszi, On the Author Effect: Contemporary Copyright and Collective
Creativity, 10 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 293, 302 (1992); Kuruk, supra note 2, at 796; von Lewinski, supra note 76, at
757-59.

[FN78]. See Lyman Ray Patterson, The Statute of Anne: Copyright Misconstrued, 3 Harv. J. on Legis. 223, 224 (1966)
(stating that the Statute of Anne specifically gave rights to "authors" and "proprietors" of books, but because it granted
authors only economic rights and provided that they could assign them away, Patterson believes the Statute of Anne was
enacted primarily to benefit publishers); Jaszi, supra note 77, at 296 (contending that the Statute of Anne was the product
of lobbying by printers and booksellers); L. Ray Patterson & Craig Joyce, Copyright in 1791: An Essay Concerning the
Founders' View of the Copyright Power Granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, 52
Emory L.J. 909, 923 (2003) (pointing out that the Statute of Anne benefited the public by destroying the perpetual
monopoly over book publishing that the 1662 Licensing Acts had given to the Stationers Guild and ensuring that works
would fall into the public domain after a finite period).

[FN79]. Act for the Encouragement of Learning, 1710, 8 Ann., c. 19 § 2 (U.K.). Under the Statute of Anne, the period of
copyright protection was short compared to that granted by most current national copyright laws.

[FN80]. See Farley, supra note 5, at 29-35; Jaszi, supra note 77, at 295-98, 302; Peter Jaszi, Toward a Theory of
Copyright: The Metamorphoses of "Authorship", 1991 Duke L.J. 455, 466, 469-70, 501-02 (discussing the constructed
idea of "authorship" from literary and artistic culture to copyright law); Martha Woodmansee, On the Author Effect:
Recovering Collectivity, 10 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 279, 280 (1992).

[FN81]. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act § 11 (U.K.) (protecting first ownership by the author of the work with
limited exceptions for works of Crown and Parliamentary copyright and works made in the course of employment). For
works made between June 2, 1957 and August 1, 1989, see Copyright, Designs and Patents Act § 170, sched. 1 P 11(1)

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 36

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

(U.K.) and Copyright Act, 1956, 4 & 5 Eliz. 2, c.74, § 4(4) (U.K.). For works made prior to June 2, 1957, see Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act § 170, sched. 1 P 11(1) (U.K.) and Copyright Act, 1911, 1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 46, § 11(1) proviso (b)
(U.K.).

[FN82]. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act § 9(1) (U.K.).

[FN83]. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) (2000).

[FN84]. See Angela R. Riley, Recovering Collectivity: Group Rights to Intellectual Property in Indigenous Communities,
18 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 175, 190-91 (2000); Jaszi, supra note 80, at 466, 494, 501-02.

[FN85]. See Berne Convention, supra note 76, art. 3; von Lewinski, supra note 76, at 752.

[FN86]. See WIPO Treaties and Contracting Parties of the Berne Convention,
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 (last visited Oct. 5, 2005). As of Oct. 5, 2005,
there were 159 contracting parties to the Berne Convention, though they have adhered to various versions of the
Convention. See id.

[FN87]. 17 U.S.C. § 101. See also id. § 201(1) ("[T]he authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.").

[FN88]. Thomson v. Larson, 147 F.3d 195, 200 (2d Cir. 1998); Childress v. Taylor, 945 F.2d 500, 507 (2d Cir. 1991).

[FN89]. Childress, 945 F.2d at 508; Thomson, 147 F.3d at 201 (citing Childress, 945 F.2d at 508).

[FN90]. See Farley, supra note 5, at 33-34.

[FN91]. 17 U.S.C. § 302(b) (providing that copyright protection for joint works lasts for 70 years after the death of the
last surviving author).

[FN92]. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, c. 48, § 12 (U.K.). For pre-1989 works, see id. sched. 1 P 12(2) which
applies a life plus 50 term rather than life plus 70.

[FN93]. See Ray v. Classic FM plc, [1998] F.S.R. 622, 636 (Ch.) (Eng.).

[FN94]. See, e.g., Tate v. Thomas, (1921) 1 Ch. 503, 513 (Eng.).

[FN95]. Berne Convention, supra note 76, art. 7bis.

[FN96]. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act does provide for one potential exception to this for certain unpublished
literary, dramatic, artistic, or musical works of folklore created in other Berne Union countries. See Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act § 169 (U.K.); 1 Kevin Garnett et al., Copinger & Skone James on Copyright § 3-168 (14th ed. 1999).

[FN97]. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 (2000).

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 37

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

[FN98]. Id. § 302(c) (providing that in such a situation the copyright term will no longer be measured from the year of
first publication or creation of the work but will change to 70 years after the author's death).

[FN99]. See id.

[FN100]. See Copyright, Designs and Patents Act § 9(4) (U.K.). The exception to this section is stated in section 169. See
id. § 169; supra note 96.

[FN101]. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act at §§ 12(3), 12(4) (U.K.). Schedule 1 P 12 of the United Kingdom
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act has transitional provisions for pre-1989 works.

[FN102]. Berne Convention, supra note 76, art. 7(3) (shifting the minimum term of protection from 50 years after
publication to life of the author plus 50 if the author reveals his or her identity during the original term).

[FN103]. Act for the Encouragement of Learning, 1710, 8 Ann., c. 19, § 2 (Eng.) (providing that this term applied only to
new books, and that books already printed as of April 10, 1710 were protected for twenty-one years after that date).

[FN104]. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.

[FN105]. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 302(b) (2000). See also id. §§ 303- 05 for transitional provisions regarding works
created prior to January 1, 1978.

[FN106]. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act § 12(1)-(2) (U.K.).

[FN107]. Berne Convention, supra note 76, arts. 7(1), 7(3), 7(6).

[FN108]. In Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to the
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which had basically added 20 years to the copyright term. Id. at 194. Those
who believe the term of copyright protection in the United States is too long are now fighting on the legislative front. See
Public Domain Enhancement Act, H.R. 2601, 108th Cong. (2003) (supporting the introduction of new legislation to
move "orphaned" copyrighted works into the public domain by providing for the forfeiting of copyright unless a renewal
fee is paid after the work has been protected by copyright for fifty years). House Bill 2601 was introduced in the House
of Representatives in 2003 but never made it out of the Judiciary Committee. H.R. 2601. See also Public Domain
Enhancement Act, H.R. 2408, 109th Cong. (2005) (showing a similar bill currently under consideration by the Judiciary
Committee at the time of writing). Proponents have also sought to persuade the Copyright Office that legislation to
protect orphaned works is needed. See Copyright Office Notice of Inquiry, 70 Fed. Reg. 3739 (Jan. 26, 2005)
(announcing a study to examine the issue of orphan works). The Copyright Office solicited initial and reply comments
from interested parties and held roundtable discussions in the summer of 2005 in Washington D.C. and Berkeley, CA.
See Copyright Office Notice of Public Roundtables, 70 Fed. Reg. 39,341 (July 7, 2005); U.S. Copyright Office, Orphan
Works, available at http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/.

[FN109]. 17 U.S.C. § 102.

[FN110]. Berne Convention, supra note 76, art. 2(2); see also 1 International Copyright Law and Practice § 2(1)(a)
(Melville B. Nimmer & Paul Edward Geller eds., 2004) (stating that some European countries, such as France, do not

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 38

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

have a fixation requirement for copyright protection).

[FN111]. 17 U.S.C. § 101.

[FN112]. See Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, c. 48, § 3(2) (U.K.).

[FN113]. See J.H. Reichman, Legal Hybrids Between the Patent and Copyright Paradigms, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 2432,
2450 n.72 (1994).

[FN114]. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). This requirement was enacted in the 1976 Act to reflect prior judicial construction of the
Constitutional limitation of federal copyright protection to the "writings" of "authors" in U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. See
1 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 2.01 (2005) (stating that this construction was based on
the reasoning that originality followed from the limitation to authors because "an author is 'the beginner ... or first mover
of anything ... creator, originator,' it follows that a work is not the product of an author unless the work is original.").

[FN115]. Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991).

[FN116]. See, e.g., Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 251-52 (1903).

[FN117]. Feist, 499 U.S. at 345, 359.

[FN118]. Nimmer & Nimmer, supra note 114, § 2.01[A].

[FN119]. Feist, 499 U.S. at 358.

[FN120]. See Farley, supra note 5, at 20-22.

[FN121]. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 103(b) (2000).

[FN122]. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, c. 48, § 1(1)(a) (U.K.) (protecting only "original" musical, dramatic,
and artistic works).

[FN123]. See Walter v. Lane, [1900] A.C. 539, 545 (H.L.) (Eng.); Express Newspapers plc v. News (U.K.) Ltd., (1990) 3
All E.R. 376, 380-81 (Ch.) (Eng.).

[FN124]. Sawkins v. Hyperion Records Ltd., [2005] EWCA (Civ) 565, (2005) 3 All E.R. 636, 643 (C.A.) (Eng.).

[FN125]. Feist Publ'ns, Inc. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 399 U.S. 340, 359.

[FN126]. Laddie et al., supra note 76, § 3.52, at 80 (2000) (stating that a person who writes down a folk song gets
copyright in their transcript of the song but not in the song itself because others continue to be free to make their own
transcripts of the song).

[FN127]. See Interlego A.G. v. Tyco Indus. Inc., (1989) 1 A.C. 217, 262- 63 (P.C. 1988) (appeal taken from H.K.)

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 39

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

(copying a work in a different dimension, such as making a two-dimensional copy of a three-dimensional prototype,
could qualify as an original work).

[FN128]. Walter, [1900] A.C. at 539-40.

[FN129]. Id. at 549, 551.

[FN130]. See Univ. of London Press, Ltd. v. Univ. of London Tutorial Press, Ltd., (1916) 2 Ch. 601, 606 (Eng.); see also
Garnett et al., supra note 96, § 3-86.

[FN131]. See Sands & McDougall Pty. Ltd. v. Robinson (1917) 23 C.L.R. 49, 51, 53-56 (Austl.); Express Newspapers
plc v. News (U.K.) Ltd., 3 All E.R. 376 (Ch.) (Eng.).

[FN132]. Sawkins v. Hyperion Records Ltd., [2005] EWCA (Civ) 565, (2005) 3 All E.R. 636, 636-37, 644 (C.A.) (Eng.).

[FN133]. Id. at 641.

[FN134]. Id. at 644, 647-48, 650-51, 654.

[FN135]. Id. at 643.

[FN136]. See Kuruk, supra note 2, at 780-88.

[FN137]. UNESCO is a United Nations Agency that is dedicated to promoting world peace and developing humanistic
values by fostering international educational, scientific, and cultural regulations. See UNESCO, http://
portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=14605&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION =201.html (last visited Sept. 15,
2005).

[FN138]. WIPO is an international organization and specialized agency of the United Nations based in Geneva,
Switzerland that specializes in intellectual property protection. See WIPO, http://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/ (last
visited Sept. 22, 2005); Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization art. 3, July 14, 1967, 21.2
U.S.T. 1749, 828 U.N.T.S. 3, available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/convention/trtdocs_wo029.html (stating that
WIPO's main goals are "(i) to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world through cooperation
among States and, where appropriate, in collaboration with any other international organization, [and] (ii) to ensure
administrative cooperation among the Unions."). WIPO currently has 182 member states. WIPO Member States, http://
www.wipo.int/directory/en/member_states.jsp (last visited Sept. 22, 2005). One aspect of WIPO's work is administering
international intellectual property treaties. WIPO also works to develop new international norms and standards through
the negotiation of new international treaties, such as the recent WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and
Phonograms Treaty. See generally WIPO Copyright Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17, 36 I.L.M. 65,
available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/pdf/trtdocs_wo033.pdf (entered into force March 6, 2002); WIPO
Performances and Phonograms Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17, 36 I.L.M. 76, available at http://
wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/pdf/trtdocs_wo034.pdf [hereinafter WPPT] (entered into force May 20, 2002). According to
the current WIPO Director General, Kamil Idris, WIPO has an important role in international development. He has stated
"[t]he World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has a crucial role to play in assisting countries to use that system
to their advantage and to leverage it to contribute to achieving the UN Millennium Development Goals." WIPO Message
from Director General Kamil Idris, http:// www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/dgo/dgki_2005.html (last visited Sept. 22, 2005).

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 40

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

[FN139]. See von Lewinski, supra note 76, at 752; see generally Berne Convention, supra note 76.

[FN140]. WIPO Intellectual Prop. Conference of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden, June 11-July 14, 1967, 2 Records of
the Intellectual Property Conference of Stockholm, at Report on the Work of Main Committee I P 126, at 1152
[hereinafter WIPO Stockholm Records]; see also id. Summary Minutes of Main Committee I, 11th Meeting PP 964-66.2,
at 876.

[FN141]. Id. Summary Minutes of Main Committee I, 11th Meeting PP 967, 987, at 876-77.

[FN142]. Id. Summary Minutes of Main Committee I, 11th Meeting PP 974-81, at 877 (stating that the Working Group
was made up of Brazil, Congo (Brazzaville), Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, India, Ivory Coast, Monaco, Netherlands,
Sweden, Tunisia, and the United Kingdom, and was chaired by Czechoslovakia); Id. Summary Minutes of Main
Committee I, 21st Meeting P 1515, at 918. The new Article 15(4) was added to the Stockholm (1967) and Paris (1971)
versions of the Berne Convention.

[FN143]. Berne Convention, supra note 76, art. 15(4).

[FN144]. See WIPO Stockholm Records, supra note 140, Report on the Work of Main Committee I P 252, at 1173.

[FN145]. See id. ("It is clear, however, that the main field of application of this regulation will coincide with those
productions which are generally described as folklore."); see also id. Summary Minutes of Main Committee I, 21st
Meeting PP 1505.2, 1509.2, at 917-18.

[FN146]. WIPO Intergovernmental Comm. on Intellectual Prop. & Genetic Res., Traditional Knowledge & Folklore,
June 13-21, 2002, Third Session Final Report on National Experiences with the Legal Protection of Expressions of
Folklore, P 165, at 57-58, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/10 (Mar. 25, 2002), available at
http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/2002/igc/pdf/grtkfic3_10.pdf [hereinafter WIPO Final Report on National
Experiences]; von Lewinski, supra note 76, at 752-53. Some countries are prepared to honor such a designation, should
one ever be made. See, e.g., Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, c. 48, § 169 (U.K.).

[FN147]. WIPO/UNESCO Model Provisions for National Laws on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore Against
Illicit Exploitation and Other Prejudicial Actions, Introductory Observations, Part I P 5 (1982), reprinted in 16(4)
Copyright Bulletin 62 (1982), available at http:// www.wipo.int/tk/en/documents/pdf/1982-folklore-model-provisions.pdf
[hereinafter Model Provisions]. See also Ordonnance n° 73-14 Relative aux Droits d'Auteur et aux Droits Voisins (1973)
(Alg.) (abrogated and replaced by Ordonnance n° 97-10 Relative aux Droits d'Auteur et aux Droits Voisins (1997)
(Alg.)), abrogated and replaced by Ordonnance n° 03-05 Relative aux Droits d'Auteur et aux Droits Voisins (2003)
(Alg.); Supreme Decree No. 08396 (1968) (Bol.); Copyright Law No. 1/9 Regulating the Rights of Authors and
Intellectual Property in Burundi (1978) (Burundi), available at http://
www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/burundi/sommaire.html; Chile Copyright Law No. 17.336 (1970) (Chile),
available at http:// portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_
download.php/e64eba8e3adb06d8e4eb8819fe5fecc5Ley_n_17_336+.pdf; Iran Copyright Law, available at
http://www.parstimes.com/law/copyright_law.html (last visited Sept. 22, 2005); Copyright Act, (1966) Cap. 130 (Kenya),
available at http:// www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/kenya/sommaire.html (as amended in 1995 and later repealed
and replaced by Copyright Act, (2001) Cap. 16 (Kenya), available at http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_
download.php/35f47927f741b00f2aeada4982b68d83Copyrigh_Act_2001.pdf [hereinafter Copyright Act (1966)

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 41

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

(Kenya)]; Ordinance Concerning Literary and Artistic Property No. 77-46 CLMN (1977) (Mali) (abrogated and replaced
by Law No. 8426/AN-RM (1984) (Mali), and abrogated and replaced, in part, by Law No. 94- 043 (1984) (Mali));
Copyright Law Relating to Literary and Artistic Protection No. 1-69-135 (1970) (Morocco) (abrogated and replaced by
Law No. 2-00 on Copyright and Related Rights (2000) (Morocco)); Senegal Copyright Act No. 73- 52 (1973) (Sen.),
available at http:// www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/senegal/sommaire.html (abrogated and replaced, in part, by
Amendatory Act No. 86-05 (1986) (Sen.)); Loin° 66-12 relative à la propriété littéraire et artistique (1966) (Tunis.).

[FN148]. See Model Provisions, supra note 147, Part I P 5.

[FN149]. Id.

[FN150]. See id. PP 7-8.

[FN151]. See id. P 7 (stating, for example, that Moroccan law only protected unpublished works of folklore whereas the
laws of Tunisia and Algeria did not contain such a restriction); see also Copyright Act, (1966) (Kenya), supra note 147,
Cap. 130 § 18(4) (restricting works of folklore to literary and artistic works).

[FN152]. See WIPO Int'l Forum on "Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge: Our Identity, Our Future," Jan. 21-
22, 2002, The Attempts to Protect Expressions of Folklore and Traditional Knowledge, P 4, WIPO Doc.
WIPO/IPTK/MCT/02/INF.5 (Nov. 2001), available at http://
www.wipo.int/arab/en/meetings/2002/muscat_forum_ip/doc/iptk_mct02_i5.doc [hereinafter WIPO Forum on Intellectual
Property].

[FN153]. See id. P 5. In contrast, the laws of Algeria and Morocco limited themselves to literary and artistic works with
unknown authors where there was a reasonable basis that they were nationals of the legislating country. See id. P 6. Other
national laws included additional elements differentiating folklore from other literary and artistic works, such as that they
were traditional cultural heritage passed on from generation to generation. See id. P 7.

[FN154]. See id. P 14.

[FN155]. See id. P 19.

[FN156]. Copyright Act, (1966) (Kenya), supra note 147, Cap. 130 § 18(3).

[FN157]. See Questionnaire on National Experiences with the Legal Protection of Expressions of Folklore: Response of
Kenya 3, http:// www.wipo.int/tk/en/consultations/questionnaires/ic-2-7/kenya.pdf (last visited Sept. 23, 2005).

[FN158]. UNESCO, Executive Board 161st session, May 16, 2001, Report on the Preliminary Study on the Advisability
of Regulating Internationally, Through a New Standard-Setting Instrument, the Protection of Traditional Culture and
Folklore, P 3, UNESCO Doc. 161 EX/15 (Aug. 28, 2001), available at http://
unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001225/122585e.pdfsearch='Bolivia%20UNESCO% 20protect%C%folklore.

[FN159]. See Tunis Model Law on Copyright for Developing Countries, WIPO Doc. 812 (E) (1976).

[FN160]. Id. §§ 1(5bis), 6. There is both an Anglo-Saxon and a Roman version of the Tunis Model Law. See id. Basic

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 42

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

Features of the Model Law, P 4. The Roman version did not require fixation for any works, while the Anglo-Saxon
version made an exception to the fixation requirement for works of folklore. See also id. Commentary, P 12.

[FN161]. Model Provisions, supra note 147, Part I P 16.

[FN162]. Id.

[FN163]. Id. Part I PP 18-19 (stating that the draft model law, Model Provisions for National Laws on the Protection of
Creations of Folklore and a Commentary on those Model Provisions, are available at UNESCO/WIPO/WG.I/FOLK/2).

[FN164]. Id. Part I P 20.

[FN165]. Id. (agreeing that the model law should be drafted so as to be applicable in countries both with and without
relevant legislation).

[FN166]. Id. Part I PP 22, 24.

[FN167]. See id. Part II § 2, Part III P 37.

[FN168]. See id. Part II § 3, Part III P 40-41, 49; id. Part II §§ 10(3), 11(1), Part III P 86 (providing for appeals of
decisions of a competent authority where there is one); id. Part II § 10(1), Part III PP 80-81 (providing that application
must be made to a competent authority but leaving it to an individual country to decide whether such application can be
oral or written).

[FN169]. Id. Part II § 3, Part III PP 43-44.

[FN170]. Id. Part II §§ 9(2), 10(2), Part III P 74.

[FN171]. Id. Part III PP 75-76, 78-79.

[FN172]. Id. Part III PP 45-46.

[FN173]. Id. Part II § 4.

[FN174]. See id. Part III PP 50-54.

[FN175]. See id. Part II § 5.

[FN176]. Id. Part II § 5(1).

[FN177]. Id. Part II § 5(2).

[FN178]. Id. Part III P 57.

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 43

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

[FN179]. Id. Part III P 60.

[FN180]. See id. Part II §§ 6(1), 7.

[FN181]. See id. Part II §§ 6(2), 7.

[FN182]. See id. Part II §§ 6(3)-(4).

[FN183]. Id. Part III P 64.

[FN184]. Id. Part II § 8.

[FN185]. See id. Part III P 65.

[FN186]. Id.

[FN187]. Id.

[FN188]. Id. Part II § 2, Part III P 33.

[FN189]. Id. Part II § 2(i).

[FN190]. Id. Part III P 34 (stating that scientific views and traditional beliefs would not fit into the artistic heritage
category either).

[FN191]. Id. Part III P 34.

[FN192]. See id. Part III P 37.

[FN193]. See id. Part III P 36.

[FN194]. Id. Part II § 2(i).

[FN195]. See Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2000) ("In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery,
regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."). See also Nimmer &
Nimmer, supra note 114, §§ 13.03[A][1], 13.03[B][2][a].

[FN196]. See 17 U.S.C. § 102 (describing the subject matter of copyright).

[FN197]. Id. Part III P 39.

[FN198]. See United Republic of Tanzania, Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act (1999) (Tanz.), available at
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 44

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

download.php/e660d30fe34bb025f0aa56687a1d66b3Copyrigh_and_neighbouring_rights_ Act_1999.pdf [hereinafter


Tanzanian Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act].

[FN199]. Id. § 3(2).

[FN200]. Compare id. § 3(6)(b), with Model Provisions, supra note 147, Part II § 14, Part III PP 83-94.

[FN201]. Compare Tanzanian Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, supra note 198, § 4 (defining "expression of
folklore"), with Model Provisions, supra note 147, Part II § 2.

[FN202]. Compare Tanzanian Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, supra note 198, § 24, with Model Provisions,
supra note 147, Part II § 2. The only examples given in the Model Provisions that are not also included in the Tanzanian
statute are needlework, textiles, carpets, and architectural forms. According to the Commentary to the Model Provisions,
"architectural forms" were included with hesitation and are therefore surrounded by square brackets. Model Provisions,
supra note 147, Part III P 37.

[FN203]. Tanzanian Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, supra note 198, § 25. The Tanzanian wording differs
slightly from that of the Model Provisions. For example, the Tanzanian statute makes "any application" of expressions of
folklore subject to the authorization requirement, whereas the Model Provisions use the word "publication." Compare
Tanzanian Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, supra note 198, §§ 25, 29, with Model Provisions, supra note 147,
Part II § 3.

[FN204]. Compare Tanzanian Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, supra note 198, § 26, with Model Provisions,
supra note 147, Part II § 4.

[FN205]. Model Provisions, supra note 147, Part II § 10, Part III P 80.

[FN206]. Tanzanian Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, supra note 198, § 28(a).

[FN207]. See id. § 28(b); Model Provisions, supra note 147, Part II § 10(2).

[FN208]. Compare Tanzanian Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, supra note 198, § 27, with Model Provisions,
supra note 147, Part II § 5.

[FN209]. Model Provisions, supra note 147, Part III P 64.

[FN210]. See Tanzanian Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, supra note 198, § 42. Exactly which sanctions apply to
which offenses is somewhat unclear due to some clearly erroneous section numbers cross-referenced in this provision.
See id.

[FN211]. Id. § 42(2).

[FN212]. Id. § 42(6).

[FN213]. Id. § 42(5).

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 45

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

[FN214]. See Ordonnance n° 03-05 Relative aux Droits d'Auteur et Droits Voisins (2003) (Alg.), available at
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_
download.php/4077ceadcfd5ca840474593dcc04461fordonnan_du_19_07_2003.pdf.

[FN215]. See Angola, Law on Authors' Rights No. 4/90 (1990) (Angl.), available at
http://www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/angola/page1.html [hereinafter Angola Law on Authors' Rights].

[FN216]. See Law No. 84-008 on the Protection of Copyright (1984) (Benin).

[FN217]. Botswana's copyright law, Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act No. 8, 2000, is currently being amended to
enhance copyright protection in various ways. Botswana's Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Amendment Bill (2005)
was published in the Government Gazette on June 10, 2005. See Botswana Press Agency, Moroka to Table Copyright
Amendment Bill, Daily News Online, June 15, 2005, http://www.gov.bw/cgi-bin/news.cgi?
d=20050615&i=moroka_to_table_ Copyright_Amendment_Bill. The bill was later withdrawn, but there are plans to
reintroduce it in November 2005. See Botswana Press Agency, Missing Link Leads to Copyright Bill Withdrawal, Daily
News Online, July 29, 2005, http:// www.gov.bw/cgi-bin/news.cgi?
d=20050729&i=missing_link_leads_to_copyright_bill_ withdrawal.

[FN218]. Loi No. 032/99/AN Portant Protection de la Propriété Littéraire et Artistique (1999) (Burk. Faso).

[FN219]. See Décret-Loi No 1/9 Décret-Loi de mai 1978 Portant Réglementation des Droits d'Auteurs et de la Propriété
Intellectuelle [Regulating the Rights of Authors and Intellectual Property] (1978) (Burundi), translated in http://
www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/burundi/sommaire.html.

[FN220]. See Loi n° 2000/011 du 19 décembre 2000 Relative au Droit d'Auteur et aux Droits Voisins (2000) (Cameroon),
available at http:// portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_
download.php/9a40eb288c2d1082ea794142dcce6d09cameroun_fr.pdf.

[FN221]. See Loi du 25 juillet 1996 (1996) (Côte d'Ivoire), available at http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_
download.php/7fe7249c1a9b9c5881aa5b355942b574loi_du_25_juillet_1996.pdf.

[FN222]. See Journal Officiel de la Republique de Djibouti: Loi n° 114/AN/96/3e (1996) (Djib.), available at http://
portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_ download.php/9ad235deeb0e728a56da379dbb59894eloi_du_3_septembre_1996.pdf.

[FN223]. See Law 82/2002 on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (2002) (Egypt), available at http://
www.egypo.gov.eg/inner/english/PDFs/law2002e.pdf (English translation), http://
www.bsaarabia.com/bsa/laws/copyright.htm (Arabic version).

[FN224]. A new copyright bill to update the current Ghanaian copyright law, Provisional National Defense Counsel Law
110 (1985), is presently before Parliament. It provides for enhanced protection for works of Ghanaian folklore.
Provisions of the bill that impose fines or prison terms on Ghanaians who commercially use, sell, or distribute Ghanaian
folklore without government authorization have sparked considerable opposition on the basis that it would stunt cultural
development. See John Collins, The 'Folkloric Copyright Tax' Problem in Ghana, World Association for Christian
Communication, http://wacc.dev.visionwt.com/wacc/content/pdf/630 (last visited Oct. 10, 2005); Expert Criticizes
Copyright Bill, Ghanamusic.com, April 19, 2005, http:// www.ghanamusic.com/artman/publish/article_1736.shtml.

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 46

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

[FN225]. See Loi n° 8426/AN-RM, Abrogeant et Remplacant L'Ordannance N° 77- 46 du juillet 1977 Fixant le Regime
de la Propriete Litteraire et Artistique en Republique du Mali (1984) (Mali), available at http://
portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_ download.php/5cfb4279dd7febe08e94a11bdda047b4loi_du_17_octobre_1984+.pdf.

[FN226]. See Copyright Act (1989) (Malawi), available at http:// portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_


download.php/7eee749bd5909c13ed3cd035e382b273Malawi_copyright_act_1989_ final.htm.

[FN227]. See Loi n° 2-00 relative aux droits d'auteur et droits voisins (2000) (Morocco), available at
http://64.233.187.104/search? q=cache:LrUkID9zHhoJ:enset-media.ac.ma/cpa/Fixe/Loi%2520droit%2520auteur.pdf+2-
00+Maroc†roits†%27auteur&hl=en.

[FN228]. See Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Protection Act (2002) (Namib.), available at
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_ download.php/c5fa4df581366b0c81ce5e8a55b626afCopyrigh_Act+_2002.pdf.

[FN229]. See generally Copyright Act, (1990) Cap. 68, (Nigeria), available at http://www.nigeria-
law.org/CopyrightAct.htm (as amended).

[FN230]. See Ordonnance n° 93-027 du 30 mars 1993 portant sur le droit d'auteur, les droits voisins et les expressions du
folklore (1993) (Niger), available at http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_
download.php/7c876a22244d79ecc22cfaabcf187c6eloi_du_30_mars_1993+.pdf.

[FN231]. See Senegal Copyright Act No. 73-52 (1973) (Sen.), supra note 147 (as am-ended).

[FN232]. See Copyright Act (1991) (Sey.), available at http:// portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_


download.php/052d069b7b6b2b656ba954c26a23c0bbCopyrigh_Act_chapt+51.pdf.

[FN233]. See Loi n° 91-12 portant protection du droit d'auteur, du folklore et des droits voisins (1991) (Togo), available
at http:// portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_
download.php/c064377a9a6332be451e75a0a5bccc49loi_du_10_juin_1991+.pdf.

[FN234]. See Copyright Act, c. 26:01 (1967) (Zimbabwe). Chapter 26:01 of Zimbabwe's copyright act will soon be
replaced by Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, c. 26:05, which will include protections for folklore. See Zimbabwe
Legislative Profile, http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/ipworldwide/pdf/zw.pdf (last visited Oct. 20, 2005).

[FN235]. Angola Law on Authors' Rights, supra note 215, arts. 6(m), 8, 15 (providing that copyright in folklore vests in
the State); id. art. 21 (providing for perpetual copyright protection for folklore); Copyright Act (Sey.), supra note 232, § 2
(defining "folklore"); id. § 4(1)(b) (exempting Seychelles folklore from the fixation requirement); id. § 7 (providing that
copyright in Seychelles folklore vests in the govern-ment).

[FN236]. Copyright Act, (2001) Cap. 16 §§ 2(1), 49(d) (Kenya), available at http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_
download.php/35f47927f741b00f2aeada4982b68d83Copyrigh_Act_2001.pdf.

[FN237]. See, e.g., WIPO, National Experiences with the Protection of Expressions of Folklore/Traditional Cultural
Expressions: India, Indonesia and the Philippines, at 11-12, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/STUDY/1 (Nov. 25, 2002)

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 47

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

(prepared by P.V. Valsala G. Kutty), available at http:// www.wipo.int/tk/en/studies/cultural/expressions/study/kutty.pdf.

[FN238]. Id. at 13.

[FN239]. See WIPO Final Report on National Experiences, supra note 146, P 132, at 43.

[FN240]. Id. P 149, at 52 (finding, in a WIPO study using questionnaires, that 23 countries of 64 respondents (36%) had
specific legal protection for expression of folklore, but many of these were not actively used or functioning effectively in
practice).

[FN241]. See, e.g., Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-22 (2000).

[FN242]. See Indian Arts and Crafts Act (IACA), 25 U.S.C.A. § 305(e) (2001 & Supp. 2005).

[FN243]. See Lanham Act, 35 U.S.C. § 2(a) (2000); 15 U.S.C.A § 1052(a) (West 1997 & Supp. 2005).

[FN244]. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-22; 25 U.S.C.A. § 305(e).

[FN245]. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, c. 48, § 169 (U.K.).

[FN246]. Garnett et al., supra note 96, § 3-168.

[FN247]. See Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights art. 6 (1999) (Arm.), available at
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_ download.php/cb3a2919f2d52b9dbd4db631c38153f9law_on_Copyright.pdf.

[FN248]. See Law on Copyright and Related Rights art. 7 (1996) (Azer.), available at
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_
download.php/9a4ab10a3501e583c46d90c8a1779899Law_of_October_8_1996.pdf.

[FN249]. See Law of the Republic of Belarus, No. 370-XIII, Copyright and Contiguous Rights (1996) (amended in 2003
by Law No. 183-Z) (Belr.), available at http://www.cipr.org/legal_reference/countries/belarus/Copyright_Belarus_
ENG.pdf (stating that Art. 8 excludes works of "folk arts, authors of which are not known" from protection, while Art. 4
defines author as "an individual, by whose creative labour the work has been created").

[FN250]. See Law on Copyright and Related Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina art. 9 (2002) (Bosn. & Herz.), available
at http:// portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_ download.php/e9377582007e2c06d997493b12377f63law_on_copyright.pdf
("The use of folk literature and art creations for the purpose of a literary, artistic or scientific arrangement shall be free.");
id. art. 14 (specifying that the person who creates the literary, artistic, or scientific arrangement from the folk work shall
be treated as the author under the law).

[FN251]. See Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, State Gasette No. 56/1993 (1993) (amended in 2002 by Law
No. 77/2002) (Bulg.), available at http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_
download.php/ed40c7a3f11fcc815de79335c198c91bLaw_on_copyright+.pdf (stating that art. 4(3) excludes "works of
folklore" from copyright protection, although art. 3(1)(5) somewhat confusingly protects "works of fine art, including
works of applied art, design and folklore artistic crafts," while art. 3(2) protects translations and adaptations of folklore,

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 48

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

as well as musical arrangements of folklore).

[FN252]. See Copyright Act, State Gazette 1992, 49, 615 (1992) (amended in 2002, consolidated text available in State
Gazette 2000, 16, 109) (Est.), available at http://www.cipr.org/legal_reference/countries/estonia/Estonia_
Copyright_ENG_2002.pdf (excluding in § 5(1)(2) "works of folklore" from copyright protection).

[FN253]. See Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights art. 8(3) (1996) (Kaz.), available at http://www.cipr.org/legal_
reference/countries/kazakhstan/Kazakhstan_Copyright_ENG.pdf.

[FN254]. See Loi n° 94-036, Portant sur la propriété littéraire et artistique art. 5(15) (1995) (Madag.), available at http://
portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_ download.php/cb8cc855dc0ff4f1484fb87770888159loi_du_18_septembre_1995.pdf.

[FN255]. See Republic of Lithuania, Law Amending the Law on Copyright and Related Rights No. IX-1355 (2003)
(Lith.), available at http:// portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_
download.php/f7c0f18cfbdb1bfcb0232916297d3f49Law_of_March_5_2003.pdf (excluding protection for "folklore
works" in art. 5(6)).

[FN256]. See Law of the Republic of Moldova on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights No. 293-XIII (1994) (amended in
2002 by Law No. 1268-XV) (Mold.), available at http://www.cipr.org/legal_reference/countries/moldova/Moldova_
Copyright_ENG.pdf (excluding "folklore expressions" from copyright protection in art. 7(1)(c)).

[FN257]. See Law of Russian Federation on Copyright and Neighboring Rights (1993) (Russian Federation), available at
http://www.cipr.org/legal_ reference/countries/russia/Russia_Copyright_ENG.pdf (excluding in art. 8 "works of folk
art").

[FN258]. See Law on Copyright and Related Rights §§ II(8-1)(15), II(10)(b) (2001) (Ukr.), available at
http://www.cipr.org/legal_ reference/countries/ukraine/Ukraine_Copyright_ENG.pdf. Section II(10)(b) states that "works
of folk art (folklore)" are excluded, but in § II(8-1)(15), "collections of folklore versions" are protected as compilations
provided there is sufficient originality in the selection, coordination and arrangement. Id. §§ II(8-1)(15), II(10)(b).
Section I(1) defines author as "an individual who created a work by his creative effort." Id. § I(1).

[FN259]. See WIPO Final Report on National Experiences, supra note 146, P 124, at 39-40.

[FN260]. Id.

[FN261]. Id.

[FN262]. Id. P 125, at 40.

[FN263]. Id. P 125 n.123, at 40.

[FN264]. See supra Part III.

[FN265]. WIPO Final Report on National Experiences, supra note 146, P 129 & n.137-38, at 42.

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 49

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

[FN266]. Id. P 129, at 42.

[FN267]. Id. PP 125 & n.123, 129 & n.137, at 40, 42.

[FN268]. The "Ballad of Mulan" is a yuefu poem, a type of Chinese folk song that originated in the Northern Wei
dynasty (386-534 AD). It tells the story of a heroic woman, Mulan, who served in her father's stead in the fight to protect
China's indigenous Han people against invaders.

[FN269]. See, e.g., Weimin Mo & Wenju Shen, A Mean Wink at Authenticity: Chinese Images in Disney's Mulan, 13.2
The New Advocate 129 (2000).

[FN270]. See id.; Jennifer Gin Lee, Mulan, Austin Chron., Aug. 17, 1998, available at
http://www.filmvault.com/filmvault/austin/m/mulan2.html (reviewing the film Mulan).

[FN271]. Mo & Shen, supra note 269, at 135, 137.

[FN272]. Id. at 131-32.

[FN273]. Id. at 133-37.

[FN274]. Id. at 137.

[FN275]. See First Int'l Conference on the Cultural & Intellectual Prop. Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Whakatane, N.Z.,
June 12-18, 2003, The Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
available at http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz/imp/mata.htm [hereinafter Mataatua Declaration].

[FN276]. U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women, Huairou, Beijing, Peoples Republic of China, Sept. 4-15, 1995,
NGO Forum, Beijing Declaration of Indigenous Women, available at http://www.ipcb.org/resolutions/htmls/dec_
beijing.html [hereinafter Beijing Declaration].

[FN277]. Mataatua Declaration, supra note 275, at §§ 2.3, 2.5.

[FN278]. Beijing Declaration, supra note 276, PP 38-39.

[FN279]. See St. Mary-le-Bow & United Parishes, The Bells, http:// www.stmarylebow.co.uk/ (follow "The Bells"
hyperlink) (last visited Sept. 27, 2005) (explaining that Bow Bells are the bells of the Church of St. Mary-le-Bow in
Cheapside, London). Legend has it that only a person born "within the sound of Bow Bells" is "a true Londoner or
Cockney." Id.

[FN280]. WIPO Final Report on National Experiences, supra note 146, PP 22, 24, at 11 (the draft treaty based on the
Model Provisions is annexed to the WIPO Final Report on National Experiences at Annex IV and is also reprinted in
19(2) UNESCO Copyright Bulletin 34 (1985)).

[FN281]. Id. P 23, at 11.

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 50

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

[FN282]. Id.

[FN283]. WPPT, supra note 138, at art. 2(a) (defining "performers"). The WPPT provides that any WIPO member state
may become a treaty party, as well as certain intra-governmental organizations and the European Union. Id. art. 26. See
also WPPT, http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/documents/word/s-wppt.doc (last visited Sept. 27, 2005) (listing the 51
contracting parties to the WPPT as of Sept. 2, 2005). But see International Convention for the Protection of Performers,
Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations art. 3(a), Oct. 26, 1961, 496 U.N.T.S. 43, available at http://
www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/rome/pdf/trtdocs_wo024.pdf [hereinafter Rome Convention] (defining "performers" as those
performing in "literary or artistic works"). The choice of these standard terms used in many copyright laws leads to the
conclusion that many performances of collaborative works of folklore developed over time by unidentifiable authors
would not qualify for protection. See id.

[FN284]. WIPO Forum on Intellectual Property, supra note 152, P 74 (citation omitted).

[FN285]. Id. P 75.

[FN286]. Id. P 77.

[FN287]. Id. P 78.

[FN288]. WIPO Final Report on National Experiences, supra note 146, P 29, at 12.

[FN289]. Id. P 30 n.14, at 12.

[FN290]. Press Release, WIPO, Dr. Kamil Idris Re-Appointed as WIPO Director General (May 27, 2003), available at
http://www.wipo.int/wilma/pressinfo-en/200305/msg00008.html (reporting Dr. Idris's re-appointment to a second six-
year term beginning Dec. 1, 2003); see also WIPO, Appointment of the New Director General, Geneva, Switz., Sept. 22-
Oct. 1, 1997, WIPO doc. WO/GA/XXI/1 (Apr. 30, 1997), available at http://
www.wipo.int/documents/en/document/govbody/wo_gb_ga/pdf/ga21_1.pdf (Dr. Idris's CV is annexed to this document).

[FN291]. See Graham Dutfield, TRIPS-Related Aspects of Traditional Knowledge, 33 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 233, 267-
68 (2001). In early 1998, WIPO set up a new division called the Global Intellectual Property Issues Division with a
mandate of responding to new technological developments and globalization. See id. A major research area for the
division was the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore. See id.

[FN292]. WIPO, Intellectual Property Needs and Expectations of Traditional Knowledge Holders: WIPO Report on Fact-
Finding Missions on Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge (1998-1999), at 16, WIPO Publication 768(E)
(April 2001), available at http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/tk/ffm/report/ (follow "Revised FFM Report").

[FN293]. Id. (noting these fact-finding missions were to the South Pacific, Southern and Eastern Africa, South Asia,
North America, Central America, West Africa, the Arab countries, South America, and the Caribbean).

[FN294]. Id. at 17.

[FN295]. Id.

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 51

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

[FN296]. WIPO Final Report on National Experiences, supra note 146, P 34, at 13.

[FN297]. Id. P 35, at 13-14.

[FN298]. Id. P 36 & n.17, at 14 (stating that the African regional consultation was held in Pretoria, South Africa, in
March 1999; the Asia/Pacific regional consultation was held in Hanoi, Vietnam in April 1999; the Middle Eastern
regional consultation was held in Tunis, Tunisia in May 1999; and the Latin America/Caribbean regional consultation
was held in Quito, Ecuador in June 1999).

[FN299]. See WIPO-UNESCO African Reg'l Consultation on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore, Pretoria, South
Africa, Mar. 23-25, 1999, Resolutions, at 3-4, WIPO Doc. WIPO-UNESCO/FOLK/AFR/99/1 (Mar. 25, 1999), available
at http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/1999/folklore/pdf/wuaf_99_1.pdf; WIPO-UNESCO Reg'l Consultation
on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore for Countries of Asia & the Pacific, Hanoi, Vietnam, Apr. 21-23, 1999,
Recommendations, at 4, WIPO Doc. WIPO-UNESCO/FOLK/ASIA/99/1 (April 23, 1999), available at
http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/1999/folklore/pdf/wuas_ 99_1.pdf [hereinafter Asia/Pacific
Recommendations]; WIPO-UNESCO Reg'l Consultation on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore for Arab
Countries, Tunis, Tunisia, May 25-27, 1999, Recommendations, § II(b), at 3, WIPO Doc. WIPO-
UNESCO/FOLK/ARAB/99/1 (June 10, 1999), available at http://
www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/1999/folklore/pdf/wuab_99_1.pdf [hereinafter Arab Countries
Recommendations]; WIPO-UNESCO Reg'l Consultation on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore for Latin America
& the Caribbean, Quito, Ecuador, June 14-16, 1999, Recommendations, at 2-3, WIPO-UNESCO/FOLK/LAC/99/1 (June
16, 1999), available at http:// www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/1999/folklore/pdf/wula_99_1.pdf [hereinafter Latin
America/Caribbean Recommendations].

[FN300]. See Asia/Pacific Recommendations, supra note 299, at 2; Arab Countries Recommendations, supra note 299, §
I(7), at 2.

[FN301]. See Asia/Pacific Recommendations, supra note 299, at 4; Arab Countries Recommendations, supra note 300, §
II(b)(6), at 3; Latin America/Caribbean Recommendations, supra note 299, at 3.

[FN302]. WIPO Gen. Assembly Twenty-Sixth (12th Extraordinary) Session, Sept. 25 to Oct. 3, 2000, Matters
Concerning Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, P 24, at 7, WIPO Doc.
WO/GA/26/6 (Aug. 25, 2000), available at http://
www.wipo.int/documents/en/document/govbody/wo_gb_ga/pdf/ga26_6.pdf.

[FN303]. See id. P 19, at 5; WIPO Gen. Assembly Twenty-Sixth (12th Extraordinary) Session, Sept. 25 to Oct. 3, 2000,
Report Adopted by the Assembly, P 71, at 23 WIPO Doc. WO/GA/26/10 (Oct. 3, 2000), available at
http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/document/govbody/wo_gb_ga/pdf/ga26_10.pdf.

[FN304]. WIPO Intergovernmental Comm. on Intellectual Prop. & Genetic Res., Traditional Knowledge & Folklore,
http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/igc/ (last visited Sept. 29, 2005).

[FN305]. See id.

[FN306]. See WIPO Intergovernmental Comm. on Intellectual Prop. & Genetic Res., Traditional Knowledge & Folklore,

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 52

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

Apr. 30-May 3, 2001, First Session Report Adopted by the Committee, PP 158-59, 167, 174, WIPO Doc.
GRTKF/IC/1/13 (May 23, 2001), available at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp? doc_id=1760 (follow
"grtkflc1_13.doc") (summarizing statements from the Delegations of Sri Lanka, Egypt, India, and Bolivia).

[FN307]. See id. PP 160, 163, 165-66, 168 (summarizing statements from the Delegations of Australia, Norway, Sweden,
Canada, and the United States).

[FN308]. Id. P 49.

[FN309]. Id.

[FN310]. Id.

[FN311]. Id. PP 175-76.

[FN312]. See id. P 175.

[FN313]. WIPO Final Report on National Experiences, supra note 146, P 6, at 7.

[FN314]. See WIPO Intergovernmental Comm. on Intellectual Prop. & Genetic Res., Traditional Knowledge & Folklore,
June 13-21, 2002, Third Session Report Adopted by the Committee, PP 267-94, at 71-83, WIPO Doc.
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/17 (June 21, 2002), available at http://
www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/2002/igc/pdf/wipo_grtkf_ic_3_17.pdf [hereinafter WIPO Third Session Report]
(considering, inter alia, WIPO Final Report on National Experiences, supra note 146).

[FN315]. WIPO Final Report on National Experiences, supra note 146, PP 116, 149, at 36, 52.

[FN316]. Id. P 118, at 36.

[FN317]. Id. P 119, at 36.

[FN318]. Id. P 121, at 36; see also Republic of Croatia, Law No. 01-081- 99-1280/2 on the Protection and Preservation of
Cultural Goods (1999) (Croat.); Republic of Panama, Law No. 20, Special Intellectual Property Regime upon Collective
Rights of Indigenous Communities, for the Protection of their Cultural Identities and Traditional Knowledge (2000)
(Pan.), http:// www.digerpi.gob.pa/law_20.html; Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, Rep. Act No. 8371 (1997)
(Phil.), available at http://www.grain.org/brl_ files/philippines-ipra-1999-en.pdf; Cultural Heritage Law No. 28/2001-
QIII0 (2002) (Vietnam), http://www.vov.org.vn/2005_02_ 08/english/baituan/vanbanphapluatmoi.htm.

[FN319]. WIPO Final Report on National Experiences, supra note 146, P 124, at 39-40.

[FN320]. Id. P 149, at 52.

[FN321]. Id. PP 150-53, at 53.

[FN322]. Id. P 153(ii), at 54.

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 53

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

[FN323]. Id. P 153(iv), at 54-55.

[FN324]. Id. PP 153-54, 156, at 55.

[FN325]. Id. PP 157-62, at 56.

[FN326]. Id. P 163, at 57; id. Annex I, at 37 & n.422-23.

[FN327]. Id. P 168, at 59.

[FN328]. Id. P 165, at 57-58.

[FN329]. Id. PP 169-70, at 59.

[FN330]. Id. P 171, at 60.

[FN331]. WIPO Third Session Report, supra note 314, PP 267-92.

[FN332]. Id. PP 271, 273, 278, 281.

[FN333]. Id. P 303-04.

[FN334]. See WIPO Intergovernmental Comm. on Intellectual Prop. & Genetic Res., Traditional Knowledge & Folklore,
Dec. 9-17, 2002, Fourth Session Report Adopted by the Committee, PP 61-89, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/15 (Dec.
17, 2002), available at http:// www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/2002/igc/pdf/grtkf_ic_4_15.pdf (considering, inter
alia, WIPO Intergovernmental Comm. on Intellectual Prop. & Genetic Res., Traditional Knowledge & Folklore, Dec. 9-
17, 2002, Fourth Session Preliminary Systematic Analysis of National Experiences with the Legal Protection of
Expressions of Folklore, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/4/3 (Oct. 20, 2002), available at
http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/2002/igc/pdf/grtkf_ic_4_3.pdf).

[FN335]. Id. P 92.

[FN336]. See WIPO Intergovernmental Comm. on Intellectual Prop. & Genetic Res., Traditional Knowledge & Folklore,
July 7-15, 2003, Fifth Session Report, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/15 (Aug. 4, 2003), available at http://
www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/2003/igc/pdf/grtkf_ic_5_15.pdf.

[FN337]. Id. PP 27-58 (considering WIPO Intergovernmental Comm. on Intellectual Prop. & Genetic Res., Traditional
Knowledge & Folklore, July 7-15, 2003, Fifth Session Consolidated Analysis of the Legal Protection of Traditional
Cultural Expressions, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRKTF/IC/5/3 (May 2, 2003), available at
http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/2003/igc/pdf/grtkf_ic_5_ 3.pdf); WIPO Intergovernmental Comm. on
Intellectual Prop. & Genetic Res., Traditional Knowledge & Folklore, July 7-15, 2003, Fifth Session Comparative
Summary of Sui Generis Legislation for the Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions, WIPO Doc.
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/INF/3 (Apr. 28, 2003), available at
http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/2003/igc/pdf/grtkf_ic_5_inf_3.pdf; WIPO Intergovernmental Comm. on

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 54

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

Intellectual Prop. & Genetic Res., Traditional Knowledge & Folklore, July 7-15, 2003, Fifth Session Update on Technical
Cooperation on the Legal Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/4 (April 4,
2003), available at http:// www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/2003/igc/pdf/grtkf_ic_5_4.pdf.

[FN338]. See WIPO Intergovernmental Comm. on Intellectual Property & Genetic Res., Traditional Knowledge &
Folklore, Mar. 15-19, 2004, Sixth Session Report, P 66, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/14 (Apr. 14, 2004), available at
http:// www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/2004/igc/pdf/grtkf_ic_6_14.pdf (endorsing the future steps proposed in
WIPO Intergovernmental Comm. on Intellectual Prop. & Genetic Res., Traditional Knowledge & Folklore, Mar. 15-19,
2004, Sixth Session Traditional Cultural Expressions/Expressions of Folklore Legal and Policy Options, P 211, WIPO
Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/3 (Dec. 1, 2003), available at
http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/2004/igc/pdf/grtkf_ic_6_3.pdf.

[FN339]. See id.

[FN340]. See WIPO Intergovernmental Comm. on Intellectual Prop. & Genetic Res., Traditional Knowledge & Folklore,
Nov. 1-5, 2004, Seventh Session Report Adopted by the Committee, P 64, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF//IC/7/15 (June 10,
2005), availa- ble at http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_7/wipo_ grtkf_ic_7_15.pdf (considering
WIPO Intergovernmental Comm. on Intellectual Prop. & Genetic Res., Traditional Knowledge & Folklore, Nov. 1-5,
2004, Seventh Session on the Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions/Expressions of Folklore: Overview of Policy
Objectives and Core Principles, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/3 (Aug. 20, 2004), available at http://
www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_7/wipo_grtkf_ic_7_3.pdf).

[FN341]. Id. P 64-103 (considering WIPO Intergovernmental Comm. on Intellectual Prop. & Genetic Res., Traditional
Knowledge & Folklore, Nov. 1-5, 2004, Seventh Session on the Protection of Traditional Cultural
Expressions/Expressions of Folklore: Outline of Policy Options and Legal Mechanisms, WIPO Doc.
WIPO/GRTKF/IC/7/4 (Aug. 27, 2004), available at http://
www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_7/wipo_grtkf_ic_7_4.pdf).

[FN342]. Id. P 100.

[FN343]. Id.

[FN344]. See Intergovernmental Comm. on Intellectual Prop. & Genetic Res., Traditional Knowledge & Folklore, June
6-10, 2005, Eighth Session Draft Report, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/8/15 (July 30, 2005), available at http://
www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_8/wipo_grtkf_ic_8_15_prov.pdf [hereinafter Eighth Session Draft
Report].

[FN345]. See id. P 163.

[FN346]. WIPO Intergovernmental Comm. on Intellectual Prop. & Genetic Res., Traditional Knowledge & Folklore,
June 6-10, 2005, Eighth Session on the Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions/Expressions of Folklore: Revised
Objectives and Principles, PP 3, 15, at 2, 5, WIPO Doc. GRTKF/IC/8/4 (April 8, 2005), available at
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_8/wipo_ grtkf_ic_8_4.pdf [hereinafter Eighth Session Revised
Objectives and Principles].

[FN347]. Id. P 16, at 5.

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 55

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

[FN348]. See id. P 17, at 5.

[FN349]. See Eighth Session Draft Report, supra note 344, P 100, at 53 (statement of the representative of the Saami
Council).

[FN350]. See Eighth Session Revised Objectives and Principles, supra note 346, P 1, at 2 (using the phrase "traditional
cultural expressions" synonymously with "expressions of folklore").

[FN351]. See id. Annex art. I, at 11 (defining protected works in the Eighth Session Revised Objectives and Principles
draft).

[FN352]. Id.

[FN353]. See id.; Model Provisions, supra note 147, Part II § 2.

[FN354]. Eighth Session Revised Objectives and Principles, supra note 346, Annex at 13 (discussing the intended
purpose and meaning of the term "characteristic").

[FN355]. See Model Provisions, supra note 147, Part III P 34.

[FN356]. See Eighth Session Revised Objectives and Principles, supra note 346, Annex art. I(a)(i), at 11.

[FN357]. Id. Annex arts. III, VII, at 19, 32-33 (noting that such registration or notification is optional).

[FN358]. Id. Annex art. III, at 19.

[FN359]. Id. Annex at 23.

[FN360]. See id. Annex at 22.

[FN361]. See id. Annex art. III(c), at 20.

[FN362]. See id. Annex art. III(b)(i)-(ii), at 19-20.

[FN363]. See id. Annex art. III(b)(iii), at 20.

[FN364]. See Model Provisions, supra note 147, Part II § 4(1)(ii)-(iii).

[FN365]. See Eighth Session Revised Objectives and Principles, supra note 346, Annex art. V, at 26.

[FN366]. See id. Annex art. I(a)(iv)(aa), at 11.

[FN367]. Id. Annex art. I, at 11-12.

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 56

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

[FN368]. Model Provisions, supra note 147, Part III P 65.

[FN369]. Eighth Session Revised Objectives and Principles, supra note 346, Annex art. VI, at 29.

[FN370]. See id. Annex at 30.

[FN371]. See id. Annex at 40.

[FN372]. See id. Annex art. IX, at 39.

[FN373]. Id. P 13, at 4.

[FN374]. See id. P 14, at 5.

[FN375]. See id. P 20, at 6.

[FN376]. See id. Annex, at 8.

[FN377]. See, e.g., World Trade Organization [WTO] Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights,
Note by the Secretariat: The Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore: Summary of Issues Raised and Points
Made, IP/C/W/370 (Aug. 8, 2002), available at http:// www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/ipcw370_e.doc [hereinafter
WTO Protection of Folklore].

[FN378]. See Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, April 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, Legal Instruments--Results of the Uruguay Round, 33 I.L.M.
1197 (1994), available at http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27- trips.pdf [hereinafter TRIPS].

[FN379]. See id. arts. 9-61.

[FN380]. See id. arts. 65-66.

[FN381]. WTO, Ministerial Declaration of 14 November 2001, P 19, WT/MIN(01)/ DEC/1, 41 I.L.M. 746 (2002),
available at http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_ e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_e.pdf. Paragraph 19 refers to Article 7 of
the TRIPS Agreement, headed "Objectives," which provides:
The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological
innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of
technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and
obligations.
TRIPS, supra note 378, art. 7.
Paragraph 19 refers also to Article 8 of the TRIPS Agreement, headed "Principles," which provides:
Members may, in formulating or amending their laws and regulations, adopt measures necessary to protect public
health and nutrition, and to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and
technological development, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement.
Appropriate measures, provided that they are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement, may be needed to

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 57

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices which unreasonably
restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology.
TRIPS, supra note 378, art. 8.

[FN382]. WTO Protection of Folklore, supra note 377, P 1.

[FN383]. Id. P 7.

[FN384]. See id. P 5.

[FN385]. See Dutfield, supra note 291, at 273-74; Daniel Gervais, Traditional Knowledge & Intellectual Property: A
TRIPS-Compatible Approach, 2005 Mich. St. L. Rev. 137, 159 (2005); WTO Protection of Folklore, supra note 377, P
10.

[FN386]. Dutfield, supra note 291, at 274.

[FN387]. See TRIPS, supra note 378, art. 27(3)(b).

[FN388]. See id.

[FN389]. See UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer
of Ownership of Cultural Property arts. 1-14, Nov. 14, 1970, 823 U.N.T.S. 231, available at http://
unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001140/114046e.pdf.

[FN390]. See UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage arts. 1-7, Nov.
23, 1972, 1037 U.N.T.S. 152, available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0000/000020/002091mb.pdf.

[FN391]. UNESCO Records of the General Conference, Oct. 17-Nov. 16, 1989, Twenty Fifth Session Resolutions,
Annex I(B), UNESCO Doc. 25 C/Resolution 7.1, available at
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0008/000846/084696Eb.pdf. UNESCO defines "folklore" as "reflecting the
expectations of a community in so far as they reflect its cultural and social identity; its standards and values are
transmitted orally, by imitation or by other means. Its forms are, among others, language, literature, music, dance, games,
mythology, rituals, customs, handicrafts, architecture and other arts." Id. In 1990, UNESCO, in conjunction with the
Smithsonian Institution, held an International Conference to assess the implementation of the Recommendation.

[FN392]. See, e.g., UNESCO Culture: Traditional Music, http:// portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-


URL_ID=2631&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_ SECTION=201.html (last visited Oct. 3, 2005) (discussing the 1961
launch of UNESCO's "Collection of Traditional Music of the World" to make recordings of traditional music); UNESCO
Culture: Living Human Treasures, http:// portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=2243&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_ SECTION=201.html (last visited Oct. 3, 2005) (discussing the 1996
establishment of UNESCO's "Living Human Treasures" systems in member states that was designed to ensure traditional
knowledge and skills of artists and craftspeople are disseminated and preserved by granting them official recognition);
UNESCO Culture: Proclamation of Masterpieces, http:// portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=2226&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_ SECTION=201.html (last visited Oct. 3, 2005) (discussing the 1998
establishment of "Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity" to honor significant
masterpieces of oral and intangible heritage).

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 58

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

[FN393]. See UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Sept. 29-Oct. 17, 2003, art.
12, at 6, UNESCO Doc. MISC/2003/CLT/CH14 (Oct. 17, 2003), available at http://
unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001325/132540e.pdf.

[FN394]. Id. art.13, at 6.

[FN395]. See id. art. 34, at 12.

[FN396]. Kuruk, supra note 2, at 841-43, 848-49.

[FN397]. See Gervais, supra note 385, at 164.

[FN398]. Id.

[FN399]. See Broadbent, supra note 70, at 206-09; 2 W.A. Clouston, Popular Tales and Fictions 304-11 (Christine
Goldberg ed., ABC-CLIO, Inc. 2002) (1887).

[FN400]. See Broadbent, supra note 70, at 207.

[FN401]. See id. at 209.

[FN402]. Farley, supra note 5, at 55-56.

[FN403]. See WIPO Intergovernmental Comm. on Intellectual Prop. & Genetic Res., Traditional Knowledge & Folklore,
Apr. 30-May 3, 2001, Document of the Holy See on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge
and Folklore, at Annex P 2, WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKR/IC/1/7 (Apr. 26, 2001), available at
http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/2001/igc/pdf/grtkfic1_ 7.pdf.

END OF DOCUMENT

Texas Wesleyan Tinjauan Hukum


Musim gugur 2005

Simposium
Kekuatan Cerita: Persimpangan Hukum, Sastra, dan Budaya
Dick Whittington Kisah: Pengaruh Its & Dampak Its
* 5 DICK Whittington DAN KREATIVITAS: DARI PERDAGANGAN cerita rakyat, dari cerita rakyat KE
PERDAGANGAN
Susanna Frederick Fischer [FNd1]

Copyright © 2005 Texas Wesleyan Tinjauan Hukum; Susanna Frederick Fischer

Daftar isi

I. Pendahuluan ............................................... ......... 6

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 59

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

II. Richard Nyata Whittington dan Asal Usul Dick

Whittington Cerita ................................................ .. 9

III. Suatu Negara yatim: Masalah untuk Dick Whittington dan untuk

Perlindungan Hak Cipta untuk Tales Folk ...............................18

IV. Seperti Upaya Mr Fitzwarren untuk Melindungi Dick, Upaya untuk

Memperkuat Perlindungan Kekayaan Intelektual untuk folklore .......... 26

A. Revisi dengan Konvensi Berne 1960: Pasal 15 (4) ..........27

B. Hak Cipta Legislasi Nasional di tahun 1960-an dan 1970-an .......... 29

C. Upaya Melindungi Cerita Rakyat di Tingkat Internasional

Berpuncak pada 1982 Model Ketentuan .......................... 31

D. Pelaksanaan Ketentuan Hukum Nasional Model ke ......35

V. Seperti Tikus, Kolega Kejam, dan Kemiskinan: Kesulitan untuk

Perlindungan Kekayaan Intelektual untuk folklore ..................... 39

VI. Para Resep untuk Mengatasi Kesulitan: Kerja Keras, Keberuntungan, dan

Patronase ................................................. ........ 44

A. Diskusi dan Konsultasi di dan oleh WIPO dan UNESCO pada

Instrumen Internasional untuk Perlindungan Kekayaan Intelektual untuk

Cerita Rakyat: 1984-1999 ............................................. .. 46

B. Komite Antar Pemerintah WIPO Kekayaan Intelektual

dan Genetik Sumber Daya, Pengetahuan Tradisional dan Cerita Rakyat:

2000-2005 ............................................... .......... 49

C. Tujuan Draft Revisi sekarang dan Prinsip bawah

Pertimbangan di WIPO Intergovernmental Most Recent Komite

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 60

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

Sesi pada bulan Juni 2005 .............................................. 55

D. Upaya di Organisasi Perdagangan Dunia untuk Mengamandemen TRIPS untuk

Melaksanakan Perlindungan Kekayaan Intelektual khusus untuk Folklore

dan Pengetahuan Tradisional: 2001-2005 .............................. 59

E. UNESCO Inisiatif untuk Melindungi folklore .......................62

VII. Sebuah Happy Ending untuk folklore? .......................................63

A. Mungkin untuk Menentukan Apakah Dilindungi .............64

B. Harm ke Domain Publik ...................................... 65

VIII. Kesimpulan ................................................. ........ 65

* 6 I. Pendahuluan
Salah satu contoh yang paling terkenal dari cerita rakyat di dunia berbahasa Inggris adalah Dick Whittington kisah
seorang anak muda yang membuat kekayaannya dengan bantuan kucingnya.[FN1] Ini cerita rakyat ini didasarkan pada
kehidupan seorang saudagar Inggris abad pertengahan, Sir Richard Whittington.Richard nyata Whittington membuat
kekayaannya dari perdagangan kain mewah. Kisah hidupnya menjadi cerita rakyat, dan cerita rakyat yang pada gilirannya
menimbulkan diberikan kepada perdagangan lebih, kali ini dalam karya kreatif baru.

Tingkat perlindungan kekayaan intelektual untuk cerita, legenda, dan jenis-jenis cerita rakyat [FN2] telah menjadi semakin
kontroversial * 7 perdagangan internasional dan isu kebijakan.Karya kreatif, sering didasarkan pada cerita rakyat, telah
menjadi produk semakin menguntungkan dalam ekonomi global.[FN3] Selama ini karya turunan cukup asli, kebanyakan
sistem hukum di seluruh dunia memberikan perlindungan hak cipta untuk berbagai jenis mereka, termasuk buku dan film
berdasarkan cerita rakyat dan legenda. [FN4] perlindungan hak cipta seperti ini biasanya berlangsung selama beberapa
dekade setelah penciptaan atau publikasi karya turunan, meskipun sering hanya berlaku untuk penambahan kreatif baru
untuk sebuah karya cerita rakyat dan bukan untuk cerita rakyat yang mendasari itu sendiri. Tapi cerita rakyat banyak tidak
berwujud, seperti cerita diturunkan secara lisan dari satu generasi ke generasi lain sebagai warisan hidup, menerima
perlindungan kekayaan intelektual sedikit atau tidak ada di banyak sistem hukum nasional, terutama di negara-negara
barat maju. Tidak ada konvensi internasional yang berlaku yang secara langsung memberikan hak kekayaan intelektual
untuk cerita rakyat. Banyak orang, terutama mereka yang tinggal di negara berkembang dan anggota masyarakat adat,
telah tumbuh semakin tidak puas dengan keadaan saat ini perlindungan kekayaan intelektual untuk cerita rakyat baik di
tingkat nasional dan internasional.

Pendukung perlindungan kekayaan intelektual untuk cerita rakyat yang lebih besar memiliki dua masalah utama. Yang
pertama adalah untuk memastikan bahwa masyarakat adat * 8 dan pengembang lainnya berbagi cerita rakyat secara adil
keuntungan ekonomi yang dihasilkan oleh karya folkloric, terutama yang digunakan sebagai dasar untuk bekerja kreatif
baru yang berharga seperti film Disney Mulan. [FN5] Yang kedua adalah untuk mempertahankan rasa hormat terhadap
budaya tradisional dan melindunginya dari kehilangan atau distorsi di luar konteks tradisional. [FN6] Kedua keprihatinan
terkait dengan keinginan untuk menutup kesenjangan pembangunan global. [FN7] pemerintah nasional, badan-badan
regional, dan organisasi internasional telah semakin menanggapi tekanan untuk memberikan perlindungan hukum yang
lebih kuat untuk cerita rakyat, termasuk cerita dan cerita rakyat. Selama beberapa dekade terakhir, mempercepat selama
beberapa tahun terakhir, telah terjadi tren global yang ditandai di tingkat nasional dan internasional terhadap pelaksanaan
perlindungan kekayaan intelektual untuk cerita rakyat. [FN8] Untuk cerita, perlindungan ini mengambil bentuk hak cipta

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 61

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

hukum dan sui generis rezim hukum. Tapi banyak negara, terutama di industri barat, saat ini sedang menentang untuk
memberikan perlindungan kekayaan intelektual untuk ditingkatkan cerita rakyat dalam undang-undang atau melalui
perjanjian multinasional baru atau konvensi.

Dalam esai ini, saya mempertimbangkan apakah seperti perlindungan kekayaan intelektual meningkat untuk cerita dan
cerita rakyat adalah kebijakan paling bijaksana saja. Sementara menerima validitas dari dua masalah utama yang
mendukung upaya untuk menerapkan perlindungan hak milik intelektual yang lebih besar, saya berpendapat di sini bahwa
kekayaan intelektual yang lebih besar perlindungan risiko bahaya serius untuk inovasi dan kreativitas dengan
mempersempit domain publik dan bukan cara terbaik untuk mencapai yang diinginkanberakhir. Untuk membuat argumen
saya, saya akan menarik pada cerita Dick Whittington baik sebagai sebuah contoh cerita rakyat dalam bahaya
overprotection oleh diperluas rezim kekayaan intelektual dan juga sebagai analogi terhadap perlakuan hukum cerita
rakyat selama beberapa dekade terakhir.

Bagian II memfokuskan pada cerita Dick Whittington sebagai contoh cerita rakyat yang telah melahirkan kekayaan karya
kreatif. Ini menelusuri bagaimana kehidupan seorang tokoh sejarah yang nyata, Sir Richard Whittington, menjadi sebuah
cerita rakyat. Sama seperti uang Richard Whittington riil masih banyak dana amal, selama ratusan tahun cerita rakyat
berdasarkan hidupnya telah menjabat sebagai dasar bagi banyak karya kreatif baru, terutama buku anak-anak dan
pantomim.

Sisa esai menarik paralel antara cerita rakyat dan Dick Whittington perlindungan hukum cerita rakyat di tingkat nasional, *
9 tingkat regional, dan internasional. Bagian III memperlihatkan bagaimana hak cipta hukum adat barat doktrin
perlindungan bar untuk cerita rakyat diwariskan secara lisan banyak dari generasi ke generasi seperti Dick
Whittington. Bagian IV delineates upaya awal dari akhir 1960an sampai awal 1980-an untuk mendirikan kuat nasional dan
internasional perlindungan kekayaan intelektual untuk cerita rakyat meskipun masalah-masalah doktrinal yang ditimbulkan
oleh hukum hak cipta tradisional. Upaya-upaya ini memuncak dalam bersama UNESCO-WIPO Model Ketentuan, yang,
meskipun bukan hukum itu sendiri, dirancang untuk dimasukkan ke dalam hukum nasional untuk memberikan
perlindungan sui generis atas kekayaan intelektual terhadap cerita rakyat dan jenis lain dari cerita rakyat. Bagian V
menunjukkan bagaimana usaha ini tidak berhasil dalam melaksanakan luas perlindungan kekayaan intelektual untuk
cerita rakyat dalam hukum nasional di seluruh dunia, meskipun Ketentuan Model tidak mempengaruhi beberapa
yurisdiksi, termasuk sebagian negara-negara Afrika, untuk menggabungkan perlindungan kekayaan intelektual yang lebih
besar untuk cerita rakyat dan lainnya ekspresi cerita rakyat dalam undang-undang mereka. Bagian VI menggambarkan
upaya terbaru untuk mendirikan sebuah rezim internasional untuk perlindungan kekayaan intelektual untuk cerita rakyat,
yang saat ini sedang dibahas dalam World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Komite serta, pada tingkat lebih
terbatas, di Organisasi Perdagangan Dunia ( WTO). Bagian VII berpendapat bahwa penerapan perlindungan kekayaan
intelektual tertentu seperti prinsip-prinsip rancangan saat ini dan tujuan di bawah pertimbangan dalam WIPO tidak jelas
happy ending untuk cerita rakyat karena ketidakmungkinan menentukan apa yang diprotect dan bahaya serius
menghambat kreativitas masa depan dan perkembangan artistik. Esai menyimpulkan dengan menganjurkan pendekatan
yang hati-hati untuk masalah yang lebih baik akan menghormati pentingnya domain publik yang kuat dan pentingnya
mendorong pengembangan budaya masa depan.

II. Richard Nyata Whittington dan Asal Usul Dick Whittington Kisah
Tidaklah mengherankan bahwa kehidupan Richard Whittington menjadi sebuah cerita rakyat karena benar-benar memiliki
aspek legendaris. Richard Whittington bukan hanya seorang pria buatan sendiri yang berhasil memperoleh kekayaan
besar dan status. Tidak seperti banyak pedagang lain sukses abad pertengahan yang sekarang lupa, ia menggunakan
kekayaannya untuk manfaat masyarakat baik selama masa hidupnya dan setelah kematiannya. Kombinasi kekayaan dan
filantropi terpesona orang. Setelah kematian Richard Whittington, cerita terus beredar tentang hidupnya.

Tahun yang tepat untuk kelahiran Richard Whittington tidak diketahui, tapi mungkin terjadi sekitar tahun 1350. [FN9] Ini
adalah waktu yang sangat bergolak dalam sejarah Inggris.Inggris terlibat dalam Seratus Tahun '* 10 Perang dengan
Perancis (ca. 1337-1453). [FN10] Wabah penyakit pes, yang terkenal "Black Death," pecah di Inggris pada 1348 dan
mengamuk di seluruh negeri, membunuh sekitar sepertiga dari populasi. [FN11] Banyak peristiwa bencana lainnya
mengikuti Black Death, termasuk wabah penyakit lebih lanjut, penurunan populasi, krisis ekonomi, kejahatan meningkat,

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 62

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

pemberontakan petani, dan ketidakstabilan politik. [FN12]

Tidak seperti rekan Dick mitos, Richard Whittington tidak memulai hidupnya dalam kemiskinan namun dilahirkan dalam
sebuah keluarga tuan tanah di abad pertengahan kelas menengah antara bangsawan dan kaum tani. [FN13] Richard
Whittington adalah anak ketiga dari Sir William Whittington, pemilik manor yang sangat sederhana di Pauntley,
Gloucestershire, yang mungkin tempat kelahiran Richard Whittington itu. [FN14] Keluarga Whittington telah terbatas
berarti ketika Richard Whittington masih kecil. Salah satu alasan untuk ini adalah tdk sah Raja William Whittington untuk
tidak menanggapi permohonan utang diajukan terhadap dirinya oleh petugas 11 *. [FN15] William Whittington masih
penjahat ketika dia meninggal beberapa hari kemudian. Untuk menghapus rintangan ini dari estat diperlukan pembayaran
biaya besar.[FN16] Tuduhan lain di perkebunan setelah kematian William Whittington adalah yang jointure pada real
Pauntley dipegang oleh ibu Richard Whittington itu, Lady Joan Whittington. [FN17] ini beban keuangan kemungkinan
membuat real mampu mendukung Richard Whittington sebagai anak muda. [FN18] Berdasarkan jointure itu, tanah
William Whittington berlalu sepenuhnya untuk Kakaknya Richard Whittington William, sesuai dengan aturan hak anak
sulung dari waktu. [FN19] Ketika William meninggal tanpa ahli waris, aturan-aturan ini menyebabkan properti untuk turun
ke saudara tengah, Robert.[FN20] Hampir pasti kurang dalam sumber daya keuangan setelah kematian ayahnya, Richard
Whittington pergi ke London untuk mencari pekerjaan. [FN21] Hal ini sangat mungkin bahwa dia benar-benar berjalan di
sana seperti rekannya Dick Whittington tidak terkenal dalam cerita rakyat. [FN22]

Di London, Richard Whittington menjadi kain yang sangat sukses mercer, atau pedagang kain abad pertengahan,
mencerminkan kecenderungan historis yang lebih umum dari mobilitas sosial meningkat. [FN23] Dia membuat setara
modern jutaan dolar dengan menjual sutra, beludru, kain emas, dan kain mewah lainnya, pertama untuk berbagai
bangsawan dan akhirnya ke rumah tangga kerajaan. Richard II (1377-1400) melakukan pembelian pertama dikenal kain
dari Richard Whittington di 1389, tahun yang sama bahwa raja muda mengumumkan bahwa ia sekarang usia penuh dan
akan memerintah sebagai raja. [FN24] Richard II menyukai pakaian bagus, dan ia menghabiskan boros * 12 pada barang-
barang Richard Whittington itu. [FN25] Royal catatan untuk menunjukkan bahwa periode 1392-1394 mercery Richard
Whittington yang berjumlah lebih dari seperempat dari pengeluaran departemen Lemari Besar Richard II. [FN26]

Belanja cabul seperti berkontribusi pada memburuknya situasi keuangan istana, yang Richard Whittington melihat
sebagai kesempatan bisnis baru. [FN27] Pada 1388 ia meluncurkan perusahaan baru sebagai dana kerajaan. [FN28]
Tampaknya sangat mungkin bahwa ia tidak memutuskan untuk meminjamkan uang kepada Richard II untuk keuntungan
keuangan karena riba kemudian ilegal, dan setiap ada indikasi bahwa Richard Whittington sangat terhormat moral. [FN29]
Sebaliknya, tujuannya tampaknya telah mencapai kekuatan yang lebih besar dan pengaruh. [FN30] Dia pasti mencapai
tujuan ini bahkan jika pinjamannya tidak sepenuhnya meringankan kesengsaraan raja keuangan atau lainnya. Ketika
Richard II digulingkan dalam 1399, ia masih berutang Richard Whittington sekitar £ 1000. [FN31]

Richard Whittington mencapai posisi yang kuat selama pemerintahan Richard II dan penerusnya kedua. Setelah
menerima pinjaman pertama yang besar dari Richard Whittington, Richard II memilih dia untuk menggantikan Walikota
London, yang meninggal di kantor. [FN32] Ia terpilih sebagai Walikota di tahun berikutnya dan memenangkan pemilihan
kembali dua kali lebih banyak, di 1406 dan 1419. [FN33] Dia bertugas di dewan Raja Henry IV (1399-1413), [FN34] yang
tampaknya tidak iri kesetiaannya kepada Richard II. Selama pemerintahan Henry IV dan penggantinya Henry V (1413-
1422), Richard Whittington disajikan pada sejumlah komisi kerajaan khusus. [FN35] Dia * 13 terus meminjamkan uang
kepada kedua Henry IV dan Henry V, [FN36] mungkin untuk mempertahankan pengaruh dan statusnya. [FN37] Richard
Whittington juga terus menjual kain untuk rumah tangga kerajaan, termasuk kain untuk trousseaus pernikahan dua putri
Henry IV. [FN38] Dia adalah menonjol dalam kepemimpinan Perusahaan Mercers politik terkemuka ', salah satu serikat
yang berasal dalam periode abad pertengahan untuk melayani kepentingan pedagang dan menjabat sebagai master di
1395-1396, 1401-1402, dan 1408 -1409. [FN39] Selama periode ini, ia menjadi aktif terlibat dalam perdagangan ekspor di
wol, dan dalam pertukaran untuk pinjaman yang besar untuk mahkota, ia mendapat izin untuk ekspor wol tanpa harus
membayar bea di atasnya. [FN40]

Richard Whittington mati seorang pria kaya di 1423, mendahului dengan istrinya Alice Fitzwarren, yang berasal dari
keluarga bangsawan pemilik tanah yang dimiliki banyak properti di Inggris barat daya kabupaten (Gloucestershire,
Somerset, Wiltshire, dan Dorset). [FN41] Dia tidak pernah menikah lagi dan mungkin tidak pernah memiliki anak, atau jika

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 63

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

ia melakukannya, tidak ada yang selamat kepadanya. [FN42] Ternyata formal dan agak dingin dalam cara, ia tampaknya
tidak membuat setiap teman dekat setelah kematian pelindung yang besar dan teman mungkin, Richard II, yang juga
dingin dan terpencil di cara.[FN43] akan Richard Whittington itu tidak membuat warisan khusus untuk teman atau anggota
keluarga, tetapi disediakan untuk bagian besar tanahnya dibiarkan untuk amal. [FN44] dokumen negara bahwa "sisa dari
semua harta saya, di manapun mereka berada, setelah pembayaran * 14 dari utang saya telah diberi prioritas dan
warisan saya telah terpenuhi, saya serahkan kepada pelaksana saya untuk membuang dalam karya-karya amal untuk
[kebaikan] jiwaku, seperti mereka akan ingin saya lakukan untuk jiwa mereka jika situasi kita terbalik. "Ada beberapa bukti
bahwa selama hidupnya Richard Whittington juga memberikan dengan murah hati untuk amal.[FN45]

Pelaksana Richard Whittington yang digunakan hasil perkebunan, yang mungkin berjumlah sekitar £ 7.000 (setara
dengan sekitar tujuh juta dolar hari ini), untuk mendanai sejumlah perusahaan amal, beberapa di antaranya terus
menguntungkan orang miskin hampir enam abad kemudian. [FN46] Ini perusahaan yang termasuk dasar dari College of
Imam yang berhubungan dengan gereja paroki dan St Michael Paternoster Kerajaan, di mana Richard Whittington dan
istrinya Alice dikuburkan. [FN47] Para pelaksana juga digunakan uang Richard Whittington untuk merekonstruksi Newgate
Gaol, untuk membangun gerbang ke rumah sakit St Bartholomew, untuk mendirikan perpustakaan di Aula Persekutuan,
dan untuk membangun toilet umum, yang dikenal sebagai "rumah panjang Whittington itu." [FN48] Yang paling bertahan
amal yang didanai dengan uang Richard Whittington adalah sebuah almshouse didirikan pada 1424 oleh pelaksana,
tampaknya bertindak atas instruksi ranjang kematiannya. [FN49] Pembukaan Ordinansi untuk Almshouse Whittington
menyediakan bahwa * 15 almshouse adalah rumah tiga belas dari mereka "pouer persones whiche grevous penurie dan
cruelle keberuntungan telah tertindas dan bukan dari kekuatan untuk Gete lyvyng mereka baik dengan kerajinan atau oleh
eny lainnya tubuh buruh ", dalam kata lain, masyarakat miskin layak. [FN50]

Khas periode abad pertengahan di mana Richard Whittington hidup, tujuan penting memotivasi warisan anumerta Richard
Whittington amal adalah kesejahteraan jiwanya setelah kematiannya. [FN51] Orang-orang miskin tiga belas bertempat di
almshouse harus menghabiskan sejumlah besar waktu mereka berdoa bagi jiwa-jiwa Richard Whittington, istrinya, orang
tua, pelanggan, dan lain-lain kepada siapa ia berutang budi "dengan cara bijaksana" selama nya seumur hidup. [FN52]
Setidaknya sehari sekali, mana mungkin, mereka diminta untuk berdiri dalam lingkaran di sekitar makam Richard dan
Alice Whittington dan membacakan beberapa mazmur dan doa-doa.[FN53] Tetapi kepercayaan bahwa pelaksana Richard
Whittington yang didirikan kurang religius di alam dari yayasan yang khas dengan dermawan abad pertengahan, dan
kemudian menjabat sebagai model penting bagi pedagang di London lain di abad XVI dan XVII. [FN54]

Sebagai hasil dari kejelian pelaksana Richard dalam menyiapkan dana abadi untuk almshouse dan investasi dengan baik,
masih bertahan almshouse hari ini, meskipun telah pindah beberapa kali. Sekarang dikenal sebagai Whittington College,
sejak tahun 1966 telah terletak di East Grinstead, Sussex, di mana ia menyediakan 56 rumah untuk wanita tua dan
pasangan.Amal [FN55] Richard Whittington yang sekarang digabung dengan Amal Almshouse Lady Mico itu. [FN56]
Tujuan utamanya adalah untuk mengelola almshouses di Whittington College, serta almshouses di Felbridge, Surrey, dan
di Stepney di borough London Tower Hamlets. Amal juga membuat pembayaran kepada perorangan yang membutuhkan
dan lembaga, serta untuk mendukung kesejahteraan masyarakat, lanjut usia, pendidikan, dan * 16 cacat dan
cacat. [FN57] Untuk tahun fiskal yang berakhir tanggal 30 September 2003, itu didistribusikan lebih dari £ 500.000 untuk
berbagai amal, serta, dalam hubungannya dengan amal yang lain, lebih dari £ 1 juta untuk mendukung
almshouses. [FN58]

Filantropi dermawan Richard Whittington dan buatan sendiri kekayaan tidak diragukan lagi merupakan sumber daya tarik
bagi masyarakat umum di zamannya, seperti bahwa Bill Gates dan Richard Branson sangat menarik kepada orang-orang
hari ini. Pasti ada rasa ingin tahu banyak tentang bagaimana Richard Whittington berhasil mengumpulkan sedemikian
keberuntungan besar. Tapi kaum tani, sebagian besar buta huruf abad pertengahan memiliki sedikit akses ke sumber
tertulis informasi. [FN59] Banyak orang harus bergantung pada komunikasi lisan, seperti mendongeng. Pada beberapa
tanggal tidak diketahui pada abad keenam belas, cerita mulai beredar tentang seorang anak muda bernama Dick
Whittington yang berjalan ke London dan menjadi kaya dan kuat dengan bantuan kucing nya. [FN60]

Beberapa aspek dari cerita rakyat Dick Whittington tentu historis akurat, seperti asal-usul Richard Whittington yang
Gloucestershire dan nama istrinya, Alice Fitzwarren. [FN61] Kebenaran dari elemen lain kurang jelas dan mungkin

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 64

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

mustahil untuk memastikan bukti-bukti yang masih hidup. Misalnya, meskipun tidak ada bukti langsung yang masih ada
bahwa Dick Whittington pernah dimiliki kucing yang membantunya untuk mencapai kekayaan dan status, ada beberapa
bukti yang mendukung hal ini, sehingga tidak bisa definitif ditetapkan sebagai fiksi. [FN62] Kebenaran sejarah kemiskinan
Richard Whittington adalah juga tidak mungkin untuk * 17 menilai dengan pasti. Meskipun ia adalah keturunan dari
keluarga tuan tanah, keluarganya tidak kaya, dan karena ia mewarisi tanah tidak pada kematian ayahnya, ia mungkin
telah finansial sangat buruk dari pada waktu itu. [FN63] Apakah Richard Whittington benar-benar berjalan dari Gloucester
ke London juga tidak mungkin untuk mengatakan dengan pasti pada bukti-bukti yang ada, meskipun tentu
mungkin. [FN64]

Terlepas dari kebenaran Dick Whittington cerita rakyat, itu berkembang. Pada 1605, Thomas Heywood menerbitkan
sebuah drama tentang kehidupan Ratu Elizabeth I yang memiliki adegan memperkenalkan Richard Whittington, serta
berbagai warga negara yang baik lainnya, dan mengacu pada cerita yang Whittington "mengangkat dirinya sendiri oleh
perusahaan dari kucing." [FN65] Dari akhir abad kesembilan belas ketujuh untuk awal, Dick Whittington cerita rakyat
menjadi sangat terkenal melalui dimasukkannya versi yang berbeda dari dalam chapbooks. [FN66] Ini adalah buku murah
yang sangat populer yang dijual oleh penjaja keliling di seluruh Inggris untuk anak-anak dan orang dewasa berpendidikan
rendah. [FN67] Banyak versi yang berbeda dari cerita Dick Whittington masih dijual di toko-toko buku modern. [FN68]
Pada 1668, Samuel Pepys menulis dalam buku hariannya, "Untuk Southwark Fair, sangat kotor, dan ada melihat
pertunjukan boneka Whittington, yang cukup untuk melihat...." [FN69] Pada abad kesembilan belas delapan belas atau
awal, Dick Whittington cerita juga menjadi dasar bagi pantomim, [FN70] yang sering ditambahkan karakter baru seperti
Raja Tikus. Dick Whittington Kisah terus menghasilkan banyak karya kreatif yang baru. Pantomim berdasarkan cerita Dick
Whittington sangat populer di Inggris saat ini, terutama selama * 18 musim Natal. [FN71] Pada bulan Mei dan Juni 2005,
Radio BBC menyiarkan Gloucestershire serangkaian sembilan memainkan radio, The Memoirs tidak tercatat Dick
Whittington Sampai sekarang, untuk memperingati peringatan 400 tahun bermain pertama didasarkan pada kisah Dick
Whittington. [FN72]

Selama penulis adaptasi tersebut tidak menyalin unsur asli adaptasi lain dari cerita Dick Whittington, mereka dapat
menggunakan cerita rakyat yang mendasari tanpa risiko kewajiban berdasarkan undang-undang hak cipta dari Inggris
atau Amerika Serikat. [FN73] Bagian selanjutnya mengacu pada satu versi dari Dick Whittington cerita untuk menunjukkan
cara tradisional Anglo-Amerika doktrin hak cipta beroperasi ke bar perlindungan bagi cerita rakyat banyak seperti Dick
Whittington.[FN74]

III. Suatu Negara yatim: Masalah untuk Dick Whittington dan Hak Cipta
Perlindungan bagi Tales Folk
Sekali waktu seorang anak bernama Dick Whittington tinggal di Gloucester. Dick tidak punya ibu dan ayah untuk
merawatnya.Dia sangat miskin dan sering harus tidur kelaparan. Setelah mendengar orang berbicara tentang sebuah
kota besar, London, tempat jalan-jalan diaspal dengan emas, Dick memutuskan untuk pergi ke sana untuk mencari
peruntungan.

Pada awal cerita rakyat, masalah utama Dick Whittington adalah negara yatim itu. Sebagai seorang yatim piatu, dia
kekurangan dukungan finansial dan status dalam masyarakat. Kesulitan serupa ada untuk cerita rakyat seperti cerita Dick
Whittington.Seperti dongeng dapat dilihat sebagai kurang orang tua dalam arti tidak memiliki masing penulis diidentifikasi
atau kelompok penulis individu, tetapi lebih merupakan produk dari perkembangan masyarakat selama bertahun-
tahun. Keadaan yatim menciptakan masalah yang serius untuk melindungi cerita rakyat berdasarkan hukum kekayaan
intelektual. Jenis utama dari perlindungan kekayaan intelektual untuk cerita adalah hukum hak cipta. [FN75] * 19 rezim
hak cipta paling memberikan perlindungan bagi karya-karya sastra, seni, dramatis, atau musik asli berdasarkan cerita
rakyat seperti cerita Dick Whittington, asalkan mereka memiliki penulis diidentifikasi. [FN76] Namun di bawah tradisional
Anglo-Amerika doktrin hak cipta, banyak cerita rakyat yang mendasari tidak memiliki, atau hanya sangat lemah,
perlindungan hak cipta. [FN77]

Ketika hukum hak cipta modern yang berasal Barat pada awal abad kedelapan belas Inggris, itu dilindungi masing penulis
dan diidentifikasi dari buku, bukan pencipta kolaboratif cerita rakyat.[FN78] Yang pertama undang-undang hak cipta
modern, Statute of Anne (1710), memberi penulis "Liberty tunggal pencetakan atau mencetak ulang" buku mereka atau

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 65

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

menetapkan hak-hak ini untuk jangka waktu terbatas. [FN79] Setelah periode ini berakhir, bekerja akan jatuh ke dalam
domain publik untuk digunakan secara bebas oleh siapapun. Modern Inggris dan Amerika doktrin hak cipta masih
didasarkan pada gagasan romantis penulis individu sebagai jenius-* 20 pencipta yang jelas melandasi Statute of
Anne. [FN80] Dengan undang-undang hak cipta saat ini berlaku di Inggris, Hak Cipta, Desain dan Paten UU 1988
(CDPA), menyatakan bahwa seorang penulis umumnya pemilik pertama hak cipta suatu karya. [FN81] undang-undang ini
mendefinisikan "penulis" sebagai "orang yang menciptakan" sebuah karya. [FN82] Definisi ini menunjukkan bahwa para
perancang undang-undang harus memiliki dianggap penulis sebagai orang yang diidentifikasi individu. Amerika saat ini
Negara-negara federal cipta bertindak melindungi "karya asli penulis tetap di media apapun ekspresi yang nyata." [FN83]
Meskipun undang-undang ini daun "kepengarangan" tidak terdefinisi, hal itu ditautkan pada asumsi bahwa penulis adalah
individu diidentifikasi. [FN84] Hukum perjanjian hak cipta utama, Konvensi Berne, menyediakan bahwa perlindungan
untuk karya sastra dan artistik meluas ke "penulis," yang harus individu dan diidentifikasi. [FN85] Kebanyakan negara di
dunia adalah anggota dari Konvensi Berne. [FN86]

Meskipun sebagian besar rezim hak cipta melindungi karya-karya Barat penulis bersama, perlindungan ini tidak
mencakup karya kolektif atau kolaboratif yang tidak diciptakan oleh individu yang diidentifikasi atau dapat
diidentifikasi. Sebagai contoh, Amerika Serikat saat ini undang-undang hak cipta mendefinisikan "kerja bersama" diprotect
sebagai "sebuah karya yang disiapkan oleh dua atau lebih penulis dengan maksud bahwa kontribusi mereka digabungkan
menjadi bagian yang tidak terpisahkan atau saling bergantung secara keseluruhan kesatuan." [FN87] Untuk diperlakukan
sebagai penulis bersama di bawah hukum hak cipta Amerika Serikat membutuhkan individual memenuhi standar untuk
penulisan dengan membuat kontribusi yang independen copyrightable.[FN88] Selain itu, * 21 ada persyaratan ketat dari
niat bersama, yaitu, bahwa para pihak "menghibur dalam pikiran mereka konsep kepenulisan bersama." [FN89] kontribusi
kolaboratif Banyak karya-karya cerita rakyat tidak akan memenuhi standar yang tinggi. [FN90] Selain itu, fakta bahwa
jangka waktu perlindungan untuk bekerja bersama diukur dari kematian penulis bersama terakhir yang masih hidup
menunjukkan bahwa penulis bersama harus individu dan masyarakat tidak dapat menciptakan sebuah karya
kolektif. [FN91] Para Inggris CDPA juga melindungi bekerja bersama tunduk pada ketentuan durasi yang sama [FN92] dan
membutuhkan bahwa penulis masing-masing menyumbangkan bagian penting dari keahlian dan tenaga kerja yang
melindungi hak cipta. [FN93] Dalam kasus karya sastra seperti cerita, penulis bersama harus berkontribusi kepada
ekspresi tertulis dari pekerjaan. [FN94] Konvensi Berne memiliki ketentuan durasi yang sama untuk bekerja bersama.
[FN95] Akibatnya, doktrin tradisional karya sendi tidak dapat dipandang sebagai pengecualian terhadap persyaratan
diidentifikasi penulis yang akan beroperasi untuk memperpanjang perlindungan hak cipta untuk karya cerita rakyat di
mana penulis tidak diidentifikasi atau mampu diidentifikasi.[FN96]

Juga tidak perlindungan yang diberikan oleh banyak sistem hak cipta karya-karya anonim Barat membuat ekstensi yang
luas perlindungan untuk karya kolektif cerita rakyat. Sebagai contoh, Amerika Serikat saat ini undang-undang hak cipta
jelas merenungkan bahwa bekerja "anonim" dan "nama samaran" untuk yang memperluas perlindungan adalah karya
individu diidentifikasi, bukan produk masyarakat kolektif. Undang ini mendefinisikan "karya anonim" sebagai "bekerja pada
salinan atau phonorecords yang ada orang alami diidentifikasi sebagai penulis." [FN97] Namun karya-karya anonim yang
dilindungi oleh undang-undang tersebut tidak mencakup karya kolaboratif yang dikembangkan dari waktu ke waktu oleh
anggota masyarakat diidentifikasikan. Hal ini jelas dari penyediaan menyediakan untuk perubahan dalam durasi
perlindungan hak cipta jika identitas penulis anonim yang menjadi dikenal. [FN98] Ketentuan ini jelas menunjukkan
sebuah persyaratan yang mendasari * 22 bahwa seorang penulis anonim menjadi individu diidentifikasi. [FN99] Para
Inggris CDPA juga melindungi "karya penulis yang tidak diketahui," dan membuat jelas bahwa perlindungan bagi karya-
karya anonim tidak mencakup karya komunitas kolaboratif di mana penulis tidak mampu diidentifikasi. [FN100] Seperti
undang-undang hak cipta Amerika Serikat, Inggris CDPA memberikan pergeseran serupa di jangka waktu hak cipta di
mana penulis tidak diketahui menjadi dikenal. [FN101] Konvensi Berne memiliki ketentuan yang serupa. [FN102]

Kurangnya penulis individu atau kelompok masing penulis hanyalah salah satu dari beberapa hambatan doktrin
perlindungan hak cipta untuk cerita rakyat di bawah rezim hak cipta tradisional banyak barat. Doktrin lain yang mungkin
perlindungan bar untuk banyak karya cerita rakyat adalah durasi terbatas perlindungan hak cipta, kebutuhan fiksasi, dan
persyaratan orisinalitas.

Konsepsi Anglo-Amerika tradisional hak cipta adalah monopoli terbatas, hanya diberikan untuk jangka waktu

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 66

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

terbatas. Statute of Anne diberikan untuk jangka waktu hak cipta dari empat belas tahun setelah publikasi buku, dan istilah
ini terbarukan selama empat belas tahun jika penulis masih hidup. [FN103] Konstitusi Amerika Serikat bar Kongres
memberlakukan perlindungan hak cipta abadi. [FN104] Amerika Serikat saat ini UU Hak Cipta memberikan bahwa istilah
dasar perlindungan hak cipta adalah kehidupan dari penulis ditambah tujuh puluh tahun. [FN105] Para Inggris CDPA
melindungi karya sastra, drama, musik, atau seni untuk kehidupan penulis ditambah lima puluh tahun. [FN106] Semua
negara-negara anggota Konvensi Berne harus memberikan istilah dasar minimum perlindungan hak cipta hidup penulis
ditambah lima puluh tahun. [FN107] Istilah-istilah ini tentu biasanya sangat panjang - lebih dari satu abad untuk banyak
karya. [FN108] * 23 Namun, mereka tidak cukup lama untuk melindungi cerita rakyat dibuat ratusan tahun yang lalu,
seperti Dick Whittington cerita rakyat.

Persyaratan fiksasi adalah hambatan lain untuk perlindungan bagi banyak cerita rakyat seperti cerita Dick
Whittington.Beberapa sistem hak cipta barat, termasuk Amerika Serikat, mengharuskan bekerja menjadi "tetap dalam
media apapun yang nyata ekspresi" sebagai prasyarat untuk perlindungan hak cipta. [FN109] Konvensi Berne izin
anggotanya untuk menerapkan persyaratan fiksasi, meskipun tidak membuat ini wajib. [FN110] Amerika Serikat saat ini
undang-undang hak cipta memiliki persyaratan fiksasi yang luas untuk semua jenis karya. Ini mendefinisikan "tetap"
sebagai "ketika perwujudan dalam salinan atau phonorecord, oleh atau di bawah otoritas penulis, cukup permanen atau
stabil untuk mengizinkan itu untuk dirasakan, direproduksi, atau dikomunikasikan untuk jangka waktu lebih dari durasi
peralihan . " [FN111] Sebuah cerita akan tetap pada saat itu ditulis pada kertas atau berbicara ke dalam tape
recorder. Britania Raya CDPA memiliki persyaratan fiksasi lebih terbatas yang hanya berlaku untuk beberapa karya, tapi
ini termasuk karya-karya sastra seperti cerita. [FN112] Sebuah cerita rakyat tidak tertulis dibuat dan dikembangkan secara
lisan melalui pengisahan cerita tidak akan memenuhi persyaratan fiksasi.

Seperti cerita rakyat mungkin juga bertabrakan dengan persyaratan hak cipta tradisional yang bekerja cukup
asli.Meskipun Konvensi Berne tidak secara khusus menyediakan untuk orisinalitas sebagai prasyarat untuk perlindungan,
sebagian besar negara anggota memiliki orisinalitas dan kebutuhan penciptaan independen. [FN113] Sebagai contoh,
kedua Amerika Serikat dan Inggris memiliki persyaratan orisinalitas. Amerika Serikat Copyright Act batas perlindungan
hak cipta untuk "aslinya * 24 karya penulisnya." [FN114] Mahkamah Agung telah menyatakan bahwa orisinalitas adalah
"sine qua non dari hak cipta." [FN115] undang-undang tidak mendefinisikan orisinalitas, namun pengadilan berpendapat
bahwa yang asli tidak mengharuskan bekerja menjadi novel atau sebuah karya jenius artistik. [FN116] Orisinalitas tidak
memerlukan hal-hal baru, hanya penciptaan yang independen dan beberapa minim "percikan kreatif," bahkan jika
"mentah, rendah hati atau jelas." [FN117] Sebuah karya yang didasarkan pada sebuah karya yang sudah ada sebelumnya
harus memiliki beberapa variasi dibedakan dari pekerjaan sebelumnya yang lebih dari sekedar sepele. [FN118] Meskipun
Mahkamah Agung telah menggambarkan persyaratan orisinalitas sebagai "tidak terlalu ketat," [FN119] banyak karya
cerita rakyat yang berkembang secara bertahap dari waktu ke waktu berdasarkan karya-karya yang sudah ada
sebelumnya mungkin tidak memenuhi persyaratan orisinalitas. [FN120] Bahkan jika mereka lakukan, hanya aspek-aspek
baru akan dilindungi dan bukan pekerjaan yang sudah ada. [FN121] Amerika hukum hak cipta Raya juga membutuhkan
cerita untuk "asli" harus dilindungi.[FN122] Seperti di bawah hukum Amerika Serikat, baik baru maupun bernilai seni
diperlukan. Semua yang dibutuhkan adalah penciptaan independen dari pekerjaan melalui latihan keterampilan yang
cukup, tenaga kerja, atau penilaian. [FN123] Sebagai Pengadilan Banding Inggris baru-baru ini menyatakan, karya
"mungkin sampah lengkap dan sama sekali tidak berharga, tetapi perlindungan hak cipta mungkin tersedia untuk itu,
seperti itu untuk karya besar imajinatif, seni sastra dan musik." [FN124]

Karena saat ini Amerika Serikat hukum hak cipta tidak memberikan perlindungan hak cipta untuk "keringat alis," atau kerja
keras dikeluarkan dalam menciptakan karya kecuali ada beberapa tingkat minimal kreativitas, cukup menuliskan sebuah
cerita rakyat lisan tidak akan cukup untuk mendapatkan hak cipta hak dalam cerita rakyat itu sendiri, meskipun pilihan
tertentu atau susunan cerita-cerita rakyat di sebuah antologi bisa copyrightable sebagai kompilasi 25 *. [FN125] Posisi di
Inggris dan negara-negara Persemakmuran lainnya mungkin berbeda karena dapat melindungi hak cipta keterampilan
dan tenaga kerja, tetapi bahkan di bawah tes ini sedikit berbeda orisinalitas, menulis cerita rakyat tetap tidak akan
menghasilkan pemberian hak cipta yang luas dalam cerita itu. [FN126] Pada tahun 1989, Tuhan menyatakan obiter Oliver,
dalam keputusan Privy Council dalam Interlego AG v. Tyco Industries Inc, yang orisinalitas memerlukan sesuatu yang
lebih dari upaya dikeluarkan untuk membuat salinan atau literal seperti menjiplak atau pembesaran dari foto dari cetak
positif. [FN127] Namun dalam kasus awal abad kedua puluh Walter ay Lane, House of Lords menemukan bahwa laporan

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 67

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

singkat kata demi kata untuk sebuah koran dari sebuah pidato politik berhak atas perlindungan hak cipta karena wartawan
telah menghabiskan keterampilan dan tenaga kerja secara akurat mencatat kata-kata. [FN128] Namun, sejak pidato itu
dalam domain publik, setiap reporter surat kabar lain juga bebas untuk membuat singkatan sendiri laporan itu. [FN129]
Meskipun Walter v. Lane diputuskan sebelum persyaratan orisinalitas telah dimasukkan ke dalam undang-undang (dalam
UU Hak Cipta 1911), [FN130] kemudian keputusan Inggris dan Australia telah mengadakan itu menjadi hukum yang baik.
[FN131] Baru-baru ini, dalam ay Sawkins Hyperion Rekaman Ltd, Pengadilan Banding Inggris mengikuti pendekatan
Walter dalam menolak banding yang dibawa oleh produser dan penjual rekaman suara terhadap pengadilan pelanggaran
hak cipta dalam edisi melakukan beberapa pekerjaan seorang komponis abad ketujuh belas, Michel-Richard de Lalande,
bahwa musikolog modern telah disiapkan. [FN132] musikolog itu tidak terdiri atau diatur setiap musik sendiri, namun telah
berusaha untuk secara akurat mereproduksi karya Lalande, yang dibutuhkan cukup beasiswa dan interpretasi. [FN133]
Sejak Lalande wafat pada abad kedelapan belas, karya musiknya telah lama dalam domain publik, tetapi Pengadilan
Tinggi menemukan edisi pertunjukan, selesai pada 2001 dan dengan demikian masih dalam jangka waktu perlindungan
hak cipta, yang cukup asli berada dilindungi oleh hak cipta karena keterampilan, usaha, dan tenaga kerja bahwa
musikolog * 26 telah diinvestasikan dalam membuat mereka. [FN134] Namun hak cipta dalam edisi melakukan tidak
termasuk hak cipta dalam karya musik Lalande, dan tidak akan mencegah ahli musik lain dari menyalin karya-karya
sendiri atau membuat edisi mereka sendiri melakukan. [FN135]

Hasil kumulatif dari penulisnya, durasi, fiksasi, dan doktrin orisinalitas di Amerika Serikat dan Inggris, serta di banyak
rezim hak cipta lainnya Barat, adalah bahwa banyak cerita rakyat, seperti cerita rakyat Dick Whittington, tidak memiliki
atau hanyasangat tipis perlindungan hak cipta. Meskipun beberapa hukum adat dan adat melindungi masyarakat-yang
dihasilkan lisan cerita rakyat, perlindungan hukum adat tersebut adalah lemah karena norma-norma adat masyarakat
tradisional hanya dapat mengikat anggota masyarakat itu, bukan orang luar, dan banyak anggota masyarakat adat yang
semakin kurang menghormatinorma-norma. [FN136]

IV. Seperti Upaya Mr Fitzwarren untuk Melindungi Dick, Upaya untuk Memperkuat
Perlindungan Kekayaan Intelektual untuk folklore
Ketika Dick tiba di London, dengan kaki sakit dan letih setelah berjalan sepanjang perjalanan dari Gloucester, ia mencari
sia-sia untuk jalan beraspal di emas. Benar-benar lelah, dia tertidur di tangga rumah besar milik seorang saudagar kaya,
Mr Fitzwarren. Pilihan acak Dick dari sebuah tempat peristirahatan adalah satu beruntung. Mr Fitzwarren adalah pria yang
baik hati dan murah hati yang memberikan Dick sebuah kamar di rumahnya serta pekerjaan sebagai seorang anak
bufet. Mr Fitzwarren selalu memperlakukan Dick baik.

Seperti upaya Mr Fitzwarren untuk merawat Dick dan memperlakukan dia dengan baik, dari akhir 1960an sampai awal
1980-an, ada cukup banyak inisiatif beberapa hukum di tingkat nasional dan internasional untuk menerapkan
perlindungan hukum yang lebih kuat untuk cerita rakyat dan jenis lain dari cerita rakyat dari tradisional hak cipta hukum
Barat atau hukum adat / adat disediakan. Upaya ini termasuk revisi 1960-an untuk perjanjian hak cipta internasional,
Konvensi Bern. Dari akhir 1960-an hingga 1970-an, beberapa negara, terutama di negara berkembang, undang-undang
hak cipta yang berlaku nasional yang memberikan perlindungan khusus untuk karya-karya cerita rakyat meskipun
kesulitan yang ditimbulkan oleh doktrin hak cipta tradisional. Selain itu, pada awal tahun 1980, Perserikatan Bangsa-
Bangsa Organisasi Pendidikan, Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Kebudayaan PBB (UNESCO) [FN137] dan * 27 WIPO [FN138]
Ketentuan Model disusun dirancang untuk mengatasi hambatan doktrinal untuk perlindungan dalam hukum hak cipta
melalui penerapan kekayaan intelektual sui generisperlindungan bagi cerita rakyat ke dalam hukum nasional.Beberapa
negara, terutama di negara berkembang, telah menggunakan Model Ketentuan sebagai dasar untuk memberlakukan
hukum kekayaan intelektual yang lebih luas melindungi cerita rakyat. Tren ini telah sangat jelas di Afrika, dimana
mayoritas negara telah diterapkan, atau sedang dalam proses pelaksanaan, hukum nasional memberikan perlindungan
hak cipta atau sui generis untuk cerita rakyat diwariskan secara lisan yang tidak dipublikasikan dari generasi ke generasi.

A. Revisi 1960 dengan Konvensi Berne: Pasal 15 (4)

Seperti didiskusikan sebelumnya, ketika Konvensi Berne awalnya menyimpulkan pada tahun 1886, hanya dilindungi karya
yang diciptakan oleh penulis diidentifikasi, sehingga tidak termasuk banyak cerita rakyat dan karya lainnya dari folkloric
perlindungan. [FN139] Tetapi pada 1960-an, beberapa negara berkembang berhasil melakukan tekanan untuk merevisi

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 68

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

perjanjian untuk memberikan perlindungan tambahan untuk karya cerita rakyat. Pada Konferensi Stockholm Diplomatik
untuk revisi dari Konvensi Berne pada tahun 1967, delegasi India yang diusulkan menambahkan "karya cerita rakyat" ke
daftar karya sastra dan seni dilindungi dalam Pasal 2 (1) dari Konvensi Berne * 28. [FN140] Proposal menghadapi
pertentangan yang sukses, terutama dari delegasi Australia, yang berpendapat bahwa itu akan merusak struktur dasar
dari Konvensi Berne yang didirikan untuk melindungi penulis diidentifikasi. [FN141] Sebuah Kelompok Kerja khusus pada
folklore, didirikan setelah usulan India gagal, datang dengan sebuah proposal alternatif yang lebih sukses yang
mengakibatkan penambahan Pasal baru 15 (4) pada perjanjian internasional. [FN142] ini menyediakan:
(A) Dalam kasus karya yang tidak dipublikasikan di mana identitas penulis tidak diketahui, tetapi di mana setiap ada dasar
untuk menganggap bahwa ia adalah nasional negara Uni, itu akan menjadi masalah bagi undang-undang di negara itu
untuk menunjuk otoritas kompeten yang akan mewakili penulis dan berhak untuk melindungi dan menegakkan hak-
haknya di negara-negara Uni.

(B) Negara-negara Uni yang membuat penunjukan tersebut berdasarkan ketentuan ketentuan ini, harus memberitahukan
kepada Direktur Jenderal melalui suatu pernyataan tertulis yang memberikan informasi lengkap tentang otoritas sehingga
ditunjuk. Direktur Jenderal sekaligus berkomunikasi Deklarasi ini untuk semua negara-negara lain Uni. [FN143]

Pasal baru 15 (4) tidak termasuk "cerita rakyat" panjang karena itu dianggap terlalu sulit untuk menentukan, tetapi berlaku
untuk semua karya yang diterbitkan dan yang penulis (s) adalah teridentifikasi. [FN144] Ada bukti yang jelas dalam
sejarah legislatif, bagaimanapun, bahwa tujuan menambahkan ketentuan baru ini adalah untuk melindungi cerita rakyat
pada khususnya.[FN145] Namun demikian, Pasal 15 (4) 's perlindungan baru cukup lemah karena kiri itu ke masing-
masing negara untuk membuat penunjukan perwakilan resmi untuk penulis karya cerita rakyat. Hanya satu negara, India,
yang pernah dibuat seperti sebutan. [FN146]

* 29 B. Legislasi Nasional Hak Cipta pada 1960-an dan 1970-an

Pada tahun 1960 dan 1970-an, beberapa negara, terutama di negara berkembang, undang undang hak cipta khusus
memperluas perlindungan terhadap karya kolektif dan kolaboratif cerita rakyat. Ini termasuk Tunisia (1966), Bolivia (1968),
Chili (1970), Iran (1970), Maroko (1970), Aljazair (1973), Senegal (1973), Kenya (1975), Mali (1977), dan Burundi
(1978). [FN147] Hukum-hukum ini berusaha untuk menghindari masalah doktrinal kurangnya seorang penulis individu
diidentifikasi dengan memperlakukan pemerintah nasional sebagai penulis, berdasarkan alasan bahwa cerita rakyat
adalah bagian dari warisan budaya nasional. [FN148] Hukum-hukum ini diterapkan sistem payant domaine publik, di
mana pengguna dari cerita rakyat harus melakukan pembayaran kepada pemerintah nasional, seperti pembayaran royalti
kepada penulis. [FN149] Sebagian besar hukum-hukum ini diperlukan persetujuan dari badan pemerintah untuk
menggunakan cerita rakyat dalam karya derivatif yang diadaptasi cerita rakyat untuk tujuan komersial atau untuk
memperbaiki cerita rakyat untuk tujuan komersial. [FN150] Hukum-hukum ini tidak seragam mendefinisikan cerita rakyat
mereka dilindungi. Sebagai * 30 contoh, mereka berbeda apakah cerita rakyat tersebut terbatas hanya untuk bekerja tidak
dipublikasikan. [FN151] Mereka juga menggunakan terminologi yang berbeda untuk apa yang dilindungi, termasuk: "cerita
rakyat", "karya cerita rakyat," dan "ekspresi cerita rakyat".[FN152]

Hukum-hukum ini memiliki sejumlah kelemahan, baik substantif dan praktis. Beberapa dari hukum-hukum nasional tidak
jelas untuk apa cerita rakyat mereka dilindungi. Misalnya, undang-undang Chile, Mali, dan Tunisia hanya menunjukkan
bahwa mereka melindungi warisan nasional yang umum tanpa mencoba untuk mendefinisikan cerita rakyat. [FN153]
Undang-undang nasional tidak secara khusus menyebutkan bagaimana mereka mengatasi penghalang cipta tradisional
istilah hak cipta itu terbatas dalam durasi, meskipun beberapa pengamat menafsirkan perlindungan mereka cerita rakyat
sebagai terbatas dalam waktu. [FN154] sistem domaine payant Undang-undang 'publik juga tunduk pada kritik karena
gagal untuk memastikan bahwa pembayaran untuk penggunaan cerita rakyat pergi ke komunitas yang telah
menciptakannya. [FN155] Beberapa yurisdiksi tidak membuat perlindungan hak cipta mereka dari cerita rakyat yang
efektif dalam prakteknya.Misalnya, undang-undang Kenya termasuk ketentuan yang diberdayakan Jaksa Agung untuk
membuat peraturan yang menetapkan syarat dan ketentuan yang mengatur penggunaan tertentu selain cerita rakyat oleh
entitas publik nasional untuk tujuan non-komersial atau impor karya asing yang diwujudkan cerita rakyat. [FN156] Namun
peraturan ini tidak pernah dibuat.[FN157]

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 69

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

Kebanyakan yurisdiksi tidak mendukung pendekatan ini hukum nasional, dan terus mengikuti Barat-sentris tradisional
penulis Model hak cipta yang memberikan perlindungan cerita rakyat itu bukan produk dari penulis individu diidentifikasi
atau kelompok penulis tersebut. Kreasi tradisional oleh masyarakat, seperti cerita rakyat, dibiarkan tanpa
perlindungan. Persyaratan durasi Tradisional kiri bekerja folkloric tua dibuat oleh masing penulis diidentifikasi tanpa
perlindungan, * 31 dan persyaratan fiksasi tradisional tidak melindungi cerita yang tidak tertulis.

C. Upaya Melindungi Cerita Rakyat di Tingkat Internasional Puncak di 1982 Ketentuan Model

Pada awal 1970-an, beberapa negara berkembang juga datang ke pandangan bahwa ada kebutuhan untuk perlindungan
internasional yang lebih kuat dari cerita rakyat. Pada tahun 1973, Bolivia memberikan tekanan pada UNESCO untuk
merancang sebuah instrumen internasional untuk melindungi cerita rakyat. [FN158] Pada tahun 1976, Komite Ahli
Pemerintah diselenggarakan di Tunisia dan, dengan bantuan WIPO dan UNESCO, mengadopsi hukum hak cipta model
yang memberikan perlindungan bagi karya-karya cerita rakyat nasional yang radikal diubah beberapa Anglo-Amerika
doktrin tradisional hak cipta. [FN159] Model Law Tunis ini memberikan perlindungan kepemilikan jenis abadi untuk karya-
karya tersebut dan tidak meminta mereka untuk tetap menerima perlindungan.[FN160]

Setelah penciptaan Model Law Tunis, UNESCO mengadakan Komite Ahli tentang Perlindungan Hukum Folklore di Tunis
pada musim panas 1977. [FN161] Komite ini setuju bahwa harus ada penilaian yang lebih komprehensif dari masalah
melindungi cerita rakyat. [FN162] UNESCO dan WIPO kemudian menyelenggarakan Kelompok Kerja enam belas pakar
diundang yang bertemu di Jenewa pada bulan Januari 1980 untuk mempertimbangkan rancangan undang-undang model
yang dirancang untuk digunakan dalam legislasi nasional untuk melindungi cerita rakyat. [FN163] Kelompok Kerja setuju
bahwa perlindungan hukum yang memadai untuk cerita rakyat yang diinginkan. [FN164] Ini mendukung penggunaan
model ketentuan yang dapat dimasukkan ke dalam hukum nasional, melihat ini sebagai langkah pertama untuk
perlindungan regional dan internasional untuk cerita rakyat. [FN165] Draft Kelompok Kerja diubah hukum model yang
dianggap oleh Komite Ahli Pemerintah diselenggarakan oleh UNESCO dan WIPO, yang mengadopsi Ketentuan Model
"Nasional * 32 Undang-undang tentang Perlindungan Ekspresi Folklore Melawan Eksploitasi terlarang dan lain
merugikan Tindakan "(Ketentuan Model) pada tahun 1982. [FN166]

Tentu mengakui kesulitan doktrinal dengan melindungi folklor di bawah hukum hak cipta, para perancang model
Ketentuan lebih disukai jenis sui generis perlindungan. Mereka memilih untuk menggunakan "ekspresi cerita rakyat"
dalam Ketentuan Model daripada jangka waktu hak cipta lebih khas hukum "karya cerita rakyat" untuk membuat jelas
bahwa perlindungan itu sui generis, bukan hak cipta. [FN167] Berdasarkan Ketentuan Model, pemanfaatan tertentu dari
ekspresi cerita rakyat, dengan kedua maksud menguntungkan dan luar konteksnya tradisional atau adat, umumnya
memerlukan otorisasi dari "otoritas yang kompeten," atau jika suatu negara tertentu lebih suka, "komunitas
bersangkutan." [FN168] Ini termasuk disseminations masyarakat menggunakan berbagai ekspresi dari cerita rakyat,
termasuk publikasi dan reproduksi salinan, serta komunikasi ke publik oleh kinerja, bacaan, dan broadcast. [FN169]
Sebuah negara juga dapat memberikan otoritas kepada badan pengawas untuk menetapkan tarif biaya yang harus
dibayarkan untuk pemanfaatan yang berwenang ekspresi cerita rakyat.[FN170] Pemilihan otoritas pengawas atau yang
kompeten, termasuk mungkin sebuah badan perwakilan bagi masyarakat, diserahkan kepada negara masing-
masing. [FN171]

Dengan menerapkan persyaratan ini otorisasi, Ketentuan Model berusaha untuk keseimbangan yang akan menjamin
masyarakat tradisional bisa terus menggunakan dan mengembangkan warisan budaya tradisional mereka dengan cara
tradisional dan adat, dan ekspresi dari cerita rakyat dapat dipertahankan oleh arsiparis atau dipelajari oleh para
peneliti. [FN172] Ketentuan Model dibebaskan beberapa pemanfaatan dari persyaratan otorisasi: pemanfaatan untuk
tujuan pendidikan; pemanfaatan "dengan cara ilustrasi" dalam karya-karya asli penulis; pemanfaatan oleh ekspresi
"meminjam" dari cerita rakyat untuk menciptakan karya asli penulisnya; dan "pemanfaatan insidental," termasuk
pelaporan tentang peristiwa saat ini dan menampilkan ekspresi dari cerita rakyat di museum dikunjungi oleh
publik. [FN173] Pengecualian ini juga diarahkan mencolok keseimbangan yang tepat antara melindungi cerita rakyat
terhadap penyalahgunaan dan memastikan bahwa hal itu bisa digunakan untuk tujuan sosial yang bermanfaat, seperti *
33 pendidikan dan pengembangan kreativitas individu bebas terinspirasi oleh cerita rakyat. [FN174]

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 70

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

Ketentuan Model juga memanifestasikan perhatian untuk memberikan masyarakat berarti kendali lebih besar atas
penggunaan ekspresi mereka cerita rakyat. Bahkan apabila menggunakan ekspresi cerita rakyat tidak memerlukan
otorisasi, Ketentuan Model menyatakan bahwa dalam banyak kasus, itu akan membutuhkan pengakuan sumber dari
ekspresi cerita rakyat. [FN175] Dimana ekspresi dari cerita rakyat yang digunakan dalam publikasi cetak atau
dikomunikasikan kepada masyarakat, menyebutkan harus terbuat dari "masyarakat dan / atau tempat geografis dari mana
ekspresi digunakan telah diturunkan." [FN176] Tidak ada pengakuan sumber diperlukan di mana ada "digunakan secara
insidentil" dari ekspresi cerita rakyat atau di mana ia dipinjam untuk menciptakan karya asli baru penulisnya. [FN177] juga
tidak akan pengakuan sumber diperlukan jika tidak mungkin bagi pengguna untuk mengetahui tempat geografis atau
komunitas yang adalah sumber dari ekspresi cerita rakyat. [FN178] Ketentuan Model lebih memberikan bahwa mereka
tidak meniadakan kebutuhan untuk izin menurut hukum hak cipta jika ekspresi dari cerita rakyat yang digunakan dilindungi
oleh hukum hak cipta. [FN179]

Ketentuan Model juga menyediakan yang keras kepala, dan mungkin lalai, kegagalan untuk mematuhi persyaratan untuk
mengakui sumber harus merupakan tindak pidana. [FN180] Melanggar persyaratan otorisasi juga merupakan tindak
pidana di bawah Ketentuan Model. [FN181] Selain itu, mereka memberikan yang sengaja menipu publik tentang sumber
ekspresi cerita rakyat atau sengaja mendistorsi ekspresi dari cerita rakyat dalam penggunaan umum dalam suatu cara
yang merugikan kepentingan budaya masyarakat yang bersangkutan menjadi tindak pidana. [FN182] Ketentuan Model
menyerahkannya ke negara tertentu untuk menentukan apa sanksi yang harus dikenakan untuk pelanggaran-
pelanggaran, meskipun komentar yang menyertai menunjukkan bahwa denda dan penjara akan sanksi yang mungkin
utama. [FN183] Adapun pelanggaran penggunaan tanpa otorisasi, obat sipil juga dapat diberikan untuk pelanggaran
ketentuan sumber pengakuan.[FN184]

Tidak seperti hukum hak cipta barat, Model Ketentuan menyediakan waktu yang tak terbatas perlindungan untuk ekspresi
cerita rakyat. * 34 [FN185] Para Komentar untuk Model Ketentuan memberikan alasan untuk ini sebagai bahwa penerima
manfaat perlindungan tidak individu dengan umur yang terbatas, tapi sebuah komunitas. [FN186] Hal ini juga
menyatakan, bagaimanapun, bahwa durasi terbatas perlindungan tidak mengecualikan penerapan undang-undang biasa
suatu negara keterbatasan. [FN187]

Ketentuan Model tidak sepenuhnya menjelaskan konsep cerita rakyat diprotect. Perlindungan berdasarkan Ketentuan
Model terbatas pada "warisan artistik" yang dikembangkan oleh komunitas dan tidak mencakup warisan budaya seluruh
bangsa.[FN188] Hal ini dapat mencakup "ungkapan verbal, seperti cerita rakyat, puisi rakyat dan teka-teki...." [FN189]
Para Komentar untuk menyatakan model Ketentuan bahwa salah satu contoh warisan budaya tradisional yang tidak akan
jatuh ke dalam kategori sempit "artistik warisan" adalah "substansi legenda," pemberian sebagai contoh spesifik saja
"umumnya dikenal hidup tradisional pahlawan seperti Raja Arthur dan ksatria. " [FN190] Namun, ekspresi verbal "yang
akan memenuhi syarat sebagai sastra jika diciptakan sendiri oleh seorang penulis," ekspresi musik, atau "ekspresi [] oleh
tindakan dan [a] yang nyata ekspresi []" bisa memenuhi syarat untuk perlindungan sebagai ekspresi cerita rakyat-olah itu
adalah "elemen karakteristik" dari warisan tradisional seni suatu komunitas tertentu. [FN191] Tidak seperti perlindungan
hak cipta tradisional, Ketentuan Model tidak memerlukan bahwa ekspresi dari cerita rakyat diperbaiki agar
dilindungi. [FN192]

Sejauh mana Ketentuan Model akan melindungi Dick Whittington cerita rakyat sebagai "ekspresi dari cerita rakyat" tidak
sepenuhnya jelas dari diskusi membingungkan dan tidak jelas warisan artistik di Komentar untuk Model
Ketentuan.Komentar tidak menjelaskan bagaimana itu harus ditentukan apakah suatu ekspresi verbal tertentu memenuhi
syarat sebagai mewakili warisan tradisional yang berbeda dari suatu komunitas. [FN193] Tampaknya dari Commentary
bahwa subjek umum cerita Dick Whittington tidak akan dilindungi sebagai ekspresi dari cerita rakyat, tetapi ekspresi
verbal subjek yang akan dilindungi. Model Ketentuan menyatakan bahwa contoh dari "ekspresi verbal" adalah "cerita
rakyat." [FN194] Namun, mereka tidak menentukan apapun tes atau metode untuk memisahkan apa yang diprotect
ekspresi dalam sebuah cerita rakyat dari substansi unprotectable dari legenda. Tampaknya bahwa Model Ketentuan
sedang berusaha untuk membuat sesuatu seperti dikotomi 35 * ide-ekspresi dalam hukum hak cipta Amerika
Serikat. [FN195] Namun, mereka tidak membuat jelas bagaimana ide unprotectable harus dipisahkan dari ekspresi
diprotect, terutama bila tidak dapat ditentukan elemen mana dari cerita rakyat, seperti cerita Dick Whittington, yang benar-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 71

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

benar fakta sejarah. [FN196] Ketentuan Model tidak memerlukan bahwa otoritas yang kompeten atau masyarakat
menjaga persediaan dari cerita rakyat. [FN197]

D. Pelaksanaan Ketentuan Hukum Nasional Model menjadi

Beberapa negara, terutama di negara berkembang, telah menggunakan Model Ketentuan sebagai dasar untuk
memberlakukan hukum kekayaan intelektual yang lebih luas melindungi cerita rakyat. Mayoritas negara-negara Afrika
telah baik dilaksanakan atau sedang dalam proses pelaksanaan hak cipta atau sui generis perlindungan kekayaan
intelektual untuk cerita-cerita rakyat dan jenis lain dari cerita rakyat ke dalam hukum nasional mereka. Banyak dari
hukum-hukum ini didasarkan pada Ketentuan Model. Salah satu contoh adalah hak cipta baru dan tetangga undang hak
berlaku di Republik Tanzania. [FN198]

Di bawah Undang-Undang Hak Cipta dan Hak Tetangga 1999, Tanzania memberikan perlindungan kekayaan intelektual
untuk "ekspresi dari cerita rakyat dikembangkan dan dipertahankan di Republik Tanzania." [FN199] Setelah Ketentuan
Model, Tanzania juga memperluas perlindungan seperti ungkapan asing cerita rakyat di bawah aturan perlakuan nasional
mensyaratkan bahwa yurisdiksi dimana ekspresi asing cerita rakyat berasal memberikan perlindungan setara dengan
Tanzania. [FN200]

Undang-undang Tanzania mendefinisikan ruang lingkup dari cerita rakyat yang dilindungi sangat mirip dengan Ketentuan
Model. Hal ini juga melindungi "ekspresi dari cerita rakyat," yang mendefinisikan menggunakan bahasa yang hampir
identik dengan Ketentuan Model, sebagai produksi "yang terdiri dari unsur-unsur karakteristik dari warisan seni tradisional
dikembangkan dan dipertahankan dari generasi ke generasi oleh masyarakat atau oleh individu mencerminkan * 36 seni
tradisional harapan dari komunitas mereka. " [FN201] Contoh-contoh ekspresi cerita rakyat yang diberikan dalam undang-
undang Tanzania juga sangat mirip dengan Ketentuan Model di bahwa mereka dinyatakan sebagai non-eksklusif dan
mencakup cerita rakyat, puisi rakyat, teka-teki, lagu-lagu rakyat, musik rakyat instrumental, rakyat tarian, drama, bentuk
seni ritual, produksi dari seni rakyat dalam gambar, lukisan, ukiran, patung, keramik, terakota, mosaik, pekerjaan kayu,
logam ware, perhiasan, keranjang, kostum, dan instrumen musik tradisional.[FN202]

Hukum Tanzania juga erat mengikuti Ketentuan Model dalam membuat penggunaan tertentu ekspresi subjek cerita rakyat
untuk otorisasi dari otoritas yang kompeten, National Arts Council. Ini termasuk reproduksi dan distribusi salinan atau
komunikasi kepada publik, misalnya, penyiaran, melakukan, atau bacaan publik di mana cerita rakyat yang digunakan
baik "dengan maksud menguntungkan dan di luar konteks tradisional dan adat." [FN203] Pengecualian Tanzania ini
persyaratan otorisasi yang hampir identik dengan yang dalam Ketentuan Model, termasuk: penggunaan ekspresi cerita
rakyat untuk tujuan pendidikan, sebagai ilustrasi dalam karya-karya asli (seperti yang selama ini adalah "kompatibel
dengan praktek yang adil"), "meminjam" ekspresi dari cerita rakyat untuk digunakan dalam karya turunan asli, dan
menggunakan insidental tertentu, seperti dalam laporan berita atau di museum menampilkan terbuka untuk
umum. [FN204] Ketentuan Model meninggalkan menentukan apakah otorisasi tersebut harus secara tertulis kepada
pemerintah nasional menerapkannya.[FN205] Hukum Tanzania mensyaratkan bahwa aplikasi tersebut secara
tertulis. [FN206] Pelacakan kata-kata kebijaksanaan dalam Ketentuan Model, undang-undang Tanzania menyediakan
untuk pembayaran biaya otorisasi yang sesuai dengan tarif yang ditetapkan oleh Dewan Kesenian Nasional yang akan
digunakan untuk mempromosikan atau melindungi kebudayaan nasional.[FN207]

* 37 Seperti Ketentuan Model, undang-undang Tanzania juga membutuhkan pengakuan sumber, mirip dengan hak moral
atribusi, dalam situasi tertentu. Juga mirip dengan Ketentuan Model, hukum Tanzania mengharuskan pengguna ekspresi
dari cerita rakyat seperti cerita rakyat untuk menunjukkan sumber mereka dengan "menyebutkan masyarakat dan / atau
geografis tempat dari mana ekspresi digunakan telah diturunkan" dalam "semua publikasi cetak, dan dalam sehubungan
dengan setiap komunikasi kepada publik. " [FN208]

Ketentuan Model menyerahkannya kepada pemerintah nasional untuk menentukan sanksi yang berlaku. [FN209] Di
bawah undang-undang Tanzania, pelanggaran dikenakan hukuman penjara dan denda, yang dapat besar dan
kuat. [FN210] impor tidak sah, distribusi, reproduksi, atau adaptasi dari ekspresi cerita rakyat akan dikenakan denda

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 72

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

sampai 10 juta shilling atau penjara hingga sepuluh tahun. [FN211] Pelanggaran menggunakan ekspresi cerita rakyat
yang "sengaja mendistorsi [] sama dengan cara yang merugikan kepentingan budaya masyarakat yang bersangkutan"
adalah dihukum dengan denda hingga lima juta shilling atau penjara hingga tiga tahun. [FN212] Seseorang dinyatakan
bersalah karena sengaja melanggar persyaratan atribusi juga tunduk pada istilah yang sama dari penjara atau
denda. [FN213]

Negara Afrika lainnya telah berlaku, atau sedang dalam proses memberlakukan, perlindungan hukum ditingkatkan untuk
cerita rakyat yang baik khusus termasuk cerita rakyat atau diungkapkan secara luas cukup untuk memasukkan cerita
rakyat. Ini termasuk Aljazair, [FN214] Angola, [FN215] Benin, [FN216] Botswana [FN217] * 38 Burkina Faso, [FN218]
Burundi, [FN219] Kamerun, [FN220] Pantai Gading, [FN221] Djibouti,[FN222] Mesir, [FN223] Ghana [FN224] Mali,
[FN225] Malawi, [FN226] Maroko, [FN227] Namibia [FN228] Nigeria [FN229] Niger, [FN230] Senegal [FN231]
Seychelles, [FN232] Togo [FN233] * 39 dan Zimbabwe. [FN234] Sebagian besar dari hukum ini didasarkan, untuk
berbagai derajat, pada Ketentuan Model dan menerapkan semacam sui generis perlindungan dalam undang-undang hak
cipta mereka sebagai hak tetangga.Tapi beberapa yurisdiksi, seperti Angola dan Seychelles, telah membentang doktrin
hak cipta tradisional untuk memperpanjang perlindungan hak cipta abadi untuk cerita rakyat tidak tertulis dan tidak tertulis
beberapa karya lain dari cerita rakyat diwariskan dari generasi ke generasi. [FN235] Dengan undang-undang hak cipta
terbaru Kenya memiliki ketentuan otorisasi menteri yang bertanggung jawab untuk mengatur hak cipta untuk
menggunakan cerita rakyat tertentu, kecuali digunakan oleh entitas publik nasional untuk tujuan non-komersial, serta
impor asing membuat karya-karya yang mewujudkan tertentu karya cerita rakyat, termasuk cerita rakyat, dibuat dalam
Kenya oleh penulis diketahui, diturunkan antara generasi, dan yang merupakan "elemen dasar dari warisan budaya
tradisional Kenya." [FN236] Tapi tidak ada peraturan seperti itu belum diumumkan.

V. Seperti Tikus, Kolega Kejam, dan Kemiskinan: Kesulitan untuk Intelektual


Properti Perlindungan folklore
Meskipun kebaikan Mr Fitzwarren, masalah Dick jauh dari lebih di rumah baru di London. Kamarnya penuh dengan tikus
yang berlari di tempat tidurnya pada malam hari, sehingga mustahil baginya untuk mendapatkan tidur malam yang
baik. Atasan langsung Dick, masak Mr Fitzwarren, adalah seorang pria yang kejam yang membuat hidup sengsara
Dick. Dan Dick masih sangat miskin.

Sama seperti kesulitan Dick belum berakhir bahkan setelah Mr Fitzwarren memberinya rumah, kendala signifikan masih
dihadapi mereka yang berusaha untuk meningkatkan perlindungan kekayaan intelektual untuk cerita rakyat dan jenis lain
dari cerita rakyat bahkan setelah penciptaan Ketentuan Model. Kurangnya kejelasan dalam Model Ketentuan tentang apa
aspek dari sebuah cerita rakyat mereka melindungi bukan hanya kelemahan mereka. Bahkan pendukung perlindungan
yang lebih kuat untuk cerita rakyat telah menyatakan alasan tambahan untuk ketidakpuasan * 40 dengan Ketentuan
Model.Salah satu kekhawatiran adalah bahwa Ketentuan Model yang tidak cukup luas dan bahwa mereka harus diperluas
tidak hanya cerita rakyat, tetapi juga jenis lain dari pengetahuan tradisional, seperti obat tradisional atau pengetahuan
pertanian. [FN237] Sebuah kritikan lain dari Ketentuan Model adalah bahwa mereka tidak cukup kuat karena mereka tidak
memberikan hak kepemilikan eksklusif untuk cerita rakyat dan tidak cukup luas untuk melindungi, misalnya, terhadap
penggunaan digital cerita rakyat. [FN238] Namun lain adalah bahwa lebih dari dua puluh tahun Ketentuan Model lama
kedaluwarsa, terutama mengingat teknologi yang signifikan, perkembangan hukum, sosial, dan budaya sejak saat
itu. [FN239]

Signifikansi praktis yang lebih besar adalah kenyataan bahwa Ketentuan Model yang tidak hukum dan dengan demikian
tidak mereka mampu penegakan kecuali mereka telah diterapkan ke dalam hukum nasional. Meskipun seperti dibahas di
atas, beberapa negara telah bersedia untuk melaksanakan perlindungan berdasarkan Ketentuan Model dalam hukum
nasional mereka, sebuah studi WIPO terakhir menemukan bahwa "tampak bahwa ada beberapa negara di mana dapat
dikatakan bahwa ketentuan tersebut secara aktif digunakan dan berfungsi secara efektif dalam praktek. " [FN240] Selain
itu, banyak negara di negara maju telah jauh kurang bersedia untuk melaksanakan atau menggunakan jenis
perlindungan.

Beberapa mengambil pandangan bahwa perlindungan properti spesifik untuk karya intelektual berwujud cerita rakyat,
seperti perlindungan sui generis dalam Ketentuan Model, tidak diperlukan atau diinginkan. Banyak negara-negara Barat

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 73

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

maju, seperti Amerika Serikat dan Inggris, tidak memberikan perlindungan kekayaan intelektual yang komprehensif untuk
karya berwujud dari cerita rakyat seperti cerita rakyat itu, seperti Dick Whittington cerita, diciptakan tahun lalu oleh
seorang penulis yang tidak dikenal dan ditransmisikan secara lisan dari generasi ke generasi. [FN241] Amerika Serikat
telah memberlakukan suatu ketentuan yang sangat spesifik melindungi beberapa jenis tertentu dari cerita rakyat terhadap
meremehkan atau pemalsuan, seperti India dan Undang-Undang Seni Kerajinan yang berusaha untuk memastikan
keaslian artefak India yang dipasarkan sebagai "India dibuat." [FN242] Pasal 2 (a) dari Undang-Undang Lanham
memungkinkan Paten Amerika Serikat dan Trademark Office untuk menolak pendaftaran merek dagang yang palsu
menunjukkan koneksi * 41 dengan suku adat atau kepercayaan yang dianut oleh suku itu. [FN243] Namun tidak satu pun
dari hukum-hukum tertentu akan memberikan perlindungan kepada cerita rakyat. [FN244] Para Inggris CDPA memiliki
ketentuan, bagian 169, memberikan bahwa di mana negara Uni Berne telah menetapkan badan yang kompeten untuk
mewakili kepentingan penulis tidak diketahui karya-karya yang tidak dipublikasikan tertentu cerita rakyat, termasuk cerita
rakyat dalam Pasal 15 (4) dari Konvensi Berne, Inggris, melalui penunjukan oleh Orde Her Majesty di Dewan, mungkin
akan mengenali kekuatan tubuh yang untuk menegakkan hak cipta dalam pekerjaan. [FN245] Dalam prakteknya,
pengecualian ini akan hampir tidak pernah diterapkan karena hanya India telah pernah dibuat seperti penunjukan bawah
Konvensi Berne dan tidak ada Serikat Orde Raya di Dewan belum dibuat. [FN246]

Beberapa negara hukum 'secara eksplisit bar cerita rakyat dari menerima perlindungan hak cipta, meskipun mereka
masih dapat mengizinkan perlindungan bagi karya turunan asli berdasarkan cerita rakyat. Contohnya adalah Undang-
Undang Republik Armenia tentang Hak Cipta dan Hak Terkait. [FN247] Negara-negara lain yang mengecualikan cerita
rakyat dari perlindungan hak cipta adalah: Azerbaijan, [FN248] Belarus, [FN249] Bosnia-Herzegovina, [FN250] Bulgaria,
[FN251] Estonia, [FN252] Kazakhstan, * 42 [FN253] Madagaskar, [FN254] Lithuania, [FN255] Moldova, [FN256] Rusia,
[FN257] dan Ukraina. [FN258]

Yurisdiksi yang tidak menyediakan perlindungan khusus untuk ekspresi dari cerita rakyat tampaknya melakukannya untuk
dua alasan utama. [FN259] Yang pertama adalah keyakinan bahwa ada hak kekayaan intelektual memberikan
perlindungan yang memadai cerita rakyat. [FN260] Yang kedua adalah pandangan bahwa tidak tepat atau tidak perlu
untuk melindungi ekspresi dari cerita rakyat karena mereka adalah bagian dari warisan budaya nasional dan harus dalam
domain publik untuk digunakan oleh semua orang. [FN261]

Alasan pertama, kecukupan dirasakan ada hukum kekayaan intelektual, telah memotivasi banyak negara industri Barat
untuk tidak menerapkan perlindungan khusus kekayaan intelektual untuk cerita rakyat. [FN262] Ini Australia meliputi,
Kanada, Republik Ceko, Jerman, Jepang, Norwegia, Portugal, Swiss, dan Amerika Serikat. [FN263] Menurut alasan ini,
cerita rakyat secara memadai dilindungi oleh hukum hak cipta karena mereka tidak sepenuhnya dikecualikan dari
perlindungan.Sebuah cerita rakyat yang dilindungi dalam sistem hak cipta menerapkan doktrin tradisional hak cipta barat
jika seorang penulis individu membuat ceritanya, itu cukup asli, belum jatuh ke dalam domain * 43 publik dengan alasan
berakhirnya jangka waktu hak cipta, dan itu tetap di beberapa media nyata dari ekspresi. [FN264]

Negara-negara yang telah menyatakan alasan kedua, ketidaktepatan perlindungan, sebagai alasan untuk keengganan
mereka untuk memberikan perlindungan hukum khusus untuk cerita rakyat juga termasuk cukup beberapa negara-negara
maju, termasuk Australia, Belgia, Kanada, Republik Ceko, Italia, Belanda, Rusia federasi, dan Jepang. [FN265] Federasi
Rusia telah menyatakan bahwa "[c] warisan ultural adalah properti universal, oleh karena larangan penggunaannya tidak
tepat, karena unsur-unsur pengetahuan tradisional dan budaya terjalin ke dalam kehidupan sehari-hari di semua
tempat." [FN266] Bukan hanya negara-negara maju telah dibujuk oleh dua dasar pemikiran: satu atau kedua dari mereka
juga memotivasi beberapa negara maju yang lebih kecil, termasuk Honduras, Kyrgystan, Vietnam, dan Gambia. [FN267]

Sebagai Model Ketentuan telah gagal untuk memacu universal yang spesifik nasional sui generis perlindungan kekayaan
intelektual untuk cerita rakyat, banyak orang, terutama dari negara-negara berkembang dan masyarakat adat, telah
tumbuh semakin khawatir tentang eksploitasi cerita rakyat dan bentuk lain dari cerita rakyat di luar budaya tradisional
mereka. Salah satu contoh adalah penggunaan Disney cerita rakyat Cina kuno, "Balada Mulan," dalam film animasi 1998,
Mulan. [FN268] Film ini mendapat kritik yang cukup untuk mendistorsi cerita rakyat asli dan sejarah China, [FN269] serta
stereotip rasial. [FN270] Sebagai contoh, Weimin Mo dan Wenju Shen, dua profesor pendidikan yang berasal dari Cina,
telah menuduh bahwa "buldoser Disney berguling budaya Cina" karena pembuat film "tidak memiliki rasa konteks budaya

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 74

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

organik." [FN271] Mo dan Shen mempertimbangkan motif keputusan Mulan untuk pergi ke perang di film Disney, untuk
"benar pada dirinya sendiri," sebagai keliru mendasar dari budaya Cina karena "Balada Mulan" asli adalah perayaan
Mulan Konghucu bakti dan pengorbanan diri. [FN272] Mereka menunjukkan ketidakakuratan budaya lain dalam film,
seperti penggambaran palsu cross-dressing sebagai tabu dalam budaya Cina, penggunaan musik yang mengaku
Tionghoa tetapi tidak * 44 menggunakan skala pentatonik Cina tradisional, penggambaranMulan dalam riasan Cina
diduga tradisional, yang sebenarnya muncul Jepang, penggambaran akurat dari pekerjaan Cina comblang, dan
penggambaran dari kriket sebagai simbol keberuntungan. [FN273] Menurut Mo dan Shen, Disney "merampok [tidur] cerita
jiwa dan di tempat yang mereka menempatkan lelucon, lagu, dan efek menakutkan." [FN274] kekhawatiran tersebut telah
menempatkan meningkatnya tekanan pada organisasi-organisasi internasional untuk mengembangkan perlindungan kuat
untuk cerita rakyat di tingkat internasional.

Masyarakat adat telah menyatakan keprihatinan mereka tentang cerita rakyat dan melindungi pengetahuan tradisional
dari eksploitasi komersial di sejumlah deklarasi. Ini termasuk Deklarasi Mataatua (1993) [FN275] dan Deklarasi Beijing
Perempuan Adat (1995). [FN276] Deklarasi Mataatua disebut pada negara, nasional, dan lembaga internasional untuk
mengakui bahwa ada hukum kekayaan intelektual tidak mencukupi untuk perlindungan hak-hak budaya dan intelektual
masyarakat adat properti. Deklarasi juga merekomendasikan pengembangan rezim hak kekayaan intelektual yang lebih
kuat yang akan melindungi karya kolektif, menyediakan "multi-generasi rentang cakupan," memberikan perlindungan
retroaktif, dan melindungi terhadap penghinaan terhadap item yang secara kultural yang signifikan. [FN277] Deklarasi
Beijing Perempuan Adat menuntut bahwa "hak-hak asasi kita untuk warisan kita intelektual dan budaya diakui dan
dihormati" dan juga menuntut bahwa "konsep Barat dan praktek hak kekayaan intelektual seperti yang didefinisikan oleh
TRIPS dalam GATT, tidakditerapkan untuk masyarakat adat [sic] komunitas dan wilayah. "[FN278] deklarasi ini tidak
secara khusus mengacu pada cerita rakyat, tetapi cukup luas worded untuk mencakup mereka serta banyak jenis cerita
rakyat dan budaya tradisional.

VI. Para Resep untuk Mengatasi Kesulitan: Kerja Keras, Keberuntungan, dan Binaan
Akal, keberuntungan, dan kebaikan dermawan menyebabkan keberhasilan Dick dalam mengatasi kesulitan-
kesulitannya.Suatu hari Dick mendapatkan sejumlah kecil uang menyemir sepatu seorang pria kaya. Ia menghabiskan
pada kucing yang diusir, semua tikus-tikus di kamarnya. Ini kerja keras * 45 dan membeli cerdik memecahkan masalah
dari tikus, sehingga Dick akhirnya bisa tidur di malam hari. Jenis-hati Mr Fitzwarren kemudian menetapkan rantai
peristiwa dalam gerak yang berakhir masalah lain Dick juga. Suatu hari Pak Fitzwarren disebut semua hamba-Nya
bersama-sama dan menawarkan mereka kesempatan untuk membuat beberapa uang mereka sendiri. Salah satu kapal
pedagang itu hendak berangkat untuk Hindia dalam misi perdagangan. Mr Fitzwarren kepada hamba-hambanya bahwa
mereka bisa mengirim sesuatu di kapal untuk diperdagangkan. Dick hanya punya satu kepemilikan yang bisa dikirim,
kucingnya. Dengan berat hati, dia memberikannya kepada Mr Fitzwarren. Sementara itu, Masak terus membuat hidup
sengsara Dick. Suatu hari Dick tahan situasi tidak lagi, dan lari dari rumah Tuan Fitzwarren itu. Mencapai tepi kota di
Highgate Hill, ia mendengar Bells Bow [FN279] berpadu "Belok lagi, Whittington, tiga kali Tuhan Walikota London." Takjub
dan terpesona, Dick mematuhi perintah dari lonceng, dan kembali ke rumah Mr Fitzwarren itu. Ketika ia tiba, ia disambut
dengan berita bahwa Raja Barbery telah membeli kucingnya untuk sejumlah besar uang karena ia putus asa untuk
menyingkirkan istananya tikus. Dick tiba-tiba orang kaya.

Jika pendukung perlindungan cerita rakyat meningkat adalah untuk berhasil dalam upaya mereka untuk mendapatkan
perlindungan cerita rakyat yang lebih besar pada tingkat internasional, mereka akan membutuhkan upaya besar,
patronase, dan ukuran besar keberuntungan, seperti Dick Whittington diperlukan hal-hal ini untuk mengatasi kesulitan-
kesulitannya. Pemeriksaan ini bagian dari upaya saat ini untuk mendirikan sebuah rezim internasional yang memberikan
perlindungan kekayaan intelektual untuk cerita rakyat tertentu dan jenis lain dari pengetahuan tradisional akan
menunjukkan bahwa kerja keras belum kurang. Suatu bentuk patronase dapat dikatakan ada dalam WIPO telah
membentuk Komite Antar Pemerintah mengenai Kepemilikan Intelektual dan Sumber Daya Genetik, Pengetahuan
Tradisional dan Cerita Rakyat untuk mencoba membangun konsensus internasional yang diperlukan bagi kesepakatan
properti intelektual internasional untuk perlindungan dari cerita rakyat dan lain-lain jenis pengetahuan
tradisional. Beberapa anggota WTO juga berusaha untuk merevisi Perjanjian TRIPS untuk menggabungkan perlindungan
pengetahuan tradisional. Tapi, terlalu dini untuk mengetahui apakah mereka yang mendukung lebih besar perlindungan
hukum internasional untuk cerita rakyat akan memiliki keberuntungan yang diperlukan untuk sukses dalam negosiasi

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 75

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

instrumen internasional yang melindungi cerita rakyat dan jenis lain dari cerita rakyat.

* 46 A. Diskusi dan Konsultasi di dan oleh WIPO dan UNESCO pada Instrumen Internasional untuk Perlindungan
Kekayaan Intelektual untuk folklore: 1984-1999

Pada bulan Desember 1984, WIPO dan UNESCO menyelenggarakan Kelompok Pakar untuk mempertimbangkan
rancangan perjanjian berdasarkan Ketentuan Model. [FN280] Meskipun peserta mengakui bahwa globalisasi dan
perkembangan teknologi yang meningkatkan penggunaan cerita rakyat melintasi batas-batas geografis dan
perkembangan ini dianggap menjadi masalah, mereka umumnya sepakat bahwa terlalu dini untuk mendirikan sebuah
perjanjian internasional.[FN281] Mereka melihat dua masalah utama. Pertama, ada sumber-sumber cukup untuk
mengidentifikasi ekspresi cerita rakyat yang akan dilindungi. Kedua, tidak ada mekanisme untuk menentukan bagaimana
hukum nasional harus berurusan dengan ekspresi cerita rakyat yang secara tradisional digunakan di lebih dari satu
negara. [FN282]

Pada tahun 1996, WIPO mengadopsi sebuah perjanjian internasional yang memberikan perlindungan untuk pertunjukan
cerita rakyat dan jenis-jenis cerita rakyat. Para Pertunjukan WIPO dan Rekaman Treaty (WPPT) pertunjukan eksplisit
dilindungi dari "ekspresi cerita rakyat" pada umumnya, tidak seperti Konvensi Roma sebelumnya yang hanya dilindungi
pertunjukan cerita rakyat kualifikasi sebagai karya sastra atau seni. [FN283] WPPT itu tidak memberikan perlindungan
umum cerita-cerita rakyat dan bentuk lain dari cerita rakyat sendiri, hanya untuk pertunjukan mereka. Namun pada
konferensi diplomatik di mana WPPT itu diadopsi, Komite Ahli WIPO pada Protokol Kemungkinan untuk Konvensi Berne
dan Komite Ahli pada Instrumen Kemungkinan untuk Perlindungan Hak-hak pelaku dan Produser Rekaman mengadopsi
rekomendasi yang"ketentuan harus dibuat untuk organisasi sebuah forum internasional untuk mengeksplorasi isu-isu
tentang pelestarian dan perlindungan ekspresi cerita rakyat, aspek kekayaan intelektual dari cerita rakyat, dan
harmonisasi * berbeda 47 kepentingan daerah." [FN284] Delegasi Nigeria menyatakan bahwa UNESCO juga harus
terlibat dalam forum internasional ini. [FN285]

Pada tahun berikutnya, UNESCO dan WIPO mengadakan Forum Dunia bersama tentang Perlindungan Folklore di
Phuket, Thailand, yang berlangsung dari 08-10 April, 1997. [FN286] Sekitar 180 peserta dari beberapa lima puluh negara
menghadiri forum ini untuk membahas pelestarian dan konservasi cerita rakyat, eksploitasi ekonomi ekspresi cerita
rakyat, perlindungan hukum bagi cerita rakyat dalam legislasi nasional, dan perlindungan internasional untuk ekspresi
cerita rakyat. [FN287] Mayoritas peserta mengadopsi Rencana Aksi yang menyatakan bahwa ada kebutuhan untuk
perlindungan hukum internasional bagi cerita rakyat dan bahwa perlindungan tersebut harus keseimbangan antara
masyarakat memiliki cerita rakyat dan pengguna cerita rakyat. [FN288] Rencana Aksi juga mencatat bahwa "peserta dari
Pemerintah Amerika Serikat dan Inggris tegas menyatakan bahwa mereka tidak bisa mengasosiasikan dirinya dengan
[itu]." [FN289]

Pada tahun 1997, WIPO menyewa seorang direktur umum yang baru, Kamil Idris, dari negara berkembang
Sudan. [FN290] Dimulai pada tahun depan, termasuk kegiatan WIPO banyak pada perlindungan bagi cerita rakyat dan
jenis lain dari ekspresi budaya tradisional dan pengetahuan ke dalam program dan anggaran dua tahunan. [FN291]
Awalnya, WIPO mengambil apa yang digambarkan sebagai "pendekatan eksplorasi" untuk aspek kekayaan intelektual
melindungi cerita rakyat. [FN292] Pada tahun 1998 dan 1999, WIPO dilakukan sembilan misi pencarian-fakta ke dua
puluh delapan negara di seluruh dunia.[FN293] Misi-misi * 48 dirancang untuk secara sistematis menilai kebutuhan
properti intelektual dan harapan dari pemegang folklore dan pengetahuan tradisional. [FN294] WIPO menerbitkan sebuah
laporan terakhir pada misi pencarian-fakta, direvisi untuk memasukkan komentar, pada bulan April 2001 (FFM
Laporan). [FN295] Para FFM Laporan menyatakan bahwa misi pencarian-fakta mengungkapkan bahwa pemegang
pengetahuan tradisional dan perwakilan mereka memiliki dua alasan utama untuk menginginkan perlindungan yang lebih
baik dari cerita rakyat dan pengetahuan tradisional: (1) keinginan untuk "perlindungan positif" untuk memastikan bahwa
mereka mendapat keuntungan ekonomis dari ekspresi budaya mereka, dan, (2) keinginan untuk "perlindungan defensif"
untuk mengendalikan dan mencegah kerusakan pada budaya tradisional melalui eksploitasi komersial cerita
rakyat. [FN296] Laporan FFM juga mengidentifikasi kebutuhan dan harapan yang relevan dengan cerita rakyat, termasuk
kejelasan lebih baik tentang apa cerita rakyat yang harus dilindungi; identifikasi dan dokumentasi cerita rakyat, studi
tentang bagaimana hukum adat berlaku untuk cerita rakyat dan akan berinteraksi dengan standar kekayaan

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 76

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

intelektual; pelatihan untuk pemegang cerita rakyat dan pejabat pemerintah, pengembangan perlindungan nasional untuk
ekspresi dari cerita rakyat diikuti dengan perlindungan regional dan internasional; perubahan standar kekayaan intelektual
untuk memastikan bahwa kebudayaan tradisional tidak disalahgunakan atau diperlakukan, dan valuasi ekonomi cerita
rakyat. [FN297]

Pada tahun 1999, WIPO, dalam hubungannya dengan UNESCO, diselenggarakan empat konsultasi regional tentang
perlindungan "ekspresi cerita rakyat," yang diselenggarakan di Afrika, Asia, Timur Tengah, Amerika Latin, dan
Karibia. [FN298] Pada konsultasi ini, perwakilan nasional dari negara-negara anggota WIPO bekerja WIPO dibahas
tentang perlindungan cerita rakyat. Secara umum, rekomendasi dari konferensi regional yang WIPO harus meningkatkan
kerja untuk melindungi cerita rakyat dan harus fokus pada: (1) kebutuhan untuk mengembangkan sui generis
perlindungan melalui hukum nasional, perjanjian internasional, atau pedoman internasional; (2) kebutuhan untuk
mengidentifikasi dan mendokumentasikan ekspresi dari cerita rakyat dan mengembangkan standar nasional untuk
dokumentasi tersebut; dan (3) kebutuhan untuk mempelajari pendekatan regional untuk melindungi hak-hak dalam
ekspresi dari cerita rakyat tradisional yang telah dikembangkan atau digunakan oleh lebih dari satu negara.[FN299]
Konsultasi Asia / Pasifik dan Arab daerah direkomendasikan * 49 Ketentuan Model berfungsi sebagai titik awal untuk
mengembangkan perlindungan cerita rakyat. [FN300] Sebagian besar konsultasi regional juga menyatakan bahwa WIPO
dan UNESCO membentuk sebuah Panitia Pengetahuan Tradisional dan Cerita Rakyat untuk bekerja pada membangun
perlindungan hukum bagi cerita rakyat, serta pengetahuan tradisional. [FN301]

B. Komite Antar Pemerintah WIPO Kekayaan Intelektual dan Sumber Daya Genetik, Pengetahuan Tradisional dan Cerita
Rakyat: 2000-2005

WIPO menerima bahwa harus ada forum diskusi untuk mengembangkan konsensus yang diperlukan antara negara-
negara anggota untuk mendirikan sebuah rezim internasional perlindungan cerita rakyat. [FN302] Para WIPO Majelis
Umum WIPO membentuk Komite Antar Pemerintah mengenai Kepemilikan Intelektual dan Sumber Daya Genetik,
Pengetahuan Tradisional dan Cerita Rakyat (selanjutnya disebut "Komite Antar Pemerintah") pada bulan Oktober 2000,
dan sesi pertama diadakan dari 30 April - 3 Mei, 2001. [FN303] Para anggota Komite Antar Pemerintah adalah negara-
negara anggota WIPO, serta antar-pemerintah, internasional, dan regional organisasi non-pemerintah yang terakreditasi
sebagai pengamat. [FN304] Itu * 50 ada lebih dari 100 pengamat terakreditasi tersebut menunjukkan tingkat yang sangat
tinggi kepentingan dalam subjek ini. [FN305]

Pada sesi pertama dari Komite Antar Pemerintah, banyak delegasi menyatakan dukungan untuk tiga tugas: (1)
memperbarui Ketentuan Model, (2) meningkatkan perlindungan untuk kerajinan, dan (3) bekerja untuk membangun suatu
sistem internasional sui generis perlindungan untuk ekspresi cerita rakyat. [FN306] Tapi delegasi lain, terutama negara-
negara maju termasuk Australia, Kanada, dan Amerika Serikat, menyatakan keprihatinan bahwa beberapa tugas-tugas
yang prematur. [FN307] Sebagai contoh, pada sesi pertama ini, Amerika Serikat delegasi mengungkapkan pandangan
bahwa itu disarankan untuk mendirikan sebuah rezim internasional untuk perlindungan pengetahuan tradisional dan cerita
rakyat sebelum banyak anggota telah dimasukkan perlindungan tersebut ke dalam hukum nasional dan telah memperoleh
pengalaman dari efek mereka. [FN308] Hal ini juga berpendapat bahwa hukum kekayaan intelektual tidak paling cocok
untuk perlindungan pengetahuan tradisional karena hukum kekayaan intelektual adalah mekanisme ke depan dirancang
untuk menciptakan insentif untuk produksi karya kreatif dan penemuan. Delegasi Amerika Serikat juga menunjukkan
bahwa undang-undang kekayaan intelektual, bahkan yang lebih baru seperti perlindungan database dan perlindungan
sirkuit terpadu, hanya pencipta dikenal dilindungi dengan tanggal pembuatan dikenal dan memberikan perlindungan abadi
untuk durasi yang terbatas dalam parameter yang didefinisikan. [FN309] Sementara Amerika Serikat mengakui
pentingnya keprihatinan masyarakat adat dan lokal dalam upaya melindungi pengetahuan tradisional dan cerita rakyat,
posisinya adalah bahwa masalah ini, termasuk penentuan nasib sendiri, kesehatan, keadilan, warisan budaya, dan isu-isu
tanah , tidak dalam wilayah WIPO keahlian dan tidak masalah kekayaan intelektual benar-benar. [FN310] Meskipun
kekhawatiran seperti itu, Komite Antar Pemerintah co-kursi merangkum diskusi dengan menyatakan bahwa ada beberapa
dukungan untuk tugas dan bahwa masalah ini tampaknya bagaimana pekerjaan harus melanjutkan pada tugas, bukan
apakah itu harus dilanjutkan. [FN311]

Sekretariat WIPO menanggapi sejumlah permintaan delegasi untuk informasi lebih lanjut pada pengalaman negara-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 77

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

negara yang berbeda dengan perlindungan hukum dari cerita rakyat dengan menyiapkan dan mendistribusikan * 51
kuesioner pada pengalaman nasional. [FN312] Dengan 31 Januari 2002, Sekretariat WIPO telah menerima enam puluh
empat tanggapan terhadap kuesioner. [FN313] Komite Antar Pemerintah dianggap tanggapan ini pada sesi ketiga pada
Juni 2002.[FN314]

Dari enam puluh empat responden terhadap kuesioner WIPO, dua puluh tiga (36%) memiliki hukum nasional
menyediakan perlindungan properti spesifik intelektual untuk cerita rakyat.[FN315] Sebagian besar dari perlindungan
seperti yang diberikan di bawah hukum hak cipta. Undang-undang hak cipta bervariasi untuk tingkat perlindungan yang
diberikan kepada cerita rakyat. Beberapa dari hukum nasional, seperti Barbados, Indonesia, dan Iran, khususnya
termasuk ekspresi cerita rakyat sebagai karya copyrightable tetapi tidak membuat banyak perubahan pada hukum hak
cipta mereka untuk ekspresi seperti cerita rakyat, selain memberikan perlindungan hak cipta abadi.[FN316] yurisdiksi
lainnya, termasuk Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Namibia, Mozambik, Meksiko, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Togo, dan Republik
Tanzania, memiliki undang-undang berbasis, untuk berbagai derajat, pada Ketentuan Model.[FN317] Beberapa negara -
Kroasia, Panama, Filipina, dan Vietnam - perlindungan sui generis memberikan kekayaan intelektual terhadap ekspresi
cerita rakyat. [FN318]

Lebih dari setengah dari responden menunjukkan bahwa bangsa mereka tidak memberikan perlindungan hukum khusus
untuk cerita rakyat. Negara-negara termasuk Amerika Serikat, Zimbabwe, Jamaika, Australia, Belgia, Kanada, Italia,
Belanda, dan Jepang. Berbagai alasan untuk ini diberikan. Alasan ini dapat dikelompokkan menjadi tiga kategori utama:
(1) ada hak kekayaan intelektual memberikan perlindungan yang memadai; (2) perlindungan hukum khusus untuk cerita
rakyat tidak sesuai atau diminta, dan (3) perlindungan seperti berada di bawah pertimbangan atau tertunda
ditetapkan. [FN319]

* 52 Laporan Akhir WIPO menyimpulkan bahwa "ada beberapa negara di mana dapat dikatakan bahwa ketentuan
tersebut [memberikan perlindungan hukum khusus untuk ekspresi dari cerita rakyat] secara aktif dimanfaatkan dan
berfungsi secara efektif dalam praktek." [FN320] Komite Antar Pemerintah tidak bisa mengidentifikasi alasan tunggal
untuk ini, tetapi menyimpulkan bahwa ada kebutuhan untuk memperkuat pelaksanaan dan mempekerjakan lebih efektif
seperti perlindungan legislatif nasional. [FN321] Hal ini juga menyimpulkan bahwa ada kebutuhan untuk kesadaran yang
lebih besar dan pelatihan bagi masyarakat adat dan masyarakat dalam menggunakan dan memahami hukum kekayaan
intelektual yang ada untuk melindungi pengetahuan tradisional dan cerita rakyat. [FN322] Ada juga kebutuhan untuk
belajar ketika langkah-langkah non-intelektual properti, seperti hukum kekayaan budaya, cukup bisa melindungi cerita
rakyat. [FN323] Laporan Akhir WIPO WIPO mengusulkan bahwa harus, tunduk pada keterbatasan anggaran, memberikan
bantuan hukum dan teknis lebih efektif menerapkan ketentuan-ketentuan legislatif melindungi cerita rakyat ("Task Usulan
Pertama"). [FN324] Hal ini juga mengusulkan bahwa WIPO harus bekerja pada memperbarui dan meningkatkan
Ketentuan Model dalam terang perubahan teknologi sejak 1980-an ("Task Usulan Kedua").[FN325]

Laporan Akhir WIPO juga melaporkan bahwa banyak responden telah menyatakan kebutuhan bagi kesepakatan
internasional untuk perlindungan ekspresi cerita rakyat, meskipun beberapa responden, seperti Amerika Serikat,
mengambil pandangan bahwa terlalu dini untuk mengembangkan perjanjian tersebut.[FN326] Laporan Akhir mengusulkan
agar Komite Antar Pemerintah harus "meneliti unsur-unsur yang mungkin, mekanisme tindakan atau kerangka kerja untuk
perlindungan ekstra-teritorial fungsional ekspresi cerita rakyat" ("Task Usulan Ketiga"). [FN327] Hal ini harus termasuk
memeriksa Pasal 15 (4) dari Konvensi Berne dan keterbatasan praktis penggunaannya, serta penerapan praktis dari
Perjanjian Bangui, sebuah kesepakatan regional Afrika dengan lima belas anggota yang memberikan perlindungan
kepada ekspresi dari cerita rakyat melalui domaine sistem payant publik. [FN328] Akhirnya, WIPO Laporan Akhir
ketentuan bahwa ada kebutuhan untuk informasi tambahan tentang bagaimana hukum adat beroperasi untuk mengatur
kepemilikan, kontrol, dan pengelolaan ekspresi cerita rakyat dan bagaimana hukum tersebut dapat diakui secara efektif
dan ditegakkan sebagai bagian dari global yang lebih besar sistem perlindungan hukum bagi ekspresi cerita
rakyat. [FN329] Ini diusulkan kasus praktis * 53 studi tentang hubungan antara hukum adat dan hukum kekayaan
intelektual ("Task Usulan Keempat"). [FN330]

Pada sesi ketiga Komite Antar Pemerintah, yang diselenggarakan pada bulan Juni 2002, ada diskusi dari semua empat
tugas ini diusulkan. [FN331] Sejumlah negara-negara berkembang, termasuk Amerika Serikat, Kanada, Swiss, dan

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 78

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

Australia hanya mendukung Usulan Tugas Pertama dan Keempat, bukan Kedua dan Ketiga. [FN332] Ketua
menyimpulkan bahwa Komite Antar Pemerintah hanya mengadopsi dan menyetujui Usulan Tugas Pertama dan
Keempat. Mesir diminta, bagaimanapun, bahwa Tugas Usulan Kedua dan Ketiga tidak dilarang dari pemeriksaan di masa
depan, dan Ketua setuju. [FN333]

Komite Antar Pemerintah terus mengembangkan dan mempertimbangkan bahan-bahan pengalaman nasional dengan
perlindungan hukum bagi cerita rakyat. Pada sesi keempat, diadakan pada bulan Desember 2002, Komite Antar
Pemerintah mempertimbangkan sejumlah studi kasus, presentasi, dan informasi lainnya pada subjek ini, termasuk
sebuah analisa sistematis pengalaman nasional. [FN334] Komite Antar Pemerintah memfokuskan pekerjaannya pada
Usulan Tugas Pertama dan Keempat, dan tidak membuat keputusan tentang Usulan Tugas Kedua atau Ketiga. [FN335]
Tapi itu meletakkan dasar untuk diskusi masa depan kesepakatan internasional untuk perlindungan hukum cerita rakyat,
serta menciptakan sumber daya bagi WIPO untuk memberikan bantuan hukum dan teknis untuk memperkuat
pelaksanaan dan efektif perlindungan nasional cerita rakyat.Pekerjaan ini dilanjutkan pada sesi kelima dari Komite Antar
Pemerintah, yang diselenggarakan pada bulan Juli 2003.[FN336] Pada sesi ini, Komite Antar Pemerintah dibahas versi
terbaru dari analisis sistematis dari pengalaman nasional, serta perbandingan yang ada sui generis perlindungan ekspresi
dari cerita rakyat dan update * 54 pada kerjasama teknis pada perlindungan hukum tradisional ekspresi cerita
rakyat. [FN337]

Pada pertemuan yang lebih baru, Komite Antar Pemerintah mulai bekerja pada pengembangan tujuan kebijakan dan
prinsip-prinsip inti untuk perlindungan cerita rakyat. Pada sidang keenam, diadakan pada bulan Maret 2004, Komite Antar
Pemerintah dianggap dokumen pada pilihan hukum dan kebijakan dan memutuskan untuk mengembangkan gambaran
tujuan kebijakan dan prinsip-prinsip inti. [FN338] Komite Antar Pemerintah meminta Sekretariat menyiapkan gambaran
rancangan tujuan kebijakan dan prinsip-prinsip inti, serta garis besar pilihan kebijakan dan mekanisme hukum untuk
perlindungan ekspresi cerita rakyat yang mencakup beberapa analisis singkat dari kebijakan dan praktis implikasi dari
setiap opsi. [FN339] Pada sidang ketujuh pada bulan November 2004, Komite Antar Pemerintah memeriksa ini gambaran
rancangan tujuan kebijakan dan prinsip-prinsip inti. [FN340] Komite Antar Pemerintah juga terakhir garis Sekretariat
pilihan kebijakan dan mekanisme hukum untuk perlindungan ekspresi cerita rakyat. * 55 [FN341] Selain itu, Komite Antar
Pemerintah mencatat rinci komentar dan saran penyusunan yang sudah dibuat pada tujuan rancangan dan prinsip-prinsip
inti dan menyerukan komentar lebih lanjut akan diberikan sebelum 25 Februari 2005. [FN342] Komite juga meminta
Sekretariat untuk menghasilkan rancangan revisi untuk dipertimbangkan pada sesi berikutnya. [FN343] Pada sidang yang
paling terakhir, sesi kedelapan, yang diadakan pada awal Juni 2005, Komite ini dianggap draft revisi.[FN344] Itu tidak
membuat keputusan pada tujuan rancangan dan prinsip-prinsip inti tetapi hanya mencatat keragaman sudut pandang
yang diekspresikan pada isu-isu. [FN345]

C. Draft Revisi sekarang Tujuan dan Prinsip bawah Pertimbangan pada Sidang Intergovernmental Terkini Komite WIPO
pada bulan Juni 2005

Draft Revisi Tujuan dan Prinsip-prinsip dalam pertimbangan pada sesi kedelapan mencakup standar substantif yang bisa
membentuk isi dari standar internasional baru menyediakan perlindungan terhadap penyalahgunaan atau
penyalahgunaan ekspresi cerita rakyat tanpa harus memberikan hak-hak properti yang berbeda (meskipun tidak
mencegah mereka dari yang dimasukkan kemudian). [FN346] Beberapa peserta mengungkapkan pandangan bahwa
Komite Antar Pemerintah tidak mengambil pendekatan yang tepat untuk perlindungan.Sebagai contoh, Amerika Serikat
delegasi berpendapat bahwa penggunaan Komite Antar Pemerintah tentang "perlindungan" istilah terlalu sempit dan juga
harus mencakup konsep-konsep pelestarian, konservasi, dan promosi ekspresi cerita rakyat.[FN347] anggota lainnya
tidak setuju, percaya bahwa ini dapat dibiarkan upaya antar pemerintah dan non-pemerintah lainnya.[FN348] Pandangan
lain * 56 draft adalah bahwa ia gagal untuk memberikan perlindungan yang cukup kuat untuk ekspresi cerita
rakyat. [FN349] Namun, standar substantif yang yang lebih luas dalam banyak hal dibandingkan Ketentuan Model,
termasuk ruang lingkup ekspresi cerita rakyat yang dilindungi dan tingkat perlindungan untuk setidaknya jenis tertentu dari
mereka.

Misalnya, meskipun keduanya draft dan Model Ketentuan melindungi "ekspresi dari cerita rakyat," bukan hanya cerita
rakyat, [FN350] dan tidak memerlukan fiksasi, draft tidak membatasi ruang lingkup perlindungan untuk "warisan seni

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 79

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

tradisional dikembangkan dan dikelola oleh masyarakat , "sebagai Model Ketentuan lakukan. [FN351] Sebaliknya, draft
memperluas perlindungan yang lebih luas untuk ekspresi budaya tradisional dari cerita rakyat (istilah ini digunakan secara
sinonim dalam draft) dengan link yang cukup untuk sebuah warisan budaya masyarakat dan sosial. [FN352] Draft
menjelaskan persyaratan ini link menggunakan kata sifat "karakteristik" bahwa Ketentuan Model juga digunakan untuk
menggambarkan link yang diperlukan dengan "warisan artistik."[FN353] Para komentar untuk draft menunjukkan bahwa
untuk memiliki link, ekspresi dari cerita rakyat harus melewati setidaknya dua generasi. [FN354] Namun asumsi ini adalah
kasus, penghapusan batas "artistik warisan" akan melindungi array jauh lebih luas dari cerita rakyat dari Ketentuan
Model.Ketentuan Model menarik perbedaan antara bentuk artistik diprotect ekspresi legenda dan legenda yang
mendasari unprotectable. [FN355] Draft Sebaliknya, tidak membuat perbedaan ini, bukan khusus yang menyatakan
bahwa cerita, epik, dan legenda merupakan ungkapan diprotect cerita rakyat.[FN356]

Tingkat proteksi juga lebih luas dalam konsep daripada Ketentuan Model, setidaknya untuk beberapa ekspresi cerita
rakyat. Berbeda dengan Ketentuan Model, rancangan menyediakan untuk berbeda "lapisan" perlindungan untuk berbagai
jenis ekspresi cerita rakyat. Mereka yang "nilai budaya atau spiritual tertentu atau significan [t] untuk komunitas" dapat
didaftarkan, dan jika demikian, memerlukan persetujuan terlebih dahulu informasi untuk penggunaan tertentu. [FN357]
menggunakan disseminations publik tersebut meliputi berbagai ekspresi dari cerita rakyat, pelaksanaan hak-hak
kekayaan intelektual atas * 57 ekspresi dari cerita rakyat, penggunaan ekspresi cerita rakyat yang tidak mengakui
komunitas sumber, dan distorsi atau modifikasi atau menghina tindakan ekspresi cerita rakyat. [FN358] Ini adalah
perlindungan yang lebih kuat dari yang diberikan oleh Model Ketentuan karena secara efektif memberikan hak adaptasi
untuk ekspresi terdaftar atau diberitahu cerita rakyat nilai budaya atau spiritual tertentu.[FN359] pertunjukan tertentu yang
memenuhi syarat sebagai ekspresi dari cerita rakyat juga diberikan perlindungan yang kuat ini, asalkan mereka diberitahu
atau terdaftar. [FN360] Ada tingkat sedikit berbeda perlindungan dalam draft untuk ekspresi rahasia cerita rakyat, yang
akan memiliki hak penyebaran pertama. [FN361] Ketentuan Model tidak memiliki perlindungan jenis ini.

Draft memberikan cerita rakyat yang tidak terdaftar atau diberitahu tingkat yang lebih rendah perlindungan. Penggunaan
cerita rakyat tersebut tidak memerlukan persetujuan terlebih dahulu di bawah draft, tetapi cara di mana mereka digunakan
akan diatur. Secara khusus, harus ada "langkah-langkah hukum dan praktis yang memadai dan efektif" untuk memastikan
bahwa hak moral tertentu dihormati, termasuk hak identifikasi membutuhkan atribusi dari masyarakat yang merupakan
sumber dari ekspresi cerita rakyat, serta hak integritas untuk mencegah distorsi, mutilasi, atau modifikasi lainnya atau
tindakan menghina dalam kaitannya dengan ekspresi cerita rakyat.[FN362] Ada juga harus tindakan hukum yang sama
untuk mencegah beberapa jenis persaingan yang tidak sehat, seperti salah menunjukkan hubungan dengan ekspresi
budaya tradisional komunitas tertentu. [FN363]

Ini tingkat yang lebih rendah perlindungan di bawah rancangan tersebut masih lebih luas, dalam hal tertentu, dari ruang
lingkup perlindungan berdasarkan Ketentuan Model. Meskipun Ketentuan Model memerlukan otorisasi untuk penggunaan
tertentu dari setiap ekspresi cerita rakyat yang memenuhi syarat untuk perlindungan, draft hanya membutuhkan otorisasi
untuk ekspresi terdaftar atau diberitahu cerita rakyat. Selain itu, Model Ketentuan memiliki pengecualian jauh lebih luas
dari perlindungan. Mereka mengecualikan banyak adaptasi dari sebuah ekspresi cerita rakyat (baik "pemanfaatan dengan
cara ilustrasi dalam karya asli penulis atau penulis, asalkan bahwa tingkat pemanfaatan tersebut kompatibel dengan
praktek yang adil", dan "meminjam ekspresi cerita rakyat untuk menciptakankarya asli penulis atau penulis "). [FN364]
Namun draft tersebut tidak mengandung pengecualian yang sama untuk adaptasi.[FN365]

Ruang lingkup perlindungan draft yang lebih sempit daripada Model Ketentuan dalam beberapa hal. Sebagai contoh, tidak
seperti Ketentuan Model, * 58 draft memerlukan beberapa tingkat kreativitas untuk ekspresi dari cerita rakyat harus
dilindungi. [FN366] Hal ini tidak perlu kreativitas individu, tetapi bisa meliputi kreativitas komunal. [FN367] Tes untuk
diterapkan untuk menentukan apakah bekerja cukup kreatif tidak ditentukan dalam draft. Hukum hak cipta Paling,
bagaimanapun, memiliki persyaratan kreativitas yang sangat rendah, dan kemungkinan bahwa standar ini rendah akan
dicerminkan oleh hukum nasional seharusnya ini persyaratan dari draft yang pernah diimplementasikan dalam instrumen
internasional. Selain itu, sementara perlindungan berdasarkan Ketentuan Model tidak terbatas dalam waktu, [FN368] draft
membatasi jangka waktu perlindungan dengan cara berikut: (1) terdaftar atau diberitahukan ekspresi cerita rakyat diberi
perlindungan tingkat tinggi hanya selama mereka tetap terdaftar atau diberitahu; (2) ekspresi rahasia cerita rakyat diberi
tingkat perlindungan khusus hanya selama mereka tetap rahasia, dan (3) ekspresi lain dari cerita rakyat yang dilindungi

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 80

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

hanya selama mereka memenuhi kriteria untuk perlindungan berdasarkan Pasal I. [FN369] Dengan demikian, komentar
untuk draft menggambarkan jangka waktu perlindungan tidak terbatas, tetapi hanya "terbatas berpotensi." [FN370]

Rancangan berusaha untuk menerapkan apa istilah "solusi antara" untuk satu masalah yang berkaitan dengan domain
publik - luasnya retroaktif perlindungan. Pengobatan Draft dari masalah ini, pada kenyataannya, adalah tertimbang
terhadap domain publik. Sebuah barat menerapkan konsep hak cipta tradisional untuk ekspresi dari cerita rakyat dibuat
ratusan tahun lalu umumnya akan menyimpulkan bahwa ini telah jatuh ke dalam domain publik karena berakhirnya jangka
waktu hak cipta. Tapi banyak masyarakat adat berpikir sebaliknya. Mereka percaya bahwa jika hukum adat dilindungi
ekspresi dari cerita rakyat, mereka tidak akan pernah jatuh ke dalam domain publik.[FN371] Para komentar untuk
menyatakan rancangan itu berusaha menerapkan kompromi antara kedua sudut pandang dengan memberikan yang
terus bertindak dalam hal ekspresi budaya tradisional / ekspresi cerita rakyat yang [] dimulai sebelum diberlakukannya
ketentuan-ketentuan ini dan yang tidak akan diizinkan atau yang akan dinyatakan diatur oleh ketentuan-ketentuan, harus
dibawa ke sesuai dengan ketentuan dalam jangka waktu yang wajar setelah mereka mulai berlaku, tunduk pada
penghormatan terhadap hak-hak yang sebelumnya diakuisisi oleh pihak ketiga.[FN372]

Tapi ini seharusnya kompromi benar-benar tidak banyak kompromi karena secara efektif menghancurkan domain publik,
meskipun setelah beberapa periode waktu yang tidak ditentukan.

* 59 Bukan hanya standar substantif dalam draft revisi tetap ragu-ragu. Komite Antar Pemerintah juga belum memutuskan
jenis instrumen internasional yang akan sesuai untuk ekspresi unsur-unsur substantif perlindungan atas mana mereka
mungkin setuju. Kemungkinan termasuk konvensi internasional atau perjanjian, protokol atau perjanjian khusus untuk
suatu konvensi yang ada (seperti yang dimaksud oleh Pasal 20 dari Konvensi Berne untuk Perlindungan Karya Sastra
dan Seni, 1971), pernyataan atau deklarasi, rekomendasi, sebuah set panduan atau ketentuan model, atau interpretasi
otoritatif dari konvensi yang ada. [FN373] Sebuah instrumen yang mengikat secara hukum seperti konvensi juga bisa
secara bertahap, dimulai dengan kesepakatan tidak mengikat. [FN374] Komite Antar Pemerintah juga belum memutuskan
apakah input tambahan pada prinsip-prinsip rancangan dan tujuan harus diijinkan dan didorong dari pemegang
pengetahuan tradisional dan ahli lainnya. [FN375] Selanjutnya, Komite Antar Pemerintah masih harus menentukan
apakah akan mendukung pendekatan rancangan saat ini yang menyatakan prinsip-prinsip luas yang meninggalkan
negara-negara anggota untuk keputusan seperti apa mekanisme hukum yang akan digunakan untuk melaksanakan
ketentuan. [FN376]

D. Upaya di Organisasi Perdagangan Dunia untuk Mengamandemen TRIPS untuk Melaksanakan Perlindungan Khusus
Kekayaan Intelektual untuk folklore dan Pengetahuan Tradisional: 2001 - 2005

WIPO tidak satu-satunya organisasi internasional yang telah menjabat sebagai forum bagi upaya untuk menegosiasikan
perlindungan internasional yang lebih kuat untuk cerita rakyat dan jenis lain dari pengetahuan tradisional. Beberapa
anggota WTO, terutama negara-negara berkembang, baru-baru ini berusaha untuk melakukan hal ini dengan
menegosiasikan revisi dari Perjanjian TRIPS. [FN377] Persetujuan TRIPs bagian dari Putaran Uruguay dari Perjanjian
Umum mengenai Tarif dan Perdagangan (GATT) yang dibuat perlindungan kekayaan intelektual bagian dari sistem
perdagangan dunia. [FN378] Perjanjian TRIPS mensyaratkan anggota WTO untuk menerapkan standar minimal
kekayaan intelektual dan prosedur penegakan hukum dalam hukum nasional mereka. [FN379] Jika mereka gagal
melakukan * 60 sehingga, mereka dapat disiplin oleh Badan Penyelesaian Sengketa WTO, yang dapat penghargaan
sanksi perdagangan, antara lain. Meskipun TRIPS memang mengandung beberapa ketentuan pelaksanaan tertunda
menyediakan standar minimum yang diperlukan perusahaan untuk mengembangkan kekayaan intelektual dan paling-
negara maju, banyak orang di negara-negara ini tidak senang dituntut untuk menerapkan gaya barat baru perlindungan
kekayaan intelektual ke dalam sistem hukum nasional mereka , belum lagi kemungkinan sanksi perdagangan bagi yang
melanggar. [FN380] Mereka juga prihatin bahwa sistem properti yang sudah ada intelektual TRIPS gagal untuk
memberikan perlindungan yang memadai cerita rakyat dan pengetahuan tradisional.

Kekhawatiran negara-negara berkembang telah panggung pusat di babak terbaru perundingan perdagangan WTO,
Putaran Doha. Pada November 2001, anggota WTO mengadopsi Deklarasi Menteri yang memunculkan babak baru

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 81

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

negosiasi perdagangan. Sebagai bagian dari Deklarasi, Menteri menginstruksikan Dewan TRIPS untuk "memeriksa,
antara lain, hubungan antara Perjanjian TRIPS dan.. Perlindungan pengetahuan tradisional dan cerita rakyat.." Deklarasi
Menteri lanjut menyarankan bahwa, "[i] n melakukan pekerjaan ini, Dewan TRIPs wajib dipandu oleh tujuan dan prinsip-
prinsip yang ditetapkan dalam Pasal 7 dan 8 dari Perjanjian TRIPS dan harus memperhatikan sepenuhnya dimensi
pembangunan." [FN381]

Pada bulan Maret 2002, Dewan TRIPs WTO meminta Sekretariat untuk mempersiapkan sebuah makalah tentang
perlindungan pengetahuan tradisional dan cerita rakyat. Makalah ini, selesai pada bulan Agustus 2002, diringkas poin
yang dibuat oleh delegasi di Dewan TRIPS mengenai perlindungan * 61 folklore dan pengetahuan tradisional. [FN382] Ini
mencatat bahwa ada dua kategori utama yang menjadi perhatian di balik upaya untuk merevisi TRIPs untuk melindungi
pengetahuan tradisional dan cerita rakyat: (1) kekhawatiran bahwa pengetahuan tradisional yang digunakan tanpa
otorisasi dan tanpa pembagian manfaat ekonomi dari penggunaan tersebut dengan sumber masyarakat; (2) kekhawatiran
bahwa hak kekayaan intelektual sedang diberikan untuk pengetahuan tradisional untuk orang lain dari masyarakat adat
atau masyarakat yang berasal ilmu tradisional tersebut. [FN383] Hal ini juga mencatat bahwa telah ada diskusi yang
sangat sedikit cerita rakyat, seperti cerita rakyat, dalam Dewan TRIPs, sebagian besar diskusi yang bersangkutan jenis
lain pengetahuan tradisional. [FN384]

Keraguan telah dinyatakan sebagai apakah WTO adalah forum yang sesuai untuk pengembangan perlindungan bagi
pengetahuan tradisional dan cerita rakyat, terutama mengingat pekerjaan yang dilakukan di WIPO. [FN385] Mereka
keberatan ke WTO seperti forum berpendapat, antara lain: (1) bahwa upaya WIPO tidak boleh digandakan, (2) bahwa
masyarakat adat terlibat dalam WIPO, (3) bahwa masih terlalu dini untuk bernegosiasi seperti perlindungan di WTO
sampai beberapa konsensus internasional telah tercapai pada standar dasar dan prinsip-prinsip, dan akhirnya, (4) yang
folklore dan pengetahuan tradisional tidak melibatkan perdagangan, sehingga WIPO adalah sebuah forum lebih baik
daripada WTO. Lainnya memiliki berpendapat, bagaimanapun, bahwa masalah ini harus dibahas dalam semua organisasi
internasional yang relevan, karena antara lain, itu adalah masalah yang keluar dari Perjanjian TRIPS. Graham Dutfield
agak sinis telah menyarankan bahwa negara-negara berkembang menggunakan isu folklore dan pengetahuan tradisional
sebagai senjata untuk memperoleh konsesi perdagangan yang tidak terkait dengan TRIPS dan memperlambat kepatuhan
mereka dengan standar barat membenci properti intelektual yang TRIPS membutuhkan.[FN386]

Apapun motivasi, sejak Deklarasi Doha, anggota WTO harus terus beredar dokumen diskusi tentang perlindungan bagi
pengetahuan tradisional dan cerita rakyat. Sebagian besar telah terfokus hampir secara eksklusif pada hak paten
pengetahuan dan tradisional, daripada cerita rakyat seperti lagu-lagu rakyat yang tidak akan dipatenkan. [FN387] Hal ini
karena Pasal 27 (3) (b) dari TRIPS, subjek kajian, berkaitan dengan paten atau non-paten penemuan tanaman dan
hewan dan perlindungan varietas tanaman, dan saat ini tidak membuat ketentuan apapun untukcerita rakyat. [FN388]

* 62 E. UNESCO Inisiatif untuk Melindungi folklore

UNESCO telah ditetapkan beberapa konvensi yang memberikan perlindungan terhadap properti budaya dan cerita rakyat,
tetapi tidak menyediakan untuk spesifik perlindungan kekayaan intelektual. Sebagai contoh, tahun 1970 UNESCO
Konvensi Sarana dan Mencegah Melarang Impor Ekspor, Gelap dan Transfer Kepemilikan Properti Budaya upaya untuk
melindungi "kekayaan budaya," atau properti yang ditunjuk oleh negara-negara anggota sebagai budaya yang signifikan
atas dasar agama atau sekuler, dari yang dicuri atau lalim disesuaikan. [FN389] Para Konvensi UNESCO 1972 Tentang
Perlindungan Warisan Budaya Dunia dan Alam memberikan perlindungan untuk situs budaya tertentu, termasuk karya-
karya patung monumental dan lukisan yang disertakan pada Daftar Warisan Dunia. [FN390]

UNESCO telah juga bekerja untuk menjaga cerita rakyat tidak berwujud, termasuk ekspresi oral seperti cerita
rakyat. Pada tahun 1989, UNESCO mengeluarkan rekomendasi advokasi kerjasama internasional dalam
mengidentifikasi, inventarisasi, konservasi, melestarikan, menyebarluaskan (tanpa distorsi), dan melindungi cerita
rakyat. [FN391] UNESCO juga memiliki beberapa program yang dirancang untuk mencapai pelestarian dan perlindungan
bentuk-bentuk tradisional dari budaya, termasuk rekaman musik tradisional dan menghormati bentuk sangat signifikan
dari budaya tradisional, seperti sastra lisan, permainan, tarian, dan ritual. [FN392]

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 82

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

* 63 Pada tahun 2003, UNESCO menetapkan Konvensi untuk Melindungi Warisan Budaya berwujud (2003 Konvensi),
yang menyediakan bagi negara-negara anggota untuk mempersiapkan persediaan nasional warisan budaya tak
berwujud, termasuk tradisi lisan dan ekspresi dan seni pertunjukan. Hal ini juga menyerukan pembentukan sebuah komite
antar-pemerintah untuk melindungi warisan budaya tak berwujud dan untuk menyusun Daftar Perwakilan Warisan Budaya
Internasional Kemanusiaan dan Daftar Warisan Budaya Internasional Kebutuhan Safeguarding Mendesak. [FN393]
Konvensi 2003 menekankan hubungan antara warisan budaya dan pembangunan berkelanjutan. Ini juga menyediakan
untuk adopsi dari "langkah-langkah hukum... Tepat" untuk memastikan bahwa ada akses terhadap warisan budaya tak
berwujud sekaligus menghormati "praktek-praktek adat yang mengatur akses ke aspek-aspek tertentu dari warisan
tersebut." [FN394] Konvensi ini hanya terdiri dari 15 anggota, dan tidak akan berlaku sampai tiga bulan setelah ratifikasi
30. [FN395]

Konvensi 2003 tidak secara langsung menangani hak kekayaan intelektual atau bentuk lain dari perlindungan hukum
terhadap kelompok atau komunitas, melainkan, menyatakan bahwa ketentuan-ketentuannya tidak akan mempengaruhi
hak dan kewajiban Negara Pihak yang berasal dari setiap instrumen internasional yang menyangkut hak kekayaan
intelektual. Untuk memastikan hal ini begitu, UNESCO bermaksud untuk bekerjasama erat dengan WIPO karena bekerja
pada kemungkinan menciptakan instrumen internasional yang berhubungan dengan, antara lain, hak kekayaan intelektual
di bidang cerita rakyat dan warisan budaya tak berwujud.

VII. Sebuah Happy Ending untuk folklore?


Cerita Dick memiliki happy ending. Dia menikah dengan Mr Fitzwarren putri Alice. Sama seperti lonceng yang telah
diramalkan, ia menjadi Tuhan Walikota London tiga kali, dan hidup bahagia selamanya.

Untuk beberapa orang yang berkepentingan dengan kontroversi atas tingkat perlindungan hukum bagi cerita rakyat,
sebuah instrumen internasional yang memberikan perlindungan properti spesifik intelektual untuk cerita rakyat akan
menjadi akhir yang bahagia. Paulus Kuruk, misalnya, telah menganjurkan perjanjian internasional yang mengikat untuk
melindungi cerita rakyat melalui rezim sui generis properti intelektual meskipun ia menganggap tidak realistis untuk
mengharapkan kesepakatan seperti itu akan berhasil diselesaikan pada pertengahan 1990-an. Sebagai batu loncatan
menuju seperti perjanjian internasional, * 64 Kuruk berpendapat untuk kesepakatan regional Afrika yang akan mengatur
penggunaan cerita rakyat luar daerah melalui lembaga penegak daerah. [FN396]

Saya tidak berbagi pendapat Kuruk yang spesifik perlindungan kekayaan intelektual untuk cerita rakyat yang telah
diturunkan secara lisan dari generasi ke generasi adalah selalu berakhir bahagia. Saya melihat dua kesulitan yang
signifikan dengan menyediakan perlindungan khusus kekayaan intelektual untuk cerita rakyat yang melampaui
perlindungan yang telah diberikan oleh hukum hak cipta yang ada. Kesulitan-kesulitan ini adalah: (1) ketidakmungkinan
menentukan apa yang dilindungi, dan (2) kerugian yang mungkin untuk kreativitas dan inovasi.

A. Mungkin untuk Menentukan Apakah Dilindungi

Seperti Daniel Gervais telah menunjukkan, cerita rakyat (seperti cerita rakyat) tidak sepenuhnya diinventarisasi dan
didokumentasikan, karena itu, perlindungan hak milik intelektual untuk itu akan melindungi hak tercatat. [FN397] Gervais
mengakui bahwa hal ini dapat menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum dan ketidakpastian atas apa yang dilindungi. [FN398]
Saya juga prihatin bahwa ada hambatan serius untuk mendirikan pembuktian apakah cerita rakyat, atau aspek-aspek
cerita rakyat, dapat dilindungi. Overprotection juga bisa kemungkinan hasilnya.

Misalnya, seperti dicatat dalam analisis Bagian II hidup Richard Whittington, ada bukti yang masih ada jelas tidak cukup
untuk menentukan apakah banyak aspek dari Dick Whittington cerita itu fakta sejarah atau fiksi. Hal ini sangat tidak
mungkin bahwa kita akan pernah mengetahui apakah Dick Whittington benar-benar kucing yang membantu dia untuk
menjadi kaya, atau apakah Dick Whittington benar-benar berjalan sepanjang jalan ke London dari Gloucester. Karena kita
tidak bisa memastikan keakuratan historis dari cerita rakyat, kita seharusnya tidak hanya membuat asumsi bahwa itu
adalah cerita rakyat fiksi.Kisah rakyat sama mungkin sebagian besar faktual di alam dan jika demikian, harus dalam

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 83

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

domain publik bagi setiap orang untuk memanfaatkan.

Jenis lain masalah pembuktian untuk melindungi cerita rakyat seperti Dick Whittington adalah sulitnya menentukan aspek
cerita rakyat benar-benar berasal oleh komunitas tertentu. Ini adalah sebuah kemustahilan praktis dalam kasus cerita
rakyat Dick Whittington karena komunitas lain begitu banyak cerita yang sangat mirip, juga berasal dari kabut waktu. Ada
Breton, Norwegia, dan cerita rakyat Rusia tentang seorang anak yang menjadi kaya melalui bantuan seekor
kucing. [FN399] Ada kisah Tuscan agak mirip tentang seorang pedagang Genoa yang diperoleh kekayaan besar setelah
menghadirkan dua * 65 kucing untuk raja. [FN400] Ada juga ada cerita yang sedikit berbeda tentang Persia seorang janda
yang menjadi kaya dengan menjual kucingnya, sehingga membuat anaknya cukup kaya untuk menjadi pedagang dan
akhirnya bajak laut. [FN401]

B. Harm ke Domain Publik

Seperti dibahas dalam Bagian II, kisah Dick Whittington rakyat telah menghasilkan pencurahan karya kreatif selanjutnya
berdasarkan itu, termasuk buku, pertunjukan boneka, dan pantomim. Karya kreatif baru terus dihasilkan ratusan tahun
kemudian. Hukum nasional memperkuat perlindungan cerita rakyat, seperti standar yang diusulkan dalam Ketentuan
Model dan saat ini sedang dibahas di WIPO, menimbulkan ancaman terhadap kreativitas ini. Banyak penulis tidak akan
berada dalam posisi keuangan untuk membayar untuk lisensi bekerja seperti Dick Whittington, bahkan jika mereka berniat
untuk menjual karya turunan. Membutuhkan bahkan otorisasi sederhana dapat mencegah penggunaan cerita rakyat
sebagai sumber untuk pekerjaan berikutnya.

Bahkan masyarakat tradisional mungkin dirugikan oleh persyaratan otorisasi jika mereka menjadi berlaku. Christine
Haight Farley telah mencatat bahwa perlindungan sui generis bisa mengambil risiko kerusakan pada domain publik
dengan pembangunan "pembekuan" budaya dan membuatnya lebih sulit bagi seniman tradisional dan pendongeng cerita
untuk membuat karya baru berdasarkan budaya tradisional. [FN402] ini "beku" akan menjadi masalah apakah atau tidak
perlindungan dibuat retroaktif.

VIII. Kesimpulan
Esai ini telah menelusuri nasib upaya untuk menerapkan perlindungan hukum khusus untuk cerita rakyat seperti Dick
Whittington cerita dan bentuk lain dari cerita rakyat karena mereka dimulai pada akhir 1960-an hingga saat ini. Meskipun
kekayaan, seperti Dick Whittington, memiliki lilin dan berkurang dari waktu ke waktu, ada baru-baru ini tren yang
berkembang, khususnya di negara berkembang, melaksanakan hak cipta sui generis tertentu atau perlindungan bagi
cerita rakyat dan jenis lain dari cerita rakyat. Ada juga telah berkembang upaya untuk menerapkan standar internasional
yang lebih kuat perlindungan untuk cerita rakyat melalui beberapa jenis perjanjian internasional. Dua organisasi
internasional utama, WIPO dan WTO, baru-baru ini bersedia untuk melayani sebagai forum untuk diskusi internasional
mengenai apakah perlindungan khusus kuat untuk cerita rakyat dan jenis lain dari cerita rakyat dan pengetahuan
tradisional harus dilaksanakan di tingkat global. Sejumlah negara berkembang sangat mendukung perubahan sistem
kepemilikan intelektual internasional untuk menggabungkan perlindungan tersebut. Tapi tulisan ini berpendapat bahwa,
untuk cerita rakyat setidaknya, hasil ini mungkin tidak diinginkan. * 66 Setidaknya ada dua alasan mengapa demikian: (1)
ketidakmungkinan secara akurat menentukan apakah cerita rakyat adalah produk kreatif dari komunitas tertentu atau
cerita-cerita faktual, dan (2) kerugian untuk kreativitas, domain publik, dan inovasi yang kemungkinan akan menyebabkan
perlindungan.

Mengingat bahaya ini, akhir yang bahagia untuk cerita rakyat akan mengambil pendekatan yang sangat hati-hati dengan
pertanyaan apakah spesifik perlindungan kekayaan intelektual harus dilaksanakan di tingkat internasional. Sebagai
delegasi Amerika Serikat telah berulang kali menunjukkan dalam pertemuan Komite Antar Pemerintah WIPO, masih ada
hanya pengalaman yang terbatas dengan cara perlindungan seperti bekerja dalam praktek di tingkat
nasional. Masyarakat internasional harus menunggu sampai pengalaman yang dapat diperoleh. Sementara itu, fokus dari
diskusi internasional mengenai perlindungan untuk cerita rakyat harus terus upaya untuk melatih masyarakat adat dan
masyarakat untuk menggunakan hukum saat ini kekayaan intelektual untuk melindungi karya mereka dan juga untuk
upaya-upaya lebih lanjut untuk melestarikan warisan budaya tak berwujud, seperti yang dimulai oleh

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12 TXWLR 5 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 84

12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5

(Cite as: 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5)

UNESCO. Pendekatan hati-hati mungkin tidak menyenangkan bagi kelompok-kelompok pribumi dan masyarakat banyak
yang percaya bahwa budaya mereka dijarah dan terdistorsi oleh perusahaan Barat serakah. Tapi, bergerak terlalu cepat
untuk melindungi cerita rakyat resiko kerusakan serius pada pengembangan karya-karya budaya baru. Hal ini diingat
pernyataan yang diajukan oleh Takhta Suci untuk Sidang Pertama Komite Antar Pemerintah WIPO: "Para raison d'etre
dari sistem perlindungan kekayaan intelektual adalah promosi produksi sastra, ilmiah atau artistik dan aktivitas inventif
demidari kebaikan bersama. " [FN403]

[FNd1]. Asisten Profesor, Columbus Sekolah Hukum, Universitas Katolik Amerika, Washington DC 20064, tel: 202-319-
5568, faks: 202-319-4459, email: fischer@law.edu.

[FN1]. Esai ini ditulis sebagai bagian dari perayaan untuk memperingati peringatan 400 dari bermain direkam pertama
berdasarkan cerita rakyat Dick Whittington. Ini adalah versi yang diperluas dari presentasi yang disampaikan pada tanggal
25 Juli 2005 di Gloucester, Inggris, pada sebuah konferensi berjudul "The Power of Stories: Persimpangan Hukum,
Budaya, dan Sastra" bersama-sama disponsori oleh Texas Wesleyan University School Hukum,
Universitas Gloucestershire, Gloucester Inisiatif Tengah, dan Kota Gloucester. Saya ingin berterima kasih kepada Frank
Ayres Snyder dan Susan untuk mengorganisir suatu acara yang luar biasa, Marin dan Diane Ashton Phillips untuk
perhotelan diberikan kepada saya dan keluarga saya di Gloucester, dan semua peserta konferensi rekan saya untuk
membuat acara seperti pengalaman yang menarik dan memberi saya dengan kekayaan umpan balik yang konstruktif
pada presentasi konferensi saya. Spesial terima kasih karena Megan Richardson dan Edward Phillips untuk saran mereka
sangat membantu. Saya juga berterima kasih kepada suami saya, Erik Thomas Mueller, dan anak saya, Matius Edward
Mueller, atas dukungan dan persahabatan pada konferensi Gloucester.

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.