title: Ethics, intellectual property and commercialization of cultural heritage
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: Deacon, Harriet J.
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2021-12-10T20:34:02Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2021-12-10T20:34:02Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2020-03
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: Deacon, Harriet J. 2020. Ethics, intellectual property and commercialization of cultural heritage. Pravovedenie 64 (1): 93–111.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2020.108
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/33841
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: The Sámi are an indigenous people residing in Sápmi, a region cutting across northern Scandinavia
  (Norway, Finland, Sweden) and the Kola Peninsula in Northwest Russia. This article tells
  the story of a Sámi sun symbol on a seventeen century drum, originally from Swedish Sápmi,
  that was registered as a trademark by a jewellery company in Norway called “Tana Gull and
  Sølvsmie AS” in 2009. The mark was invalidated in 2020 because, according to the Norwegian
  Intellectual Property Office, the registration of a religious symbol was likely to infringe on the
  rights of the Sámi, whose access to their own cultural and religious symbols should be protected.
  The basis for the decision was a public policy exception, a provision within trademark
  law excluding the registration of signs “contrary to morality or public policy”, and allowing the
  law into account public opinion, public interest and human rights. Analysis of this case is used to
  shape the debate about the role of intellectual property law in addressing the problem of overcommercialization,
  for example by preventing cultural misappropriation. The authors suggest
  that the notion of blasphemy or religious offence through banal commercialization should be
  more broadly formulated in interpretation of the public policy exception in order to take account
  of cultural misappropriation. They also argue that protecting the public domain by preventing
  registration of important cultural and religious symbols is not sufficient to address the problem
  of cultural misappropriation in a commercial context. Positive protection through trademark
  registrations is just as important as their defensive protection.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: ru
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Pravovedenie;Volume 64; Issue 1
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Sámi
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Intangible Cultural Heritage
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: commercialization
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: cultural misappropriation
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: trademark
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: ethics
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: intellectual property
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: Ethics, intellectual property and commercialization of cultural heritage
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 93-111.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/33841/1/93-111.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 909,46 kB