TY - JOUR
AU - A. Paulus
AU - A. Kelli
AB - This article focuses on the interaction between intangible heritage (ICH) and intellectual property (IP) as human rights in the context of cultural heritage protection. Rights constitute a core of any regulatory model; ICH and IP are each defined as human rights in numerous human rights conventions. Here, we explore how to integrate ICH into national legal orders and use IP to support the objectives of ICH protection. Our analysis relies on two case studies of the protection of intangible heritage in Estonia: the Lahemaa Memoryscapes project, which highlights collective and individual IP rights in the context of folklore, and traditional wooden boatbuilding in Estonia, which involves traditional knowledge, copyright, and industrial property rights problems. These two case studies reveal the elusive character of intangible heritage and heritage communities as rightsholders. We also use examples of other Estonian heritage projects, showing why IP and ICH mechanisms enable heritage communities to implement their human rights and build IP competencies with a special focus on ICH protection. We conceptualise human rights as practical tools to improve everyday life rather than as theoretical concepts.
DO - 10.1080/18918131.2023.2175452
N2 - This article focuses on the interaction between intangible heritage (ICH) and intellectual property (IP) as human rights in the context of cultural heritage protection. Rights constitute a core of any regulatory model; ICH and IP are each defined as human rights in numerous human rights conventions. Here, we explore how to integrate ICH into national legal orders and use IP to support the objectives of ICH protection. Our analysis relies on two case studies of the protection of intangible heritage in Estonia: the Lahemaa Memoryscapes project, which highlights collective and individual IP rights in the context of folklore, and traditional wooden boatbuilding in Estonia, which involves traditional knowledge, copyright, and industrial property rights problems. These two case studies reveal the elusive character of intangible heritage and heritage communities as rightsholders. We also use examples of other Estonian heritage projects, showing why IP and ICH mechanisms enable heritage communities to implement their human rights and build IP competencies with a special focus on ICH protection. We conceptualise human rights as practical tools to improve everyday life rather than as theoretical concepts.
TI - Intangible Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Property Protection as Two Sides of the Same Human Rights Coin: Memoryscapes and Traditional Boatbuilding in Estonia
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85150344673&doi=10.1080%2f18918131.2023.2175452&partnerID=40&md5=0a6d23878df8fa1338f9e674c7a96801
ER -