Description
This paper seeks to highlight issues surrounding ownership and copyrights relating to
intangible cultural heritage and to raise potential concerns for local (rural, remote, smaller) communities
involved in cultural heritage tourism.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Intangible cultural heritage, ownership, copyrights, and tourism
E. Wanda George
Article information:
To cite this document:
E. Wanda George, (2010),"Intangible cultural heritage, ownership, copyrights, and tourism", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 376 - 388
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011081541
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:12 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 30 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2984 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Hiroko Yasuda, (2010),"World heritage and cultural tourism in J apan", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research,
Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 366-375 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011081532
Nicole Mitsche, Franziska Vogt, Dan Knox, I. Cooper, Patrizia Lombardi, Daniela Ciaffi, (2013),"Intangibles: enhancing access to cities'
cultural heritage through interpretation", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 68-77 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181311301381
Fredrick M. Collison, Daniel L. Spears, (2010),"Marketing cultural and heritage tourism: the Marshall Islands", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 2 pp. 130-142 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011045208
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Regular paper
Intangible cultural heritage, ownership,
copyrights, and tourism
E. Wanda George
Abstract
Purpose – This paper seeks to highlight issues surrounding ownership and copyrights relating to
intangible cultural heritage and to raise potential concerns for local (rural, remote, smaller) communities
involved in cultural heritage tourism.
Design/methodology/approach – The objective of the paper is to provoke re?ection and further
discourse on how local culture in smaller rural communities has been appropriated for tourism and
related issues and concerns. Selected literature, other relevant documents and data from personal
observations, derived from previous research, were examined to provide insights on the subject and to
help achieve this objective.
Findings – Findings suggest that an inequity gap exists in bene?ts distributed to many rural
communities whose cultural heritages are being appropriated and exploited by multiple commercial
entities for tourism purposes and personal gain. Little, if any, of the pro?ts realized bene?t the local
community – the actual creators and owners of the local culture.
Practical implications – With a new awareness and understanding of this phenomenon, developing
and implementing a new and alternative approach is possible – an alternative approach that may help
narrow this inequity gap while also ensuring signi?cant sustainable bene?ts to all the stakeholders.
Originality/value – This paper presents newperspectives about the value of intangible cultural heritage
when used for tourism. This paper should be of interest and importance to community tourism planners
and policy makers, industry operators/suppliers dependent on local cultural tourism products, and
consumers of local intangible culture who seek unique cultural experiences.
Keywords Intangible assets, Culture, Heritage, Tourism, Copyright law
Paper type Viewpoint
Introduction
The fundamental re-conceptualization and recon?guration of modern social, political, and
economic boundaries (University of Guelph, 2003) is one of the greatest transformations
impacting our society. To these, include the recon?guration of cultural boundaries,
particularly in the crossing of societal boundaries to commodify a community’s intangible
cultural heritage for tourist consumption. What once formed the social construct (culture) of
naturally evolving communities and inherited by successive generations, local inherited
culture has become transformed into newproducts for exchange in a growing global tourism
marketplace. Tylor (1871) de?nes culture as knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and
any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. Through
escalating tourism development in many rural and remote areas, where indigenous
traditions, habits and local culture hold longstanding meaning and values over generations,
such transformations are becoming increasingly apparent. Several authors (Ashworth and
Larkham, 1994; George, 2004; McKercher and du Cros, 2002) discuss the merits of cultural
PAGE 376
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010, pp. 376-388, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181011081541
E. Wanda George is based
at the Department of
Business Administration
and Tourism & Hospitality
Management, Mount Saint
Vincent University, Halifax,
Canada.
Received: December 2009
Revised March 2010
Accepted March 2010
This article is an adaptation of a
paper originally presented at
the Sharing Cultures 2009
Conference, Pico Island,
Azores, Portugal, and
published by Greenlines
Institute in the conference
proceedings. Emerald
Publishing selected the paper
as best paper of the Sharing
Cultures 2009 conference. The
author gratefully acknowledges
permission by the Greenlines
Institute to submit this article to
Emerald Publishing for
publication in the International
Journal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
heritage tourism arguing that local culture may be a community’s most valuable asset for
tourism if planned and managed properly.
A community’s inherited culture (tangible and intangible cultural heritage) should provide a
community with a competitive advantage and uniqueness, one that differentiates it from all
other communities. However, with increasing commodi?cation of intangible cultural heritage
to provide new and unique products in efforts to satisfy the needs and whims of modern
tourist markets, many smaller rural and remote communities face new concerns and issues
formerly considered outside their local domain. Questions of ownership of intellectual
property, traditional knowledge, copyrights and forms of protection relating to a community’s
intangible cultural heritage are unresolved issues in the commodi?cation process. A central
question arises, Does a community really own its distinctive intangible cultural heritage?
According to Brown (2003, p. 55), ‘‘Many lawyers and activist believe that intellectual
property law holds the key to heritage protection.’’
This concept paper outlines some issues of ownership and copyrights surrounding
intangible cultural heritage in rural areas and points out potential concerns for local (small,
remote, rural) communities undertaking cultural heritage tourism. The paper aims to provoke
further thought and discourse on this subject. The following section ?rst provides a brief
discussion on key related concepts and insights from existing literature.
Intellectual property (IP), traditional knowledge (TK) and copyrights
Hoffman (2006, p. 10) notes, ‘‘Intellectual property may be thought of as the use or value of
an idea such as inventions, designs, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images
and performances.’’ The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a specialized
agency of the United Nations, describes intellectual property as ‘‘creations of the mind:
inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in
commerce’’ (WIPO, 2009, Online document). Forms of intellectual property protection
include copyrights, trademarks, and patent laws. According to the Copyright Act of Canada
(2009), a ‘‘copyright means the right to copy.’’ A copyright means that only the owner of a
copyright, very often the creator of the work, is allowed to produce or reproduce the work in
question or to permit anyone else to do so (Business Development Center, 2009). In Canada:
A poem, painting, musical score, performer’s performance, computer program – all these are
valuable creations, although perhaps no one can measure their worth. Some may earn a lot of
money in the marketplace and others, none at all. Regardless of their merit or commercial value,
Canadian law regards all such original creative works to be copyright material. This means that if
you own the copyright of a poem, song, or other work, you have a number of rights, which are
protected under the Copyright Act . . . The word ‘‘original’’ is key in de?ning a work that quali?es
for copyright protection . . . (Business Development Center, 2009, pp. 2-4).
Copyright laws, generally, apply to the protection of tangible materials such as literary,
dramatic, musical and artistic works (including architectural works) that belong to
individuals or joint owners. Copyright is restricted to the expression of an idea in a ?xed
manner (e.g. text, recording, or drawing); a copyright does not extend to the idea itself
(Business Development Center, 2009, p. 6). The guide lays out very explicit guidelines for
what is or is not considered infringements on the copyright, and includes the concept of fair
dealing which allows limited permissions to copy some works for educational and research
purposes. Other exceptions occur to infringement claims that allow for unfettered access to
properties; these exceptions pertain to properties and works that have been relegated to the
public domain. In Canada, this relegation to the public domain occurs 50 years after the
death of the original creator and copyright owner. While the Copyright Act in Canada offers
protection (i.e. copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets) to individuals and/or joint
owners of tangible properties, there is far less discussion that speaks to the protection of
collectively owned (community) intangible assets or traditional knowledge.
Moral rights
The notion of moral rights attaches to the concept of copyright protection. The Copyright Act
(Canada) states that even if you, as owner of a copyright, sell your copyright to someone
else, you still retain what are called ‘‘moral rights’’ (Business Development Center, 2009).
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 377
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This means that no one, including the person who owns the copyright, is allowed to distort,
mutilate or otherwise modify your work in a way that is prejudicial to your honor or reputation.
A person’s name must also be associated with the work as its author (creator), if reasonable
in the circumstances. In addition, your work may not be used in association with a product,
service, cause or institution in a way that is prejudicial to your honour or reputation without
your permission. A moral rights approach protects the integrity of the copyright holder. ‘‘The
integrity right that protects the reputation of creators may address the anxiety over the
inappropriate use of expressions of folklore by preventing distortion, alteration or
misrepresentation of creator’s works’’ (Wendland (2006), in Hoffman, 2006, p. 11).
Traditional knowledge (TK)
Wendland (2006) (in Hoffman, 2006, p. 328) suggests, ‘‘Traditional knowledge and cultural
expressions are often the product of intergenerational and ?uid social and communal
creative processes that re?ect and identify a community’s history, cultural and social identity
and social values.’’ The term, traditional knowledge, refers to the content or substance of
knowledge that is the result of intellectual activity and insight in a traditional context, and
includes the know-how, skills, innovations, practices and learning that formpart of traditional
knowledge systems, and knowledge that is embodied in the traditional lifestyle of a
community or people, or is contained in codi?ed knowledge systems passed between
generations (Wendland (2006) in Hoffman, 2006). Wendland also contends that traditional
creativity is marked by a dynamic interplay between collective and individual creativity,
which makes it dif?cult, from an intellectual property perspective, to ascertain what an
individual creation is. Individual minds coming together in a living society are constantly
imitating, recreating and innovating the traditional framework in a community’s evolving
social construct. However, Wendland (2006) (Hoffman, 2006, p. 328) purports distinct
characteristics de?ne traditional knowledge (TK):
B TK is handed down from one generation to another, either orally or by imitation.
B TK re?ects a community’s cultural and social identity.
B TK consists of characteristic elements of a community’s heritage.
B TK is made by authors unknown and/or by communities and/or by individuals communally
recognized as having the right, responsibility, or permissions to do so.
B TK is not made for commercial purposes but as vehicles for religious and cultural
expression – a social construct.
B TK is constantly evolving, developing, and being recreated with the community.
Indigenous cultural heritage issues
Ongoing research focuses on the disputes and debates about intellectual property rights
and ownership of cultural resources in aboriginal or indigenous communities, whose secret
and sacred traditions have been appropriated and exploited by outsiders over centuries
(Bartlett, 1999; Brown, 1998, 2003; Coombe, 1998; Marcus, 1998; McDonald, 1998; Root,
1995; Ziff and Rao, 1997). Many of the disputes center on the appropriation by large
biotechnology ?rms of local indigenous knowledge of medicinal plants and herbs and the
natives’ knowledge of traditional healing methods from the natural world. Brown (2003), in
his work, ‘‘Who Owns Native Culture,’’ writes extensively about the global search for native
medicinal and mind-altering plants, many of which are thought to promote health and
longevity. New medicinal discoveries are made from the ?ora and fauna found in South
America, whose healing attributes were known to the indigenous people for centuries before
being appropriated by Western biotechnology and transnational pharmaceutical companies
(Brown, 2003).
These large pharmaceutical companies, using their power and large networks, patent folk
medicines without any bene?t or credit whatsoever to the original discoverers – the
indigenous peoples. The Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) refers to this
type of appropriation as biopiracy (Brown, 2003). Brown notes that RAFI was dedicated to
resisting the global theft of genetic resources by capitalist industry. In 2001, RAFI became
known as the ETC Group and a registered civil society organization (CSO) in Canada and
PAGE 378
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
the Netherlands. RAFI was the ?rst civil society organization (nationally or internationally) to
draw attention to the socioeconomic and scienti?c issues relating to the conservation and
use of plant genetic resources, intellectual property and biotechnology. Other sources of
con?ict also emerge when outsiders appropriate native cultural resources – music, design
styles, folktales and stories, religious practices and so on. This appropriation of knowledge
often materializes in various forms of contemporary music, jewelry, clothing design, dolls,
stories, and new age religious worship activities, which are constructed by outsiders who
borrow (steal) ideas and techniques, for example, from indigenous shamans.
The invasion by outsiders (tourists) of their sacred landscapes and cultural spaces, places
that have remained integral to their way of life over hundreds of years, is another troubling
issue for indigenous peoples. For instance, the Bighorn Medicine Wheel in Wyoming, USA,
became a site of controversy when S. C. Simms, an early anthropologist, described his visit
and experience to the Medicine Wheel in 1902. This site later became a signi?cant
archeological ?nd that, according to the numerous artifacts that were found, dates back to
between A.D. 1200 and 1700. These artifacts show the Native Americans used this site for a
variety of purposes – hunting, collecting and religious activities – for perhaps seven
thousand years (Brown, 2003, p. 140). Although their beliefs and relationship to the site have
been kept relatively secret, even today, the tribes of the region regard the Bighorn Medicine
Wheel as a powerful and sacred place.
The site warranted protection due to the increasing number of tourists visiting the site as a
result of increased publicity and increased access on improved highways. The number of
visitors rose fromabout 2,000 in 1967 to 70,000 in the early 1990s (Brown, 2003, p. 147). This
increased tourist visitation resulted in serious negative impacts to the site, including damage
to the footpaths and vegetation, excessive garbage and dumping of other inappropriate
items. The State, at the time (1990s), also proposed changes to further increase access to
the general public, a move that escalated tensions and resistance among the Native
American tribes that deem the site to be a sacred space.
Con?ict also surfaced regarding Devils Tower, another sacred Native American site located
in Wyoming, that draws nearly half a million visitors a year to the area (Brown, 2003). Many of
these visitors are rock climbers (adventure tourists) who are drawn to climb and challenge
the steep Tower. Tensions emerged when native tribes in the region complained that
climbers ‘‘who ascended Devils Tower showed a lack of respect for spiritual forces resident
there’’ (Brown, 2003, p. 151). Similar incidents frequently arise today in the USA and Canada
as well as in other parts of the world. The relationship between cultural con?ict and tourismis
a central theme throughout this paper.
Advocates for native rights would like to see the integrity of indigenous cultures ensured by
laws that treat heritage as an inalienable resource (Brown, 2003, p. 6). However, Brown
(2003, p. 7) raises some critical questions, ‘‘To what extent can law control the movement of
ideas? Does it make sense for ethnic groups to de?ne their cultural practices as property that
cannot be studied, imitated or modi?ed by other without permission? How far can
democratic states go to provide indigenous peoples with cultural protections without
violating the rights of the general public?’’ Ongoing debates and discussions about
intangible cultural heritage issues have led to new forms of regulation and laws in some
countries, for example, in New Zealand, Australia and Panama, designed to protect the
intangible heritage of native populations (Brown, 2003).
The Daes Report
In 1997, the United Nations released a document, entitled, ‘‘Protection of the heritage of
indigenous people,’’ also known as the Daes Report. The purpose behind producing the
report was to support the case for Total Heritage Protection. The Daes Report (in Brown,
2003, pp. 211-212) concludes:
[. . .] that a society owns its heritage, de?ned as everything that belongs to the distinct identity of a
people and which is theirs to share, if they wish, with other peoples. . .each indigenous community
must retain permanent control over all elements of its heritage, under its owns laws and
procedures, but always reserves a perpetual right to determine how shared knowledge is used.
Members of such communities own their heritage, including its works, arts and ideas.
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 379
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The Daes Report raises some important issues. While the document characterizes
indigenous cultures as part of the common heritage of all humankind, nothing is said about
the world’s cultural and intellectual commons or whether one should even exist, that is, it
takes for granted that indigenous peoples are not part of any public other than their own
enclosed conceptual universe and territory (Brown, 2003, p. 212). Brown asserts, ‘‘From the
report, one can reasonably infer that any social group that quali?es as ‘a people’, indigenous
or not, enjoys equally absolute rights over its cultural productions’’ (Brown, 2003). Brown’s
inference leads directly to the central question in this paper, ‘‘Does any community own its
intangible cultural heritage?
UNESCO’s position on intangible cultural heritage
On October 17, 2003, UNESCO, recognizing that ‘‘. . .intangible cultural heritage – or living
heritage – is the mainspring of our cultural diversity and its maintenance a guarantee for
continuing creativity . . . ’’ adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage (ICH) (UNESCO, 2003, Online Document) which states:
[Intangible cultural heritage (ICH)]. . .is traditional and living at the same time. It is constantly
being recreated and mainly transmitted orally. The depository of this heritage is the human mind,
the human body being the main instrument for its enactment, or – literally – embodiment. The
knowledge and skills are often shared within a community, and manifestations of ICH often are
performed collectively (Online Document, What is Intangible Cultural Heritage?).
The UNESCO Convention (2003, p. 2) also declares:
Intangible cultural heritage means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills
– as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that
communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage.
This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly
recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with
nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting
respect for cultural diversity and human creativity.
What is cultural appropriation?
Ziff and Rao (1997, p. 1) de?ne cultural appropriation as ‘‘the taking – from a culture that is
not one’s own – of intellectual property, cultural expressions or artifacts, history and ways of
knowledge.’’ From their research, Ziff and Rao reveal the complexity of this concept and its
multidimensional nature. Because of the enormity of the topic, this paper cannot fully
elaborate on this complex phenomenon and the many forms, and varying degrees, of
appropriation. However, the range of instances of so-called cultural appropriation is broad,
and while some incidents are clear-cut, others are extremely dif?cult to de?ne. Humans have
been borrowing from others since the beginning of time. ‘‘Acts of appropriation happen all
around us in a vast number of creative domains as cultural in?uences blend, merge, and
synthesize’’ (Ziff and Rao, 1997, p. 4).
Concerns about cultural appropriation, as illustrated in the previous discussion, are a
longstanding issue for indigenous peoples in many countries. According to Ziff and Rao
(1997, p. 8), these concerns give rise to several claims:
B Cultural appropriation can harmthe appropriated community; it can negatively impact the
integrity and identities of cultural groups.
B Cultural appropriation can impact the cultural object itself; it can either damage or
transform a given cultural good or practice.
B Cultural appropriation wrongly allows some to bene?t to the material detriment of others
(deprivation of material advantage).
B Current lawfails to re?ect alternative conceptions of what should be treated as property or
ownership in cultural goods.
PAGE 380
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Indigenous and non-indigenous: intangible cultural heritage and tourism
While much of the previous literature reviewand discussion in this paper concentrates on the
concerns and issues of indigenous peoples regarding their intangible cultural heritage,
other critical questions surface. Do non-indigenous communities have the same or similar
concerns and issue? How do the rights of intangible cultural heritage apply to
non-indigenous communities?
In many isolated rural and remote rural communities, after centuries of evolution and building
of unique and strong cultural traditions, expressions, customs and ways of life, a more subtle
formof appropriation is taking place through tourism. Parts of the communities’ spontaneous
and evolutionary social constructs – their cultural heritage resources – are now being
transformed into commodities for exchange and exploitation through modern tourism
development. Using hypothetical timelines, Figure 1 illustrates this transformation.
Commodi?cation of culture for tourism occurs when a community’s culture, developed over
past years, perhaps centuries, and created through ordinary spontaneous evolution under
principles of use value, that is, an essential elements in the social fabric and essence of
everyday life in a community, becomes converted into objects of exchange value for tourist
consumption. Subsequently, culture gets transformed and reconstructed into a completely
different entity, and a consumer value system supersedes a longstanding community value
system (George, 2004, p. 333). This consumer value system often distorts the original
culture (through inaccurate marketing narratives, unauthentic tourism activities and
inappropriate use of cultural resources) over which a community has little or no control.
In many smaller rural communities and indigenous communities adopting tourism, this
dilemma becomes very real and controversial, leading to tensions and con?icts between
residents and others. Entrepreneurs, governments, marketers, ?lm-makers, photographers,
tour operators, artists, among others, see rural cultural heritage manifestations as novel
product opportunities and they are increasingly appropriating and exploiting local intangible
culture and heritage for their own commercial purposes and pro?t gain. For example, tour
operators sell to and carry hundreds of tourists throughout living communities to observe
and consume the local countryside, intangible heritage, cultural landscapes and sense of
place, reaping economic gain from these unique tourism offerings. Little, if any, pro?ts
Figure 1 Commodi?cation of cultural heritage for tourism
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 381
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
realized by these tour operators directly bene?t the local community – actual creators and
owners of these cultural products. This, arguably, is a form of deprivation of material
advantage as described by Ziff and Rao (1997, p. 8) in ‘‘What is cultural appropriation’’.
Cultural appropriation, arguably, allows some to bene?t from the contribution of others (Ziff
and Rao, 1997, p. 14). Deprivation of material advantage basically means that others
wrongfully exploit cultural resources for ?nancial gain to the detriment of the owners and
creators. When outsiders appropriate someone else’s cultural resources for pro?ts, they
prevent the owners from doing so and/or reaping their rightful share of the potential ?nancial
bene?ts. Ziff and Rao (1997, p. 15) argue the Law of Trademarks provides a reasonable
analog in this context. A trademark serves to represent a product or service and to embody
the goodwill that a commercial enterprise has established over a period of time. A trademark
is intended to prevent others from bene?ting on the goodwill built from the efforts of an
enterprise. The law also tries to ensure that someone cannot ‘‘free ride on the works of
others’’ (Ziff and Rao, 1997, p. 15). While cultural appropriation is undoubtedly a serious
issue for indigenous communities, it is also an issue for non-aboriginal rural communities that
have tourism development (George, 2004). Two communities are now discussed to help
illustrate how this phenomenon unfolds in smaller rural communities in Canada. Both
communities – Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, and St Jacob’s, Ontario – are considered to have a
well-established tourism industry built on use of their local cultural heritage assets.
Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, Canada
Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, is a small rural community on the east coast of Canada. UNESCO
declared the area a World Heritage Site (WHS) in 1995 and the community immediately
positioned itself as an international cultural destination. The community, with approximately
2,500 residents, claims to receive 300,000 tourists annually, although this number has not
been substantiated by any of?cial data; in fact, the recorded number of visitors to Nova
Scotia shows a decline in recent years. Lunenburg is the birthplace of the world famous
racing schooner, Bluenose, and following its demise, a subsequent Bluenose II, which has
been one of Nova Scotia’s top attractions for decades. The ?rst schooner was built around
1921 as a vessel for ?shing on the Grand Bank but quickly gained fame for its remarkable
racing ability. The schooner entered and won many racing competitions, both in Canada and
USA, which brought worldwide fame and immense local pride to the small community. The
schooner sank off the West Indies in 1948 and was subsequently replaced by a new vessel
built in 1963, the Bluenose II, which still exists today. Local builders constructed both vessels
at Lunenburg shipyards.
The Bluenose serves as a symbol of the ‘‘days of glorious sail when men were rugged, hardy
toilers, competitive and determined, persevering and always facing danger in their efforts to
be masters of the sea – the Golden Age of Sail’’ (Cuthbertson, 2002, in George, 2004, p.
173). Cuthbertson (2002, p. 75) writes: ‘‘The Bluenose’s racing triumphs served to keep
spirits up in the face of the hardest times any Lunenburg generation has known.’’ Following
the sinking of the original schooner, ‘‘The building of the Bluenose II by the Oland family
ensured that the legend of the great schooner would not die’’ (Robinson, 1989, p. 72). A few
years later, the Oland family sold the Bluenose II to the Government of Nova Scotia to be
used as an ambassador and promotional tool for the Province. Over the years, however, the
vessel fell into disrepair and deemed unseaworthy at one point. Out of concern, a local
Lunenburg group of volunteers created a non-pro?t organization, The Bluenose Heritage
Preservation Trust (the Trust), with a lofty goal to preserve the famous schooner and restore
its seaworthiness. The Government charged the Trust with the responsibility to manage the
Bluenose and to initiate a preservation plan. Through the years, the organization contributed
signi?cantly towards preserving the historic schooner through various efforts (e.g.
fundraising, sales of memorabilia, books and clothing from a local store, donations, and
so). The Trust attempted to claim the copyright for any images of the famous vessel. This
claim, however, led to con?ict and confrontation over issues of ownership and intellectual
property.
The Trust initiated a lawsuit against a commercial clothing outlet for using images of the
famous schooner on its products. The lawsuit against the so-called infringing company
caused an outcry from many people who said the Trust could not legally lay claim to an
PAGE 382
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
image that was already being widely used in tourism displays and even on the Canadian
dime (Canadian Press, 2003). The provincial government was forced to intervene in
attempts to resolve the intellectual property issues. As a result, the Government re-claimed
its ownership of the Bluenose II and any use of its images (see Figure 2). The Government
proclaimed, ‘‘But at the end of the day, we’ll make sure that Bluenose II is going to be able to
be widely displayed, that it can be there for the maximum bene?t of Nova Scotians and
businesses that utilize the Bluenose as an image’’ (Canadian Press, 2003). The court case
was dropped and the local Trust company was relieved of its management responsibilities
and any claims to copyrights related to the Bluenose.
The many tour operators who bring hundreds of tourists into the town each year demonstrate
another example of cultural appropriation occurring in Lunenburg. When compiling their tour
packages, tour operators include several independent components so as to provide an
inclusive and appealing tour for their clients, for example, accommodations, restaurants or
other food services, entertainment, activities, and other amenities, for which customers pay
a fee. A typical tour package might also incorporate sightseeing of local scenery, cultural
landscapes (including graveyards) and numerous other local symbolic spaces. Symbolic
content con?rms local memories and identities; space has the capacity to embody sets of
values from which people derive signi?cance and meaning (Meethan, 2001). In addition to
these components, a commercial tour package to Lunenburg frequently includes:
observation of and, in many cases, participation in ongoing local customs and cultural
traditions; photo-taking and video-recording of local people, local and unique architectural
constructions and old historic homes, particularly those displaying the intriguing local
architectural feature, called the Lunenburg Bump, as well as other locally speci?c cultural
heritage attractions (i.e. churches, shipyards, former waterfront working sites); use of the
community’s washroom facilities; use of local trails and walkways, and so on (see Figure 3).
For these additional components in a packaged tour, which undoubtedly add high value to
the product, there is little or no ?nancial compensation from the tour operator to the host
community. Put another way – there is no cost to the operator for this locally distinctive
component of his tour package – a freebie – although, arguably, this unique component
provides the cultural ‘‘essence’’ of the tour product.
Tour companies also bene?t from the multiple images they frequently acquire during their
visits to community destinations for use in their own promotional materials – a bene?t they
Figure 2 The Bluenose – a community’s cultural icon as depicted on the Canadian dime
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 383
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
receive without acquiring the consent of or provide compensation to the local community.
Tourism operators will frequently argue that a community reaps bene?ts from the tourist
expenditures in the community. This is not the main issue. The type of business model
generally used is one that appropriates local cultural resources for the bene?t of commercial
tour companies while providing little or no bene?ts to the local community – the producers of
a valuable component. Arguably, this is a deprivation of material advantage for the
community.
St. Jacob’s, Ontario, Canada
St Jacob’s is another small rural community located in the heart of Canada’s industrial
province, Ontario. The village is home to roughly 1,500 residents, many who follow the
Mennonite tradition.
The Mennonites are a group of Christian Anabaptist denominations named after Menno Simons
(1496-1561), though his writings articulated, and thereby, formalized the teachings of earlier
Swiss founders. . . founded on both the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ, which they held to
with great conviction despite generational persecution by the Catholic church state. . .
Mennonites have become known as one of the historic peace churches given their
commitment to nonviolence, nonviolent resistance/reconciliation, and paci?sm(Wikipedia, 2009).
According to Hunsberger et al. (1977) in People Apart: Portrait of a Mennonite World in
Waterloo County, the Mennonite people:
. . . in the surrounding area can trace their heritage directly to the Swiss – South German regions
of Europe of the 1520’s. . .sought religious freedomin the United . . .as early as the late 1600’s and
early 1700’s. Around 1800, they continued their quest and moved north from Pennsylvania to
Upper Canada, to what later came to be known as Waterloo County, Ontario. Here, in the 1880s,
those who have come to be known as the Old Order separated themselves fromother Mennonites
of the county (Hunsberger et al., 1977).
Many Old Order Mennonite farmers and families, who still retain the traditional religion,
customs and lifestyle of their early forefathers, live in the rural areas around St Jacob’s,
located in the Waterloo region of Ontario. To see a horse and buggy driving alongside the
modern paved highways throughout the region is not uncommon.
In recent times, the religious sect and its unique way of life have been blatantly depicted in
various forms of tourism marketing literature. Marketing of the sect’s sacred icons and
cultural symbols to attract tourists to the area is demoralizing to many. Indigenous cultures
have sometimes purposely used cultural symbols as a logo or brand to represent
themselves as a tourism attraction. However, other communities may have been branded
without any intention. Such may be the case in St Jacob’s, where commercial operators have
Figure 3 Popular images for tourists and photographers – historic architecture in
Lunenburg
PAGE 384
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
appropriated local road signage intended to caution motor vehicles to the presence of horse
drawn carriages in the area, a mode of transportation still used by the local Mennonites. The
‘‘horse and buggy’’ image on the signage has manifested into a symbol of Mennonite
tradition and culture, and is commonly seen as a logo in promotional materials and on
storefronts for tourism in St Jacob’s (Figure 4). The tourism industry has appropriated the
Mennonites’ cultural heritage to brand St Jacob’s as a tourism attraction.
When a business sells a product to tourists that includes the sightseeing of a community’s
architecture and surrounding landscapes, or uses this location’s folklore and myths as part
of its advertising appeal without the knowledge, consent, or bene?t of the community, it can
be said to be appropriating that community’s culture. Copyright laws protect academia and
entertainers, but few, if any, laws exist to protect a community’s cultural resources. Tourismis
an industry where the notion of cultural appropriation, that is, the borrowing or taking
(stealing) from others (Ziff and Rao, 1997), is pervasive.
While tourism is important to the community, Dahms reports that potential issues were
brewing as far back as the early 1990s.
Unfortunately, the seeds of decline lie within the recent success. The community is excessively
busy, some residents resent the tourist in?ux, and many Mennonites now go elsewhere to shop.
Over-development may well ruin the basis of the town’s tourist appeal (Dahms, 1991, online
abstract).
In 2003, personal observations taken from a visit to the area indicate that tourism had
become overly commercialized resulting in a sense of a lost authentic cultural community.
Local Mennonites still travelling into town today by the traditional horse and buggy to go
about their daily business are often besieged by curious camera carrying tourists (Figure 5).
Currently, no research appears available that would reveal or help explain the personal
Figure 5 Visitors photographing Mennonite cultural heritage – a tourism attraction
Figure 4 Intangible cultural heritage appropriated as a tourism brand
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 385
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
attitudes and perceptions of local residents towards tourists or the impacts of tourism on life
in the village.
Is there a better way – a more equitable and sustainable approach that would
bene?t all stakeholders today and also protect intangible cultural heritage for future
generations?
Issues and problems around ownership and intellectual property concerning intangible
cultural heritage are unlikely to be resolved any time soon. Extensive research on indigenous
issues has shown that numerous cases have been and are still before the courts.
Interpretations of laws and legislation concerning intellectual property are complex and
obscure. Smaller rural communities engaging in cultural-based tourism usually do not have
the ?nancial resources to adequately manage, sustain and protect their cultural heritage
assets. There must be a more equitable and sustainable approach that would bene?t all
stakeholders. Communities create and own their cultural assets and are entitled to their
rightful share of the ?nancial bene?ts that are being reaped by the tourism industry.
Implementing a type of cultural heritage preservation tax on visitors who consume local
cultural assets is one suggestion toward achieving equity and sustainable tourism. This tax
could support a special fund that would directly bene?t the entire community. All the
stakeholders – community, tourism industry and visitor alike – would be benefactors of a
Community Cultural Heritage Preservation Fund.
For the community, such a fund would help generate badly needed resources and a means
for a community to enable better management and preservation of its cultural heritage
assets. For example, the fund could provide monies to subsidize employment of a full-time
cultural heritage manager who would be responsible for all functions relating to use of a
community’s cultural heritage resources. This strategy would empower and give control to
the community in protecting the integrity of its own cultural assets, for example, regarding
how its cultural heritage gets interpreted to visitors through marketing materials and
activities. Most importantly, such a fund could provide compensation for a resource person
to educate the public about the importance of protecting local cultural heritage assets and
ensuring authentic local experiences for visitors.
For the tourism industry, implementation of such a strategy would help ensure authentic
heritage products and cultural experiences for its customers, providing cultural products
that are carefully maintained, protected and reproduced under the jurisdiction of the
community (genuinely local), thus giving a value-added element to existing cultural tourism
products. This strategy would ensure a long term and sustainable supply of authentic
cultural components for tourism industry suppliers and their future customers. Finally, for the
visitor, adoption of such a strategy would help to ensure that he/she would receive an
authentic and truly local heritage product and cultural experience, a cultural tourism product
that has been certi?ed by the producing community (the actual creators).
Creating a Community Cultural Heritage Preservation Fund in smaller rural communities
might entail applying such tactics as:
B a visitation fee/head tax to commercial tour operations for every customer (tourist)
brought to tour a culture-based tourism community (fees paid to the community);
B a fee for the opportunity to capture exclusive on-site photos of local cultural heritage
assets, for example, from inside of local museums, churches, schools and heritage
architectures (no photos, no charge);
B an entrance fee to local cemeteries, heritage buildings/sites and museums;
B licensing fees for outsiders to take and use local cultural images for their own commercial
promotional and marketing purposes (e.g. photographs used in brochures, on web sites);
B a fee for commercial ?lmmaking in the community;
B heritage preservation donation boxes in strategic locations around the host community
(most tourists are well-educated and understand/respect the importance of
preservation).
PAGE 386
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Numerous creative and innovative strategies could be developed and implemented to
generate signi?cant funds aimed at community heritage preservation. For instance, in a
small community that would receive 150,000 visitors annually, a one-dollar visitation fee per
visitor would generate a preservation fund of $150,000.
Conclusion
In conclusion, reconsider the central question, ‘‘Does a community really own its distinctive
intangible cultural heritage?’’ This paper does not suppose to answer this question but,
rather, to provoke thoughts and stimulate further discourse on the subject. As discussed, the
issues around intellectual property rights and ownership are huge and complex, particular
within the realm of tourism, an industry where culture is deeply embedded in the tourism
experience. Some will argue that tourism would not exist without culture (Jafari, 1996). While
certain facets of a culture can be copyrighted, such as pieces of written music, artworks or
other visible manifestations, the intangibles – ideas, meanings, collective identity attributes,
oral and unwritten expressions, and the symbolism attached to these – cannot be easily
protected. Intangible and tangible cultural aspects are accumulated and reproduced during
the evolution of a local community in building its collective and social value system – a social
construct. Through tourism, however, these cultural aspects become converted into
commercial products for exchange. In fact, culture is the dominant lure for a market niche
that is seemingly increasing, both in demand and supply, in the growing global tourism
economy.
Unquestionably, the tourism industry derives signi?cant economic bene?ts from local
intangible cultural heritage. A major moral and ethic issue stems from the tourism industry’s
failure to recognize the monetary value of local intangible cultural heritage in its tourism
production and to fairly compensate the local producers and creators (communities). A
logical step is to develop a more equitable and sustainable approach that would bene?t all
stakeholders. Creating a community cultural heritage preservation fund certainly is one
approach that needs further exploration. If communities are the creators and owners of their
cultural assets, they are entitled to a rightful share of the economic bene?ts that the tourism
industry generates.
References
Ashworth, G.J. and Larkham, P.J. (Eds) (1994), Building a NewHeritage: Tourism, Culture and Identity in
the New Europe, Routledge, London.
Bartlett, R.H. (1999), ‘‘Native title in Australia: denial, recognition and dispossession’’, in Havemann, P.
(Ed.), Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, Oxford University Press, New
York, NY, pp. 408-27.
Brown, M.F. (1998), ‘‘Can culture be copyrighted?’’, Current Anthropology, Vol. 39, pp. 193-222.
Brown, M.F. (2003), Who Owns Native Culture?, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Business Development Center (BDC) (2009), A Guide to Copyrights in Canada, Government of Canada
document, available at: www.bdc-canada.com/BDC/articles/Copyright/Copyright_Guide_27_6.htm
Canadian Press (2003), ‘‘Bluenose Preservation Trust drops lawsuit against NS company using image’’,
Canadian Press, available at: www.svpproductions.com/bluenose.html
Coombe, R. (1998), The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties: Authorship, Appropriation and the Law,
Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
Cuthbertson, B. (2002), Lunenburg Then and Now, Formac Publishing Company, Halifax.
Dahms, F. (1991), St Jacobs, Ontario: From Declining Village to Thriving Tourist Community, CABI,
Cambridge, MA.
George, E.W. (2004), ‘ ‘Commodifying local culture for tourism development and community
sustainability: the case of one rural community in Atlantic Canada’’, doctoral dissertation, University
of Guelph, Guelph.
Hoffman, B.T. (Ed.) (2006), Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy and Practice, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 387
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Hunsberger, D.L., Hertel, J., Lattner, K. and Fretz, J.W. (1977), People Apart: Portrait of a Mennonite
World in Waterloo County, Ontario, Sand Hills Books, St Jacobs, ON.
Jafari, J. (1996), ‘‘Tourism and culture: an inquiry into paradoxes’’, Culture, Tourism Development:
Crucial Issues for the XXIst Century, UNESCO, Paris.
McDonald, I. (1998), Protecting Indigenous Intellectual Property: A Copyright Perspective, Australian
Copyright Council, Redfern, NSW.
McKercher, B. and du Cros, H. (2002), Cultural Tourism: The Partnership between Tourism and Cultural
Heritage Management, The Haworth Hospitality Press, New York, NY.
Marcus, G.E. (1998), ‘‘Censorship in the heart of difference: cultural property, indigenous peoples’
movements, and challenges to Western liberal thought’’, in Post, R.E. (Ed.), Censorship and Silencing:
Practices of Cultural Regulation, Getty Research Institution for the History of Art and Humanities, Los
Angeles, CA, pp. 221-42.
Meethan, K. (2001), Tourism in Global Society: Place, Culture, Consumption, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
Robinson, E.F. (1989), The Saga of the Bluenose, Vanwell Publishing Limited, St Catherines, ON.
Root, D. (1995), Cannibal Culture: Art, Appropriation and the Commodi?cation of Culture, Westview,
Boulder, CL.
Tylor, E.B. (1871), Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy,
Religion, Art and Customs, John Murray, London.
UNESCO (2003), ‘‘Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage’’, UNESCO,
available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg ¼ 00022 (accessed 16 March 2009).
University of Guelph (2003), Fourth Annual Rural Studies Conference Report, University of Guelph,
Guelph, ON.
Wendland, W.B. (2006), ‘‘Intellectual property and the protection of traditional knowledge and cultural
expression’’, in Hoffman, B.T. (Ed.), Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy and Practice, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 327-39.
Wikipedia (2009), ‘‘The Mennonites’’, Wikipedia, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonite
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (2009), ‘‘What is intellectual property?’’, World
Intellectual Property Organization, available at www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/ (accessed 16 March 2009).
Ziff, B. and Rao, P.V. (Eds) (1997), Borrowed Power: Essays on Cultural Appropriation, Rutgers
University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
Further reading
Das, E. (1997), Protection of the Heritage of Indigenous People, United Nations, Of?ce of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights, no. E. 97. X1V.3, Geneva, Switzerland.
Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online (2009), ‘‘St Jacob’s Mennonite Church’’, Global
Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online, available at: www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/
S714ME.html (accessed 16 March, 2009).
(The) Halifax Chronicle Herald (2003), ‘‘Trust’s claim on Bluenose image surprise to NS’’, The Halifax
Chronicle Herald, October.
UNESCO (2003), ‘‘What is intangible heritage?’’ UNESCO, available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/
index.php?pg ¼ 00002 (accessed 16 March 2009).
Corresponding author
E. Wanda George can be contacted at: [email protected]
PAGE 388
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Nur Izzati Mohd Rodzi, Saniah Ahmad Zaki, Syed Mohd Hassan Syed Subli. 2013. Between Tourism and Intangible Cultural
Heritage. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 85, 411-420. [CrossRef]
2. Ernestina Giudici, Claudia Melis, Silvia Dessì, Bianca Francine Pollnow Galvao Ramos. 2013. Is intangible cultural heritage
able to promote sustainability in tourism?. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 5:1, 101-114. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_284031746.pdf
This paper seeks to highlight issues surrounding ownership and copyrights relating to
intangible cultural heritage and to raise potential concerns for local (rural, remote, smaller) communities
involved in cultural heritage tourism.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Intangible cultural heritage, ownership, copyrights, and tourism
E. Wanda George
Article information:
To cite this document:
E. Wanda George, (2010),"Intangible cultural heritage, ownership, copyrights, and tourism", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 376 - 388
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011081541
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:12 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 30 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2984 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Hiroko Yasuda, (2010),"World heritage and cultural tourism in J apan", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research,
Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 366-375 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011081532
Nicole Mitsche, Franziska Vogt, Dan Knox, I. Cooper, Patrizia Lombardi, Daniela Ciaffi, (2013),"Intangibles: enhancing access to cities'
cultural heritage through interpretation", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 68-77 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181311301381
Fredrick M. Collison, Daniel L. Spears, (2010),"Marketing cultural and heritage tourism: the Marshall Islands", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 2 pp. 130-142 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011045208
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Regular paper
Intangible cultural heritage, ownership,
copyrights, and tourism
E. Wanda George
Abstract
Purpose – This paper seeks to highlight issues surrounding ownership and copyrights relating to
intangible cultural heritage and to raise potential concerns for local (rural, remote, smaller) communities
involved in cultural heritage tourism.
Design/methodology/approach – The objective of the paper is to provoke re?ection and further
discourse on how local culture in smaller rural communities has been appropriated for tourism and
related issues and concerns. Selected literature, other relevant documents and data from personal
observations, derived from previous research, were examined to provide insights on the subject and to
help achieve this objective.
Findings – Findings suggest that an inequity gap exists in bene?ts distributed to many rural
communities whose cultural heritages are being appropriated and exploited by multiple commercial
entities for tourism purposes and personal gain. Little, if any, of the pro?ts realized bene?t the local
community – the actual creators and owners of the local culture.
Practical implications – With a new awareness and understanding of this phenomenon, developing
and implementing a new and alternative approach is possible – an alternative approach that may help
narrow this inequity gap while also ensuring signi?cant sustainable bene?ts to all the stakeholders.
Originality/value – This paper presents newperspectives about the value of intangible cultural heritage
when used for tourism. This paper should be of interest and importance to community tourism planners
and policy makers, industry operators/suppliers dependent on local cultural tourism products, and
consumers of local intangible culture who seek unique cultural experiences.
Keywords Intangible assets, Culture, Heritage, Tourism, Copyright law
Paper type Viewpoint
Introduction
The fundamental re-conceptualization and recon?guration of modern social, political, and
economic boundaries (University of Guelph, 2003) is one of the greatest transformations
impacting our society. To these, include the recon?guration of cultural boundaries,
particularly in the crossing of societal boundaries to commodify a community’s intangible
cultural heritage for tourist consumption. What once formed the social construct (culture) of
naturally evolving communities and inherited by successive generations, local inherited
culture has become transformed into newproducts for exchange in a growing global tourism
marketplace. Tylor (1871) de?nes culture as knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and
any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. Through
escalating tourism development in many rural and remote areas, where indigenous
traditions, habits and local culture hold longstanding meaning and values over generations,
such transformations are becoming increasingly apparent. Several authors (Ashworth and
Larkham, 1994; George, 2004; McKercher and du Cros, 2002) discuss the merits of cultural
PAGE 376
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010, pp. 376-388, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181011081541
E. Wanda George is based
at the Department of
Business Administration
and Tourism & Hospitality
Management, Mount Saint
Vincent University, Halifax,
Canada.
Received: December 2009
Revised March 2010
Accepted March 2010
This article is an adaptation of a
paper originally presented at
the Sharing Cultures 2009
Conference, Pico Island,
Azores, Portugal, and
published by Greenlines
Institute in the conference
proceedings. Emerald
Publishing selected the paper
as best paper of the Sharing
Cultures 2009 conference. The
author gratefully acknowledges
permission by the Greenlines
Institute to submit this article to
Emerald Publishing for
publication in the International
Journal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
heritage tourism arguing that local culture may be a community’s most valuable asset for
tourism if planned and managed properly.
A community’s inherited culture (tangible and intangible cultural heritage) should provide a
community with a competitive advantage and uniqueness, one that differentiates it from all
other communities. However, with increasing commodi?cation of intangible cultural heritage
to provide new and unique products in efforts to satisfy the needs and whims of modern
tourist markets, many smaller rural and remote communities face new concerns and issues
formerly considered outside their local domain. Questions of ownership of intellectual
property, traditional knowledge, copyrights and forms of protection relating to a community’s
intangible cultural heritage are unresolved issues in the commodi?cation process. A central
question arises, Does a community really own its distinctive intangible cultural heritage?
According to Brown (2003, p. 55), ‘‘Many lawyers and activist believe that intellectual
property law holds the key to heritage protection.’’
This concept paper outlines some issues of ownership and copyrights surrounding
intangible cultural heritage in rural areas and points out potential concerns for local (small,
remote, rural) communities undertaking cultural heritage tourism. The paper aims to provoke
further thought and discourse on this subject. The following section ?rst provides a brief
discussion on key related concepts and insights from existing literature.
Intellectual property (IP), traditional knowledge (TK) and copyrights
Hoffman (2006, p. 10) notes, ‘‘Intellectual property may be thought of as the use or value of
an idea such as inventions, designs, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images
and performances.’’ The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a specialized
agency of the United Nations, describes intellectual property as ‘‘creations of the mind:
inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in
commerce’’ (WIPO, 2009, Online document). Forms of intellectual property protection
include copyrights, trademarks, and patent laws. According to the Copyright Act of Canada
(2009), a ‘‘copyright means the right to copy.’’ A copyright means that only the owner of a
copyright, very often the creator of the work, is allowed to produce or reproduce the work in
question or to permit anyone else to do so (Business Development Center, 2009). In Canada:
A poem, painting, musical score, performer’s performance, computer program – all these are
valuable creations, although perhaps no one can measure their worth. Some may earn a lot of
money in the marketplace and others, none at all. Regardless of their merit or commercial value,
Canadian law regards all such original creative works to be copyright material. This means that if
you own the copyright of a poem, song, or other work, you have a number of rights, which are
protected under the Copyright Act . . . The word ‘‘original’’ is key in de?ning a work that quali?es
for copyright protection . . . (Business Development Center, 2009, pp. 2-4).
Copyright laws, generally, apply to the protection of tangible materials such as literary,
dramatic, musical and artistic works (including architectural works) that belong to
individuals or joint owners. Copyright is restricted to the expression of an idea in a ?xed
manner (e.g. text, recording, or drawing); a copyright does not extend to the idea itself
(Business Development Center, 2009, p. 6). The guide lays out very explicit guidelines for
what is or is not considered infringements on the copyright, and includes the concept of fair
dealing which allows limited permissions to copy some works for educational and research
purposes. Other exceptions occur to infringement claims that allow for unfettered access to
properties; these exceptions pertain to properties and works that have been relegated to the
public domain. In Canada, this relegation to the public domain occurs 50 years after the
death of the original creator and copyright owner. While the Copyright Act in Canada offers
protection (i.e. copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets) to individuals and/or joint
owners of tangible properties, there is far less discussion that speaks to the protection of
collectively owned (community) intangible assets or traditional knowledge.
Moral rights
The notion of moral rights attaches to the concept of copyright protection. The Copyright Act
(Canada) states that even if you, as owner of a copyright, sell your copyright to someone
else, you still retain what are called ‘‘moral rights’’ (Business Development Center, 2009).
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 377
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This means that no one, including the person who owns the copyright, is allowed to distort,
mutilate or otherwise modify your work in a way that is prejudicial to your honor or reputation.
A person’s name must also be associated with the work as its author (creator), if reasonable
in the circumstances. In addition, your work may not be used in association with a product,
service, cause or institution in a way that is prejudicial to your honour or reputation without
your permission. A moral rights approach protects the integrity of the copyright holder. ‘‘The
integrity right that protects the reputation of creators may address the anxiety over the
inappropriate use of expressions of folklore by preventing distortion, alteration or
misrepresentation of creator’s works’’ (Wendland (2006), in Hoffman, 2006, p. 11).
Traditional knowledge (TK)
Wendland (2006) (in Hoffman, 2006, p. 328) suggests, ‘‘Traditional knowledge and cultural
expressions are often the product of intergenerational and ?uid social and communal
creative processes that re?ect and identify a community’s history, cultural and social identity
and social values.’’ The term, traditional knowledge, refers to the content or substance of
knowledge that is the result of intellectual activity and insight in a traditional context, and
includes the know-how, skills, innovations, practices and learning that formpart of traditional
knowledge systems, and knowledge that is embodied in the traditional lifestyle of a
community or people, or is contained in codi?ed knowledge systems passed between
generations (Wendland (2006) in Hoffman, 2006). Wendland also contends that traditional
creativity is marked by a dynamic interplay between collective and individual creativity,
which makes it dif?cult, from an intellectual property perspective, to ascertain what an
individual creation is. Individual minds coming together in a living society are constantly
imitating, recreating and innovating the traditional framework in a community’s evolving
social construct. However, Wendland (2006) (Hoffman, 2006, p. 328) purports distinct
characteristics de?ne traditional knowledge (TK):
B TK is handed down from one generation to another, either orally or by imitation.
B TK re?ects a community’s cultural and social identity.
B TK consists of characteristic elements of a community’s heritage.
B TK is made by authors unknown and/or by communities and/or by individuals communally
recognized as having the right, responsibility, or permissions to do so.
B TK is not made for commercial purposes but as vehicles for religious and cultural
expression – a social construct.
B TK is constantly evolving, developing, and being recreated with the community.
Indigenous cultural heritage issues
Ongoing research focuses on the disputes and debates about intellectual property rights
and ownership of cultural resources in aboriginal or indigenous communities, whose secret
and sacred traditions have been appropriated and exploited by outsiders over centuries
(Bartlett, 1999; Brown, 1998, 2003; Coombe, 1998; Marcus, 1998; McDonald, 1998; Root,
1995; Ziff and Rao, 1997). Many of the disputes center on the appropriation by large
biotechnology ?rms of local indigenous knowledge of medicinal plants and herbs and the
natives’ knowledge of traditional healing methods from the natural world. Brown (2003), in
his work, ‘‘Who Owns Native Culture,’’ writes extensively about the global search for native
medicinal and mind-altering plants, many of which are thought to promote health and
longevity. New medicinal discoveries are made from the ?ora and fauna found in South
America, whose healing attributes were known to the indigenous people for centuries before
being appropriated by Western biotechnology and transnational pharmaceutical companies
(Brown, 2003).
These large pharmaceutical companies, using their power and large networks, patent folk
medicines without any bene?t or credit whatsoever to the original discoverers – the
indigenous peoples. The Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) refers to this
type of appropriation as biopiracy (Brown, 2003). Brown notes that RAFI was dedicated to
resisting the global theft of genetic resources by capitalist industry. In 2001, RAFI became
known as the ETC Group and a registered civil society organization (CSO) in Canada and
PAGE 378
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
the Netherlands. RAFI was the ?rst civil society organization (nationally or internationally) to
draw attention to the socioeconomic and scienti?c issues relating to the conservation and
use of plant genetic resources, intellectual property and biotechnology. Other sources of
con?ict also emerge when outsiders appropriate native cultural resources – music, design
styles, folktales and stories, religious practices and so on. This appropriation of knowledge
often materializes in various forms of contemporary music, jewelry, clothing design, dolls,
stories, and new age religious worship activities, which are constructed by outsiders who
borrow (steal) ideas and techniques, for example, from indigenous shamans.
The invasion by outsiders (tourists) of their sacred landscapes and cultural spaces, places
that have remained integral to their way of life over hundreds of years, is another troubling
issue for indigenous peoples. For instance, the Bighorn Medicine Wheel in Wyoming, USA,
became a site of controversy when S. C. Simms, an early anthropologist, described his visit
and experience to the Medicine Wheel in 1902. This site later became a signi?cant
archeological ?nd that, according to the numerous artifacts that were found, dates back to
between A.D. 1200 and 1700. These artifacts show the Native Americans used this site for a
variety of purposes – hunting, collecting and religious activities – for perhaps seven
thousand years (Brown, 2003, p. 140). Although their beliefs and relationship to the site have
been kept relatively secret, even today, the tribes of the region regard the Bighorn Medicine
Wheel as a powerful and sacred place.
The site warranted protection due to the increasing number of tourists visiting the site as a
result of increased publicity and increased access on improved highways. The number of
visitors rose fromabout 2,000 in 1967 to 70,000 in the early 1990s (Brown, 2003, p. 147). This
increased tourist visitation resulted in serious negative impacts to the site, including damage
to the footpaths and vegetation, excessive garbage and dumping of other inappropriate
items. The State, at the time (1990s), also proposed changes to further increase access to
the general public, a move that escalated tensions and resistance among the Native
American tribes that deem the site to be a sacred space.
Con?ict also surfaced regarding Devils Tower, another sacred Native American site located
in Wyoming, that draws nearly half a million visitors a year to the area (Brown, 2003). Many of
these visitors are rock climbers (adventure tourists) who are drawn to climb and challenge
the steep Tower. Tensions emerged when native tribes in the region complained that
climbers ‘‘who ascended Devils Tower showed a lack of respect for spiritual forces resident
there’’ (Brown, 2003, p. 151). Similar incidents frequently arise today in the USA and Canada
as well as in other parts of the world. The relationship between cultural con?ict and tourismis
a central theme throughout this paper.
Advocates for native rights would like to see the integrity of indigenous cultures ensured by
laws that treat heritage as an inalienable resource (Brown, 2003, p. 6). However, Brown
(2003, p. 7) raises some critical questions, ‘‘To what extent can law control the movement of
ideas? Does it make sense for ethnic groups to de?ne their cultural practices as property that
cannot be studied, imitated or modi?ed by other without permission? How far can
democratic states go to provide indigenous peoples with cultural protections without
violating the rights of the general public?’’ Ongoing debates and discussions about
intangible cultural heritage issues have led to new forms of regulation and laws in some
countries, for example, in New Zealand, Australia and Panama, designed to protect the
intangible heritage of native populations (Brown, 2003).
The Daes Report
In 1997, the United Nations released a document, entitled, ‘‘Protection of the heritage of
indigenous people,’’ also known as the Daes Report. The purpose behind producing the
report was to support the case for Total Heritage Protection. The Daes Report (in Brown,
2003, pp. 211-212) concludes:
[. . .] that a society owns its heritage, de?ned as everything that belongs to the distinct identity of a
people and which is theirs to share, if they wish, with other peoples. . .each indigenous community
must retain permanent control over all elements of its heritage, under its owns laws and
procedures, but always reserves a perpetual right to determine how shared knowledge is used.
Members of such communities own their heritage, including its works, arts and ideas.
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 379
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The Daes Report raises some important issues. While the document characterizes
indigenous cultures as part of the common heritage of all humankind, nothing is said about
the world’s cultural and intellectual commons or whether one should even exist, that is, it
takes for granted that indigenous peoples are not part of any public other than their own
enclosed conceptual universe and territory (Brown, 2003, p. 212). Brown asserts, ‘‘From the
report, one can reasonably infer that any social group that quali?es as ‘a people’, indigenous
or not, enjoys equally absolute rights over its cultural productions’’ (Brown, 2003). Brown’s
inference leads directly to the central question in this paper, ‘‘Does any community own its
intangible cultural heritage?
UNESCO’s position on intangible cultural heritage
On October 17, 2003, UNESCO, recognizing that ‘‘. . .intangible cultural heritage – or living
heritage – is the mainspring of our cultural diversity and its maintenance a guarantee for
continuing creativity . . . ’’ adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage (ICH) (UNESCO, 2003, Online Document) which states:
[Intangible cultural heritage (ICH)]. . .is traditional and living at the same time. It is constantly
being recreated and mainly transmitted orally. The depository of this heritage is the human mind,
the human body being the main instrument for its enactment, or – literally – embodiment. The
knowledge and skills are often shared within a community, and manifestations of ICH often are
performed collectively (Online Document, What is Intangible Cultural Heritage?).
The UNESCO Convention (2003, p. 2) also declares:
Intangible cultural heritage means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills
– as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that
communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage.
This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly
recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with
nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting
respect for cultural diversity and human creativity.
What is cultural appropriation?
Ziff and Rao (1997, p. 1) de?ne cultural appropriation as ‘‘the taking – from a culture that is
not one’s own – of intellectual property, cultural expressions or artifacts, history and ways of
knowledge.’’ From their research, Ziff and Rao reveal the complexity of this concept and its
multidimensional nature. Because of the enormity of the topic, this paper cannot fully
elaborate on this complex phenomenon and the many forms, and varying degrees, of
appropriation. However, the range of instances of so-called cultural appropriation is broad,
and while some incidents are clear-cut, others are extremely dif?cult to de?ne. Humans have
been borrowing from others since the beginning of time. ‘‘Acts of appropriation happen all
around us in a vast number of creative domains as cultural in?uences blend, merge, and
synthesize’’ (Ziff and Rao, 1997, p. 4).
Concerns about cultural appropriation, as illustrated in the previous discussion, are a
longstanding issue for indigenous peoples in many countries. According to Ziff and Rao
(1997, p. 8), these concerns give rise to several claims:
B Cultural appropriation can harmthe appropriated community; it can negatively impact the
integrity and identities of cultural groups.
B Cultural appropriation can impact the cultural object itself; it can either damage or
transform a given cultural good or practice.
B Cultural appropriation wrongly allows some to bene?t to the material detriment of others
(deprivation of material advantage).
B Current lawfails to re?ect alternative conceptions of what should be treated as property or
ownership in cultural goods.
PAGE 380
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Indigenous and non-indigenous: intangible cultural heritage and tourism
While much of the previous literature reviewand discussion in this paper concentrates on the
concerns and issues of indigenous peoples regarding their intangible cultural heritage,
other critical questions surface. Do non-indigenous communities have the same or similar
concerns and issue? How do the rights of intangible cultural heritage apply to
non-indigenous communities?
In many isolated rural and remote rural communities, after centuries of evolution and building
of unique and strong cultural traditions, expressions, customs and ways of life, a more subtle
formof appropriation is taking place through tourism. Parts of the communities’ spontaneous
and evolutionary social constructs – their cultural heritage resources – are now being
transformed into commodities for exchange and exploitation through modern tourism
development. Using hypothetical timelines, Figure 1 illustrates this transformation.
Commodi?cation of culture for tourism occurs when a community’s culture, developed over
past years, perhaps centuries, and created through ordinary spontaneous evolution under
principles of use value, that is, an essential elements in the social fabric and essence of
everyday life in a community, becomes converted into objects of exchange value for tourist
consumption. Subsequently, culture gets transformed and reconstructed into a completely
different entity, and a consumer value system supersedes a longstanding community value
system (George, 2004, p. 333). This consumer value system often distorts the original
culture (through inaccurate marketing narratives, unauthentic tourism activities and
inappropriate use of cultural resources) over which a community has little or no control.
In many smaller rural communities and indigenous communities adopting tourism, this
dilemma becomes very real and controversial, leading to tensions and con?icts between
residents and others. Entrepreneurs, governments, marketers, ?lm-makers, photographers,
tour operators, artists, among others, see rural cultural heritage manifestations as novel
product opportunities and they are increasingly appropriating and exploiting local intangible
culture and heritage for their own commercial purposes and pro?t gain. For example, tour
operators sell to and carry hundreds of tourists throughout living communities to observe
and consume the local countryside, intangible heritage, cultural landscapes and sense of
place, reaping economic gain from these unique tourism offerings. Little, if any, pro?ts
Figure 1 Commodi?cation of cultural heritage for tourism
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 381
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
realized by these tour operators directly bene?t the local community – actual creators and
owners of these cultural products. This, arguably, is a form of deprivation of material
advantage as described by Ziff and Rao (1997, p. 8) in ‘‘What is cultural appropriation’’.
Cultural appropriation, arguably, allows some to bene?t from the contribution of others (Ziff
and Rao, 1997, p. 14). Deprivation of material advantage basically means that others
wrongfully exploit cultural resources for ?nancial gain to the detriment of the owners and
creators. When outsiders appropriate someone else’s cultural resources for pro?ts, they
prevent the owners from doing so and/or reaping their rightful share of the potential ?nancial
bene?ts. Ziff and Rao (1997, p. 15) argue the Law of Trademarks provides a reasonable
analog in this context. A trademark serves to represent a product or service and to embody
the goodwill that a commercial enterprise has established over a period of time. A trademark
is intended to prevent others from bene?ting on the goodwill built from the efforts of an
enterprise. The law also tries to ensure that someone cannot ‘‘free ride on the works of
others’’ (Ziff and Rao, 1997, p. 15). While cultural appropriation is undoubtedly a serious
issue for indigenous communities, it is also an issue for non-aboriginal rural communities that
have tourism development (George, 2004). Two communities are now discussed to help
illustrate how this phenomenon unfolds in smaller rural communities in Canada. Both
communities – Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, and St Jacob’s, Ontario – are considered to have a
well-established tourism industry built on use of their local cultural heritage assets.
Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, Canada
Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, is a small rural community on the east coast of Canada. UNESCO
declared the area a World Heritage Site (WHS) in 1995 and the community immediately
positioned itself as an international cultural destination. The community, with approximately
2,500 residents, claims to receive 300,000 tourists annually, although this number has not
been substantiated by any of?cial data; in fact, the recorded number of visitors to Nova
Scotia shows a decline in recent years. Lunenburg is the birthplace of the world famous
racing schooner, Bluenose, and following its demise, a subsequent Bluenose II, which has
been one of Nova Scotia’s top attractions for decades. The ?rst schooner was built around
1921 as a vessel for ?shing on the Grand Bank but quickly gained fame for its remarkable
racing ability. The schooner entered and won many racing competitions, both in Canada and
USA, which brought worldwide fame and immense local pride to the small community. The
schooner sank off the West Indies in 1948 and was subsequently replaced by a new vessel
built in 1963, the Bluenose II, which still exists today. Local builders constructed both vessels
at Lunenburg shipyards.
The Bluenose serves as a symbol of the ‘‘days of glorious sail when men were rugged, hardy
toilers, competitive and determined, persevering and always facing danger in their efforts to
be masters of the sea – the Golden Age of Sail’’ (Cuthbertson, 2002, in George, 2004, p.
173). Cuthbertson (2002, p. 75) writes: ‘‘The Bluenose’s racing triumphs served to keep
spirits up in the face of the hardest times any Lunenburg generation has known.’’ Following
the sinking of the original schooner, ‘‘The building of the Bluenose II by the Oland family
ensured that the legend of the great schooner would not die’’ (Robinson, 1989, p. 72). A few
years later, the Oland family sold the Bluenose II to the Government of Nova Scotia to be
used as an ambassador and promotional tool for the Province. Over the years, however, the
vessel fell into disrepair and deemed unseaworthy at one point. Out of concern, a local
Lunenburg group of volunteers created a non-pro?t organization, The Bluenose Heritage
Preservation Trust (the Trust), with a lofty goal to preserve the famous schooner and restore
its seaworthiness. The Government charged the Trust with the responsibility to manage the
Bluenose and to initiate a preservation plan. Through the years, the organization contributed
signi?cantly towards preserving the historic schooner through various efforts (e.g.
fundraising, sales of memorabilia, books and clothing from a local store, donations, and
so). The Trust attempted to claim the copyright for any images of the famous vessel. This
claim, however, led to con?ict and confrontation over issues of ownership and intellectual
property.
The Trust initiated a lawsuit against a commercial clothing outlet for using images of the
famous schooner on its products. The lawsuit against the so-called infringing company
caused an outcry from many people who said the Trust could not legally lay claim to an
PAGE 382
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
image that was already being widely used in tourism displays and even on the Canadian
dime (Canadian Press, 2003). The provincial government was forced to intervene in
attempts to resolve the intellectual property issues. As a result, the Government re-claimed
its ownership of the Bluenose II and any use of its images (see Figure 2). The Government
proclaimed, ‘‘But at the end of the day, we’ll make sure that Bluenose II is going to be able to
be widely displayed, that it can be there for the maximum bene?t of Nova Scotians and
businesses that utilize the Bluenose as an image’’ (Canadian Press, 2003). The court case
was dropped and the local Trust company was relieved of its management responsibilities
and any claims to copyrights related to the Bluenose.
The many tour operators who bring hundreds of tourists into the town each year demonstrate
another example of cultural appropriation occurring in Lunenburg. When compiling their tour
packages, tour operators include several independent components so as to provide an
inclusive and appealing tour for their clients, for example, accommodations, restaurants or
other food services, entertainment, activities, and other amenities, for which customers pay
a fee. A typical tour package might also incorporate sightseeing of local scenery, cultural
landscapes (including graveyards) and numerous other local symbolic spaces. Symbolic
content con?rms local memories and identities; space has the capacity to embody sets of
values from which people derive signi?cance and meaning (Meethan, 2001). In addition to
these components, a commercial tour package to Lunenburg frequently includes:
observation of and, in many cases, participation in ongoing local customs and cultural
traditions; photo-taking and video-recording of local people, local and unique architectural
constructions and old historic homes, particularly those displaying the intriguing local
architectural feature, called the Lunenburg Bump, as well as other locally speci?c cultural
heritage attractions (i.e. churches, shipyards, former waterfront working sites); use of the
community’s washroom facilities; use of local trails and walkways, and so on (see Figure 3).
For these additional components in a packaged tour, which undoubtedly add high value to
the product, there is little or no ?nancial compensation from the tour operator to the host
community. Put another way – there is no cost to the operator for this locally distinctive
component of his tour package – a freebie – although, arguably, this unique component
provides the cultural ‘‘essence’’ of the tour product.
Tour companies also bene?t from the multiple images they frequently acquire during their
visits to community destinations for use in their own promotional materials – a bene?t they
Figure 2 The Bluenose – a community’s cultural icon as depicted on the Canadian dime
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 383
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
receive without acquiring the consent of or provide compensation to the local community.
Tourism operators will frequently argue that a community reaps bene?ts from the tourist
expenditures in the community. This is not the main issue. The type of business model
generally used is one that appropriates local cultural resources for the bene?t of commercial
tour companies while providing little or no bene?ts to the local community – the producers of
a valuable component. Arguably, this is a deprivation of material advantage for the
community.
St. Jacob’s, Ontario, Canada
St Jacob’s is another small rural community located in the heart of Canada’s industrial
province, Ontario. The village is home to roughly 1,500 residents, many who follow the
Mennonite tradition.
The Mennonites are a group of Christian Anabaptist denominations named after Menno Simons
(1496-1561), though his writings articulated, and thereby, formalized the teachings of earlier
Swiss founders. . . founded on both the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ, which they held to
with great conviction despite generational persecution by the Catholic church state. . .
Mennonites have become known as one of the historic peace churches given their
commitment to nonviolence, nonviolent resistance/reconciliation, and paci?sm(Wikipedia, 2009).
According to Hunsberger et al. (1977) in People Apart: Portrait of a Mennonite World in
Waterloo County, the Mennonite people:
. . . in the surrounding area can trace their heritage directly to the Swiss – South German regions
of Europe of the 1520’s. . .sought religious freedomin the United . . .as early as the late 1600’s and
early 1700’s. Around 1800, they continued their quest and moved north from Pennsylvania to
Upper Canada, to what later came to be known as Waterloo County, Ontario. Here, in the 1880s,
those who have come to be known as the Old Order separated themselves fromother Mennonites
of the county (Hunsberger et al., 1977).
Many Old Order Mennonite farmers and families, who still retain the traditional religion,
customs and lifestyle of their early forefathers, live in the rural areas around St Jacob’s,
located in the Waterloo region of Ontario. To see a horse and buggy driving alongside the
modern paved highways throughout the region is not uncommon.
In recent times, the religious sect and its unique way of life have been blatantly depicted in
various forms of tourism marketing literature. Marketing of the sect’s sacred icons and
cultural symbols to attract tourists to the area is demoralizing to many. Indigenous cultures
have sometimes purposely used cultural symbols as a logo or brand to represent
themselves as a tourism attraction. However, other communities may have been branded
without any intention. Such may be the case in St Jacob’s, where commercial operators have
Figure 3 Popular images for tourists and photographers – historic architecture in
Lunenburg
PAGE 384
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
appropriated local road signage intended to caution motor vehicles to the presence of horse
drawn carriages in the area, a mode of transportation still used by the local Mennonites. The
‘‘horse and buggy’’ image on the signage has manifested into a symbol of Mennonite
tradition and culture, and is commonly seen as a logo in promotional materials and on
storefronts for tourism in St Jacob’s (Figure 4). The tourism industry has appropriated the
Mennonites’ cultural heritage to brand St Jacob’s as a tourism attraction.
When a business sells a product to tourists that includes the sightseeing of a community’s
architecture and surrounding landscapes, or uses this location’s folklore and myths as part
of its advertising appeal without the knowledge, consent, or bene?t of the community, it can
be said to be appropriating that community’s culture. Copyright laws protect academia and
entertainers, but few, if any, laws exist to protect a community’s cultural resources. Tourismis
an industry where the notion of cultural appropriation, that is, the borrowing or taking
(stealing) from others (Ziff and Rao, 1997), is pervasive.
While tourism is important to the community, Dahms reports that potential issues were
brewing as far back as the early 1990s.
Unfortunately, the seeds of decline lie within the recent success. The community is excessively
busy, some residents resent the tourist in?ux, and many Mennonites now go elsewhere to shop.
Over-development may well ruin the basis of the town’s tourist appeal (Dahms, 1991, online
abstract).
In 2003, personal observations taken from a visit to the area indicate that tourism had
become overly commercialized resulting in a sense of a lost authentic cultural community.
Local Mennonites still travelling into town today by the traditional horse and buggy to go
about their daily business are often besieged by curious camera carrying tourists (Figure 5).
Currently, no research appears available that would reveal or help explain the personal
Figure 5 Visitors photographing Mennonite cultural heritage – a tourism attraction
Figure 4 Intangible cultural heritage appropriated as a tourism brand
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 385
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
attitudes and perceptions of local residents towards tourists or the impacts of tourism on life
in the village.
Is there a better way – a more equitable and sustainable approach that would
bene?t all stakeholders today and also protect intangible cultural heritage for future
generations?
Issues and problems around ownership and intellectual property concerning intangible
cultural heritage are unlikely to be resolved any time soon. Extensive research on indigenous
issues has shown that numerous cases have been and are still before the courts.
Interpretations of laws and legislation concerning intellectual property are complex and
obscure. Smaller rural communities engaging in cultural-based tourism usually do not have
the ?nancial resources to adequately manage, sustain and protect their cultural heritage
assets. There must be a more equitable and sustainable approach that would bene?t all
stakeholders. Communities create and own their cultural assets and are entitled to their
rightful share of the ?nancial bene?ts that are being reaped by the tourism industry.
Implementing a type of cultural heritage preservation tax on visitors who consume local
cultural assets is one suggestion toward achieving equity and sustainable tourism. This tax
could support a special fund that would directly bene?t the entire community. All the
stakeholders – community, tourism industry and visitor alike – would be benefactors of a
Community Cultural Heritage Preservation Fund.
For the community, such a fund would help generate badly needed resources and a means
for a community to enable better management and preservation of its cultural heritage
assets. For example, the fund could provide monies to subsidize employment of a full-time
cultural heritage manager who would be responsible for all functions relating to use of a
community’s cultural heritage resources. This strategy would empower and give control to
the community in protecting the integrity of its own cultural assets, for example, regarding
how its cultural heritage gets interpreted to visitors through marketing materials and
activities. Most importantly, such a fund could provide compensation for a resource person
to educate the public about the importance of protecting local cultural heritage assets and
ensuring authentic local experiences for visitors.
For the tourism industry, implementation of such a strategy would help ensure authentic
heritage products and cultural experiences for its customers, providing cultural products
that are carefully maintained, protected and reproduced under the jurisdiction of the
community (genuinely local), thus giving a value-added element to existing cultural tourism
products. This strategy would ensure a long term and sustainable supply of authentic
cultural components for tourism industry suppliers and their future customers. Finally, for the
visitor, adoption of such a strategy would help to ensure that he/she would receive an
authentic and truly local heritage product and cultural experience, a cultural tourism product
that has been certi?ed by the producing community (the actual creators).
Creating a Community Cultural Heritage Preservation Fund in smaller rural communities
might entail applying such tactics as:
B a visitation fee/head tax to commercial tour operations for every customer (tourist)
brought to tour a culture-based tourism community (fees paid to the community);
B a fee for the opportunity to capture exclusive on-site photos of local cultural heritage
assets, for example, from inside of local museums, churches, schools and heritage
architectures (no photos, no charge);
B an entrance fee to local cemeteries, heritage buildings/sites and museums;
B licensing fees for outsiders to take and use local cultural images for their own commercial
promotional and marketing purposes (e.g. photographs used in brochures, on web sites);
B a fee for commercial ?lmmaking in the community;
B heritage preservation donation boxes in strategic locations around the host community
(most tourists are well-educated and understand/respect the importance of
preservation).
PAGE 386
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Numerous creative and innovative strategies could be developed and implemented to
generate signi?cant funds aimed at community heritage preservation. For instance, in a
small community that would receive 150,000 visitors annually, a one-dollar visitation fee per
visitor would generate a preservation fund of $150,000.
Conclusion
In conclusion, reconsider the central question, ‘‘Does a community really own its distinctive
intangible cultural heritage?’’ This paper does not suppose to answer this question but,
rather, to provoke thoughts and stimulate further discourse on the subject. As discussed, the
issues around intellectual property rights and ownership are huge and complex, particular
within the realm of tourism, an industry where culture is deeply embedded in the tourism
experience. Some will argue that tourism would not exist without culture (Jafari, 1996). While
certain facets of a culture can be copyrighted, such as pieces of written music, artworks or
other visible manifestations, the intangibles – ideas, meanings, collective identity attributes,
oral and unwritten expressions, and the symbolism attached to these – cannot be easily
protected. Intangible and tangible cultural aspects are accumulated and reproduced during
the evolution of a local community in building its collective and social value system – a social
construct. Through tourism, however, these cultural aspects become converted into
commercial products for exchange. In fact, culture is the dominant lure for a market niche
that is seemingly increasing, both in demand and supply, in the growing global tourism
economy.
Unquestionably, the tourism industry derives signi?cant economic bene?ts from local
intangible cultural heritage. A major moral and ethic issue stems from the tourism industry’s
failure to recognize the monetary value of local intangible cultural heritage in its tourism
production and to fairly compensate the local producers and creators (communities). A
logical step is to develop a more equitable and sustainable approach that would bene?t all
stakeholders. Creating a community cultural heritage preservation fund certainly is one
approach that needs further exploration. If communities are the creators and owners of their
cultural assets, they are entitled to a rightful share of the economic bene?ts that the tourism
industry generates.
References
Ashworth, G.J. and Larkham, P.J. (Eds) (1994), Building a NewHeritage: Tourism, Culture and Identity in
the New Europe, Routledge, London.
Bartlett, R.H. (1999), ‘‘Native title in Australia: denial, recognition and dispossession’’, in Havemann, P.
(Ed.), Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, Oxford University Press, New
York, NY, pp. 408-27.
Brown, M.F. (1998), ‘‘Can culture be copyrighted?’’, Current Anthropology, Vol. 39, pp. 193-222.
Brown, M.F. (2003), Who Owns Native Culture?, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Business Development Center (BDC) (2009), A Guide to Copyrights in Canada, Government of Canada
document, available at: www.bdc-canada.com/BDC/articles/Copyright/Copyright_Guide_27_6.htm
Canadian Press (2003), ‘‘Bluenose Preservation Trust drops lawsuit against NS company using image’’,
Canadian Press, available at: www.svpproductions.com/bluenose.html
Coombe, R. (1998), The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties: Authorship, Appropriation and the Law,
Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
Cuthbertson, B. (2002), Lunenburg Then and Now, Formac Publishing Company, Halifax.
Dahms, F. (1991), St Jacobs, Ontario: From Declining Village to Thriving Tourist Community, CABI,
Cambridge, MA.
George, E.W. (2004), ‘ ‘Commodifying local culture for tourism development and community
sustainability: the case of one rural community in Atlantic Canada’’, doctoral dissertation, University
of Guelph, Guelph.
Hoffman, B.T. (Ed.) (2006), Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy and Practice, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 387
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Hunsberger, D.L., Hertel, J., Lattner, K. and Fretz, J.W. (1977), People Apart: Portrait of a Mennonite
World in Waterloo County, Ontario, Sand Hills Books, St Jacobs, ON.
Jafari, J. (1996), ‘‘Tourism and culture: an inquiry into paradoxes’’, Culture, Tourism Development:
Crucial Issues for the XXIst Century, UNESCO, Paris.
McDonald, I. (1998), Protecting Indigenous Intellectual Property: A Copyright Perspective, Australian
Copyright Council, Redfern, NSW.
McKercher, B. and du Cros, H. (2002), Cultural Tourism: The Partnership between Tourism and Cultural
Heritage Management, The Haworth Hospitality Press, New York, NY.
Marcus, G.E. (1998), ‘‘Censorship in the heart of difference: cultural property, indigenous peoples’
movements, and challenges to Western liberal thought’’, in Post, R.E. (Ed.), Censorship and Silencing:
Practices of Cultural Regulation, Getty Research Institution for the History of Art and Humanities, Los
Angeles, CA, pp. 221-42.
Meethan, K. (2001), Tourism in Global Society: Place, Culture, Consumption, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
Robinson, E.F. (1989), The Saga of the Bluenose, Vanwell Publishing Limited, St Catherines, ON.
Root, D. (1995), Cannibal Culture: Art, Appropriation and the Commodi?cation of Culture, Westview,
Boulder, CL.
Tylor, E.B. (1871), Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy,
Religion, Art and Customs, John Murray, London.
UNESCO (2003), ‘‘Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage’’, UNESCO,
available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg ¼ 00022 (accessed 16 March 2009).
University of Guelph (2003), Fourth Annual Rural Studies Conference Report, University of Guelph,
Guelph, ON.
Wendland, W.B. (2006), ‘‘Intellectual property and the protection of traditional knowledge and cultural
expression’’, in Hoffman, B.T. (Ed.), Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy and Practice, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 327-39.
Wikipedia (2009), ‘‘The Mennonites’’, Wikipedia, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonite
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (2009), ‘‘What is intellectual property?’’, World
Intellectual Property Organization, available at www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/ (accessed 16 March 2009).
Ziff, B. and Rao, P.V. (Eds) (1997), Borrowed Power: Essays on Cultural Appropriation, Rutgers
University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
Further reading
Das, E. (1997), Protection of the Heritage of Indigenous People, United Nations, Of?ce of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights, no. E. 97. X1V.3, Geneva, Switzerland.
Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online (2009), ‘‘St Jacob’s Mennonite Church’’, Global
Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online, available at: www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/
S714ME.html (accessed 16 March, 2009).
(The) Halifax Chronicle Herald (2003), ‘‘Trust’s claim on Bluenose image surprise to NS’’, The Halifax
Chronicle Herald, October.
UNESCO (2003), ‘‘What is intangible heritage?’’ UNESCO, available at: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/
index.php?pg ¼ 00002 (accessed 16 March 2009).
Corresponding author
E. Wanda George can be contacted at: [email protected]
PAGE 388
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Nur Izzati Mohd Rodzi, Saniah Ahmad Zaki, Syed Mohd Hassan Syed Subli. 2013. Between Tourism and Intangible Cultural
Heritage. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 85, 411-420. [CrossRef]
2. Ernestina Giudici, Claudia Melis, Silvia Dessì, Bianca Francine Pollnow Galvao Ramos. 2013. Is intangible cultural heritage
able to promote sustainability in tourism?. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 5:1, 101-114. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_284031746.pdf