Sara Bannerman notes that Canada's decision to vote against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has an intellectual property law component as the government has indicated that it has concerns with the declaration's IP provision that grants indigenous peoples "the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions."
Canada Expresses Concern With IP Clauses in UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
September 14, 2007
Share this post
One Comment
Law Bytes
Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act
byMichael Geist
April 15, 2024
Michael Geist
April 8, 2024
Michael Geist
March 25, 2024
Michael Geist
March 18, 2024
Michael Geist
March 11, 2024
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
- Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act
- AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 198: Richard Moon on the Return of the Section 13 Hate Speech Provision in the Online Harms Act
- Tweets Are Not Enough: Why Combatting Relentless Antisemitism in Canada Requires Real Leadership and Action
I share Richard Stallman’s view that this term “intellectual property” is an overused and mis-used “catch-all” term to describe things like copyright law, patent law and trademark law which really don’t have much to do with each other.
While I understand the need to protect aboriginal people’s heritage and traditional knowledge from corporatization and exploitation, I’d like to see terminology other than “intellectual property” used.