WIPO Traditional Knowledge Toolkit
Documentation
programs can raise intellectual property questions for holders of traditional
knowledge and custodians of genetic resources.
Conscious consideration of intellectual property implications is
particularly important during the documentation process. The WIPO Traditional Knowledge Toolkit
focuses on management of intellectual property concerns during the
documentation process, and also takes the documentation process as a starting
point for a more beneficial management of traditional knowledge as a
community’s intellectual and cultural asset.
The WIPO Traditional Knowledge Toolkit is structured according to three
phases of documentation, namely before documentation, during documentation and
after documentation, so as to illustrate more clearly the diverse intellectual
property issues that arise at each stage of documentation.
[1]
This toolkit is
especially designed to be used by holders of traditional knowledge or
custodians of biological resources, especially indigenous and local communities
and their representatives. Others might
also find the toolkit useful, such as an institution which undertakes
documentation of traditional knowledge and biological resources (a museum,
archive, genebank, botanical garden, etc); a legal or policy advisor of such custodians
of biological resources and traditional knowledge holders; a research institution (university,
participatory breeding program, etc.); a
government or public sector agency undertaking documentation projects; or a private sector partner.
Intellectual
property rights and other legal tools may be available to protect the knowledge
when it is documented, but only if the right steps are taken during
documentation. The toolkit will help to
assess the intellectual property options, plan and implement intellectual
property choices and strategies when documenting traditional knowledge or
biological resources.
WIPO-UNESCO Model Provisions for National
Laws on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore Against Illicit Exploitation
and other Prejudicial Actions
The Model Provisions were adopted in 1982 by a Committee of Governmental
Experts convened jointly by WIPO and United Nations Education, Science and
Culture Organization (UNESCO). The
provisions provide a sui generis model
for intellectual property-type protection of traditional cultural expressions/expressions
of folklore, which has been fairly widely used by WIPO Member States.
The Model Provisions seek to maintain a balance between the protection
against abuses of expressions of folklore, on the one hand, and the freedom and
encouragement of further development and dissemination of folklore, on the
other. They take into account the fact
that expressions of folklore form a living body of human culture, which should
not be stifled by too rigid protection.
Under the Model Provisions, traditional cultural expressions/expressions
of folklore are protected against “illicit exploitation and other prejudicial
actions.” In 2000 and 2001, WIPO
surveyed States’ experiences with use and implementation of the Model
Provisions. A report is available as
WIPO document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/10.
[End of Annex and of
document]
1.
At its Twenty-First Session, held from
April 16 to 20, 2012, the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic
Resources, Traditional Knowledge and
Folklore (“the IGC” or “the Committee”) requested the Secretariat
to prepare an information document
in view of its Twenty-Second session,
providing information on the practical, procedural and budgetary implications
of the following suggestions put forward by the Indigenous Caucus, supported
by one Delegation, namely that: (1) a new status being that of Indigenous
Peoples, separate from observers, be established within the Committee, (2) indigenous peoples be represented, as a matter of course, within any “Friends of the Chair” groups that may
be established from time to time,
(3) representatives of indigenous peoples be,
as a matter of course, appointed as co-chairs of working and drafting groups, (4) equal representation with Member States on the
Advisory Board of the WIPO Voluntary Fund (in other words,
the Board would comprise four
representatives of Member States,
four representatives of indigenous and local
communities,
and the Chair of the Board who is a Vice-Chair
of the Committee), (5) the Secretariat consult
with the Chair of the Indigenous Caucus, inter-sessionally,
regarding selection of panelists for
the Indigenous Panel, and (6)
panelists of the Indigenous Panel be invited to address the substantive working
documents of the Committee session concerned
in order to contribute directly to the development of the work of the IGC (see
the Decision on
item 7 of the Twenty-First session of the IGC).
participation of indigenous and local communities:
voluntary fund
Document
prepared by the Secretariat
NEED FOR REPLENISHMENT OF THE
VOLUNTARY FUND
1.
The amount available in the account of
the WIPO Voluntary Fund for Accredited Indigenous and Local
Communities (“the Fund”) was 44,245.37 Swiss francs on May 2, 2012. Based on past experience
and the foreseeable evolution of travel-related costs, this amount should allow the Fund to cover the expenses related to the Twenty-Second Session
of the Committee in accordance with
the rules of the Fund (contained in Annex I) and the recommendation
made by the Advisory Board of the Fund on the margins of the Twenty-First Session
of the Committee (see Annex to WIPO/GRTKF/IC/21/INF/7),
as well as the participation of a limited number of eligible participants in
the Twenty-Third Session of the Committee, should the Advisory Board recommend
so.
หัวข้อข่าวเด่นวันนี้
ข่าวประชาสัมพันธ์
|
|
|
|
|
 | พลังเครือข่าย OTOP ภาคเหนือ ขับเคลื่อนงาน OTOP เชิงรุก
นายพิสันติ์ ประทานชวโน รองอธิบดีกรมการพัฒนาชุมชน เป็นประธานเปิดการสัมมนาเชิงปฏิบัติการโครงการเพิ่มประสิทธิภาพกรรมการเครือข่าย OTOP ระดับภาค (ภาคเหนือ)"เมื่อวันที่ 10 พฤษภาคม 2555 ณ โรงแรมแม่โขง เดลต้า บูติค อำเภอแม่สาย จังหวัดเชียงราย |
|
|
|
|
|
หนังสือราชการ
E
WIPO/GRTKF/Ic/22/1
Prov. 2
Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual
Property and Genetic Resources
,
Traditional Knowledge and Folklore
Twenty-Second Session
Geneva, July 9 to 13, 2012
DRAFT AGENDA
prepared
by the Secretariat
Notes on Key TCE
Issues
Article 1 – Subject Matter of Protection
1.
Article 1 is made up of three parts: (1) a basic description of protected subject
matter,
(2) eligibility criteria for protection and (3)
choice of terminology.
2.
Article
1 contains two options, reflecting two policy approaches:
-
Option 1
provides a streamlined definition of TCEs and eligibility criteria that leaves
flexibility in national law or guidelines to list particular examples of TCEs.
-
Option 2
provides a detailed definition of TCEs and eligibility criteria that provide
greater certainty about protected subject matter through the listing of
examples.
3.
The list of examples in paragraph 1 of both Options is disputed. There is no agreement on the inclusion of the
list (Option 2) or simply of introductory
categories (Option 1). The general idea, expressed by many
delegations, is that an international instrument would provide a broad
framework, which would enable each country to specify which of its cultural
elements may be protected. Other delegations
state that the list of examples provides certainty and clarity and ensures that
particular items are protected.
4.
In Option
1, the list is limited to the introductory category labels. It has been argued that the categories are
clear but that the examples are too detailed and create confusion. One possibility would be for the list of
examples to appear in “clarifying notes” where items could be added later on.
5.
There is no consensus on the phrase “or a combination thereof”
after “tangible or intangible” in paragraph 1; the phrase only appears in
Option 2. The IGC is also still considering a reference to the fixation
requirement. Currently, only Option 2
refers to “whether fixed or unfixed.”
6.
Still in
paragraph 1, some delegations are not prepared to accept the inclusion of a
reference to TK. Therefore the draft, in
Option 1, contains square brackets around the words “traditional knowledge.”
7.
There is
disagreement on the qualifier “artistic” as used with “expression” as currently
provided in Option 1.
8.
Paragraph
2 sets out the substantive
eligibility criteria that specify which TCEs would be protectable. There is no consensus over the preferred use of the terms “characteristic,” “indicative” or
“unique.” In Option 1, the wording in
subparagraph 2(c) leaves the choice to national legislation. Option 2 uses “associated with.”
ASEAN, community law, community right, Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, leadership, local business, policy, STRATEGIC, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore ( IGC ), the WIPO Voluntary Fund [End of document]
http://www.otoptoday.com/
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=25020
.png)
.png)
Posts
