{"id":1474,"date":"2026-07-30T10:38:05","date_gmt":"2026-07-30T09:38:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.lboro.ac.uk\/rdm\/?p=1474"},"modified":"2026-07-30T10:38:06","modified_gmt":"2026-07-30T09:38:06","slug":"who-owns-culture-copyright-colonialism-and-creative-justice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.lboro.ac.uk\/rdm\/2026\/07\/who-owns-culture-copyright-colonialism-and-creative-justice\/","title":{"rendered":"Who Owns Culture? Copyright, Colonialism, and Creative Justice"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the last few years, there have been a lot of conversations around decolonising the curriculum. But before that, I must make a confession. I am not British (technically, although I hold a British passport), I grew up in Romania, so colonialism is somewhat of a foreign concept. Romania was not a colony and even though we learn about colonialism in school, it was mainly as it pertained to France and the Americas. However, we were settled once upon a time by Rum\u00e4niendeutsche <\/em>(Germans of Romania)<\/a> however, that was pre-unification. Some of my family members, and really myself included are descendants of these settlers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When it comes to the UK, colonialism takes a different meaning. As a former Empire, the way colonialism<\/a> is still taught in schools is as a form of whitewashed retelling of the history of empire which only showcases the \u201csuccesses\u201d and ignores any of the evils, as well as silencing the voices of the oppressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While decolonisation in general refers to the withdrawal of political, military and governmental rule of a colonised country by its invaders, decolonising education generally refers to rethinking, reframing and reconstructing the curricula and research from a Europe-centred colonial lens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Copyright law reflects historical colonial power structures and may require reform to better recognise indigenous, collective, and non-Western forms of creativity and knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Copyright’s Colonial Origins<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As with anything in our modern times, the cornerstone of copyright law<\/a> had its origins in ancient Greek, Roman and Jewish cultures and can be traced back to around the 6th<\/sup> Century BCE in ancient Greece. However, the creation of copyright law did not take place until the printing press became widespread across Europe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With the invention of the Gutenberg press, and its widespread and fairly rapid adoption, this brought about a high dissemination of printed material. Without copyright law, each printer could reprint new works quickly. The effect of this was low cost for reprints and a rise in literacy across Europe.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the UK, Richard III (1483) recognised the value of literary works and while he did encourage the spread of printing, he also limited and censored texts which he considered harmful to the church and crown. Henry VIII furthered this censorship<\/a> by requiring all the books to be approved before printing, while Mary I gave the Stationers\u2019 Company its Royal Charter as well as power to decree who could print books, as well as the right to seize pirated books.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Licensing of the Press Act 1662<\/a> gave the Stationers\u2019 Company the right to censor literary works. The Act had a 2-year validity and after expiry and protests, it was not renewed by Parliament. However, the Stationers\u2019 Company still wanted to hold monopoly over the printing, as such they came up with the idea of authors having the right of ownership to what they wrote, which persuaded Parliament into enacting the Statute of Anne in 1710, the first Copyright Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Statute of Anne<\/a> remained in force until the Copyright Act 1842 and became highly influential in in the formation of other copyright laws across the world. Despite its widely acknowledged shortcomings, the Statute of Anne became a landmark model for copyright legislation, influencing both British and international copyright systems. Although its direct impact on early French copyright law remains difficult to establish, scholars suggest it contributed indirectly to broader European copyright debates. In Belgium, while the statute itself was not directly adopted, English copyright theories<\/a> that informed it, particularly those of Locke and Edward Young, shaped ideas about what qualifies for copyright protection and the balance between public interest and authors\u2019 rights. These principles later influenced discussions surrounding Belgium\u2019s first copyright law. The Statute of Anne also had a significant impact in the United States, serving as a foundation for both the Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Copyright Act of 1790, which replicated key features of the statute, including a 14-year copyright term and protections for previously published works.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Individual Ownership Versus Collective Knowledge<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Copyright<\/a> focusses heavily on individual ownership. Works created by an author will be automatically protected as long as they have been created in a tangible form, this includes also digital born materials. In the UK, in general, copyright lasts the lifetime of the author plus 70 years. Copyright is territorial, meaning that different rules apply in different countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Traditional knowledge (TK), indigenous knowledge (IK), folk knowledge, local knowledge<\/a> refer to knowledge systems embedded in cultural traditions of regional, indigenous, or local communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many organisations have tried over the years to enshrine and protect the rights of Indigenous peoples as well as their knowledge, for example, IFLA (The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions)<\/a> acknowledges the value and importance of indigenous, traditional and local community knowledge, and the necessity of considering it from a holistic point of view in spite of the contested definitions and uses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples<\/a>, Article 31, 2007 states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indigenous and local communities<\/a> often view knowledge as something to be cared for rather than privately owned. Customary laws may determine who can use certain knowledge, when it can be used, and the responsibilities attached to its use. Misuse or unauthorized use of traditional knowledge can be seen as disrespectful and may have cultural, spiritual, or practical consequences. As a result, these communities often seek respectful and sensitive treatment of their knowledge. Critics, however, argue that such expectations can limit the critical examination of traditional knowledge claims, particularly in areas such as environmental management.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is however Indigenous intellectual property<\/a> which is a legal concept that recognises the rights of Indigenous peoples to control, protect, and benefit from their traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, and innovations. Developed largely within Western legal systems, the concept has been promoted internationally by organisations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the United Nations to help safeguard Indigenous cultural heritage from misuse, exploitation, and unauthorised appropriation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many countries have struggled to align Indigenous laws and cultural practices<\/a> with predominantly Western legal systems. As a result, the individual and collective intellectual property rights of Indigenous peoples have often received limited legal protection. The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) has advocated for stronger recognition of these rights, particularly in relation to treaty law and intellectual property. NARF board member Professor Rebecca Tsosie has emphasised that Indigenous knowledge and cultural property should be recognised as collective community assets rather than the property of individual people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n