Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright in all material published in PER/PELJ vests in the author, provided that authors grant, by submission of their contributions, permission that their contributions may be shared and adapted without restriction. An author furthermore agrees that the same contribution may not be published elsewhere without the written permission of the editor.
Anyone gaining access, electronically or otherwise, to a contribution to PER, may quote from such contribution, use the intellectual content thereof, share and adapt it, but subject to the following conditions:
you must give appropriate credit, provide a link and indicate if changes were made; and
the copyright of the author(s) may not be infringed in any way.
Main Article Content
Towards a clearer definition and understanding of "Indiginous Community" for purposes of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill, 2010: an exploration of the concepts "Indiginous" and "Traditional"
Abstract
Although "indigenous" and "traditional" are key concepts in the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill of 2010, they are not defined therein. The Bill does, however, provide a definition of "indigenous community" that is very clear as to where one should look for indigenous communities for the purposes of this Bill, and that there is likely to be a plurality of such communities, but is very vague as to which groups exactly will qualify as being indigenous. It is uncertain whether or not the current vague wording of the definition would be strong enough to widen the much narrower understanding of indigenousness prevailing in other South African legislation, the legislation of selected other jurisdictions, and the United Nations. Recommendations are made as to how the definition of an "indigenous community" may be rephrased to address these uncertainties more clearly.
Keywords: Indigenous community; intellectual property; indigenous; traditional.
