In 2017, the French President commissioned a report to evaluate the possibility of making restitution regarding the African cultural heritage currently held by the collections and archives of French museums. A year later, heritage specialists Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy delivered a 252-page long report, outlining a five-year plan to return cultural heritage items to their respective places of origin.
Their proposed restitution policy
is primarily concerned with the policies and conventions of conduct in place to
trace the origin and rightful ownership of items, depending on the
circumstances of their acquisition (sales, donation, looting and the like). At
first glance, this discussion should have little to do with intellectual
property rights. Indeed, most of the items relevant for the proposed process of
restitution are in the public domain.
However, intellectual property is
not entirely irrelevant here. On a number of occasions, the report notes that
[a] large number of photographic, cinematographic, or sound documents concerning African societies once held by former colonial administrations have recently been part of intensive campaigns for digitization projects (p. 68).
The authors of the report also
advise relying on the digital reproduction of the items to be returned to
facilitate the restitution process. Going further, they advocate for the “systematic digitization of documents of documents
that have yet to be digitized concerning Africa should be established”,
following “a dialogue with other
institutions and parties involved”.
But who owns -- or should own -- this (new?) digital cultural heritage? The report does not say but marks this question as an outstanding issue.
Within the framework of the project of restitutions, these digitized objects must be made part of a radical practice of sharing, including how one rethinks the politics of image rights use.(p. 68 – emphasis added)
Two lines down, the Report
stresses that:
It goes without saying that questions around the rights for the reproduction of images needs to be the object of a complete revision regarding requests coming from African countries from which these works originated including any photographs, films, and recording of these societies.
It is not clear what “a radical practice of sharing” and “[rethinking] the politics of image rights
use” mean in practice, but the authors of the report are clearly in favour
of making digital reproductions of African cultural heritage available via open
access:
Given the large number of French institutions concerned and the difficulty that a foreign public has for navigating through these museums, we recommend the creation of a single portal providing access to this precious documentation in the form of a platform that would be open access. (p 68)
Free access to these materials as well as the free use of the images and documents should be the end goal. (p. 69)
It thus seems that the authors are
already positioning themselves on this question by advocating for an ‘all-digitised’
and ‘all-open-access’ approach to the restitution of African cultural heritage,
despite the fact that “dialogue with the other institutions and parties
involved” has not taken place yet.
If we are aiming for the true
decolonisation of the African cultural heritage, should we not let the African
countries involved decide whether creating a digital version of their cultural
heritage accessible by all [developed countries] on
open access is not only “the [our?] end goal”
but their end goal? Would we not be strong-arming
African institutions into “a radical practice of sharing” by setting a standard
of all-open access for their digital cultural heritage according to France’s
values of heritage safeguarding? Isn’t the aim of this process of restitution
to give African countries agency over their own cultural heritage without
interference?
Masks, collection of the Quai Branly Museum (Paris) |
It would seem rather hypocritical
to have the access to digital cultural heritage items of developed countries limited
by claims of intellectual property rights (because policymakers have failed to
reach a consensus on the appropriate open-access policy), whilst the digital
African cultural heritage is made entirely open access. There is a risk of creating
double standards that may undercut the otherwise welcome effort of decolonisation
initiated by this report under the aegis of the current government.
Give Africa its cultural heritage back … But keep its digital cultural heritage?
Reviewed by Mathilde Pavis
on
Monday, November 26, 2018
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html