India’s rich cultural fabric is woven with countless threads of traditional and folk-art forms—Madhubani, Warli, Pattachitra, Kalamkari, Chikankari, Chhau masks, and countless others. These expressions are not merely aesthetic; they represent the collective identity, heritage, and spiritual beliefs of the communities that have nurtured them over generations. As global interest in Indian traditional art rises, a complex tension emerges between intellectual property rights, community ownership, and cultural appropriation.
This article examines this tension from a legal and ethical perspective, exploring the nuances of copyright, Geographical Indications (GI), moral rights, and how modern creators and businesses can engage ethically with India’s traditional art forms.
Understanding the Legal Landscape of Traditional Indian Art
Copyright and Traditional Works
Under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, copyright protects original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works for a fixed period (generally the life of the author + 60 years). However, traditional and folk-art forms often pose a challenge because:
- They are often community-owned, without a single identifiable author.
- Many works are passed down orally or through practice, lacking formal documentation or publication.
- They may be considered part of the public domain, especially if they pre-date the copyright regime.
As a result, traditional art is often not eligible for copyright protection in the same manner as contemporary works. However, derivative works or modern adaptations of traditional styles can qualify for copyright if they meet originality criteria.
This blog is a part of our The Ultimate Guide to Intellectual Property Law Blogpost.
Geographical Indications (GI) and Their Protective Role
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 offers a robust mechanism to protect community rights over traditional art and craft linked to a particular region. A GI tag signifies that a product possesses qualities, reputation, or characteristics attributable to its geographic origin.
Examples of GI-Tagged Indian Art and Craft:
The GI system provides:
- Legal protection to artisans and producers
- Economic benefits through branding and quality assurance
- Prevention of misuse by outsiders falsely claiming authenticity
However, GI does not protect the style per se. It protects the product only when made in that specific geographic location by approved producers.
Moral Rights and Cultural Attribution
Moral rights under Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act safeguard the right of an author to be credited and to object to distortion, mutilation or modification of their work that harms their reputation.
But can moral rights be applied to folk and community art?
- Legally, moral rights are tied to individual authorship.
- However, there is an evolving global discourse around “community moral rights”, particularly under UNESCO and WIPO’s initiatives on Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs).
- Indigenous communities worldwide are calling for moral rights that protect the dignity and intent behind traditional cultural works—not just the aesthetics.
In the Indian context, moral rights arguments are being raised in cases of misrepresentation of sacred art, such as:
- Fashion brands using tribal motifs without understanding their spiritual context.
- Commercial use of religious symbols from folk traditions in inappropriate or exploitative ways.
Cultural Appropriation vs. Cultural Appreciation
The line between appreciation and appropriation is thin and often blurred.
| Cultural Appreciation | Cultural Appropriation |
|---|---|
| Respectful collaboration with artisans | Using motifs without credit or consent |
| Understanding cultural significance | Stripping art of its meaning for aesthetics |
| Sharing economic benefits | Profiting at the community’s expense |
| Celebrating the origin | Claiming ownership or originality |
Examples of Cultural Misappropriation in Indian Context
- International fashion houses using Kalamkari or Banarasi motifs without acknowledging or compensating the communities.
- Packaging and branding that borrows tribal art like Warli without reference to the tribe or region.
- Startups and influencers launching “ethnic collections” without involving the artisans or even citing the art’s origin.
How Modern Creators Can Engage Ethically
Modern creators, designers, content creators, and entrepreneurs have a significant role to play in the ethical use of Indian traditional art. Here’s how:
Collaborate with Communities
- Work directly with artisan clusters and cooperatives.
- Ensure fair compensation, co-creation, and long-term engagement.
Seek Permissions and Acknowledge Sources
- If working with a GI-tagged product, verify sourcing from registered producers.
- Always credit the origin, the community, and the cultural context.
Avoid Spiritual and Sacred Misrepresentation
- Don’t use religious or ritual art in frivolous or commercial settings.
- Avoid distorting art that has spiritual or ceremonial importance.
Invest in Capacity Building
- Help communities with digital marketing, e-commerce, IP literacy, and branding.
- Encourage them to register their works, whether through GI or as new copyrightable adaptations.
Use Certification Labels
- Support and promote government or NGO certifications like Craftmark, Tribes India, or GI-certified products that ensure authenticity.
Role of Law and Policy in India
While India has made progress with GI registration, it lacks a specific legal framework for Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) or Collective Moral Rights. However, steps are being taken through:
- TRIPS Agreement (WTO) – Encouraging protection of GI and traditional knowledge.
- WIPO’s IGC (Intergovernmental Committee) – Proposing treaties to protect TCEs and traditional knowledge.
- Draft laws by the Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Commerce on cultural heritage preservation.
There is growing recognition that folklore, tribal art, and traditional knowledge should not be left to be exploited by market forces alone but need a hybrid legal model that balances IP protection with community rights and cultural ethics.
Global Comparisons and Lessons for India
Countries like Australia, New Zealand, and Canada offer useful models for India:
- Maori Cultural IP in New Zealand: Managed through tribal protocols and licensing frameworks.
- Aboriginal Art Protection in Australia: Involves community consent and legal enforcement.
- Inuit Art Authentication: A government-backed label guarantees origin and artist benefit.
India can draw from these to implement:
- Community-owned trademarks
- Licensing protocols for traditional art
- Collective copyright or sui generis protection
From Inspiration to Integrity — Safeguarding Living Traditions
As the world embraces the beauty and depth of India’s traditional art forms, creators must move beyond surface-level admiration to ethical engagement rooted in respect, recognition, and reciprocity. Legal frameworks like GI tags and copyright provide tools, but it is the mindful choices of modern brands, artists, and entrepreneurs that will truly determine whether these age-old traditions are preserved or exploited. By collaborating with communities, acknowledging cultural origins, and sharing economic benefits, we can transform inspiration into integrity—honoring not just the art, but the people and legacy behind it.
