Most Native peoples do not want people who are not of their lineage to use their artwork style in any way. Even someone who is related may be prohibited by the tribe if the purpose of the use is commercial.
The reason: nearly everything has been taken from them by the dominant culture. Many have almost nothing left of their cultures, and sometimes only pictographs or petroglyphs have survived what Europeans call discovery and pioneering, but many Natives call invasion and genocide.
These 'artworks' they consider to be sacred - an essential link to their ancestors that is also a language with religious meanings. The secular opposite is any company that maintains the power and value of its brand by controlling how and where it is used. Somewhere in between is the artist, inspired to make art and money.
There's an article about this called "Indigenous People's Folklore and Copyright Law" by Dieter Dambiec at http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/20295 . It begins: "A system of protection should encourage indigenous peoples' expectations of respect for their creative works, particularly from those outside the indigenous culture. This means that folklore should be protected from debasement, distortion and consequent loss of cultural integrity due to inappropriate uses which would be offensive to the community from which it originates or prejudicial to the artist's or tribe's honour or reputation."
I recently met an artist who said he's using a particular indigenous style "in honor of the Chumash people" (central CA coast) - but he's not sharing any proceeds with them. I know a gal who wanted to use some pictographs on a poster for a nonprofit gig "to honor the Chumash" but got mad when told no, and used them anyway. There aren't many Chumash people left, but the few I know don't feel honored by the old story where people ignore their wishes and profit at their expense.
My belief is that Native artworks should not be copied. The experience of so much loss is very much an influence on Native peoples living today, and most of them would tell you they don't want to lose control of their artwork as well. I agree indigenous artwork styles act as sources of inspiration for artists, just like art deco and retro. The difference is that nobody draws a salmon the way the Haidu do. It's a unique style that also has religious meaning, which both get watered down by inappropriate use. At least, if anyone is going to profit from its use it should be the Haidu, et al.
Artists know that artwork is worth something, so to me it's about honoring the value of art as well as honoring Native culture and sensibilities.
Terri Dunivant, Gaia Graphics
San Luis Obispo, California
A couple of weeks ago I heard a short on NPR about using Indian mascots on sports teams. A woman who was Indian stated that she was very embarrassed, and angry, for her young child who was with her at a major college football game as they watched an "Indian" mascot running around the field, jumping about in costume and yelling "Indian" songs.
It all comes down to respect for other cultures.
As a member of a non-profit that helps communities spay and neuter dogs and cats, I've worked with some tribes in Montana by editing and illustrating some educational coloring books that were about dogs in Indian traditional stories. Each tribe's cultural elders approved the adaptations of the stories, and I illustrated the first one, with their approval. I felt so awkward about it, I insisted that we find a tribal member to illustrate the second book. It worked out very well, and the illustrations were perfect. I simply suggested the style that would work well for reproduction, gave examples from the first book, and we all loved the results.
'cultural copyrights'
Most Native peoples do not want people who are not of their lineage to use their artwork style in any way. Even someone who is related may be prohibited by the tribe if the purpose of the use is commercial.
The reason: nearly everything has been taken from them by the dominant culture. Many have almost nothing left of their cultures, and sometimes only pictographs or petroglyphs have survived what Europeans call discovery and pioneering, but many Natives call invasion and genocide.
These 'artworks' they consider to be sacred - an essential link to their ancestors that is also a language with religious meanings. The secular opposite is any company that maintains the power and value of its brand by controlling how and where it is used. Somewhere in between is the artist, inspired to make art and money.
There's an article about this called "Indigenous People's Folklore and Copyright Law" by Dieter Dambiec at http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/20295 . It begins: "A system of protection should encourage indigenous peoples' expectations of respect for their creative works, particularly from those outside the indigenous culture. This means that folklore should be protected from debasement, distortion and consequent loss of cultural integrity due to inappropriate uses which would be offensive to the community from which it originates or prejudicial to the artist's or tribe's honour or reputation."
I recently met an artist who said he's using a particular indigenous style "in honor of the Chumash people" (central CA coast) - but he's not sharing any proceeds with them. I know a gal who wanted to use some pictographs on a poster for a nonprofit gig "to honor the Chumash" but got mad when told no, and used them anyway. There aren't many Chumash people left, but the few I know don't feel honored by the old story where people ignore their wishes and profit at their expense.
My belief is that Native artworks should not be copied. The experience of so much loss is very much an influence on Native peoples living today, and most of them would tell you they don't want to lose control of their artwork as well. I agree indigenous artwork styles act as sources of inspiration for artists, just like art deco and retro. The difference is that nobody draws a salmon the way the Haidu do. It's a unique style that also has religious meaning, which both get watered down by inappropriate use. At least, if anyone is going to profit from its use it should be the Haidu, et al.
Artists know that artwork is worth something, so to me it's about honoring the value of art as well as honoring Native culture and sensibilities.
Terri Dunivant, Gaia Graphics
San Luis Obispo, California
Agree with Mike O'Brien
A couple of weeks ago I heard a short on NPR about using Indian mascots on sports teams. A woman who was Indian stated that she was very embarrassed, and angry, for her young child who was with her at a major college football game as they watched an "Indian" mascot running around the field, jumping about in costume and yelling "Indian" songs.
It all comes down to respect for other cultures.
As a member of a non-profit that helps communities spay and neuter dogs and cats, I've worked with some tribes in Montana by editing and illustrating some educational coloring books that were about dogs in Indian traditional stories. Each tribe's cultural elders approved the adaptations of the stories, and I illustrated the first one, with their approval. I felt so awkward about it, I insisted that we find a tribal member to illustrate the second book. It worked out very well, and the illustrations were perfect. I simply suggested the style that would work well for reproduction, gave examples from the first book, and we all loved the results.
Dorinda Troutman, Montana