156 Garrett Graddy-Lovelace
allies in the U.S./Turtle Island have been key to developing and advancing them.
As Jane Anderson, a co-founder of Local Contexts, writes: “Despite its claims
to universality, there exist knowledge systems that intellectual property law was
never designed to incorporate or protect” (Anderson, 2015, p. 769). Following
model of Creative Commons, Local Contexts worked with indigenous and tribal
nations councils to develop a suite of TK and BC Labels to affix to indigenous
digital cultural heritage objects that were either under copyright by museums or
universities or were left-wide open in the public domain. As an extra legal instrument (meaning: beyond the authority of existing law), the “Labels function as
an educative strategy to help users make more informed decisions about material
that might generically be deemed ‘public domain’ but that still has Indigenous
rules and obligations about access and use” (ibid: 777).
While developed much earlier, the Labels compliment and align with g rowing
consortiums like the Global Indigenous Data Alliance and the International
Indigenous Data Sovereignty Group, which together developed the CARE
Principles for Indigenous Data Governance’ (Collective benefit, Authority to
control, Responsibility, and Ethics) in close consultation with indigenous peoples, scholars, non-profit organizations, and governments. They “complement
the existing data-centric approach represented in the ‘FAIR Guiding Principles
for scientific data management and stewardship’ [Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable]” (Carroll et al., 2020, p. 1). The CARE Principles emerged
from earlier work by Te Mana Raraunga Maori Data Sovereignty Network, U.S.
Indigenous Data Sovereignty Network, Maiam nayri Wingara Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Data Sovereignty Collective, and many other indigenous
peoples, nations, and communities:
The Notices are highly visible, machine-readable icons that signal the
Indigenous provenance of genetic resources, and rights of Indigenous communities to define the future use of genetic resources and derived benefits.
The Notices invite collaboration with Indigenous communities and create spaces within our research systems for them to define the provenance,
protocols, and permissions associated with genetic resources using Labels.
(Liggins et al., 2021, p. 2477) (see Figure 5.2).
These Labels and CARE Principles deliberately connect the global debates and
contestations over genetic resources with those over their digital representations.
In both realms, colonialist intellectual property regimes grow more proprietary,
territorial, and subservient to commodification. The fact that Local Contexts
has expanded from TK Labels to BC Labels shows how intricately linked these
struggles for sovereignty and restoration remain.
The TK/BC Labels and CARE Principles speak directly to and from the
realm of indigenous-led research, libraries, archives, and museums; they serve
as a sort of meta-metadata. They unfold from indigenous worldviews, with layers of scholarly collaboration (indigenous scholars and non-indigenous scholars
allies in the U.S./Turtle Island have been key to developing and advancing them.
As Jane Anderson, a co-founder of Local Contexts, writes: “Despite its claims
to universality, there exist knowledge systems that intellectual property law was
never designed to incorporate or protect” (Anderson, 2015, p. 769). Following
model of Creative Commons, Local Contexts worked with indigenous and tribal
nations councils to develop a suite of TK and BC Labels to affix to indigenous
digital cultural heritage objects that were either under copyright by museums or
universities or were left-wide open in the public domain. As an extra legal instrument (meaning: beyond the authority of existing law), the “Labels function as
an educative strategy to help users make more informed decisions about material
that might generically be deemed ‘public domain’ but that still has Indigenous
rules and obligations about access and use” (ibid: 777).
While developed much earlier, the Labels compliment and align with g rowing
consortiums like the Global Indigenous Data Alliance and the International
Indigenous Data Sovereignty Group, which together developed the CARE
Principles for Indigenous Data Governance’ (Collective benefit, Authority to
control, Responsibility, and Ethics) in close consultation with indigenous peoples, scholars, non-profit organizations, and governments. They “complement
the existing data-centric approach represented in the ‘FAIR Guiding Principles
for scientific data management and stewardship’ [Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable]” (Carroll et al., 2020, p. 1). The CARE Principles emerged
from earlier work by Te Mana Raraunga Maori Data Sovereignty Network, U.S.
Indigenous Data Sovereignty Network, Maiam nayri Wingara Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Data Sovereignty Collective, and many other indigenous
peoples, nations, and communities:
The Notices are highly visible, machine-readable icons that signal the
Indigenous provenance of genetic resources, and rights of Indigenous communities to define the future use of genetic resources and derived benefits.
The Notices invite collaboration with Indigenous communities and create spaces within our research systems for them to define the provenance,
protocols, and permissions associated with genetic resources using Labels.
(Liggins et al., 2021, p. 2477) (see Figure 5.2).
These Labels and CARE Principles deliberately connect the global debates and
contestations over genetic resources with those over their digital representations.
In both realms, colonialist intellectual property regimes grow more proprietary,
territorial, and subservient to commodification. The fact that Local Contexts
has expanded from TK Labels to BC Labels shows how intricately linked these
struggles for sovereignty and restoration remain.
The TK/BC Labels and CARE Principles speak directly to and from the
realm of indigenous-led research, libraries, archives, and museums; they serve
as a sort of meta-metadata. They unfold from indigenous worldviews, with layers of scholarly collaboration (indigenous scholars and non-indigenous scholars