Total Pageviews

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Navajo Hipster

On Saturday, March 3rd, an article on cnn.com highlighted an interesting topic with property rights. The Navajo Nation has filed a lawsuit against Urban Outfitters for the use of the term Navajo. A copy of the complaint lists the alleged harms. Specifically listed in the complaint is that "[S]ince at least March 16, 2009, Urban Outfitters has advertised, promoted, and sold its goods under the confusingly similar “Navaho” and identical “Navajo” names and marks on the Internet and in stores across the United States to compete directly with the Navajo Nation’s retail goods." A number of goods are cited with the complaint, and it does look, to the untrained observer, that Urban Outfitters knocked off the styles. So why isn't this a straightforward copyright claim? Enter the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990.

The Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 specifically outlaws the misrepresentation of products in advertising related to Native American goods. As noted from the Indian Arts and Crafts Board " products sold using a sign claiming "Indian Jewelry" would be a violation of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act if the jewelry was produced by someone other than a member, or certified Indian artisan, of an Indian tribe." It appears that through legislative intent, Native American goods are granted a higher level, or at least more express, copyright protection. It appears that the large corporation may get thwarted in an endeavor where they are at a capital advantage. How often does that happen?


Clearly, there is an interest in protecting the livelihoods of Native Americans and their goods. Maybe, these types of protections should be expanded to include more groups? Why should the little guy be forced to exert capital without any kind of backing from the government?

1 comment:

  1. Very good point. Other groups may form to secure similar rights - or not.

    ReplyDelete