THE NEED FOR REFORM IN INDIAN ARTS

Todd Leahy, UMKC School of LawChristina Alge, Michigan Department of Elections

DEFINING INDIAN ARTS & CRAFTS

MISSION Encourage Indians

to make pieces buyers want

Educate potential buyers

INDIAN ARTS AND CRAFTS ACT OF 1935

To promote economic welfare of the Indian tribes and Indian individuals through the development of Indian arts & crafts

The rise of fakes One of the

necklaces is fake the other real, can you tell the difference?

ATTEMPTING TO RIGHT A WRONG: INDIAN ARTS & CRAFTS ACT 1990

PROBLEM I: SEEKING TO DEFINE “INDIAN”

“THOSE PERSONS ENROLLED IN OR CERTIFIED BY A FEDERAL OR STATE-RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBE.”

PROBLEM II: CRIMINAL PROVISIONS & ENFORCEMENT

$250,000 & 5 YEARS

Native American Arts Inc v. Moon Raven Inc (1998)

Native American Arts Inc v. Chico Arts Inc (1998)

Native American Arts Inc v. JC Penney Co (1998)

PROBLEM III: THE INDIAN ARTS & CRAFTS BOARD

Trademark Registration

Referral to FBI

TWO WRONGS STILL DON’T MAKE A RIGHT: INDIAN ARTS & CRAFTS ENFORCEMENT ACT 2000

Indian Maid v. Indian Made

Welcome to Zuni (this looks like the Philippines)

What’s the purpose of all of this?

THREE STRIKES YOU’RE OUT: 2010 AMENDMENTS

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

AMEND THE DEFINTION OF “INDIAN” & “INDIAN TRIBE”

JUDICIAL CRITERIA Ancestors lived on the

continent before discovery

Identified as an Indian in the community in which he/she lives

Indian Civil Rights Act (1968)

Missing from “tribe” Urban communities State recognized tribes Terminated tribes

AMEND CIVIL & CRIMINAL PROVISIONS

FAKE? REAL?

EXPAND “ARTS & CRAFTS” TO KEEP UP WITH TECHNOLOGY

INCREASE FUNDING OF IACB

CERTIFCATION TRADEMARKS

CONCLUSIONS