WHO OWNS FOLKLORE?

AN ANALYSIS OF COPYRIGHT LEGISLATION AND OWNERSHIP OF FOLKLORE,

BASED ON A CASE STUDY OF THE GHANAIAN COPYRIGHT LAW OF 2005.

BA THESIS

CHRISTIAAN DE BEUKELAER

SUPERVISOR – WIM VAN DER MEER

MUSICOLOGY – UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM

2

INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. MEANING OF THE 2005 GHANAIAN COPYRIGHT LAW FOR FOLKLORE 4

3. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE GHANAIAN COPYRIGHT HISTORY 8

4. DOES THE GHANAIAN LAW COMPLY WITH WIPO/UNESCO PROVISIONS? 10

5. COMMENTS ON THE LAW 12

6. HERITAGE AND OWNERSHIP 15

7. WHAT IS FOLKLORE? 19

8. COPYRIGHT? 21

9. CONCLUSION 28

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY 30

3

1. INTRODUCTION

Folklore is generally seen as an important aspect of culture, and belongs to the

peoples that create and have created it. Therefore the World Intellectual Property

Organization (WIPO) claims it should be protected against the illicit exploitation by

third parties. Following the legal provisions of the WIPO and UNESCO - of the early

eighties of the last century - concerning the protection of Traditional Cultural

Expressions (TCEs) the Republic of Ghana, as well as numerous other developing

countries decided to guard the folklore of its citizens as from 1985 by means of a

national copyright law1. This law states that folklore could be seen as property of the

state – as it is supposedly the work of the nation and no individual creator can be

appointed. Users of that folklore are – according to that law – obliged to report their

use of it to the Ghanaian folklore board, that could subsequently charge a so-called

“folklore tax” for the use of these (living) cultural traditions. In 2005 however, the

government voted a revision of this law that included an important change to the use

and taxation of folklore. The most important difference was that the Ghanaian citizens

would be subject to the same obligations as foreigners. Due to strong opposition by

several individuals and organizations, the bill was stopped by the former president

John Agyekum Kufuor, and has not been put into practice up till today.

As a student in musicology, and a radio producer for broadcast with “folk” music I

have been questioning the relation between folklore and identity. Since they seem

often closely connected and part of the social and cultural construct of a nation. The

question whom this culture belongs to – both in a historical and legal approach – has

been on my mind a lot. Upon finding out about the situation in regard to copyright

legislation in Ghana, I was very keen to find out more about that specific situation.

This created an opening to take a deeper look into the correlation of folklore and

ownership.

The central question in this thesis is thus: who owns folklore? In order to answer this

question, the main question will be divided in the following sub-questions. First of all

will I look at the specific case of Ghana, by analyzing the law and exploring it’s 1 Ghana: Copyright, Law, 21/03/1985, No. 110. http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/details.jsp?code=GH006

4

history. Followed by a deeper look into the WIPO/UNESCO provisions, that served as

basis for the law, so as to determine whether or not this model has been properly

applied. An overview of comments that were formulated by local experts will be

given subsequently. The second question will focus at ownership in a more general

way. That is, who could or couldn’t rightfully be appointed as owner of heritage and

culture. This will be accompanied by a more philosophical approach to ownership.

Thirdly, the question will be to find out what folklore is, and how it relates to culture.

In this chapter, the main issue will be to find out how these terms are used in this

debate, and in what way the terms relate to each other.. Finally, the notion of

copyright will be addressed. This, by questioning how copyright laws relate to

culture, and to what extent these laws are applicable to the current cultural life.

Given the abstract nature of law, the approach to the matter will be rather theoretical,

without going to deep into practical examples. The focus will mainly lie on literary

reflections on the matter, as the aim is to find out to what extent the proposed

legislation is compliant to the provisions on which it is based. Also the impact on the

local communities and culture in general will be looked upon from a theoretical

perspective.

So as to conclude conclusion I will evaluate the findings so as to formulate a vision on

the Ghanaian and the more general situation.

2. MEANING OF THE 2005 COPYRIGHT LAW FOR GHANAIAN FOLKLORE

In order to fully understand the meaning of the Ghanaian legislation in regard

to the protection of folklore as well as the tax that is applied to the use of it, a closer

look into the actual legal texts is necessary. As this thesis focuses on musical folklore,

the interpretations of the law will mostly point at the issues relevant in this regard.

Please note however, that both the laws of 1985 and 2005 are focused on every aspect

of copyright legislation and thus allow readings in which the focus can be shifted on

other details or to other fields of the cultural life, and beyond.

5

Following the provisions of the WIPO set out in 1982, in which developing countries

were advised to protect the financial revenues that are generated through the

exploitation of their heritage from exploitation or plundering by industrialized

countries by means of copyrighting them, Ghana implemented several sections aiming

at the protection of folklore in the Copyright Law 110 of 1985.

Hereby, the sections addressing folklore of the 1985 law:

§5.1 Works of Ghanaian folklore are hereby protected by copyright.

§5.2 The rights of authors under this law in such folklore are hereby vested in the

republic of Ghana as if the Republic were the original creator of the works.

§5.3 Where a person intends to use any such folklore other than for use permitted

under §18 of this law, he shall apply to the Secretary so to do, and shall pay such fee

as may be prescribed in relation thereto.

§5.4 Any sums of money accruing from the use of folklore under this section shall

be paid into a fund established by the Secretary and shall be used for the promotion

of institutions for the benefit of authors, performers and translators.

In addition to this, the law states that:

§16 The rights vested in the Republic of Ghana in respect of folklore under section

5 of this law exist in perpetuity.

The Ghanaian state is thus the legal owner of the Ghanaian folklore as if the state

itself was the creator of it. This will be the basis on which the concept of copyright

will be discussed later on. In §18 of the law it is pointed out under what circumstances

the Ghanaian folklore can possible be used without infringing of the law. Without

going into too much detail, it comes down to the fact that one can use the works free

of charge unless they are made public. Either way by distributing recordings, or by

performing in a public space. There are some additional clauses, but they are in the

light of this approach of lesser importance.

As one can read in the previously mentioned sections of the text, any user of the

folklore should consequently contribute to the Folklore Board a percentage of the

6

received remunerations gained through the sales of phonographic materials cq the

public performance of the music. This technically means that as from the enactment

of this law, all persons publicly using the Ghanaian folklore are subjected to the

payment of the folklore tax (with a few exceptions mentioned in §18). As for the legal

repercussions in regard to the violation of the rules, the following sections apply:

§46.1 No person shall without the permission in writing of the Secretary import into

Ghana, sell, offer or expose for sale or distribute in Ghana any copies of the

following works made outside Ghana:

a. Works of Ghanaian folklore; or

b. Translations, adaptations or arrangements of Ghanaian folklore.

§46.2 Any person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of

an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than GHC

10.000,00 and not exceeding GHC 1.000.000,00 or to imprisonment not exceeding

two years or both; and in case of a continuing offence to a further fine of not less

than GHC 5.000,00 for each day during which the offence continues.

The fact that there has not been made any distinction in the 1985 law between

Ghanaian citizens and foreigners commercially exploiting the folkloristic capital of

Ghana led to possibility of ambiguous interpretation. This resulted in a peculiar

reading by some members of the Folklore Board, who proposed that all people should

be treated equally by this law. This equity would mean that every person using the

Ghanaian folklore should pay the set tax on the use of it, Ghanaians included; as there

was no clause that explicitly left out these citizens. Oddly enough, by questioning the

absence of this clause, they seem to have forgotten the reason why these sections were

initially brought up in this law. The provisions of WIPO and UNESCO were based on the

inequity between the industrialized and the developing world. As the developing

nations lacked the financial means and power to exploit their folklore in a fair

competition with the industrialized world, the interests of the Ghanaians would be

protected by copyrighting folklore. This to avoid that it could be used by others under

the claim that it is part of the public domain.

There was no particular clause that excluded the Ghanaians from the obligation to

report their use of the Ghanaian folklore and the payable tax as outflow thereof. The

7

absence of this clause is the basis on which the – in this context relevant – change of

the copyright law formed the Copyright Law 690 of 2005.

§64.1 A person who intends to use folklore for any purpose other than as permitted

under §19 of this Act, shall apply to the Board for permission in the prescribed form

and the person shall pay a fee that the Board may determine.

§64.2 There shall be established by the Minister with the approval of the

Accountant-General a fund for the deposit of any fees that may be charged in

respect of the use of folklore.

§64.3 The fund shall be managed by the Board and shall be used

(a) For the preservation and promotion of folklore, and

(b) For the promotion of indigenous arts.

In this law, the focus is much more pointed at the “Folklore Tax” that ought to be paid

in order to act in accordance to the law when selling or publicly performing folkloric

music.

§44.1 A person shall not sell, offer or expose for sale or distribution in the Republic

copies of

(a) Works of folklore made in or outside the Republic, or

(b) Translations, adaptations, arrangements of folklore made outside the Republic

without the permission in writing of the National Folklore Board.

§44.2 A person who contravenes this section commits an offence and is liable

on summary conviction to a fine of not more than one thousand penalty units and

not less than one hundred and fifty penalty unit or to a term of imprisonment of not

more than three years or to both; and in the case of a continuing offence to a further

fine of not less than twenty-five penalty units for each day during which the offence

continues.

As one can read, the 1985 bill makes notion of repercussions towards the illicit import

into Ghana or distribution outside of Ghana of works of Ghanaian folklore or

translations, adaptations and arrangements thereof. The 2005 law, however, states that

also works of folklore made in Ghana and distributed within the country are subjected

to the penalties mentioned in sections 44 of the 2005 law. Consequently, this means

that however the free use of the Ghanaian folklore was not explicitly granted in the

8

1985 copyright law, there was no firm ground to prosecute any violation of the

commercial use in Ghana. The introduction of the clause that would make

unauthorized use illegal unless in the 2005 law is the primary basis of the commotion

that is discussed here.

3. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE GHANAIAN FOLKLORE TAX

The history of the law, that takes a central position in this controversy, is

rather complicated. It is the result of different influences originating in the World

Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the National Commission on Culture

(NCC), the Ghana Songwriters and Composers Association (GSCA), Paul Simon, the

Ghanaian Government and the former president John Agyekum Kufuor. In a later

stage, also the Ghana Association of Composers, Authors and Performers (GHASCAP),

the Ghana Old Musicians Welfare Association (GOMAWA) entered the debate, by

opposing to the law of 2005.

With regard to music, the first bill addresses two important issues. Firstly, as

most developing countries, Ghana had major issues with music piracy. One aim of the

institution of a copyright law was to diminish this practice in order to create a more

fair way to distribute the profits generated by the both legitimate and illegal

phonogram industry. This measure is seemingly a very fair one. There is, however, a

catch. As piracy was based on the sales of illicit cassette tape copies in a vast network

of independent vendors, the market – in terms of production and distribution – was

already widely developed. These vendors acknowledged the unlawful nature of their

activities and founded the Ghana Tape Recordists Association (GTRA). This

confederacy was meant to support the struggle of the tape vendors to transform their –

since the enactment of the 1985 copyright law - illegal activities into legitimate

businesses. They proposed to pay a set amount of money per kiosk to the National

Phonogram Producers Union (NPPA). The funds generated thereby would accordingly

remunerate the musicians for their work. Both the Musicians Union of Ghana

(MUSIGA) and the Phonogram Producers Society (PPS) – an offspring of the NPPA –

opposed this plan. Also the International Federation of Phonogram Industries (IFPI)

rejected the proposed legalization. The IFPI, however, had other intentions than merely

9

protecting the musicians and producers. For this club of western record labels realized

there was more at stake: the centralized power of the western record industry in the

production and distributing of the – then emerging – market of world music as well as

the non-western markets themselves. The proposed measure could have resulted in a

tax on blank tapes, which would provide the desired revenue for musicians through

the sales of street vendors. This solution might probably make most sense, as it builds

on an existing economical and social structure, as opposed to the imposed idea of

centralized authorization and trade by the IFPI. The actual result, however, was that

the government installed a system with pre-paid taxes on “original” – and thus legal –

phonographic copies.2 Consequently, the local, decentralized market vanished to a

large extent in favor of a more central market, controlled by copyright owners. That is

in this case to a great extent the government and the Western record industry.

Secondly, Copyright bill 110 addresses the protection of folklore. This, following the

1985 Model provisions for national laws on the protection of folklore against illicit

exploitation and other prejudicial actions3 that were provided by the UNESCO and the

WIPO. The legal texts as mentioned in the chapter above thus protected the musical

folklore by means of copyright. Following this new legislation, it was the American

musician Paul Simon that actually made some changes. When he recorded the album

‘The rhythm of the saints’ in 1990, he used the melody and rhythm of the Ghanaian

song “Yaa Amponsah” as a basis for the song “Spirit Voices”. Later on, he contacted

the Embassy for Ghana in New York to enquire whereto the royalties should be

directed. Research showed, that even though the first known recording was made by

Kwame Asare (Jacob Sam) and the Kumasi Trio, the composition of it could not be

ascribed to any known person. Therefore, the National Commission on Culture (NCC),

who conducted the research, decided to use the funds generated by the royalties paid

by Paul Simon to form the Folklore Board, which had been envisioned in the 1985

law. Subsequently, the newly founded Folklore Board took action and started the

making of an inventory of all works of folklore.4 By making this inventory the works

2 Collins, John. Copyright, folklore and music piracy in Ghana. London: Routledge. 2006: 160-162. 3 UNESCO/WIPO. Model Provisions for National Laws on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore Against Illicit Exploitatation and Other Prejudicial Actions. Paris/Geneva: UNESCO/WIPO, 1985. 4 Collins, John. The 'Folkloric Copyright-Tax' Problem in Ghana. London: Media Development, the Journal of the World Association for Christian Communication. No. 1, 2003: 11.

10

of folklore essentially loose their folkloric nature, as folklore is by definition an oral

tradition.

Later on, the board came to the idea that the way they were carrying out the law

wasn’t fair. As foreigners had to pay for the use of the Ghanaian folklore, and

Ghanaians themselves, could use it freely. The law should thus be changed, in order

to treat all public or commercial use in the same way. As mentioned before, this is

turning the world upside down, as it proclaims a need for an equal approach whereas

both the provisions and the law where installed to rectify the unequal basis of the

industrialized and developing world.5

As a result of this viewpoint, the law was being revised. This led to the changes that

have been described in the previous chapter. The history of the law, however,

continues. After the law was adjusted, and voted by the government, the probable

impact of these changes became clear to a larger group of people, who started

opposing the changes. There are even rumors that this legislation would conflict with

the universal declaration of the human.6 This aspect is very difficult to look at due to

the vagueness of this declaration. The protests have had their effect though, because

as a result of all this, the – former – president John Agyekum Kufuor withheld the

law. And it hasn’t been enacted until today. The question remains, to what extent the

law is actually in accordance to the WIPO/UNESCO provisions.

4. WIPO - UNESCO PROVISIONS REGARDING THIRD WORLD FOLKLORE PROTECTION

Upon close reading of the provisions that were set by UNESCO & WIPO in

19857 it becomes clear that, to large extent, they have been applied in the conception

of the 1985 copyright law. There are however some remarks to be made in order to

fully understand the scope of these provisions as well as the nuances that lay therein.

The provisions point at certain difficulties regarding the use of different forms of

5 UNESCO/WIPO. Model Provisions for National Laws on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore Against Illicit Exploitatation and Other Prejudicial Actions. Paris/Geneva: UNESCO/WIPO, 1985: 4. 6 Collins, John. Copyright, folklore and music piracy in Ghana. London: Routledge. 2006: 166. 7 UNESCO/WIPO. Model Provisions for National Laws on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore Against Illicit Exploitatation and Other Prejudicial Actions. Paris/Geneva: UNESCO/WIPO, 1985.

11

legislation. That is, in the first place, the mere protection by a copyright law is not

desirable due to following shortcomings:

The measures taken so far in the field of copyright are not sufficient to control the

commercial use of folklore, and one has the impression that copyright law is, after

all, not the right kind of law for protection expressions of folklore. [..] Traditional

creations of a community [..] are generally much older than the duration of

copyright so that, for this reason alone, a copyright-type protection, limited to the

life of the author and a relatively short period thereafter, does not offer folklore a

long enough protection.8

As for the neighboring rights, there are also several remarks. The neighboring rights

can grant legal rights of the performer by protecting the performance. This approach

is in essence the opposite of the general copyright law: where copyright is focused at

the author and the intellectual property – in case of music that would be respectively

the composer and the composition – neighboring rights are focused at the rights of the

performer by recognizing the performance as different from the composition itself.

The WIPO/UNESCO provisions suggest the use of these rights to enable performers to

profit from their work. But even though this might indeed help the artists to generate

more profits from their work, it still doesn’t help to protect the cultural capital as

such. As a result, it was decided that the actual protection by means of copyright is

desirable.9

Upon proper reading of the 14 sections of the Model Provisions, it becomes clear that

this last clause should have prevented the Ghanaian folklore board to come up with

the change that led to the 2005 law. Section 14 states that:

The protection granted under this [law] shall in no way be interpreted in a manner

which could hinder the normal use and development of expressions of folklore.10

8 Ibid. p5. 9 Ibid. P7. 10 Ibid. p13.

12

As folklore is by in fact shaped by evolution, continuity, variation and selection,11 the

protection through copyright and the imposed folklore tax is most probably not the

best option. In stead it is rather a measure that can halt the further evolution of the

living folklore. But if this is the case, how was it possible for the government to

approve this new law?

5. COMMENTS ON THE LAW

Throughout the entire phase of the elaboration of the idea that the folklore tax

for Ghanaian citizens should be identical to the one for foreigners, there have been

numerous groups and individuals commenting on the law that was at hand. The

British musician and musicologist John Collins is one of the important players in the

formulation and spread of the criticism that has been brought up. As he was closely

involved in both the Ghanaian musical life – as a musician and owner of a local music

studio – and the formation of the copyright legislation – as a member of the folklore

board – he is one of the very interesting individuals to comment on the current

situation. Hereby the listing of a few arguments to counter the enactment of the 2005

law by Koo Nimo, Kofi Anyidoho, John Collins and another member of the folklore

board. The first version of the article in which these arguments were put forward dates

from 2000. The arguments were thus communicated within the board before the law

passed on to the parliament to vote.

a. First of all, for Ghanaians, the law will probably result in a different

approach to their own culture, as the folklore tax will make it much more of

a hassle to use their own folklore, by developing it further and rethinking it,

as they would still have to pay in order to be doing so, in full compliance

with the law. The result will most probably be, that the Ghanaian culture will

be ignored in the favor of the free Western culture. 12

11Karpeles Maud. Definition of Folk Music. Journal of the International Folk Music Council. Vol. 7, 1955: 6. 12 Collins, John. The 'Folkloric Copyright-Tax' Problem in Ghana. London: Media Development, the Journal of the World Association for Christian Communication. No. 1, 2003: 13.

13

The further development of the Ghanaian folklore as such is indeed very much likely

to be at stake, if it becomes mandatory to pay a tax on the use of it. There might rise

severe conflicts over the actual origin of the music – or any other cultural expression

– that is being used. So as to find out who might profit from the collected tax. And it

will not be easy to draw the line between original folkloristic compositions,

mutations, styles and interpretations. And above all, what Collins brings up in regard

to the probable loss of the proper Ghanaian culture vis-à-vis the greater influence of

foreign – that is, plausibly western – culture will most probably have a great impact

on the vividness of the cultural CQ folkloristic traditions.

b. The idea of equity, that has been brought up by the Ghanaian goverrnment in

order to install the 2005 law – if non-Ghanaians have to pay for commercial

use, Ghanaians should have to do so too – is completely against the idea of

the WIPO provisions. The basis from which the WIPO started to develop the

recommendations on which the law is based, is that the division of power

and money between developing and industrialized counties is not fair.

Therefore, they cannot compete on the same basis. As a result, the wipo

advised only to apply this tax outside of the country. 13

As the idea of copyrighting folklore is based on the inequity between different

countries, it makes no sense to apply the rules that were set in order to limit the

foreign exploitation of culture without returning (a part of) the profits to the

originators of that same culture to these people themselves.

Expressions of folklore are being commercialized [..] without due respect for the

cultural or economic interests of the communities in which they originate and

without conceding any share in the returns from such exploitations of folklore to

the peoples who are the authors of their folklore. [..] Legal solutions must be

found for the protection of folklore. Such protection should be against any

improper utilization of expressions of folklore, including the general practice of

13 Collins, John. The 'Folkloric Copyright-Tax' Problem in Ghana. London: Media Development, the Journal of the World Association for Christian Communication. No. 1, 2003: 13.

14

making profit by commercially exploiting such expressions outside their

originating communities without any recompense to such communities. 14

The above excerpt of the 1985 WIPO/UNESCO provisions clearly underline the

statement made by Collins, as the focus is explicitly on the exploitation by non-

Ghanaians.

c. Another argument against such a folkloric copyright-tax concerned is the

status of traditional music that cuts across national African national borders;

for example between Ghana and the Cote d’Ivoire or Ghana and Togo.

Which African country would nationally own this shared folklore? 15

The law seems to treat the Ghanaian folklore as a supposedly homogenous expression

of culture, that is defined by the borders of the country that goes by the name of

Ghana. An exploration in the history of the country will follow. But, indeed, it is

impossible to define the national ownership of the cross- and intercultural expressions

exceeding the borders of a nation. Let alone that the folklore can be historically

defined in regard to a constructed Ghanaianness. Considering the country has a great

variety of ethnic groups residing within its borders and for example in rather recent

history as colony of Great Britain. In less recent history, the country that was known

by the name of the Ghana Empire was located in parts of the regions currently known

as Mauretania and Mali. (The state by the name of Mauretania used to be situated on

the north coast of Africa.) This matter will be properly addressed later on. The point,

however, is that the culture has a traveling nature, and that this kind of legislation will

not set boundaries so as to limit this, it will more likely be facing the complexities

created by the transnational cultural exchange. Moreover, the migrating nations and

the interference of colonial powers changed the concept of culture irreversibly: Not

only did the different peoples of the local regions interact, they were also exchanging

knowledge, culture and ideas with the colonial forces.

14 UNESCO/WIPO. Model Provisions for National Laws on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore Against Illicit Exploitatation and Other Prejudicial Actions. Paris/Geneva: UNESCO/WIPO, 1985: 3-4. 15 Collins, John. The 'Folkloric Copyright-Tax' Problem in Ghana. London: Media Development, the Journal of the World Association for Christian Communication. No. 1, 2003: 13.

15

In addition to the previously mentioned arguments by four members op the folklore

board, the following remark is made by the honorary chairman of the board, Professor

JHK Nketia.

d. A folkloric tax could lead to potential disputes over ownership of cultural

property between the central state and local traditional communities16

This argument might seem of lesser importance at an international level, but given the

fact that the population of Ghana consists of several ethnic groups such as the Akan,

Mole-Dagbon, Ewe, Ga-Dangme, Guan, Gurma, etc17 the local stage is strongly

affected by it. As Nketia states, the law could in effect lead to confrontations between

these groups and the government, as they are – probably – much more entitled to the

communal property that in essence springs from these regional groups. This, also

given the fact that the money generated by the execution of the law, and thus the

income from the use of folklore through the folklore tax might be subject to

discussion as to which these funds should serve.

The arguments as stated above were formed by a few members of the folklore board,

and presented to the rest of the board. This, however, did not stop the majority of the

board members from pushing the initial idea through, and supporting the installment

of a folklore tax to the use of folklore by Ghanaians.

6. HERITAGE AND OWNERSHIP

When looking at the legal controversy concerning the taxing of the use of

folklore, not only this narrow dilemma should be discussed. The question should be

expanded to the following: whom can be seen as the legal owner of the intellectual

property? The fact that the third world countries ought to be protected by the greed of

first world capitalism seems to make sense. But one might ask whether this is in the

end the best way to do so. As the imposed laws not only protect the Ghanaian

interests abroad, but equally well foreign interest in Ghana. In terms of culture this

16 Ibid. 17 http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana

16

might be of minor importance, but it also affects other fields of intellectual property

such as pharmaceutical industries, software and agriculture. Furthermore, whether or

not this protection should be obtained though absolute ownership of all folklore, is

questionable, especially when the self-appointed owner would be the government.

There are several reasons why a reconsideration of the situation might be desirable.

First of all, it is hard to find out to what extent the current population of a certain

country is connected to the cultural history of the peoples that lived in different

regions of that country. Taking into account that the cultures of peoples and regions

are often not limited by the state borders. James Cuno questions if “[..] it is the right

of the sovereign nations to legislate the protection of and access to whatever they

consider to be their cultural property.”18 Given the fact that the nation state is more

often than not defined by political borders, and not by a cultural identity, it seems

hard to legitimize that such an institution can lay claim on the right to own the culture

that in fact reflects the plural identity of the whole of its citizens. Because, more than

serving the financial good of the citizens it enables the government to control the

content and use of what is seen as the culture of the nation.

The name Ghana stems from the former Ghana Empire that was situated more to the

north-west, in the region currently known as Mali and Mauretania. But also Ga people

from more eastern regions – currently known as Nigeria – migrated to the greater

region of the current city of Accra – the capital of present-day Ghana. The region

currently known as Ghana was known by Westerners as Gold Coast during most of its

colonial history. The Portuguese and the Danish have been in the region during

several centuries, mainly because of the presence of cocoa, gold, timber and palm oil.

The trade in people was also of great interest for the Western investors. Later on, the

British gained a lot of power by buying off the Danish settlements and supporting the

Fante confederation in its battles against the Asante region, that was not yet under

British reign.19

18 Cuno, James. Who Owns Antiquity? Meseums and the Battle Over Our Ancient Heritage. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2008. 19 Wikipedia: Ghana Empire. Wikipedia. Web. June 25, 2009. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana_Empire>

17

This very short, and incomplete Ghanaian history is to point out the fact that the

folklore and culture of Ghana cannot only be formed within the borders of the state

that currently goes by that name. The construction of the national identity and ditto

culture excludes the notions thereof that have formed that same culture in preceding

periods. To draw a comparison, James Cuno claims that the artifacts found in the

modern nation states of Turkey, Greece or Italy have “no historical connections with

the the ancient cultures” of respectively the Ottoman, Greek or Roman empires. It is

of course hard to compare archeological artifacts with a living tradition of folklore,

but one could draw the line to the current era, in which the nation state is a

construction of a culture, within the borders that limit the geographical limits of the

region. The nation uses the culture within its borders to support the idea of a common

culture. Upon the claim on the perpetual copyright of the folklore, the state in fact

defines in a very strict way what can be seen as Ghanaian culture. As well does the

board preserve the right to control its further evolution, since the board is entitled to

describe the forms and appearances of folklore, as well as the control over the future

use of the folkloristic culture. As the folklore board is a governmental organization,

the state can thus have a great influence in what elements of the living traditions can

or cannot be used. The governmental or parastatal censorship that might spring from

this possibility does not only create the possibility to constrain the further

development of folklore of the arts in general, it may also violate the human rights as

the freedom of speech cannot be guaranteed if the government holds the power over

cultural evolution. Or the government can fail to see the value of a certain evolution

of culture, as happened in the past. To name an example: currently the Kpanlogo is

considered to be a cherished part of the cultural heritage of Ghana. Initially it was

frowned upon by some members of the art council at the time of the genre’s inception

in the 1960s. It was considered to be indecent, and they would have banned it if they

had the power to do so.20

Not only the way heritage is perceived, but also the notion of property is of

considerable importance is this issue. The way the copyright laws for protection of

intellectual property are imposed on developing countries are part of the globalizing

20 Collins, John. Hitechnology, Individual Copyright and Ghanean Music. Ghana: Changing Values Changing Technologies. Ed. Helen Lauer. Washington DC: 2000, pp 189.

18

neo-liberal market economy. That is, the idea that commodifying all goods and

services will contribute to economic growth, which is a condition for prosperity. The

result is more likely to be an increase of the GDP of a given country, but when there is

no actual growth in production, but merely in turnover is there actually a benefit for

the citizens?21 It is unlikely that there will be much profit for the average citizen, as

the commodification of culture does not only create the possibility to get remunerated

for the production or performance of it. It will also centralize the revenues of as well

as the power over culture, which will most likely help the installment of an oligarchic

reigning class – which is, in essence the main goal of the neo-liberal economy.22

Concerning property, criticism is much older than the advent of neo-liberalism. Back

in 1890, Pierre Joseph Proudhon raised the question Qu'est-ce que la propriété?

which was firmly answered with “La propriété c'est le vol.”23 The underlying idea is

that the fruit of one’s work cannot be owned, as "all accumulated capital [is] social

property, no one can be its exclusive proprietor”24 A criticism on the division of

property and power had been formulated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in Discours sur

l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi les hommes25 in 1755, and it lived on

in anarchist milieus in later stages. Even though these visions do not take the

complexity of the present-day economy into account – that increased complexity

would most probably be approached with even more skepticism – it does pose the

very valid question what property is, and who can be entitled to ownership. As

ownership is abhorred on this philosophical level, and was subsequently loathed by

anarchists who also countered the state as such, a very nuanced view cannot be

expected when it comes to state-ownership. The philosophical visions on ownership

and government are too complex and lengthy and would disconnect us from the

subject all too much, but one will understand that neither government nor ownership

can be taken for granted in this debate.

21 Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005. 22 Ibid. 23 Proudhon, Pierre Joseph. What is property? : an inquiry into the principle of right and of government. New York : Dover Publications. 1970. 24 Ibid. p120. 25 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi les hommes Paris: Hatier. 1992.

19

It has, however, become clear that the government is creating a delicate and perhaps

dangerous situation by nationalizing the folklore that is found within its borders. Not

only is a government arguably in the best position to own the culture, if ownership is

at all the most appropriate way of dealing with folklore. The question might also be

asked what the limits of both the geographical scope of the protected folklore are vis-

à-vis the culture of the neighboring countries. Not to speak of the distinction between

national and regional folklore within the country. Finally, it is very interesting to look

at the way folklore itself is defined, as a it is generally approached through

juxtaposing the arts in the industrialized world and folklore in the developing

countries. This, however, might not be the most ideal nor realistic starting position for

this discussion.

7. WHAT IS FOLKLORE ?

When speaking of folklore as something that is still very vivid in developing

countries and at the same time something that is but a mere sign of the past in the

industrialized world, one can wonder how this distinction is made, and to what extent

this Manichaean view can be valid. The question can thus be raised what the

difference is between the presumably community-originated folklore and the western

notion of the cultural commodity that is rooted in the originality of the individual.

This distinction does not exclude the existence of a folkloristic tradition in some

countries, not the absence of a more individual approach in others, approaching it as

strict dichotomy is more a means of questioning the validity of the

It is, a very difficult task to form a definition of “folk music” or folklore in general.

The International Council for Traditional Music (formerly known as the International

Council for Folk Music) has been struggling to define a formulation that would be

satisfactory for all its members. At the annual conference in 1954, in São Paulo,

Brasil, the following statement was coined, as a provisional definition:

20

Folk music is music that has been submitted to the process of oral transmission. It is a

product of evolution and is dependent on the circumstances of continuity, variation

and selection.26

It is in fact that same variation and selection that is being seen as the great merit of the

Western, individual genius that creates something. Because, in the end, it is

impossible to untie any form of culture from the preceding historic periods nor its

contemporaries. When looking at a more up-to-date definition of folklore – that is, in

this case, folk music – the Grove Music states the following:

For European countries, the dictionary distinguishes between ‘art’ music ‘folk’ or

‘traditional’ music and ‘popular’ music. However, the perspectives of contributors

express different national intellectual and disciplinary traditions. ‘Folk music’ is

sometimes used interchangeably with ‘traditional’ music: to distinguish it from art or

popular musics to distinguish between indigenous rural and urban traditions and to

distinguish ‘community music-making’ from ‘popular music’ intended for mass

dissemination or marketing. It has been used in sometimes essentialist and sometimes

very loose ways. The definition of Jewish ‘folk music’ includes composed. Since the

1980s and 1990s, a continuum has developed including World music, World Beat and

Roots musics. Operating in a global context, these range from fusions of local folk

music with Western pop sounds to the selection and elevation of indigenous folk

musics on to the world stage.27

Once again, it becomes overtly clear that a comprehensive definition is very difficult

to formulate. What remains present, however, is a seemingly close connection to a

romantic vision of culture in which clear distinctions are made between indigenous

culture and art music on the one hand, and popular music on the other. The great

comment on the strong dualistic vision on indigenous folklore and popular or art

culture is thus that it presupposes a ditto distinction between the industrialized and the

developing world. David Kerr argues that the way we look at the – for example –

traditional African cultures as communal is not only much too generalizing, it is also

26 Karpeles Maud. Definition of Folk Music. Journal of the International Folk Music Council. Vol. 7, 1955: 6. 27 Pegg, Carole. Folk Music. Grove Music Online. Oxford University Press 2007-2009. Web. 10 August 2009.

21

untrue in a lot of cases. Several examples of peoples in Ghana, Nigeria and Malawi

underline the idea that seeing indigenous folklore as a product of a communal cradle

is not – always – correct. As a result, he claims that the way we divide the West

from the rest – by that meaning the divide of an author-centered notion of art from a

communal notion of folklore – is not at all based on a realistic observation of the

actual situation, but more a romantic idea.28

On the other hand, Smiers argues that the degree of originality in the western notion

of art and culture is highly overrated. This is supported by a system of copyrights that

is granting exclusive rights to the so-called creative and original utterances of authors.

Their creations, however, are always embedded in the historical evolution of the

discipline in which the authors are working. Be it by following a certain style or

school or by creating an answer to it. In any case, the creation of culture never springs

from a void, and is thus pursuing a dialogue with the past. Following the theory of

Kerr, one could thus say that the difference between the modern and folkloristic

notion of the creation of culture is not that big at all29. When one can say that the

difference is not big, or at least by far not as big as the commonly accepted contrast

makes us believe, one can similarly argue that the way we approach the arts in the

west and folklore in the developing countries is absolutely untenable. This division is

in itself a very questionable, but it serves somewhat as a starting point for further

discussion in regard to copyright. This subsequently creates the question if we ought

to reconsider the division between the arts and folklore, and how this would affect the

notion of copyright on both.

8. COPYRIGHT?

The question of ownership in the field of intellectual property is currently a

hot issue. Not only is the internet an open source for all digitalized cultural

commodities to be exchanged freely, it is also enabling a rapid cultural exchange in an

era in which the European copyright duration is – paradoxically? – being extended

28 Kerr, David.‘Folklore’, cultural property and modernisation in sub-Saharan Africa. London: Critical Arts, 20:1, 144-157 29 Ibid.

22

from 50 to 70 years after the death of the creator.30 As a result of which, the duration

is now equal to that in the US. In spite of this all, culture is being recycled, rethought,

exchanged by millions of people, while the legal owners – which means multinational

media conglomerates in most cases – are fighting to retain the power over their

property. This means that the cultural recyclers are either way facing sky-high

clearing arrangements with the corporate owners of the culture – if at all they are

granted the right to use the works – or they take the risk of being prosecuted by not

doing so. The remix-generation does not only rethink and rework the arts, they also

reconsider the common thoughts on it. In regard to this the documentary RIP: A

Remix Manifesto by the Canadian director Brett Gaylor is a nice example. The

documentary is not only up for grabs online, the form and content are also open to be

reinterpreted by the viewer, who can subsequently upload the revised content to the

website open-source cinema31. The movie itself starts with a manifesto concerning

culture that consists of the following ideas:

1. Culture always builds on the past

2. The past always tries to control the future

3. Our future is becoming less free

4. To build free societies you must limit the control of the past

Even though the manifesto is very interesting, the validity of it can be questioned.

That is, mainly referring to the latter three statements. We can easily accept that

culture is embedded in evolution, and thus always – at least partly – builds on the

past. The extent to which the other claims are universally valid are questionable. Even

though the manifesto is not too convincing, this seems to be due to poor formulating

to higher extent than because of poor reasoning. What seems to be said is that culture

is actually being copyrighted, thereby creating a “past” that is “controlling” the

further evolution of that copyrighted work. This results in “less freedom” for the

current culture, as more and more elements of “the past” are being locked up. Thus, so

as to create “free societies” (societies that allow culture to evolve, and keep building

30 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090424/1134104637.shtml 31 Open Source Cinema. Web. July 20, 2009. <http://www.opensourcecinema.org>

23

on the past), limitations on the way culture “of the past” is being protected might have

to be installed.

The embedded message of this manifesto is thus, that culture ought to be approached

as scholars approach knowledge: once something has been said – or proven for that

matter – it hardly makes any sense to rewrite the exact same findings or theories.

When, on the other hand, a scholar sees the opportunity to build on an existing theory

or idea, and extend the scope, fight it, or improve the course of thought, she or he is

free to quote or paraphrase the given text or data in order to support one’s own theory.

That is, when the used sources are properly linked to the quotes, and the bibliography

is accurate and complete. If the same model would apply to the arts it would mean

that we would enter an entirely different system of licensing. It would result in a

freedom to “quote” other artists, and thus sample and integrate in works that can be

seen as entirely new. As a result, both authors will retain their full neighboring rights

on their work, but will not be entitled to the full ownership of the concept underneath,

since that is, after all, building on the past.

A major flaw in the reasoning throughout the documentary is that the given examples

aren’t always of ditto ilk. The use of samples in the creation of new music on the one

hand and the illicit exchange of files on the other hand are seemingly part of one and

the same matter. The fact is, however, that the two are connected to very different

elements of ownership and licensing. On the one hand the artist – or owner of the

intellectual property – wants to be remunerated for the spread and passive use of it.

On the other hand, under the reining law, the intellectual property is stolen and

integrated in the new “work”. As the distinction between both isn’t clearly drawn, one

could falsely assume that they are part of the same issue, and are thus to be abolished

simultaneously and on the same grounds. It would however be very hard to convince

any corporate copyright lobbyist of this.

Following this notion of culture, the only difference of folklore vis-à-vis culture that

would hold is the fact that folklore would be transmitted orally. It seems, however,

that also the notated forms of culture heavily depend on oral transmission in the

further evolution. Aren’t riffs and chord progressions recycled just like that? They

24

might be written down, but most of the re-interpretations are transmitted through non-

written media. Thus, the actual transformations in the arts are to be seen not so much

in the literate as well in the oral modes of conveyance. That is, at least to the same

extent that folklore cannot be seen purely as an oral form of culture.

Aside from the people that actually work and rework the cultural legacy of the heavily

copyrighted 20th century, numerous scholars, lawyers and activists try to get a grip on

the current state of things. The main goal of this struggle is finding a balance between

the shrinking public sphere and the expanding field of copyrighted intellectual

property. The juxtaposition is very clear, on the one hand there are the copyright

adepts. These are supposedly protecting the rights and simultaneously the

remunerations of the artists, but in the end, the companies supporting this lobby are

actually the owners of the intellectual property they connect to the genius of the

individual author. On the other hand however, there are many people that create

works within a revised framework of intellectual property. Most commonly they

comply to a newly found set of values in which the creations are spread, shared and

used. This system is called Creative Commons.

Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making it easier for people

to share and build upon the work of others, consistent with the rules of copyright.

We provide free licenses and other legal tools to mark creative work with the freedom

the creator wants it to carry, so others can share, remix, use commercially, or any

combination thereof.32

In this approach, the use of copyright has not been abolished. The author of the

intellectual property retains the property rights in the traditional sense of the word, but

grants others more rights to re-use the works. One could say that there is a shift from

the common idea that reserves all the rights to the lawful owner, to some rights. As a

result, the works are still viable for commercial exploitation, even though the

recycling of re-interpretation is allowed to a higher degree.

32 Creative Commons. “About” Creative Commons: 2009. Web. Juli 20, 2009. <http://creativecommons.org/about/>

25

There are four major features of the Creative Commons licensing, that can be

combined in use.

Attribution - You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted

work — and derivative works based upon it — but only if they give credit the way

you request.

Share Alike - You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license

identical to the license that governs your work.

Noncommercial - You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work —

and derivative works based upon it — but for noncommercial purposes only.

No Derivative Works - You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only

verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it.33

The result of this approach is that works and authors of different ilk will be able to

find a legal framework in which they can distribute their works, while granting others

the rights to share and/or re-interpret them. Contrary to the reconsidered way of

licensing proposed by Creative Commons, the movie RIP: A Remix Manifesto is

focusing on the general rights to use elements of works as a basis for new works. In

order to support this idea, they claim that the sampling of a riff of a beat from a

certain existing piece of music is in fact the ultimate way to contribute to the further

development of culture in the digital age. This is supported by the credo that it is part

of building a different democracy, building a different culture. Numerous cases have

been showcased to support this idea. The most striking one is probably the way Walt

Disney has been creating his figures and stories, as they are all, without exception, to

be traced back to earlier drawings and/or stories collected by the brothers Grimm, HC

Andersen or found in the Arabian Nights. In strong contrast to the way Disney has

been copying and re-interpreting the images and stories of the past to transform them

into a contemporary interpretations, he started protecting “his” creations with utmost

rigor and claimed the monopolistic copyright on them. Following this claim,

33 Creative Commons. “Licences” Creative Commons: 2009. Web. Juli 20, 2009. <http://creativecommons.org/about/licences>

26

numerous subpoenas and legal cases have followed to retain the exclusive rights

owned and licensed by the Walt Disney corporation. To give an example of how one

can approach this from a different angle, the Remix Manifesto takes us to Brazil,

where DJ Marlboro – an well-known producer in the local Baile Funk scene – states

that “originality is mixing of two things that haven’t been mixed”.34 So, it essentially

doesn’t make sense trying to protect everything you create from further blending by

others, if you acknowledge that you yourself are doing the exact same thing.

This is far from the only new approach to the matter that can be found. Another

important voice in this is Joost Smiers35. Since years he has been arguing that the

oligarchic cultural industry is everything but a stimulating factor in the field of

culture. It is actually suffocating the cultural world and the evolution of culture itself.

This is because the attention is too much focused on the marketing of a few “best-

selling” artists as cultural brands in different branches and genres. The incredibly

strong marketing that is being used to sell these brands are much more focused on the

profits that will be generated by selling the works of that given “original” artist. Aside

from the criticism on the extraordinary power of the companies exploiting the rights

of artists, he also argues that the originality of the artists is questionable. This because

they always build on the cultural capital generated by the artists’ colleagues

throughout history, as well as their contemporaries. His major claim, however, is that

both Western as non-Western countries would be better off in a world in which

copyright has been abolished. In short, the result would be that the interest of cultural

conglomerates would stop investing in a few top artists, as it will be more common

that there will be others that recycle the works of these artists. As a result, a part of the

attention will go to the periphery, even though the investment was made to put

forward the superstar. As a result, the cultural market will tend to decentralize, as the

conglomerations will seize to invest in the aggressive marketing of a thin top layer of

artists. Consequently, there will be more attention to smaller artists, who will gain a

bigger audience. This evolution is being described as the shift from best-sellers to

well-sellers.36 What would change in terms of copyright is the following: plain

34 Cited By: RIP: A Remix Manifesto. Dir: Brett Gaylor. National Film Board of Canada: 2008. 35 Smiers, Joost. The Abolition of Copyright: Better for Artists, Third World Countries and the Public Domain. International Communication Gazette. 2000, 62(5). 36 Ibid.

27

copying of someone else’s music would be seen as plagiarism, but any mutation,

adaptation, re-interpreting, blending, or mashing-up would be seen as an addition to

the cultural capital, and thus be a legitimate original that the new artist can use to sell

or play as her or his own music.

Even though the ideas formulated by Smiers are very interesting, they might require

some further development. It is, however, worth the effort to debate the very broad

notion of ownership in culture. Copyright stems from the 16th century in witch the

publication of books became a big business. It was thus a reaction to a technological

evolution that involved a profound change in the way information could be

transmitted. In a later stage, when also image and moving images were being

reproduced mechanically, Benjamin looked into this on a philosophical level. He

claimed that with the advent of reproductive media, the original work as such seized

to exist. Since the aura of the work was thus no longer connected to the physical

appearance of the work, the work was freed from the material form, and spread out

through the dispersed aura.37 Nowadays, culture is not only reproducible it is also

subject to digital transmission without the need of any tangible medium. As a result,

the arts are facing the effects of the digital revolution that enabled the consumers of

culture to freely exchange the music, films etc. they like, without ever paying for it.

As a result the unwillingness to pay for recordings is increasing. This is yet another

reason why there is an urge to reconsider the relation of the arts and copyright. Not

only on the theoretical level as mentioned above, but also given the fact that the legal

obligations are knowingly and willingly ignored by those who obtain music through

the exchange of intangible files. The market is thus facing a gigantic legal

disobedience. The generation of citizens that grows up file-sharing is aware of the

illicit nature of its actions. Larry Lassig claims that the discrepancy between legal

requirements and the actual situation might create a dangerous laxity of this

generation towards laws on the long run.38 From a wider perspective it is of course

very important that members of society live after the basic rules that are vested in the

37 Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. London. Penguin Books. 2008. 38 Lessig, Larry. In RIP: A Remix Manifesto. Dir: Brett Gaylor. National Film Board of Canada: 2008.

28

constitutional as well as statute laws, right now, the question is of course how society

can cope with this large-scale civil disobedience.

One of the issues in Smiers’ remonstrance towards the power of media

conglomerations however, is that as an alternative to this market-driven control of

culture, he proposes a system in which a – most probably governmental –

organization is monitoring the funds that can be generated through taxes in order to

remunerate the artists. The question in this regard, is of course whether that would be

much of an improvement on the current situation, in which the market is ruling the

selection and spread of culture, and thus also the way the generated money is being

shared. The proposed system is also far from compliant to the neo-liberal economical

constitution of the leading governments in most countries. In the current political

discourse that focuses on the increased privatization and exploitation of goods and

services, it is highly unlikely that the governments of the most wealthy and powerful

countries will allow a shift in this direction.39

Smiers, on the other hand, concludes that his view might seem very ambitious and

unlikely, referring to the acute collapse of communism in 1989 he sees an opportunity

for a rapid and unlikely change to emerge, and transform the cultural field.40

9. CONCLUSION

After looking at all these different aspects of the Ghanaian copyright

legislation and more general approaches towards issues in copyright, some

conclusions can be drawn.

In regard to the strictly legal side of the issue, one can conclude that the Ghanaian

government ignored an important aspect of the provisions. This, as the provisions

state that no law should by any means interfere the intrinsic development of culture as

such. By forcing its citizens into bureaucratic obligations so as to acquire the rights to

continue the evolution of their own culture, the government is obstructing this 39 Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005: 5-38. 40 Smiers, Joost. The Abolition of Copyright: Better for Artists, Third World Countries and the Public Domain. International Communication Gazette. 2000, 62(5): 403.

29

evolution. Besides this basic interference with the right of people and peoples to

freely develop and evolve their culture, the government is also a questionable

guardian of the intellectual property referred to as folklore. Because no government of

any democratic society should ever have the direct control over what should (and

will) be seen as exemplary culture for that society.

Furthermore, the contradistinction of folklore and culture might better not be taken as

a starting point for this discussion, as it is by itself a questionable division. The

current vision on culture is ignoring the influence of the preceding and contemporary

culture as much as the common notion of folklore ignores the influence of the

individual on folklore itself. Maybe the notion of contemporary culture, of any origin,

ought to be more focused on the communal basis and the marginal addition of the

current author, as opposed to proclaiming an idea of an absolute individual creation.

We could therefore perhaps merge the two notions into a more comprehensive

“culture” that is intrinsically rooted in historical and contemporary evolution.

In order to answer the initial question, I think we can state that if we want culture to

be able to develop freely, without intervention (or disguised censorship), it should be

part of a public domain, that makes no geographical, racist, religious, ethnic or

political distinction between people or peoples. And if the aim is really to counter the

inequity between different people all over the globe, it might be better to rethink the

concept of copyright.

As a result, in the case of Ghana, a protection for the recorded works of “folklore” by

means of neighboring rights might be an adequate solution. This would result in the

protection of the performance, not the actual “work”. Consequently, the struggle over

ownership of their culture would turn obsolete, as the notion of author-centered

ownership as such ceases to exist, and the Ghanaian artists will be able to gain

remunerations for the actual performances of their culture. Additionally, a change in

licensing policies towards a more attribution-oriented notion could be in favor of the

further evolution of folklore and culture in a broader sense, as – I believe – together

we can do more, and we can do better.

30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amegatcher, Andrew. Protection of Folklore by Copyright – A Contradiction In

Terms. Lausanne: CISAC 2001.

Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. London:

Penguin Books. 2008.

Birnhack, Michael D. Trading Copyright: Global Pressure on Local Culture. Tel

Aviv: University Law Faculty Papers. 2007

Collins, John. Hitechnology, Individual Copyright and Ghanean Music. Ghana:

Changing Values Changing Technologies. Ed. Helen Lauer. Washington DC: 2000,

pp 183-201.

Collins, John. The 'Folkloric Copyright-Tax' Problem in Ghana. London: Media

Development, the Journal of the World Association for Christian Communication.

No. 1, 2003, pp 10-14.

Collins, John. Copyright, folklore and music piracy in Ghana. London: Routledge.

2006.

Creative Commons. “About” Creative Commons: 2009. Web. Juli 20, 2009.

<http://creativecommons.org/about/>

Creative Commons. “Licences” Creative Commons: 2009. Web. Juli 20, 2009.

<http://creativecommons.org/about/licences>

Cuno, James. Who Owns Antiquity? Meseums and the Battle Over Our Ancient

Heritage. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2008.

Eakin, Hugh. Who Should Own the World's Antiquities? The New York Review. May

14, 2009: 17-20.

31

Gerhardsen, Tove Iren S. and William New. WIPO Copyright Advice Deemed

Misleading To Developing Countries. 2006 IP-Watch. May 28, 2009. <http://www.ip-

watch.org/weblog/2006/02/20/wipo-copyright-advice-deemed-misleading-to-

developing-countries/>

Gilbert. Jeremy. Against the Commodification of Everything. London: Cultural

Studies, 22:5, pp 551-566

Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University

Press. 2005.

Kerr, David.‘Folklore’, cultural property and modernisation in sub-Saharan Africa.

London: Critical Arts, 20:1, 144-157

Lessig, Larry. _The Law Is Strangling Creativity. Web. July 25, 2009.

<http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html>

Open Source Cinema. Web. July 20, 2009. <http://www.opensourcecinema.org>

Pegg, Carole. Folk Music. Grove Music Online. Oxford University Press 2007-2009.

Web. 10 August 2009.

Proudhon, Pierre Joseph. What is property? : an inquiry into the principle of right and

of government. New York : Dover Publications. 1970.

RIP: A Remix Manifesto. Dir: Brett Gaylor. National Film Board of Canada: 2008.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi

les hommes Paris: Hatier. 1992.

Smiers, Joost. Copyright: A Choice of No Choice for Artists and Third World

Countries; The Public Domain is Loosing Anyway. Köln: Köppe. 1999.

32

Smiers, Joost. The Abolition of Copyright: Better for Artists, Third World Countries

and the Public Domain. International Communication Gazette. 2000, 62(5): 379-406.

UNESCO/WIPO. Model Provisions for National Laws on the Protection of

Expressions of Folklore Against Illicit Exploitatation and Other Prejudicial Actions.

Paris/Geneva: UNESCO/WIPO, 1985.

WIPO. Revised Draft Provisions for the Protection of Traditional Cultural

Expressions/Expressions of Folklore. Geneva: WIPO.

Wikipedia: Ghana Empire. Wikipedia. Web. June 25, 2009.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana_Empire>