Publication accompanying the exhibition “striking patterns. Global Traces in Local Ikat Fashion” October 21, 2016 – March 26, 2017. Museum der Kulturen, Basel www.mkb.ch © 2016 Hatje Cantz Verlag, Berlin / Museum der Kulturen Basel / Authors © Images: see image credits All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Editing: Willemijn de Jong, Richard Kunz Copy-editing and proofreading: Doris Tranter Translations German-English: Kristina Mundall, Nigel Stephenson Picture editing: Willemijn de Jong, Richard Kunz Graphic design and visual concept: Beat Keusch, Angelina Köpplin-Stützle, Josephine Peters, Beat Keusch Visuelle Kommunikation, Basel Lithography: Andreas Muster, mustera, Basel Printed by: Offsetdruckerei Grammlich, Pliezhausen Bindings: Josef Spinner Grossbuchbinderei GmbH, Ottersweier Typeface: Garth Graphic, Agenda Paper: Munken Polar Rough 120 g / m2, Munken Polar Rough 300 g / m2 ISBN: 978-3-7757-4187-3 Published by Hatje Cantz Verlag GmbH Mommsenstrasse 27 10629 Berlin Germany Tel. +49 30 3464678-00 Fax + 49 30 3464678-29 www.hatjecantz.com A Ganske Publishing Group company Hatje Cantz books are available internationally at selected bookstores. For more information about our distribution partners, please visit our website at www.hatjecantz.com. Cover illustration: Details of men's hip and shoulder wrap from Timor island (Fig. 95, p. 166) and women's sarong from Sabu island (Fig. 25, p. 52). Image credits: Lorraine V. Aragon: Fig. 97, 98, 99, 100 Joanna Barrkman: Fig. 6, 68, 70, 71, 72 Alfred Bühler, MKB: Fig. 69 Don Cole, Fowler Museum at UCLA: Fig. 4, 7, 18, 74, 75 Peter Damary: Fig. 103 Willemijn de Jong: Fig. 58, 61, 64, 65, 67 Dukas / Splash News: Fig. 102 Roy W. Hamilton: Fig. 5 Omar Lemke, MKB: Cover, Fig. 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 Mancil Photography: Fig. 101 Dieter Spinnler, MKB: Fig. 1 Sabine Wunderlin: Fig. 59, 60, 62, 63, 66 Maps: Beat Keusch Visuelle Kommunikation, Basel Acronyms: FMB – Freiwilliger Museumsverein Basel MKB – Museum der Kulturen Basel, Schweiz UCLA – University of California, Los Angeles 184 Intellectual Property Rights, Handmade Textiles, and the Ikat Tenun Sikka Project Monique Bagal and Peter Damary Globalization changes the face of the textile and clothing industries (ILO 1996). Large firms dominate, use modern industrial production technologies, and threaten the manufacture of handmade textiles. Individuals, communities and small firms that still produce textiles using traditional methods are not able to compete, and are left be- hind. While the textile industry of ready- made clothing is one of its most important industries, Indonesia is particularly famous for “traditional” batik and ikat textiles (Hitchcock 1991). An important part of these textiles is still handcrafted for a niche market, as they are used for ceremonial occasions. Certain traditional textiles, how- ever, are not made any more and can only be seen in museums. This is a great loss to the Indonesian culture, which places such a high value on textiles, and to the inter- national textile design community as a whole. Concurrently, globalization has moved intellectual property rights from a marginal phenomenon to a major political issue of global citizenship. This article focuses on intellectual property rights with respect to ikat textiles (tenun ikat in Indonesian) in the district of Sikka, Indonesia. Our key questions are: What are the advantages of introducing intellectual property rights such as geographical indications and copyright with regard to handmade textiles? What does the introduc- tion of a geographical indication and copyright with regard to Sikka ikat textiles imply? And to what extent can these rights empower the textile producers? Intellectual Property Rights: a New Rationale for Ethnic Fashion On the first of January 1995 the World Trade Organization (WTO) was born and with it the significant Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of the Intellectual Proper- ty Rights (TRIPS Agreement). Member states, including Indonesia, approved a new age of economy in which knowledge and ideas have become a major source of eco- nomic growth. On the one hand, one should welcome this knowledge-based econ- omy focused on the appropriation of knowledge by implementing intellectual pro- perty rights. On the other hand, looking at textile products, one has to regret the persistence of misappropriation of the ingenuity of the innumerable producers of local hand-woven textiles worldwide by industrial producers. They are capable of achieving good results in productivity, and are connoisseurs of the trends in the leading markets, especially of ethnic fashion. At first glance, the concept of “ethnic fashion” seems clear. It refers to clothing and decorative accessories that blend 185 ancestral knowledge of “traditional” peoples from Africa, South America or Asia, and “modern” Wes- tern style. Thus, “ethnic fashion” presents itself as the result of an original conciliation between ins- pirations from here and there (Berloquin-Chassany 2006: 7; Polyvore Website; Surabaya City Guide 2011; see Fig. 101 and Fig. 102, p. 186). However, this originality is trivialized by the mis- leading term “ethnic fashion,” which in fact dilutes the content and true origin of the products. Concer- ning consumer information, this term raises many questions: What is the share of ethnic and Western inspiration? Fabrics, patterns, or cutting, or the way the product is obtained? What kind of ethnicity is behind the so-called ethnic fashion? Is it a contin- ent, an indigenous people, a country, a village, or a group? How is the authorship of “traditional peoples of Africa, America and Asia” acknowledged? And what “share of the benefits” do they obtain when their “ethnic” designs or cloths are used, a little, much, or nothing at all? While the term “eth- nic fashion” should help to differentiate original works, it rather seems to generate a trend of its own, beyond these works. Applying intellectual property rights to products is about giving credit where credit is due. Foreign clothing and textiles have long been associated with luxury and haute couture (Pop 2012: 8). In this context, the so-called ethnic fashion met a strict set of specifications for certifying the authenticity of the related products. These were customized pie- ces, hand-made, in the studios of the fashion houses. If this ethnic fashion was pi- oneered by haute couture until a few years ago, it is now easily available. Distilled by a number of major brands of ready-to-wear, in recent years ethnic fashion has entered into our daily lives (Berloquin-Chassany 2006: 1). This classic connection be- tween haute couture and the “mass market” is problematic considering that not only the “ethnic” skills are the sources of inspiration for large industries but those skills are also referred to in a generic manner. The existence of a transcontinental ethnic ingenuity is assumed. Its nature, however, is not determined accurately: “ethnic in- genuity” and “genius from elsewhere” are claimed, but where do they really come from (Krone-Germann 2013)? Ikat used in contemporary fashion. Design by Yurita Puji Agustiani, Jakarta Fashion Week 2016 Fig. 101 186 Today, the assertion of intellectual property rights in the market suggests another rationale of ethnic fashion. It is a rationale that portrays all the con- sequences of economic globalization, now based on the enhancement of specific kinds of know-how. It is in these terms that intellectual property rights enter into the debate over the enhancement of handmade textiles. Furthermore, globalization is often criticized in public debates for threatening cultural diversity. But through the correct appli- cation of intellectual property rights cultural diver- sity can be sustained. The producers of handmade textiles have several legal intellectual property tools at their disposal to protect their work and to communicate the specificity of their handicraft to the consumers. The Significance of Intellectual Property Rights for Handmade Textiles Intellectual property rights allow creators and own - ers to benefit from their work in two ways: firstly, by granting the exclusive right, in the course of the trade, to use or to control the use of a sign (trade- mark, geographical indication), a creation (copy- right), or an invention (patent, industrial design, trade secret); and secondly, by protecting it from misappropriation by unauthorized third parties. This may have significant benefits for the textile industry. With respect to handmade textiles, inter- est in the protective aspects of intellectual property rights is also gradually emerging (Bagal & Vittori 2010). We will focus on legal protection by two different intellectual property tools, as these are relevant in the Ikat Tenun Sikka project: geographical indication and co- pyright. Some examples of other handmade textiles are included as well. A geogra- phical indication (GI) is connected to a given product. It indicates that the product has the quality, reputation and characteristics that are essentially attributable to the geographical region referred to. In case of a geographical indication, the exclusive right of use of a geographical name for a specific product can only be granted to the legitimate community of producers. It can be seen as an offensive tool — where the producers seek to promote a typical product on given markets; or as an defen- sive tool — where the producers seek to protect the name from misuse (such as Actor Blake Lively on the set of “Gossip Girl” in New York City wearing a “Twelfth Street By Cynthia Vincent” ikat blazer Fig.