Protection against appropriation

Making knowledge visible also makes it available to be taken. We are aware of this: it is the most serious objection that can be raised against a project like ours. This page explains how we answer it.

What we are talking about

Biopiracy — the patenting of knowledge or a resource originating with a people, without their agreement and without compensation. The US patent on the wound-healing properties of turmeric, revoked in 1997, and the European patent on a neem-based fungicide, annulled in 2000, are the textbook cases.

Cultural appropriation — the use of a motif, a song, a rite or a garment outside its meaning, with no link to those who carry it, and most often to their economic and symbolic detriment.

Documenting protects — the Indian precedent

This is the paradox on which our work rests: unwritten knowledge is defenceless knowledge. With no proof of prior art, it can be patented by a third party. India demonstrated this on a national scale by creating its Traditional Knowledge Digital Library, which documents more than 400,000 formulations from Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha and Yoga, translated and made citable before patent offices worldwide. Dozens of abusive applications have been withdrawn or rejected because of it.

Documenting, dated and attributed, does not open the door: it closes it.

Our safeguards

Proof of prior art. Every item is timestamped and attributed to a named person and community. That record constitutes prior art that can be raised against any subsequent patent application.

Cultural labels. We adopt the TK Labels and BC Labels developed by Local Contexts, which attach to each item the rule of use defined by the community itself, in its own terms.

What we do not publish. The precise location of a rare resource, therapeutic dosages usable as they stand, directly industrialisable processes: these may be documented under restricted or community-only access, never publicly.

Explicit prohibition. Our usage conditions forbid any intellectual-property filing on knowledge drawn from the platform, as well as automated extraction of the site.

Monitoring. We follow up the uses reported to us and support communities that wish to challenge an abusive filing.

If you observe a misuse

Report it: state the item concerned, the use observed and, if you have one, a reference — patent number, link, product name. We acknowledge receipt, inform the originating community, and support it in whatever action it decides to take.

Report an abusive appropriation

The legal framework to rely on

• the Nagoya Protocol (in force since 2014), which requires prior consent and the equitable sharing of benefits drawn from resources and associated knowledge;
• the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, adopted on 24 May 2024: it requires every patent applicant to disclose the country of origin of the resource and the people or community the knowledge comes from. It will enter into force three months after the fifteenth ratification;
• Article 31 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), which recognises these peoples’ right to control and protect their cultural heritage and traditional knowledge.

Legal protection remains incomplete and slow. It does not replace the first rule: when in doubt, we do not publish.