Indian Arts And Crafts Act Of 1990

The Indian Arts and Crafts Act was enacted by Congress to prevent the fraudulent sale of arts and crafts as Indian-made when they are not. Seemingly benign in intent, the act creates false distinctions, argues Sheffield, about who or what is "Indian" or "Indian-made." "Indians" are defined by the act according only to their political status - as members of federally or state-recognized tribes, or as individuals certified by either. Excluded are artists-craftspeople who are Indian according to ancestry or sociocultural traits but not according to the statutory definition. The result, Sheffield claims, is an "arbitrary process that creates arbitrary effects.".

In response to growing sales of counterfeit Indian products in the billion-dollar Indian art market, Congress passed the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. The Act is a truth-in-advertising law that authorized the Indian Arts and Crafts Board to refer complaints of counterfeit Indian Goods to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It provides criminal and civil penalties for marketing products as "Indian made" when such products are not made by Indians, as defined by the Act. In 2011, a Government Accountability Act report found that "The sale of goods falsely represented as authentic Indian-produced arts and crafts has been a persistent and potentially growing problem in the United States." It continued that "Misrepresentation by sale of unauthentic products created by non-Indians, including imports from foreign countries, is a matter of great concern to Indian artists, who have to reduce their prices or lose sales because of competition from lower priced imitation products." While complaints and violations have often occurred primarily in the Southwest, particularly in New Mexico, due to the Indian art industry's concentration in this region, the scope of the problem is nationwide. Since 1996, the Board has received over 1,700 complaints of alleged Act violations, of which 1,295 have been closed and 413 remain open investigations. Many of these were handled administratively, through letters informing businesses and individuals about the Act and Act compliance. Others were referred for investigation to federal, and at times State, law enforcement authorities, depending on the nature of the complaint and jurisdiction. To date, there have been 22 federal prosecutions in New Mexico, Alaska, Utah, South Dakota, and Missouri.

It is not uncommon for white suburban youths to perform rap music, for New York fashion designers to ransack the world's closets for inspiration, or for Euro-American authors to adopt the voice of a geisha or shaman. But who really owns these art forms? Is it the community in which they were originally generated, or the culture that has absorbed them? While claims of authenticity or quality may prompt some consumers to seek cultural products at their source, the communities of origin are generally unable to exclude copyists through legal action. Like other works of unincorporated group authorship, cultural products lack protection under our system of intellectual property law. But is this legal vacuum an injustice, the lifeblood of American culture, a historical oversight, a result of administrative incapacity, or all of the above? Who Owns Culture? offers the first comprehensive analysis of cultural authorship and appropriation within American law. From indigenous art to Linux, Susan Scafidi takes the reader on a tour of the no-man's-land between law and culture, pausing to ask: What prompts us to offer legal protection to works of literature, but not folklore? What does it mean for a creation to belong to a community, especially a diffuse or fractured one? And is our national culture the product of Yankee ingenuity or cultural kleptomania? Providing new insights to communal authorship, cultural appropriation, intellectual property law, and the formation of American culture, this innovative and accessible guide greatly enriches future legal understanding of cultural production.