Muddle persists over batik copyright issue

By Tedy Novan

YOGYAKARTA (JP): As the international conference on batik, held in conjunction with the International Conference for Cultural and Tourism, wound up on Nov. 8, follow-up to the intense debate on intellectual property rights remained uncertain.

The conference declaration, calling for establishment of a batik museum to popularize the art among the young, also did not provide a concrete way to make this reality.

Despite all the rhetoric about globalization of batik, there are big question marks.

Unfortunately, the fate of small-scale batik makers, who have lost their business to modern batik industries, escaped the attention of the conference participants. In fact, last year alone, Indonesia exported batik worth US$70.18 million.

True, the conference came to agreement on the definition of batik. Batik is defined as a manual dyeing technique with wax used as the blocker. This agreement indicated the good intentions to protect handmade batik against the greediness of big industries.

Will good intentions suffice? The answer is hypothetical, although empirically it is understood that it is next to impossible to block access of strong capital in any economic sector.

Empirical experience is illustrated in the history of batik, which started as a household undertaking in the 16th century. These supplied batik only to fulfill the limited demand. Batik was originally a royal tradition in Java, which later scaled the palace walls and was adopted by the public.

Batik developed around the palaces have their on characteristics, namely neatly arranged geometric motifs. Generally, these batik are reddish brown or indigo, with white or light yellow as background.

Fashions changed, and people preferred to don clothing imported from India. But the need for clothing rose in line with a soaring population. Villagers with batik-making ability moved to towns. In time, they no longer made batik to fulfill their own needs, but to supply the market.

It was Sir Stamford Raffles who first mentioned batik in his book, The History of Java. Raffles noted that the clothing made by the Javanese had begun to be traded around 1800. Batik sarongs from the north coast of Java were sold in Batavia, present-day Jakarta, during Raffles' time.

These sarongs were bought mainly by Eurasian women, who combined them with their kebaya, a blouse pinned together at the front. Kebaya and batik later became the formal dress of Eurasian women and remained fashionable until about 1870.

Development of batik is inseparable from Dutch colonialism. Early in 19th century Batavia, the growing middle class became promising batik market.

Aside from Batavia, Bandung also developed into an elegant fashion center in the 18th century.

"Batik dress was not only fashionable among European women, as Sundanese ladies also combined batik sarongs from the northern coastal area of Java with French-made kebaya with floral motifs," said anthropologist Michael Hitchcock during the conference.

In 1880, several Dutch artists studied Javanese batik. Batik influenced fashion in Europe and also European artists in the Art Nouveau and Art Deco periods between 1890 and 1930.

In 1909, the great fashion designer Paul Poiret made use of the motif of a broken machete in indigo and reddish brown -- the unique hue of Central Javanese batik -- in his Paris fashions.

Between 1899 and 1901, two Dutch artists, Henri van de Velde and George Lemen, created several designs for textiles in the motif of a broken machete. The same motif was also adopted by British designer Charles Rennies Mackintosh and French painter Henri Matisse in their designs for textiles.

Unfortunately, batik development abroad, based on the traditional batik designs, has lead to the quandary over intellectual property right.

"Some traditional batik motifs from Indonesia have been patented in Europe," said Maria Wronska, curator of the Asia- Pacific Museum in Warsaw, Poland.

Bill Morrow, an Australian lawyer specializing in intellectual property rights, said that being inspired by or taking a small part of traditional motifs constituted copyright violations.

Patents granted abroad for traditional batik motifs from Indonesia carry serious implications because they rule out use of those very same designs by Indonesians.

Tomik, a batik maker from Cirebon, has been unable to export his batik to Japan for this reason during the last two years.

"Batiks with motifs unique to Cirebon and once exported to Japan are now mass-produced there," he said.

Export

In 1968, during the early years of the New Order when foreign investment returned, large-scale exports of batik began.

The increasing volume of batik exports in subsequent years marked the beginning of what is now known as batik going international.

"The state needs foreign exchange receipts in the greatest amounts possible. In both export and domestic markets, the demand for printed batik is soaring," said Tuti Soeryanto, former head of the Yogyakarta Batik Development Center.

In addition, many foreign tourists visiting Yogyakarta and Bali return home with printed batik.

Tuti said there were two things about Indonesian batik that interested fashion designers abroad. These are the use of natural dyes and traditional motifs, particularly in the form of the broken machete and the garuda, the mythical bird mounted by the Hindu god Vishnu.

Batik painter Amri Yahya said the predominance of printed batik abroad had undermined its value as artwork.

"Batiks are seen only as textile elements," he said.

He added that this allowed foreigners to easily adopt traditional batik motifs from Indonesia and then claim them as their own creations.

The issue becomes more complicated because creators of traditional batik designs are usually unknown. Traditional batik motifs are considered part of collective rather than private property. This gives rise to questions whether traditional designs can be patented.

Tuti Soeryanto believes traditional batik designs cannot be patented because they are state property, constituting the characteristic of a nation. The consequence, she says, is that foreigners can always develop traditional batik designs, but may not use exact copies for mass production.

It is not so clear-cut.

Morrow said the International Intellectual Property Regime -- the international law regulating copyrights and patents -- only regulated private rights to ownership.

"The international law does not protect traditional designs. This means that a traditional design is part of a form of ownership open for use by anybody."

The Indonesian government can insist that traditional batik designs are the property of the Indonesian state. However, as the international law does not recognize a collective patent, use of the motif of, for instance, the broken machete would still be legal abroad.

Worse still, Indonesian batik cannot be marketed in a country where designs resembling traditional ones from Indonesia have been patented.

Kusnadi Hardjasumantri, a legal expert involved in the drawing up of the conference declaration, said the most the Indonesian government could do was hold negotiations with holders of traditional batik patents abroad to discuss benefit sharing.

"A batik design developed from a traditional batik design from Pekalongan can always be patented, but Pekalongan people must share the profit from commercial use of their design," said Hardjasumantri, a professor at Gadjah Mada University.

Not an easy solution, and perhaps an impossible quandary to solve. Who would feel obligated to share profits when the issue is stuck in legal limbo?