Muddle persists over batik copyright issue

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?