Decoding Traditional Cultural Expressions: A Comprehensive Overview

India is home to thousands of living cultural traditions – Warli paintings, Baul music, Chhau dance, Dhokra craft, and countless oral epics passed down over centuries. These are not just artistic curiosities; they are the living memory of entire communities. Yet, when a global fashion brand lifts a tribal motif or a streaming platform commercially packages a folk performance without credit or compensation, the creators get nothing. At the heart of this problem lies a deceptively simple question: what exactly are Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs), and why does defining them matter so much in law?

What do we mean by ‘TCEs’? 🔗

According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Traditional Cultural Expressions – also called “expressions of folklore” – may include music, dance, art, designs, names, signs and symbols, performances, ceremonies, architectural forms, handicrafts, and narratives, among many other artistic or cultural forms. In essence, TCEs are any forms in which the culture, knowledge, and creativity of a traditional community are expressed or communicated – whether tangible or intangible, fixed or oral, ancient or still evolving.

The two terms, “TCEs” and “expressions of folklore,” are used interchangeably in most international discussions. As WIPO’s own publications note, while “expressions of folklore” has historically been the more common phrase and still appears in many national laws, the shift towards using “TCEs” reflects a more modern and community-sensitive approach to describing these creative outputs. There is, however, no substantive legal difference between the two.

The four broad categories of TCEs 🔗

TCEs span an enormous range of human expression. For practical clarity, WIPO and international legal discourse generally organise them into four overlapping categories.

Verbal expressions 🔗

This includes folk tales, folk poetry, riddles, folk narratives, myths, epics, legends, and oral histories. In India, examples would include the oral renditions of the Ramayana by tribal communities in northeastern states, or the storytelling traditions of the Pardhan Gond community in Madhya Pradesh. These are transmitted through speech, memory, and communal recitation – not through any written text.

Musical and movement-based expressions 🔗

Folk songs, traditional melodies, instrumental music, folk dances, and ritual performances all fall here. Baul music of Bengal, Lavani of Maharashtra, Bihu dance of Assam, or the Theyyam ritual performances of Kerala are classic Indian examples. WIPO notes that such expressions can be protected to some extent under existing treaties like the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (1996) and the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (2012), though this protection is limited and applies mainly to performers, not to the community-held tradition itself.

Tangible expressions 🔗

These are physical, material creations – handicrafts, textiles, carvings, sculptures, pottery, jewellery, and architectural forms derived from traditional practice. Madhubani paintings from Bihar, Pattachitra scrolls from Odisha, Bandhani tie-dye fabric from Gujarat – all of these are TCEs in tangible form. Some of these have received Geographical Indication (GI) tags under India’s Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which provides at least partial protection by linking the product to its geographic and cultural origin. The Jamnagari Bandhani fabric, for instance, has received a GI tag as recognition of its community-created heritage.

Tangible and intangible combined 🔗

Many TCEs cannot be neatly separated into either tangible or intangible. A Mardi Gras parade costume, for instance, is inseparable from the song and dance that accompanies it. Similarly, the Theyyam performance in Kerala involves the costume, the ritual chant, the dance movement, and the sacred space – all simultaneously. WIPO’s Draft Provisions for the Protection of TCEs explicitly recognise that TCEs may comprise “verbal forms, musical forms, expressions by movement, tangible or intangible forms of expression, or combinations thereof.”

TCEs vs. Traditional Knowledge: an important distinction 🔗

Students often confuse TCEs with Traditional Knowledge (TK), and understandably so – both belong to the broader family of indigenous knowledge. However, WIPO distinguishes the two for practical purposes: TK refers more specifically to technical or scientific knowledge – medicinal plant uses, agricultural practices, ecological understanding – while TCEs are concerned with cultural and artistic expression. So the knowledge of how to prepare a herbal remedy using neem is TK; the folk song sung during its preparation is a TCE.

That said, in practice, TK and TCEs frequently overlap and are deeply intertwined. For many indigenous communities, their cultural expressions, knowledge systems, and even the genetic resources of their land form a single, integrated heritage – not separate legal categories.

Key characteristics that define a TCE 🔗

Not every folk art form or community practice automatically qualifies as a TCE under legal discourse. International frameworks point to a set of defining characteristics that set TCEs apart from ordinary creative works.

First, TCEs are collectively held – they belong to a community, not to any single identifiable author. This is fundamentally different from conventional IP, which centres on an individual creator. Second, they are intergenerational – passed down over generations through oral transmission, apprenticeship, or lived practice, rather than through formal education or publication. Third, they are dynamic – TCEs are not frozen in time. They evolve as communities themselves evolve, absorbing new influences while retaining a cultural core. Fourth, as noted in legal commentary on Indian TCEs, they are often created not for commercial purposes, but as vehicles for religious, social, or cultural expression – for births, deaths, harvests, and festivals.

Why the definition matters – legally and practically 🔗

Defining TCEs is not a purely academic exercise. The definition determines the scope of protection – who is entitled to benefit, what uses require permission, and what remedies are available when misappropriation occurs. Without a clear definition, communities remain vulnerable.

Consider what has happened in the Indian context. Bhil wall art, tribal drumming, and oral renditions of epics have been commercially exploited by fashion designers, content platforms, and global brands without any credit or compensation to their source communities. A saree pattern worn by Zara or a folk motif embroidered onto a luxury brand’s product earns the brand millions – but the community that created and sustained that tradition sees nothing. Indian law currently lacks any dedicated legislation for TCE protection; the Copyright Act, 1957 does not define or specifically protect TCEs, and misappropriation of folklore in India remains technically legal under existing statutes.

The international framework: where does the law stand? 🔗

At the international level, the situation is only marginally better. There is no binding international mandate for TCE protection, and national laws vary enormously – some countries explicitly protect TCEs or folklore, others do not, and some remain ambiguous.

The primary international forum driving this issue is WIPO’s Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC), established in 2000. Since 2010, the IGC has been engaged in text-based negotiations aimed at finalising an international legal instrument specifically for TCE protection. These negotiations are still ongoing, with member states and representatives of indigenous communities participating actively – but consensus has been elusive. The IGC’s draft provisions propose a tiered rights system that would offer stronger protection to sacred or secret TCEs, and lesser – but still meaningful – protection to TCEs that are more widely known and shared.

Historically, the issue was first raised at the 1967 Stockholm revision of the Berne Convention, leading to the insertion of Article 15(4) to protect unpublished works of unknown authorship – an inadequate patch at best. The UNESCO-WIPO Model Provisions of 1982 offered a more substantive framework, but remained non-binding. Since then, the discourse has matured, and the push for a dedicated international instrument continues.

Meanwhile, existing IP tools provide partial coverage: copyright protects contemporary adaptations of TCEs; trademarks can authenticate indigenous arts; geographical indications protect products tied to specific communities and regions; and the Beijing Treaty protects live performances of traditional works. But none of these mechanisms addresses the root challenge – protecting the tradition itself, communally held and perpetually evolving, from unauthorised exploitation.

TCEs and India’s cultural wealth 🔗

India’s relationship with TCEs is both its greatest strength and its greatest vulnerability in this conversation. With hundreds of living folk traditions, tribal art forms, oral epics, classical dance lineages, and craft communities, India possesses one of the world’s richest TCE landscapes. These TCEs are simultaneously cultural assets and economic livelihoods for millions of artisans and practitioners.

Yet India has no sui generis TCE law. The Copyright Act’s definitions of “artistic work,” “literary work,” and “performance” offer some incidental coverage, and GI tags protect certain craft products, but the gap is significant. India has participated actively in WIPO’s IGC deliberations and has advocated for stronger international protection – but domestic legislation has not kept pace. This mismatch between India’s cultural richness and its legal lacunae makes the definitional debate around TCEs not just an academic concern, but a pressing policy priority.

Why ‘traditional’ does not mean ‘frozen in time’ 🔗

One common misconception is that TCEs must be ancient and unchanging to qualify for protection. This is not accurate. WIPO’s draft provisions explicitly state that TCEs “may be dynamic and evolving.” A Baul singer who incorporates a synthesiser into a traditional Baul composition is still performing a TCE. A Warli artist who adapts the traditional motifs onto a digital canvas is still creating within a TCE tradition. The “traditional” in TCEs refers to the cultural rootedness and intergenerational transmission of the expression – not to its freezing at a particular historical moment. This recognition is critical to ensuring that TCE protection encourages living, breathing cultural practice, rather than treating it as museum artefact.

What do you think? Given that India’s Copyright Act, 1957 does not directly protect traditional cultural expressions, should India enact a dedicated sui generis TCE law – and if so, who should hold those rights: the community, the state, or a designated cultural authority? And in a country as diverse as India, where thousands of communities have overlapping and sometimes contested cultural traditions, how do we decide which expressions deserve formal legal recognition as TCEs?

References

1. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/traditional-knowledge/traditional-cultural-expressions/index
2. https://kautilyasocrmlnlu.com/2022/12/10/safeguarding-indias-traditional-cultural-expressions-from-misappropriation-through-intellectual-property-rights/
3. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_transition_9.pdf
4. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a806fd78-711e-4811-a881-ed269533b635
5. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b706ddc2-cce5-4c0a-a1a8-ddb62c9f70c0
6. https://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/issuebrieftce.pdf
7. https://blogs.loc.gov/folklife/2017/07/folklife-at-the-international-level-traditional-cultural-expressions-as-intellectual-property/
8. https://www.nyayashastra.in/post/globalized-folklore-legal-means-to-protect-traditional-cultural-expressions