 Okay, good evening to all the attendees and those joining us by live stream. My name is Jeff Krasowski and I am a 1L and president of the Intellectual Property Law Association at RW Law. I'd like to welcome you to cultural misappropriation. Before we begin, I'd like everyone to know that this panel will be recorded. Please write to me at ipla at g.rwu.edu if you would like to be sent the link for the recording. I'd first like to thank our sponsors, the Copyright Society, Kate, Bometi, and Naomi, the Tamakwag Museum, Lauren, the American Indian Law Student Association at RW Law, Tahino, the Feinstein Center for Pro Bono and Experiential Education, Lori, Eliza, and Susie, and the Office of Diversity and Outreach, Ralph. I'd also like to thank our poster artist, Polina Vovolovic, as well as the RW Law Library for creating the resource guide in helping set up the webinar. That's Nicole, Mike, Jessica, and Raquel. It's my friend Tara Emsley for helping spread the word to RISD, to Professor Kristalia Garcia for her advice and guidance, and my fellow members of IPLA, the Intellectual Property Law Association, the board Irving, Gabrielle, Mertha, Tatiana, Aurora, and Christopher, and our faculty advisor, Professor Nicky Cougars. I'm pleased to announce that the panel tonight is sold out. There are over 500 attendees from all over the globe, including notable professors, Professor Ava Sabotnick and her entire IP class, Professor Angela Riley, Professor Sonia Ketyal, distinguished panelists, museum staff, IP practitioners, law students, as well as no mascot activists in Alaska, Michigan, Canada, LA, Arizona, DC, New York, India, Australia, New Zealand, and right here in Providence, Rhode Island, where I am today. Thank you all for attending. I'm so glad you're all here. Let us begin. Tonight's panel continues the general theme of who benefits and who is left out of the current IP regime. Last fall, we held a panel on copyright and racial justice. And tonight, what I'd like to understand is what the law can and can't do with regard to cultural misappropriation. Is the standard that it's just not right or is it illegal? Is there or should there be a legal cause of action under IP to protect the misappropriation of names, fashion, sacred objects, music, photography, stories, characters, legends, and museum artifacts? Feel free attendees to put all questions in the Q&A. And if we don't get to it during the discussions, we will get to them at the end. So I'm honored to introduce our first panelist, the Dean of Roger Williams University School of Law, Greg Bowman. Good evening, everyone, and welcome. This is a really fantastic event. I want to express my admiration and gratitude to Jeff for being a real leader in putting all of this together. This is a perfect example of the difference that legal education can make at schools across the US to have lawyers, future lawyers and leaders engaging in this sort of programming and outreach is just really wonderful. So I'm really, really very much excited to participate tonight and to learn, to listen and to learn. I'd like to start us off with a land acknowledgement statement from Roger Williams University. So I want to take a moment here as we start out to reflect on the lands on which Roger Williams University sits. We are coming from many places physically and remotely and we at the university want to acknowledge the ancestral homeland and traditional territories and indigenous and Native peoples who have been here since time immemorial and to recognize that we must continue to build our solidarity and kinship with Native peoples across the Americas and across the globe. Roger Williams University School of Law is located in Bristol, Rhode Island. And so we acknowledge and we honor the Narragansett of Okanoka people in Soham's original name of the land our campus resides on. We also acknowledge that this country would not exist if it wasn't for the free enslaved labor of black people. And we recognize that the town of Bristol and the very land that our campus resides on has benefited significantly from the trade of enslaved people from Africa. The economy of New England, Rhode Island and more specifically Bristol was built from wealth generated to the triangle trade of human lives. During this time of national reckoning with our history of slavery and the disparate treatment of black people. We honor the legacy of the African diaspora and black life, knowledge and skills stolen due to violence and white supremacy. While the movement for justice and liberation is building and we are witnessing the power of the people. Many are still being met with violence and even being killed. And as upholders of justice, it is our hope to become agents of change for members of our society who have been met with violence, physical, mental, emotional, through our privilege. For students and soon practitioners of law. And for those on attending this evening who are not familiar with the land acknowledgement practice. Why do we do land acknowledgments? I want to share with you a statement from Northwestern universities made of American indigenous missions which explains it much better than I think I could. It is important to understand the longstanding history that has brought you to reside on the land and to seek to understand your place within that history. Land acknowledgments do not exist in the past tense for a historical context. Colonialism is an ongoing process and we need to build our mindfulness of our present participation. So this event on cultural misappropriation is an incredibly important topic and it goes to what is ours and what we own and what we should and should have a right to. The law is supposed to be about justice but it is not always about justice. The law is supposed to be something that helps advance justice and allow us to live the lives that we have the right to live as individuals within a society that is free. So this event tonight is really interesting, really important and I'll go back to where I started by thanking Jeff and his fellow students and our sponsors for making this event possible. I thank the attendees and I thank the panelists for being here this evening. I'm really, really, really looking forward to this. Jeff, back to you, thank you. Thank you so much, Dean Bowman. Those wonderful words. The Declaration of Independence beginning with all men are created equal reads in its 27th grievance against King George III. I quote, he has excited domestic insurrections among us and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. These are the words in our Declaration of Independence. Let's fast forward 223 years. On April 2nd, 1999, the trademark trial and appeal board issued a landmark decision to cancel six existing trademark registrations of the Washington NFL team, the R words on the grounds that they were disparaging to American Indians and brought American Indians into contempt or dispute. No one had ever canceled an existing trademark registration. Their name referred to the horrific practice of bounty hunters, skinning native people to show proof of the kill and was associated with savagery, racial inferiority and being backwards and uncivilized. The original fight songs for the Washington and the fight song lyrics were, hail to the R words, hail victory, graves on the warpath, fight for old DC, run or pass and score, we want a lot more, scalp them, swamp them, touchdown. Newspaper articles commonly read, the skin scalp the giants 23 to seven. Headlines referred to the team players or managers seeking revenge on the warpath, holding powwows or using Pigeon English. Another NFL team, the Kansas City Chiefs called their end zone sacred grounds. One Utah school called the opposing players entrance to the field, their trail of tears. What can the law do about this? Our first panel tonight is Suzanne Shown Harjo. Miss Harjo was the 2014 recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, United States highest civilian honor. She's a founder of the National Museum of the American Indian, a former executive director of the National Congress of American Indians and is currently the president and executive director of the Morningstar Institute. She's been active in the no mascots movement and in the retirement of over 2000 Indian names, symbols, images, mascots and behaviors since 1962, including ones at Stanford, Dartmouth, Utah, Syracuse, St. John, St. Bonaventure and University of Oklahoma. She was lead plaintiff in Harjo v. Pro Football Inc. and won that unanimous landmark decision at the trademark trial and appeal board almost 22 years ago today. After 25 years of litigation, first derailed by latches, then by the First Amendment, Miss Harjo was at the center of this movement and since 1962, she has seen it all. Since 1992, when she first filed her case, the Washington NFL team has not been to the Super Bowl. Miss Harjo, if you would please step up. Let's get to the root if we can. Could you please ground us in the context of this no mascot issue? Where do Indian cultural rights come from? What is the history that undergirds this mascotry? Where Indian rights come from is inside, inside each of us and inside our nations. Native peoples are inherent sovereigns. That's an inside-outside thing. It means that no one came along and gave us sovereignty, gave us nationhood, gave us any rights at all, that we own those rights. We are obliged to carry out those rights. Those are ours from the get-go. That's where they come from. And for many of us, when we see wrongs being committed, we use whatever rights we have, even if those rights only involve our voices and even if there is no real law that will help us, we have to try to invent one or we have to try to use the ones that exist and kind of cobble them together to create something that even though it may creak and move slowly, it still represents some kind of relief for the pain that we're feeling. So when I was in high school, in my senior year in Oklahoma City in 1962, we were visited by a very important Ponca native man. And he was important because he was a fancy dancer and he was well known on the Palo Alto circuit. And for anyone who's ever been in Oklahoma during Palo Alto season, you know that that's a really big deal and you have to be very good to excel and be a champion with that kind of competition. So he was organizing, he was already the head of Oklahoma Indian Youth Council and he was organizing with others across the country, the National Indian Youth Council. And so he talked with us about voting rights, about student rights and he talked to us about his favorite campaign, which was to get rid of Little Red, the mascot of Oklahoma. Now it used to be that all schools, no schools had mascots, they all had colors. And so Oklahoma was big red. So of course they had to have a Little Red because it has to be a diminutive, belittling kind of thing if it's a native person. So it'd be a white guy student who would be portraying this dancing idiot was what the native people called him. And he would be in an outfit that no one understood and no one respected that had nothing to do with native peoples and doing gyrations that purported to be a dance, but weren't. So Clyde wanted an end to that. And he would say too, the worst one of all is right there in Washington, DC in the heart of the nation's capital. And the way he talked about it, it was right under the capital dome, was how I envisioned it, that there would be this horror of the name of the Washington football team. Now another thing about Oklahoma is everyone is a football fan. You can't grow up in Oklahoma without having something to do with football. Either you play or your friends play or your relatives play or you watch, but everyone is engaged. Now that's before the helmets and concussions and all of the dastardly things that we know about have been shown. And it was in the old days when most people thought it was just fine to call us something that harkened back to the days of bounty hunting when we were in fact skinned or as most states and companies and colonies called it scalped. That is the skin of either the head or the genitalia was removed from the bodies of native people and presented as proof of Indian kill. The genitalia would have to be removed if the bounty proclamation was specific and presented on a sliding scale, 40 cents for a woman, 60 cents for a man, 20 cents for a child. If they had anything to do with man, woman, boy, girl or if it had to do with any distinguishing gender or age characteristics, then you had to produce the whole body or the genitalia. Other than that, you could produce maybe an ear if it was a particular earring style. The Penobscotts was singled out just bring us the proof of Indian kill and every Penobscot you'd get paid X number of dollars for and that was Massachusetts doing that. California of course had bountied proclamations around the mining. This is the sarriest history of the United States on top of land stealing, on top of grave robbing, on top of torture of our people, enslavement of native peoples, on top of everything confining us to reservations, criminalizing everything that made us native for over one half a century under the civilization regulations, taking our children away from parents and away from land and away from cultures in order to civilize them, all of these genocidal activities. And here we have people using us and that history for sport. It's a history we don't want to return to and we would think that no one else would want to return to. So we don't want to be reminded of it. And it is heinous enough that we do think of this as the R word, not as a word for polite society and have been referring to it as the R word since the 60s and we formed an alliance with Chicano people, with African-American people, with Asian-American people, with women on campuses across the country in the 60s and said, what's your priority right now? Let's try to get rid of that. So you had these coalitions, mighty coalitions that were moving as one and we did get rid of Sambo restaurants. We did get rid of Frito Bandito. We did curb some of the name calling against Asians that represented the worst that was brought out in the haters by the Vietnam War. And this was part of our reckoning, if you will, the mascots and I'm happy to say that the very first one to fall was Little Red, 1970 on the campus of the University of Oklahoma after a sit-in, another relic of the past by the National Indian Youth Council a couple of years after my friend Clyde Warrior had already passed on and so he didn't get to see that but he saw that great movement, the no mascot movement spread throughout the country and be spurred on by the demise, the retirement of Little Red and good. So that's sort of what's behind a lot of it. It basically, it makes our kids feel bad. It made me feel bad when I was a kid. It makes our kids feel bad. It now makes my grandchildren feel bad. It's not a good thing when we're stereotyped. A lot of, I wish I had worn my t-shirt saying the merciless Indian savage. Sometimes it's a badge of honor that you wear I always thought that when my relatives were arrested or those relatives of mine who were arrested in the Red River War, for example, and whose charges were troublemaker and ringleader, fomenters of dissent. I want those on resumes. Those are great, those are badges of honor and what you mentioned, the First Amendment, we actually didn't run afoul of the First Amendment. I think some of the smartest people in the country misunderstand the First Amendment. Our position was we don't mind if people want to take these terms and recontextualize them. We don't mind that. We said this at our opening press conference which was highly televised and written about on September 10th, 1992. And the example we used was NWA. That's the kind of self-expression, free expression that should exist. And that's perfectly acceptable and understandable. We're opposed to something different and that's the attack from the outside, the name calling from the outside, the hateful speech from the outside. That's what we were objecting to. And we knew that it wasn't enough to try to stop the racist from doing their racist thing. What we were trying to do was say to the federal government, the Washington football team can call itself any old racist thing it wants to. And it does and it has, but the federal government should not give its sanction for that racism. And that's what it's doing when it issues a license. So that's what we thought we were doing and that's what we said we were doing and that is in effect what we did. Ms. Harjo, can you elaborate more on the effects of such mask entry? What story, what narrative does it tell about Native peoples? Well, it tells something other than we want to present because we're not so fixated on ourselves as victims and people always want a victim statement so a victim impact statement about what harm has been done. Well, that's been adequately studied by Dr. Stephanie Freiberg, for example, wonderful Tulalip psychologist who has done the groundbreaking work looking at our Native youth and showing them stereotypical images and words and watching there and recording there and noting their self-esteem lower. So showing those same things to a comparable group of non-Native youth and watching their self-esteem rise. So the things that hurt my grandchildren are making non-Native peoples grandchildren feel great. Now that's going on in society about a lot of things. Land-back is, I'm so happy that the land back, the land acknowledgement was done at the beginning of this program and I thank the school for making this possible and Jeff for your moxie and gumption for setting a high bar for all L1s in doing this program. And it's a good thing to acknowledge the land and I say to all of my friends at Narragansett, now let's get ready to receive some land back because anyone hearing that land acknowledgement needs to then say, and now if you have an extra acre if you have an extra 1,000 acres, look around, land back. That's a good theme for us. We want, and this is a part of all of the bundle of rights that we want to assert and that we want to claim. We don't want our kids with low self-esteem. We don't want our kids raised in the way that bullies and white supremacists are raised who suffer from high self-esteem. We just want our kids to be able to be our kids without being hurt, without being injured and worse. There is no separation between the attitude and the action. So the name, the name-calling, the tomahawk chop, the suggestion of savagery, all of the things that either make us out to be savages or make out the non-natives to be savages doing barbarous things to us or that suggests that we don't even exist, that the reason you can do this to us is that we're like the Vikings, a bygone era. Well, we're not a bygone era. We are here. We still speak the same languages. We still dance the same dances. We are who we are. We're the modern evidence of our ancient cultural continuance. That's who we are. And this mascotting of our people's cartooning of us, lampooning, demeaning, savagizing, hyper-sexualizing, all of these things make us out to be something that we are not and we're tired of people ruining our good names. So stop using them. We want names back. We want our sacred places names back. Our real names, we want, we want, we want. And happily, we're moving in a direction where we're getting those things. We've been calling the Washington football team the Washington football team since we sued them. And you're right. They haven't returned to Super Bowl since. And that's an amazing thing. Now, if they can just get over this hump and keep the name Washington football team and not slide back into some backdoor way of getting feathers back and getting beads back, then fine, as long as they stop ragging on us and don't rag on any other peoples, as long as they keep the human beings out of the equation, great, that is great. Because there is no dignity. There's no honor. There is no adulthood in us being used for their recreation and entertainment. We're just, we just don't dance for the white man. Thank you so much, Ms. Arjun. We'll come back to you at the end as well. Next up, we have Professor Margaret Chan from the University of Seattle School of Law. Her forthcoming publication is in the IP and social justice book is entitled The Indians Who Were Not Heard and The Band That Must Not Be Named. Racial Formation and Social Justice in Intellectual Property Law. Professor Chan, I'd love to dive deeper into why the law denied Ms. Arjun's claim. Simultaneous to Ms. Arjun's case, the young Asian American musician Simon Tam wanted to call his band, The Slants. His trademark was denied by the PTO on the grounds of disparagement and he appealed his denial all the way to the Supreme Court, which found the Lanham Act Section 2A unconstitutional in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment on the grounds of viewpoint discrimination, thereby invalidating Ms. Arjun's and subsequently Ms. Blackhorse's claim. My first question to you is, was Simon Tam's right to free speech, his right to call his band, The Slants, to reclaim that derogatory name for Asian Americans more important than the Indian American right to privacy and not to see the Washington football team in our nation's capital? Thank you, Jeff, for that very provocative question, very hard to answer, but before I begin, I just wanted to add my kudos to you for organizing this and to say that I feel very honored to be following in the footsteps of Suzanne today, Ms. Harjo, as well as to be part of this incredible panel of very thoughtful advocates and activists and lawyers. So I think that in the right context, the reappropriation of racially derogatory terms is something that can be a really powerful and effective tool, especially if it's done by the effective group, but divorced from the realities of communities on the ground, reappropriation becomes a thornier discussion. And that's especially when it's framed as the legal system did in this case in terms of individual rights, as opposed to being framed within the context of historical injustice. So there are conversations around the use of the N word, for example, by non-black singers or just people and how that's very inappropriate, right? But the same word, NWA, for example, could be used in a very appropriate context by members of that group, of that effective group, right? And that's a form of empowerment. But if you contextualize these two cases, the Harjo Black Horse litigation and the TAM litigation within an historical framework, then there's no real debate in my mind about the relative harms inflicted upon a group that might not be able to register a self-derogatory trademark on the federal register versus harms that Ms. Harjo pointed out that have been inflicted upon groups that have suffered centuries of genocide, not to mention the national circulation of these kinds of racist, stereotyped and characterized images, in this case by regressive trademark owners circulating in national markets. But I do wanna go beyond sort of the hierarchy of oppressions or comparing oppressions because I think that in a healthy sense, no group wants to be seen as purely or even primarily as a victim group and comparing a ranking hierarchies of oppression is never a useful exercise. And I wanna talk instead for a bit about my disappointment in the Supreme Court's opinions in TAM. The court yet again engaged in two categorical errors, logical errors with regard to thinking about race-based harm. And the first is to emphasize, the first mistake was to emphasize the individual right to free expression without weighing the costs of that freedom, even though there was a massive amount of record evidence of harm to indigenous communities that was amassed in the Black Horse case, which drew also upon the evidence in the Harjo litigation before that. And that might be considered to be part and parcel of the moment that we're in with regard to the First Amendment where the court is being incredibly activist with regard to free expression and free exercise provisions in the First Amendment. It's interesting to think that the Lanham Act existed for over 60 years before courts began to question whether Section 2A violated the First Amendment of the Constitution. So the question is why here? And another question is why now? And I'm not a First Amendment scholar that as I presented this draft work to various First Amendment scholars, I've learned that some of them have coined a term for the error that we're in. Some of them call this the deregulatory First Amendment or free exercise Lochnerism. And you can see this trend in many areas of the law, not just trademark law. So what this means is that the current majority leans heavily towards laissez-faire markets, not a surprise, and towards enhancing the religious freedoms of certain groups over the freedoms of other groups. That is a freedom to be free from harm, right? Freedom from harm. And that's important for IP because IP is a form of regulation, albeit cast in the language of rights. I think related to that first mistake that the court made, which is the undue emphasize on the First Amendment freedoms, not considering the freedom from harm on the other side of the equation. And also not surprising, but still disappointing is the continuing failure of the court to consider historical context. This is part and parcel of their ongoing colorblind approach to our shared racial history in which the court acts as if we were all born yesterday so that it can consider us to be formally equal as opposed to taking into account the overwhelming historical as opposed to legal evidence to the contrary. So, at the end, what really stood out to me about the TAM plurality opinions is that neither the conservative justices nor the liberal justices bothered to mention potential harms inflicted on those who have to deal with racially derogatory speech, not in terms of reappropriation, which is what TAM was doing. So it was an ideal plaintiff for their project, right? But why is Justice Alito allowed to get away with characterizing this provision of Section 2A as happy talk? This is, you know, this snarky, perhaps, you know, somewhat cool judicial language minimizes and even distorts the kinds of harms that all people of color experience when they have to endure racial slurs. You know, I'm left with a strong impression that the court wanted to sidestep the evidence in the Black Horse litigation and focus on a much easier case factually so that it would not have to deal with the consequences of ruling the way it did. And their opinions even sided to pro football's amicus brief. So it's not that the justices were simply unaware of the other litigation. And certainly no one in the DC area could have been unaware of this dispute given Ms. Harjo's and others' activism. And thank you, Professor Chan. My second question is, in light of mentality TAM and its effect on the Black Horse case and the current despicable acts towards Asian Americans, how can we form interracial alliances for social justice? You're giving me a real softball question there, Jeff. So part of the answer I think is probably understanding each other's histories more, which of course takes a lot of time and effort because both tribal communities and Asian American communities are very small in terms of numbers and percentage of the overall population. It's very easy for these groups' histories and interests to be overlooked, to be misunderstood, to be dominated by stereotypes in the absence of real information or experiences. And the confusion around whether the shootings in Atlanta, the recent shootings were race-based or not, is a good example of how this plays out in popular thinking and in the media. Professor Rebecca Soci, who's a member of the Aki tribe and a faculty member at the University of Arizona College of Law, wrote something about reparations, racial reparations a long time ago, which still sticks with me now. And that is that the first step in reparations is to acknowledge that there's harm. And so this land acknowledgement is that first step, right? But since Black Lives Matter has caused us to reexamine our commitments to racial justice more deeply, I think all of us, I've become a proponent of two actions that people can take. One is to be curious about and make a commitment to listen to and learn from other people's racial experiences. There's no excuse not to do this now when we're surrounded by podcasts, useful blogs, conferences like this, and even the good old fashioned book, right? These are designed to educate and inform us about experiences of people who are unlike ourselves, but who live in the same country that we do. And the corollary, I think, is to acknowledge the racial experiences of others, even if they seem foreign and inexplicable to you and even if they were not what you were taught when you were growing up. You know, the not talking about it approach really reinforces the silence in which certain kinds of harms take place. And I think it has an impact disparately on Asian-American communities because a lot of people don't think that we experience discrimination and rather that we're sort of the so-called model minority. So I welcome efforts in law schools across the country to address racial issues more directly. And I'll end with saying, you know, this is especially important if you're white and you need to learn more because you don't have the lived experiences that people of color do. And it's up to white folks to break the silence with their white families and their white friends so that all of us can start to normalize these kinds of discussions. And rather than sort of having them be compartmentalized in no different spaces. Thank you so much, Professor Chan. I'd love to turn now from trademark law to copyright law and welcome Professor Trevor Reed, ethnomusicologist and law professor at the Arizona State University School of Law. His forthcoming article in the Copyright Society's Journal is entitled Creative Sovereignty Should Copyright Apply on Tribal Lands. So, Professor Reed, my first question for you is regarding misappropriation of music, what do you see as the problem with what the law can and cannot protect in regards to indigenous cultural creativity? When say a Hopi person writes a new song on tribal lands, is it protected by the Copyright Act, tribal law and custom or both? Thank you very much for the question. Of course, I want to echo also the praise of others on the panel. Jeff, this is a fantastic organizing job that you've done, incredible research. And of course, the way that you've interacted with us has been so personal and so helpful. So thank you. I also thank Professor Chan and also Suzanne Harjo for the incredible work they've done. They're of course both examples to me as an emerging scholar. So let me just go ahead and dive into this question. So as we know, federal copyright law grants authors, regardless of where they live in the United States, their race, their national origin, this temporary right to prevent others from using their original written works in certain ways. So a copyright on a song might allow you to prevent someone else from copying it, from performing it or distributing it without your permission, for example. So it could be a really powerful tool for indigenous peoples in the fight to prevent misappropriation of culture. Of course, copyright has a lot of limitations too. It applies only to works fixed in a tangible medium of expression, right? Which effectively excludes a lot of oral tradition type of works. Copyright also doesn't protect knowledge or histories. It only protects expression of those histories or knowledges. But even with those limitations, many tribal members still rely on copyright to protect their creativity. So over the last year, myself and a number of my research assistants here at ASU have been working on a project to interview tribal creators and entrepreneurs to try to find out what are their experiences, their lived experiences with copyright and other IP laws. Are they actually using copyright? How are they using it? What issues have they faced? This project is still ongoing. And if there are any indigenous artists or entrepreneurs who want to be a part of this project, I'd love to continue to interact with you if that's a possibility. But what we've seen on the ground so far is that many indigenous peoples residing on tribal lands are registering their copyrights through the federal system. They're granting those copyrights to record labels, to publishers. They're using their material on social media and they understand the rules that social media platforms apply and the types of licensing structures that they're dealing with. Fewer though, fewer indigenous artists are actually using copyright to combat misuses of their work. Several people we interviewed have explained that copyright fails to really protect the culture that they create in ways that resonates with either local laws or with local community norms or protocols. Now, we don't really talk much about this in IP circles, sadly, but most tribes have, often since before the arrival of European settlers, maintained their own protections for creativity. They have their own IP laws and they've used those since time immemorial often. The problem is that these tribal laws often conflict with copyright. Take for instance, a ceremonial song that was produced some time far back in history. A tribe might wanna protect the right to perform or copy that song under its own laws, perhaps because the expression is culturally or socially or environmentally powerful and has to be handled with care. And as Suzanne said, we claim the right to protect our ancient cultural continuance, right? From unauthorized reproductions and other uses, but federal copyright may very well delegate that, may relegate that to the public domain where anyone can use it, where anyone can copy it, perform it, derive new works from it, take knowledge from it. But there's also something deeper here, right? Applying copyright on tribal lands without a tribe's consent also violates the tribe sovereignty as recognized by the 144 nations that support or assign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This includes the United States of course. So this debate over tribal sovereignty is really at the core of whether or not copyright should govern creativity on tribal lands to what extent it should. Certainly we see it in the courts, right? There's a current circuit split. The 10th Circuit, for example, suggests that federal copyright law doesn't apply on tribal lands. It grounds its assumption in respect for tribal sovereign governments and that federal laws shouldn't intrude into tribal sovereignty unless Congress has expressly said so. The 9th Circuit and the 2nd Circuit, of course, taken up this approach saying that, well, all general federal laws should apply on tribal lands and that includes perhaps copyright. So tribes and tribal members are kind of left hanging the balance, not knowing for certain if their works are protected by tribal law, copyright law, or something in between. And I think it's up to us as IP advocates, as tribal advocates, as those who are listening in to hopefully advance that conversation and help develop the law in that space. Thank you so much, Professor Reed. My second question is with regard to early ethnomusicologist Laura Bolton, why are her recordings of the Hopi problematic and misappropriative? Why can't the Hopi sewer? Well, this is a great question. And let me just give you a quick screenshot of Laura Bolton. So you have a familiarity with what she looked like, what she was doing. So Laura Bolton was an early collector of exotic music, primarily indigenous music. And she traveled around the globe from the 1920s to the 1960s, recording all kinds of material using some of the latest recording technologies of the day. In 1940, she actually traveled to my homeland, the Hopi Reservation, and collected something like 121 songs. She sold a number of these recordings commercially to RCA, Victor Records, and also ultimately to Smithsonian Folkways, who continues to produce them today. She sold many, many copies of these. The song she recorded at my homeland actually are restricted culturally and also legally, right? And the question that we have to deal with here is, what is the legal status of these materials? I'll say that, of course, they're restricted and I don't wanna disclose any more than that. But the poem is that Bolton just never decided to secure permission from the artist she worked with to reproduce, to distribute these materials. She of course made numerous recording contracts with record labels and dealt with copyright there. But she just presumed that all the material was there for the taking. Now, some might say, well, recordings of tribal songs maybe aren't copyrightable. And there's some truth to that. Federal copyright didn't protect sound recordings back in that time. But common law copyright, the common law right of first publication certainly did. And many of tribes, of course, have laws or customary law that protects sound recordings that contain cultural data. And many have adopted common law toward revenues, right? To prevent misappropriation or conversion. So interestingly, certainly the common law right to first publication, if it exists on tribal lands, would potentially be a feather in the cap of tribes trying to seek claims to get those recordings back, to be able to claim some sort of infringement or else seek an injunction against Smithsonian Folkways or other labels that are using these recordings without the consent of those original tribal performers. Assuming that there isn't some sort of bar on statute of limitations or latches. Again, this is an area where we're seeing important growth. Tribes are developing their own intellectual property codes. And I think it's a tremendous area where we need to be looking as well to see how we can assist tribes. Thanks, Professor Reed. And thirdly, with regard to sacred objects, could you help elucidate why Hopi masks were auctioned off by Sotheby's for tens of thousands of dollars and why couldn't the Hopi recover them? Could you perhaps discuss the significance of NAGPRA? Sure, I'll try to be brief because I didn't wanna take time away from other panelists. But certainly we've seen a growth in the trafficking of indigenous materials, artifacts and other things through Paris. Paris has emerged as this hub for indigenous cultural materials. The United States of course passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in 1990. I was spearheaded in large part by Ms. Harjo who's on this panel. And we owe her and all of her collaborators a tremendous thank you for that. Effectively, NAGPRA allows, well requires federally funded institutions and discoverers of ancestors and cultural materials found on federal lands to return those materials back to tribes when the cultural affiliation can be determined. And of course the fear of this law has in some ways moved the market for artifacts to other places outside of the United States. Why do people collect these materials? Why do people collect our kuwatsi, our sacred materials and sell them? I don't know. I wish I knew the answer to that. But what I do know is that NAGPRA has little effect outside of the United States. And so as people are trafficking in these materials NAGPRA has very little help for us. That said, Hopi, other Pueblos, Southwestern tribes and many tribes across the country are using diplomatic channels to be able to return these types of materials. We've seen private individuals, private collectors bringing these materials back to Hopi and other indigenous groups. We've seen the State Department assist in helping bring some of those materials back as well. So we've also seen the rise of legislation like the Stop Act, which is a potential way for the federal government to track exports of these types of things. And also provide penalties for those that do traffic in these materials. So I'm hopeful that we'll be able to get additional strength to NAGPRA and hopefully reach out beyond the US border to protect these materials. Thank you so much, Professor Reed. I'd like to keep it going and move on to now Professor John Turanian, law professor and practitioner at Southwestern University School of Law. His writing in misappropriation includes a book called Infringement Nation and a paper entitled Copyrights Male Gay's Authorship and Inequality in a Panoptic World. My first question to you, Professor Turanian, is what is the asymmetrical white male gaze that you discuss in your research? When you talk about control over black bodies, women's bodies, native bodies, what do you mean? And perhaps can you touch on the case of prints versus carry you as an example of this? Sorry, I was... Thank you, Jeff, so much for the invitation to be part of this very distinguished panel. And I just want to say kudos to you. I know I'm repeating what other panelists have said, but your tireless efforts really deserve a great deal of acknowledgement, putting together such a wonderful panel. And candidly, I won't embarrass them by name, but some of my favorite activists and scholars are on this panel as well. So it's a real joy to be able to participate in this forum, to talk about our ideas on this very, very important and timely topic. So yeah, I'm talking today about Copyrights White Male Gays. And basically, I think it might be helpful first before diving into your question. And I'll discuss prints be carry you in a little bit, but I think it might be helpful to kind of give an example of this that comes straight from the headlines. And that is, let me just share my screen here. Hopefully it is up. Oops, hang on, sorry, wrong screen. I need to make sure I get the... There we go, second estimate. Sorry, okay, are you able to see my PowerPoint slide? Yeah, okay. So, very recently, there was a lawsuit to linear v. Harvard. And what you see here is an image, an image of an individual named Paparenti who was an African-American who was held as a slave on a South Carolina plantation in the 1850s. And he and his daughter, Delia, unwittingly became a part of history when Louis Agassiz, who was a very famous anthropologist at Harvard University, and a notable white supremacist, commissioned a photograph, a photographer, to take some daguerreotypes of Papa and his daughter naked from multiple angles as a way of assisting with his attempts to prove his now long debunked racist theory of polygenism, which basically claimed that different races of humanity had different ancestors. These photos came into the possession of Harvard University. And for the last 150 years, Harvard piece of these representations of African-American bodies, bodies that were exploited, that were humiliated and forced into taking these photos. And not only that, but Harvard recently used the images on a cover of a book that it put out. One of the descendants of Paparenti and Delia, a woman named Tamara Lanier, not long ago sued Harvard. And the case went to a decision, one that just came out only a few days ago. And the causes of action related to kind of misappropriation of the right of publicity and conversion. And ultimately the court said there was no cause of action that Lanier could move forward with. And the court wrote fully acknowledging the continuing impact of slavery on the United States. The law as it currently stands, does not confer a property interest, the subject of a photograph, regardless of how objectionable the photograph's origins may be. And I think this raises an incredibly significant point. A lot of my scholarship has dealt with issues of social justice and our intellectual property regime and the way our seemingly neutral rules, like our rules for the best thing of authorship, which basically gives someone a copyright in a work, tend to lie on very traditional fault lines where of gender, of race, et cetera. And so applying the theory of the male gaze from Laura Mulvey, some of you may be familiar with it, in film studies theory in 1975, she basically talked about how the male gaze in film has replicated a masculine point of view, thereby perpetuating a patriarchal hierarchy of traditional society, normalizing a world of subordination where women are deprived of agency. And the same thing can be said of non-white people being deprived of agency. Their bodies subject to the control and the voyeuristic pleasure of others. And we get an instance of the male gaze, I argue, and the white male gaze, I argue, in the way that historically copyright has vested protection in authors and how courts have defined authorship, okay? And basically the argument here is that her concept allows, has deep resonance in copyright law because the authorship heuristics, which basically have held that it is the fixer, the person behind the camera, the individual behind the scenes who captures an image, who is deemed to be the mastermind of all creativity behind the image. And as a result is vested all rights in the copyright to an image. Well, this is deeply problematic because in my view it's basically propertized the white male gaze. It's imbued rights holders with the power to control representations of female and non-white bodies and to suppress narratives of resistance. And this has had adverse consequences on issues of human dignity, privacy rights, economic and social power and equality. And the process is keenly felt in the authorship rules that we see where the representation of native bodies of female bodies is entirely controlled often by white male copyright holders. And that's exactly the case with respect to the linear case where Paparenti and Delia as subjects, not people behind the camera, would have had no rights, no copyright interest. And this kind of fixation, this authorship as fixation heuristic has played out a lot recently. Increasingly we've seen some litigation on this issue in recent years. And so far the news is not good, at least for those who would advocate that those who are subjects of authored content should have some rights in the way that they are represented or portrayed. And a key example of that is the Cindy Lee Garcia case, Garcia v. Google a few years ago, where a woman named Cindy Lee Garcia portrayed at the bottom right there, basically was duped into starring in what she thought was an Arabian night style swashbuckling adventure. Only to find that her acting performance after she had been hired was overdubbed and the movie was released not as some kind of venture, but rather a screed against Islam called The Innocence of Muslims. That was placed on YouTube. And all of a sudden Ms. Garcia had her overdubbed language, casting epithets on the Prophet Muhammad and she was receiving death threats and had a Fahwa issued against her. She sued and claimed that as a participant in this movie in viewing it with creative and authorial choices by being on camera, she should have a copyright interest. And quite remarkably, the Ninth Circuit actually initially agreed with her. But the case ultimately ended up getting reversed in an embankment opinion where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that as a general matter, or as actually as a hard and fast rule, it is the fixer of a copyrighted work that owns all rights and title and interests in that copyrighted work. And those who are portrayed in it have no such interests and no such remedies. Even though this was a woman who was literally having her life destroyed by these actions, by the individuals, she was powerless to control the way her body was being represented, the way her words were being represented in this copyrighted work. We've had some similar other litigation. I won't get into it too much. Much of it involves sex tapes involving this exact issue. This is the Hulk Hogan sex tape case against Gawker, but perhaps more resonantly, the case involving Erin Andrews who's a famous sportscaster a few years ago who found herself basically spied upon in a hotel room at a Marriott. And the video by her peeping Tom was then leaked on the internet. And she was absolutely powerless to stop the spread of this video, which is still easily available online because she was not the author. She didn't fix the video. So this individual basically cut a people into her room and recorded her while she was naked and leaked the tape. And bizarrely, he owns the copyright as a matter of federal law, even though he did it in the course of creating, engaging in a federal crime. And all the while, her body was out there and the copyright as the authorship as fixation doctrine basically told her that this felon owned the work, not her. And she was powerless for two years until she actually managed to negotiate a settlement agreement to obtain the authorship to the rights to the work, to do anything about it. This problem replicates itself in revenge porn cases where 90% of victims are women and their bodies are out there being exploited because the recorder was a man oftentimes doing it without permission and they are without issue to be able to do this. So how do we get to the state of affairs? I know I'm short on time, but it all comes from kind of a misreading of an old case, the very first case in copyright law to declare that photographs were copyrightable, case involving Oscar Wilde, where the court basically found that photographs were copyrightable. The courts have sort of misread this case to also suggest that not only are photographs copyrightable, but that the author is in fact the photographer. But when one thinks about the creativity, when one thinks about the contributions made in copyrighted works such as photographs, there is indubitably a lot of creation coming from the subjects and coming from even people behind the scenes here and makeup artists, et cetera. And so we have that issue. Now, I've talked about how this impacts gender, but it also comes home to rules and issues with representation of native bodies, of non-white bodies, particularly when historically, the means of production of photography were in the hands of rich people who were predominantly white and male. And they went out and they found objects of interest, oftentimes non-whites, oftentimes women. There's this great stat about how 85% of the human nudes in the Met are female, but less than 5% of the modern artists exhibited at the museum are women. And just like the rules and copyright have long discriminated against African-Americans because of the way that they distinguish between the oral creation, the act of oral creation, which does not get protection, whereas written works do get protection. K.J. Green, for one, the influential scholar in this area has written about it. But we see basically short shrift given to the control of non-white bodies. And Prince V. Karyu is a fair use case that exemplifies this, because in that particular case, the court held that underlying photographs of Rastafarians were not particularly noteworthy, were not particularly worthy of terribly much protection. And so when a white male appropriation artist came around, took those photos, manipulated them, and then sold them in the Ghost Inn Gallery for millions of dollars, the court happily lauded that this was fair use in large part because the photos in part were not of great particular merit or artistry. So I think it's a classic example of the dynamics in terms of the authorship as fixation doctrine and the way it systematically has disadvantaged women and non-whites as exemplified in the linear case. Thank you so much, Professor Turanian, for that wonderful presentation. And now I'd like to move to Professor Madhavi Sundar, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for International and Graduate Programs at Georgetown Law. Her book is entitled From Goods to a Good Life, and one of her many papers on the topic is called Romance of the Public Domain. So Professor Sundar, first question is, let's just zoom out. You're the last legal academic speaking this evening. Could you please give us a kind of theoretical framing of what we've been discussing and kind of elaborate on some of this history of dispossession and expropriation of native lands, black bodies, racial capitalism, colonialism. Where are we on cultural misappropriation as it pertains to the law? All of that in five minutes, right, Jeff? Anyway, just first also let me also start by saying thank you to the force of nature, who is Jeff Krestowski. It has been so inspiring and energizing to meet you in other conversations nationally on Zoom on these topics. And then within a few months, the way you put together this incredible panel of all my favorite people who have been writing on these topics for a long time, for many years, and who I'm continually learning from, including in today's discussion. So thank you for that incredible effort and then inspiring hundreds of students around the country too to care about these issues and to be here with us today. So thank you. Okay, so I wanna talk about the framing because I like Professor Chan, Teranian, and Professor Anderson and many others here. Professor Reed, you're the newer person in the club here, that some of us have been writing about these issues for decades, right? But I think what I wanted to highlight first is this real important convergence at this moment with the work and the issues as we've been talking about them are converging, I think on about a few different important new ways of framing these issues. The first is just over the past few years, perhaps since Miley Cyrus regrettably twerked at the American Music Awards, cultural appropriation has become a household phrase. So some see claimants of cultural appropriation with internet hashtags like my culture is not your couture, hashtag reclaim the bindi, hashtag knock it off, hashtag give credit. Some folks see these as justice warriors 2.0, but others see them as bringing forth these excessive claims of cancel culture. And critics bemoan in particular that these self-proclaimed cultural guardians are posing a grave danger to innovation, self-expression and free speech, as we heard from Ms. Harjo. So for better or for worse though, cultural appropriation is on everyone's lips right now. The second convergence is in 2021 of course, in the midst of this trial of Derek Chauvin, we are in a desk flashpoint of heightened awareness of racial injustice since the murder of George Floyd last May. And notably the Black Lives Matter movement itself has actually coalesced around cultural appropriation as a place of potential remedies. So after decades of resistance to calls to change their name, the Washington national football team finally did so not because they were legally required to, because they had the full legal right after Matalvi Tam as Professor Chan described, but because of the public outcry after George Floyd. And so did other long standing brands from Aunt Jemima to Uncle Benz, as well as academic institution. So the former Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton, et cetera, et cetera. But this paradigm shift with the death of George Floyd, I think has highlighted how the culture industry's production and circulation of images of the world actually shape, perpetuate, and maintain racial hierarchy and white supremacy. So if you allow me to say, there is a connection between this, purportedly outrageous claim that intellectual property is related to the death of George Floyd. And so that coalescence around these issues since last summer, I think, sees those connections. Finally, I wanted to situate the conversations today about cultural misappropriation or cultural appropriation against yet another key moment. And that's something that we're seeing in our understandings of the law of property law, the law of real property or land. And increasingly we're seeing here an understanding of property as theft. So it's long been since the 19th century, the claim of anarchists that property law is a way of justifying structured theft. But now increasingly we're seeing property scholars talk about dispossession as being at the very heart of American property law as fundamental to the American property tradition. And of course we're talking, as your Dean opened us up with, we're talking about the dispossession of Native American lands, as well as the dispossession of the value of African-American physical and intellectual labor through the 250 year old institution of slavery. So American property law was born of these twin dispositions. And I think it's important to note that here, we're not just talking about exploitation, contractual exploitation of racial minorities, but in fact the full expropriation, that's the word you use, Jeff, and you asked me to talk about that expropriation of their valuable property from land to labor by fiat of law and power. At the time of the nation's founding, we know that property and land taken from Native peoples and in black enslaved labor comprised 75% of the nation's assets. This is the wealth of our nation. And it really derives from the taking by the declaration of law as this labor and this land as free or gratis, just there in the public domain, therefore the taking of others. And it's that definition of what becomes property. In fact, in an important 2020 book, Rob Nichols, his book, property as theft, he's chronicled, in fact, through the magic of law, basically how law defined Native Americans paradoxically as having no property right to own land, but they only have a property right to sell it. So only white settlers can profit from and benefit from the value in this land. It's only valuable. It's only property in the hands of white settlers. So voila, theft is property terms such as dispossession and expropriation focus on the political act of naming this structured theft. And of course we see the same with the expropriation of enslaved labor. And it's that theme, these themes of the use of property to, and in particular, defining what is in the comments, what is in the public domain free for all to take and what is property or in the modern context, intellectual property and how those definitions are often formed along the color line, which is I think what's at stake in the claims around cultural appropriation today. I'll stop there and go with your next question. Thank you so much. And my second question is, there's many students here from Rhode Island School of Design, RISC. Could you please speak about urban outfitters being Navajo in terms of fashion and jewelry? And I've been looking on the internet and I've seen people say, quote unquote, their fashion or jewelry is inspired by Native American designs and legends. How can you tell is this problematic? Okay. What are your thoughts on the subject? Okay, great. So I guess I wanna back up just slightly, right? Which is in terms of kind of making this transition from property as theft, the history of dispossession to now thinking about intellectual property as theft. And I think we wanna first start by saying, well, and I think that goes to the heart of what we mean by cultural appropriation today. So in my work, I adopt the definition of the cultural critic, Egema Aluo. And she basically says that the power differences is the sine qua non of what we mean by cultural appropriation or the objectionable cultural appropriation. So it's not just taking and borrowing from one culture to another, but it's when a dominant culture is taking from a subordinate culture. But in particular, she focuses on two harms, right? First is the loss of control over the image. And it's that loss of control that often leads to distortion of the image and or a redefinition of this culture. And so that's the first harm, the distortion. The second harm though is a redistribution of the material benefits of innovation, right? And so there's these twin harms, the twin harms of representation and remuneration. And I think that goes to the heart of what is considered to be unjust about cultural appropriation claims today when a dominant party is distorting, redefining, caricaturing a subordinate group's innovation and culture or image. But then too, when they are actually materially benefiting from that and actually they're moving that benefit away from the subordinate group. So I say that to lay out kind of the way I'm thinking about the case of urban outfitters versus Navajo Nation that you just asked me about, right? Because I think that that was a really important case in that through the narrow tool of trademark law, right? The court actually addresses all three of basically these two core twin harms, right? It's the right to control image and also the right to benefit materially from one's art and images. And I also think about these claims in three other ways, right? It's the distortion, it's the misappropriation. And then there's also this issue of kind of racial capitalism, like who benefits and the value coming from whiteness, right? So we'll talk about all three in the context of that case. But in terms of that case, basically what you have is urban outfitters selling all sorts of goods, clothing, household goods, jewelry, using the Navajo name, saying calling things vintage Navajo, calling things handmade Navajo, spelling Navajo sometimes with an H rather than a J. But none of these items were actually made by members of the Navajo Nation. And neither were they vintage nor handmade, et cetera. So the Navajo Nation has been using the name from the mid-1800s on their artwork, their innovations. And they have almost 100 registered trademarks in the use of the Navajo name with respect to clothing, jewelry, arts and crafts and all sorts of housewares, et cetera. And so they bring a trademark claim. They say this urban outfitters is likely to cause consumer confusion about who the source of these products is. And they also claim that there's dilution, that they're a famous mark, they're well known nationally and there's dilution by blurring because again, it's they're seeming to use Navajo as a generic or a descriptive term rather than a term with secondary meaning about where these goods come from. And the court says, absolutely. Like these are strong trademarks, they're in fact incontestable under our traditional trademark claim. And the Navajo Nation seems to have enough here to make a strong case of trademark ownership. And I think it's an important case because one, what it means is, and actually let me just add that one of the particular concerns of the Navajo Nation was not just the confusion of consumers, but there was also this distortion concern because they were using Navajo designs and the name on things like whiskey flasks and underwear. And it was really undermining the cultural heritage. And so while the court rejected the claim that the Navajo Nation was making that this was tarnishment, dilution by tarnishment of their name, they rejected that but at the same time, I would argue that just the fact that the court said but there are really strong trademarks here and by virtue of those trademarks, the Navajo Nation has the ability to control licenses, to control how these names are used and what kind of licensing they might wanna enter into. So I think here it's an example of trademark being able to be a tool for controlling the image, preventing distortion and preventing misappropriation of the serious finances. So the court noted that the Navajo marks were worth half a billion dollars in 2013. So I'll end there. Thanks Professor Cinder. Lastly, how can we use IP as a tool for empowerment? I know you talk about working through cultures as a theme throughout your entire work. Talk back in culture, you've mentioned Black Hogwarts, Harry Potter, you've mentioned to me about the Lion King, about Solomon Linda, about E.T. and Satya Zingray, about Starbucks in Ethiopia. You've given me so many different examples in our talk. So I was just hoping if you could just lastly kind of summarize some of those cases and talk about how we can use IP as a tool for empowerment. Okay, again, that's like 20 years of work there. But I guess I think that as my co-panelists have already offered important arguments from trademark and copyright. I wanna point out one thing, which is that, and this goes to the heart of Professor Turanian's argument about the male gaze. A lot of what we have long accepted in as traditional copyright law, traditional First Amendment law, as Professor Chan talked about, people are pushing back against that today. So this idea that the value comes from the fixer, the male fixer, and not from the subjects themselves. You see Emily Ratajowsky very powerfully, the model Emily Ratajowsky, are asking, why did she get like $160 for her photo shoot with sports illustrated, but Richard Prince, the same subject, the artist subject of the Prince v. Karyu case that Professor Turanian talked about. Richard Prince makes $100,000 off of selling basically a print out of her Instagram posts, right? And so these questions about value and authorship I think are really being turned on their head. So that said, I think that's important to how folks can use IP more. So we're pushing also back on this idea around, well, you can't protect traditional knowledge because this is just group claims, these are innovations that are age old, we don't have individual authors, but in fact, people are saying, that's not true, these artists have names, these artists have histories, they're individuals, they're innovators, and they're pointing out who various artists are, a recent case involving a Native American nonprofit group that represents Native American artists, sued Neiman Marcus. And in that case, there was a design that was taken, a Ravenstall design that was taken by an artist, Clarissa Rizal. She was a master weaver and she created the Ravenstall robe in 1996. Her heirs filed for a copyright in 2019. And so they sued Neiman Marcus for copying that design on a sweater that sold for $2,500. And they sued under copyright law and under quote, cultural appropriation. That was the legal claim that they brought and they settled because, I mean, we don't know how much they settled for, but there is power here in recognizing this isn't just the work of invisible artists or unnamed communities, but this is the work of individual artists who have made important contributions and who know how to use IP law to get recognition for those contributions. So, and I'll just, and I think this is my last question. So I'm gonna end on this final point, which is that at the end of the day though, and I think this is also inherent in what Professor Turinian was getting at is the other heart of the cultural appropriation claims that we're hearing is that we need to question this idea of like the reason cultural appropriation works and it's so powerful is because it's a product as Ejeema Olowa says, it's a product of a society that prefers its culture cloaked in whiteness. And so the same art, the same innovation is valuable when it is performed by white creators. And one of the things, I think that's another space in IP that I think is really interesting right now is around dance and you see a lot of creators of color, choreographers of color on spaces like Dub Smash creating super innovative dance moves but that are being copied on more predominantly white sites like TikTok. And you have, for example, this young woman, Jamila Harmon, a 14 year old girl who choreographed some moves to the renegade song. That was then appropriated by another young white woman from Connecticut named Charlie D'Amelio. Charlie D'Amelio is now worth $8 million. She has an offer for her own Netflix show. She's got a whole line of products including nail polish and fashion. And I guess I'll just end with, this is that example really brings together all of these issues around who gets to control these images but who profits from them. The distributive justice question, who makes the money and is any of it mine and why is the value continuing to be derived from white bodies and not black and brown bodies? Thank you so much, Professor Sunder. Now I'd like to move on to the question of museums. Welcome Professor Jane Anderson, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Museum Studies at NYU. Professor Anderson's writing includes the paper Decolonizing Attribution, Traditions of Exclusion. So first, I'd like to ask you, what is significant about attribution? How has research been a tool of colonialism and cultural violence? All right, thank you so much, Jeff. Again, I want to thank you for organizing an incredible panel with some of my favorite people that I have met and those that I haven't met but have admired for a really long time. I also want to begin by a land acknowledgement. I'm coming to you from the Lenape lands of Lenapehoking. I want to pay my respects to the ancestors and to the present and emerging leaders of these lands and waters. I also want to make an apology for my co-partner in a lot of this work. Maui Hudson, he is unable to join us today. And so I want to just acknowledge that he's in New Zealand but not here with us. So to that kind of question of attribution, I'm going to talk specifically to that in this kind of short presentation that I want to do. But first of all, I kind of want to say that cultural appropriation is a settler colonial condition. It's a product of deliberate acts of erasure, exclusion and dispossession. And as settler colonialism as a structure, not an event, it raises questions about bias within all systems, especially within legal systems. And this kind of leads us to a question that I think is here about to what extent or how is copyright also complicit in taking. So what I want to talk about today is a little bit around a practical initiative, like how do you get at some of these kinds of problems and what does that look like? And I also, by kind of thinking a little bit about intellectual property law as a tool of colonial dispossession, but also then to kind of step out a little bit and think about indigenous data sovereignty as an indigenous led movement to assist with indigenous governance and control over indigenous data. So before I do that, I kind of want to talk a little bit about what some of the kind of problems are for indigenous communities in relationship to their collections that are held in museums, archives and libraries, not only in the United States, but around the world. So part of the problem is that every indigenous community has enormous collections of tangible and intangible cultural material held in archives libraries and around the world. Just to give you an example, the National Museum of the American Indian holds over 700,000 objects, over 500,000 photographs. The National Anthropological Archive holds over 18,000 cubic feet of cultural heritage from indigenous communities with over one million photographs and over 11,400 sound recordings and 6,000 hours of film. That's 250 days of sound, sorry. So that's just two institutions in the United States just to give you a sense of the extent of the study, collection, accumulation of indigenous cultural heritage that exists within these institutions. Part of the problem is that a significant amount of these collections, including individual and community names and proper provenance, is missing. It was never collected at the time when these collections were being amassed. It was never considered important, partly because museums, archives and libraries were never seen to be places for indigenous people. What this also means is that, as John was talking about before, through this kind of problem of the authorship fixation, indigenous peoples are largely not the legal rights holders of any of this material. The legal rights holders are held by researchers, by missionaries, by school teachers, by largely the people who were documenting and recording indigenous lives and cultures. And so what this creates is a certain kind of problem that is extended as this material gets digitized, where these kind of issues of responsibility as well as kind of the mistakes within the metadata move into the digital space as well. And of course, this is not just a past problem. There are more researchers working in indigenous communities than ever before. And these practices remain largely unchanged. So indigenous data sovereignty, just to introduce that as a concept into this conversation is really kind of informed partly by intellectual and cultural property issues as they've kind of been discussed and been engaged by indigenous communities over the last 20 years. It's also about treaty rights. It's also about kind of questions around indigenous research ethics and data ethics. So indigenous data sovereignty really posits that indigenous communities must have data for governance as they must gain access to the data that they don't have access to in order to transform the lives of indigenous people. But also this data, the governance of data is critical that managing access to data to ensure use is relevant, responsible and responsive. And these are kind of the core tenants of what indigenous data sovereignty is focused on. More recently, we've seen the development of the indigenous, the care principles around indigenous data governance. This is an indigenous led initiative coming out of particular indigenous data sovereignty networks in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. And these care principles set a kind of a people oriented a relational relations to data as opposed to the different kinds of data specific forms of management of data, which you'll see kind of find it through the fair principles. So I wanna talk a little bit about the traditional knowledge labels and licenses, labels and notices that we've developed. These is a project that has emerged over the last 10 years in partnership with indigenous communities to try and bring back names into archives, libraries and museums to actually assert proper ownership and control and authority over collections that indigenous communities retain authority over. There's 18 TK labels that we've developed and the amount of communities that are using this system has exponentially grown at least in the last five years as well. But all communities who, they can be understood as kind of digital protocols, digital tags that are both human readable and machine readable. That means they can get into the digital infrastructures. All communities that use this system begin largely with the attribution label, which is the way of actually asserting indigenous communities name as legitimate and as how the material should be known into the future. There are other labels that are focused more on different kinds of protocols in terms of listening and sharing knowledge like the seasonal label, which kind of speaks to the different kinds of conditions for how certain kinds of songs should be sung, when they should be sung, when certain kinds of stories should be heard. So this is just an example of how a community customizes these labels. This is an example from the Scarlet's band of the Stola First Nation. They have taken the attribution label and customized it. And you can see in this description, it's very clear why they're using this label. It's because our history has not always been respected or told correctly. And here we tell our story in our own words. So for the Scarlet's attribution literally means name and place or squicks, quest, tech to mook. And this allows and is an assertion of sovereignty over these collections. So I wanna give you an example of kind of what the implications of some of this work can be and what that can mean. This is an example of a record in the Library of Congress of the Pasemakwadi 1890 sound recordings. These were the first sound recordings ever made on native lands in the United States. They were made by a researcher who traveled to Calis, Maine for three days, didn't speak Pasemakwadi language and was doing a sound experiment that then on the phonograph, then he took to Hopi and Zuni in the summer of that same year. So you can see in this record how impoverished it is. We have no information about the content. We have very little information about the singers who were part of it. We know a lot about the technology. And to be clear, this is how most catalog records for indigenous materials look like in this country because indigenous communities have not been part of sharing or part of updating or informing about these collections. They were never part of those processes. So this is after a work with Pasemakwadi. This is what this record now looks like. And you can see that the title has been changed into Pasemakwadi. If you go to this record within the Library of Congress, there's pages more of cultural material and cultural information that Pasemakwadi has shared. And here on the side, you'll see the Pasemakwadi traditional knowledge labels, attribution, outreach and non-commercial, really providing guidance and help for publics who will engage with this material understanding that Pasemakwadi retain authority over these collections. So this is kind of just the outward facing what you would see from if you're a public seeing this record. What's important is that then the Library of Congress had to work out where to put the TK labels and they decided to put them in the rights advisory. The rights advisory is largely retained by the copyright holder, the legal rights holder. In this instance, the Library of Congress decided that these traditional knowledge labels represent cultural rights that should be recognized within the rights advisory. More than that, they've added them above the rights held by Peabody Harvard. And it kind of again, suggesting that these are first rights and they're retained rights. So part of this project and part of this work is really getting into the digital infrastructures themselves. Digital infrastructures are not neutral. They carry the same biases through them. And if you don't get into kind of deal with that, you are going to have limited capacity to produce equity within them. And so this is kind of where the labels are placed as a kind of digital rights strategy under the kind of within Dublin Core as rights. And then this is within kind of JSON script for the Library of Congress. What this shows is we were working with quite a small selection of past recording sound recordings. But because the Library of Congress had to create a new field for TK labels, now any Indigenous community that has material within the Library of Congress could add traditional knowledge labels to their content and therefore kind of transform how that's known into the future. So we developed the TK labels over a 10-year period. We're now developing these biocultural labels, partly because the particular kinds of challenges that Indigenous communities have with their cultural heritage also stretch into other areas around genetic resources and genomic sciences. And it's really core that proper provenance and where these materials are collected and then upon Indigenous lands is actually recognized from the outset. That changes how Indigenous people can participate, the different kinds of decision making that can be involved and also the different kinds of benefits sharing that can be part of any kind of future use of these collections. We also recognize that institutions and researchers need particular tools to actually participate in equitable research and transformative practices. They need to be able to recognize Indigenous rights from the outset and they also have a responsibility to make Indigenous collections visible. These Indigenous collections are very hard to find within institutions, partly because they're mislabeled and misnamed, partly because they're often found under the researcher's name, not the Indigenous community's name. And so institutions have a responsibility to actually start making these collections visible so that Indigenous communities can assert their rights over these collections. So all of this is delivered, the labels and the notices are delivered through the technological system that we've developed called the Local Context Hub. It's in beta testing at the moment and it's a way for communities to customize their labels and deliver them to institutions, for institutions to create notices and alert communities to the work that they're doing so that communities don't have to consistently educate institutions about why they need to be doing this work. And so facilitating a different kind of communicative pathway for actually changing the records and changing where Indigenous rights sit within these archives, libraries and museums. We have a taxonomy of the TKMBC labels and notices and that you can really think through the, they really group themselves into kind of questions around provenance or who has the rights to control and to make decisions about how certain kinds of materials should be used, protocols, cultural protocols, who should be party to making those decisions and different kinds of permissions looking into the future. The TK labels were largely developed in one way to retroactively deal with an enormous problem within archives, libraries and museums. The biocultural labels are dealing with a different kind of future problem in terms of research use and collaboration. And so looking at different kind of direction but together they're actually working as a digital assertion of inherent Indigenous rights to knowledge. So the value of labeling collections and data is this kind of part of questions around Indigenous data sovereignty and engaging researchers to develop different kinds of transformative practices to think about Indigenous control and governance and what that starts to look like within these spaces to kind of bring in Indigenous ontologies and worldviews in order to kind of educate uneducated publics about Indigenous histories, about Indigenous survivants, about Indigenous sovereignty. It's also to kind of elevate questions of permissions and consents that need to be part of any conversation about how to use Indigenous materials into the future. And so on that, I can leave it there. That was kind of a speed, 10 minute kind of walkthrough of a very complex project, but yeah. Thank you so much Professor Anderson. And now I'd like to, for our last segment I'd like to turn back to the mascot's issue and I'd like to welcome Jacqueline Keeler, author, journalist and activist from Hashtag Not Your Mascot. Her books include Edge of Morning, Native Voices Speak for the Bears Years and her forthcoming book to be released next month is entitled Standoffs, Standing Rock, the Bundy Movement and the American Story of Sacred Lands. So, Ms. Keeler, what is Hashtag Not Your Mascot? How have you been involved in the fight to change the Cleveland Major League Baseball Team's name? Yeah, well, I haven't been involved as long as of course, Suzanne Harjo, who really was really a mentor of mine in college. I went to Dartmouth College and that was really where I saw it really close up for the first time and she happened to come on the campus and she was a huge help to us in organizing response. So I think that, and that's when I first heard about the case and everything. So it was just a really great learning experience and although my parents were involved in fighting against the Cleveland mascot because they met in Cleveland, Ohio, there was a relocation program there, which I might, I have some images of it I might share and stuff and then, but with Not Your Mascot, that really started in 2013, the fall of 2013, a group of us met on Twitter and I got a Twitter account in 2007 and I didn't figure out how to use it until 2013 and then I got involved with this group and we started sort of really addressing this issue online and then going into the Super Bowl in January, we found that our hashtag we were using, change the mascot, change the name was becoming unusable. Basically, we believe that Dan Snyder had paid a troll farm to basically bury our tweets under tweets selling real estate in India. Like they hijacked the hashtag, right? Thousands of tweets. And so we decided that we needed a new hashtag. We were going into the Super Bowl without a hashtag, really a usable one. And so we were kind of secretive about it. And then we, my girlfriend, Jenny Stockel who is a Cherokee citizen, she came up with the hashtag, which I know it's been used before as well, but we sort of, we didn't know that at the time and so we put it together and we worked with, it was, you know, the Wild West, we like went and looked at our biggest followers on Twitter, you know, famous people, I don't know, Yoko Ono follows me for some reason and we contacted them all. We were all like, hey, we're putting this together. Will you help us? Will you tweet this out to your followers? And so we did a drop of kind of a test run the Saturday before the Super Bowl and then we trended it the first night and then we did it again on Sunday and we trended it again. And so that was how not your mascot was born. And I really liked it when Jenny came up with it because it was like, you know, when she said it, I was like, that's what I want, I want, we're not yours. Do you know what I mean? That's what I loved about it. And so that's how that got started. Thanks, Ms. Keeler. And what message does a mascot send? You know, does you connect it with the 500 years of oppression and the distorted image of Indian ancestors? Yeah, let me, let's see here, let me show you. This is, I'll show this really fast. Sorry, I'm kind of, this is a video I did. If you want to see, in 2014 I was on All In With Chris Hayes' show on MSNBC and I went through it quite quickly and when I was way more, I had all this more on my mind but so a lot of the main talking points you'll find there and stuff. But I think that the main thing that, I think Suzanne went through a lot of it as well. And I mean, the issue really has to do with representation. I think she was quoting Dr. Stephanie Freiberg whose research I used extensively even today. I've been working on also the issue of ethnic fraud and I do see mascotry, which is a term I coined back in 2013 because I wanted to make it clear that it's, people would say, why do you have a problem with this mascot? It's this sort of, you know, prosaic image of a handsome warrior, what's the problem? But it was really all the things that go along with it, the red face, the performance. And so we wanted to make it more like minstrelsy, you know, sort of this active thing that people were doing like, and we tried to get pushed red face, that terminology to kind of give it that flavor. And but yeah, but studies certainly show that it's very harmful to native youth. Dr. Stephanie Freiberg's research show that it reduced the self-esteem of native youth after they're exposed to mascots. And then also made it harder for them to envision achieving their goals and their dreams because it sort of immediately takes you out of society, it takes you out of yourself. And then also research done at Buffalo State actually found that in 2015 that it also leads to, it's an entry sort of drug to other racism against other groups as well. So it has a huge impact and it's a terrible thing to be teaching young people, especially ones that will live on to the end of the century and have to live in a pluralistic society. So. And if you, yeah, and if you wouldn't mind, how about, it hasn't been brought up yet in the panel, Halloween, Halloween in Indians, why do people think it's acceptable to dress up as Indians but not say blackface? What's the connection between this and the mascots? Well, actually I wanted to talk a little, I mean, I had a question before about the Cleveland Indians and I know that today announcement came out that they're also banning basically red face, right at their games and stuff, people painting up as Indians and stuff and I, but so I have sort of a slideshow about that. But yeah, the issue, I mean, one of the things I've really, I'm working on this thing like I call the alleged pretendians list right now and I'm a journalist and so I'm doing an investigation. And one of the things that I really noticed was that people were really unwilling to give up mascots or performing being Indian, right? It was this really intense sort of kind of thing they had with it. And we also see that with folks who are pretending to be native people for their careers, right? And that goes into the whole Indian Arts and Crafts Act which was sort of mentioned earlier and other things. And so I think that I began to feel that it was a spectrum of behavior that basically that is an act of colonialism that is an act of ownership and that is deeply tied to the taking of the land as was mentioned earlier, you know, the Doctor of Discovery, the idea that native people don't, which is actually the legal foundation for land ownership in this country is that indigenous people do not have the right to own land. They don't have the simple title and which is still the law of the land and really ties into this idea of us not being politically recognized. We are sovereign nations within the United States but we do not have seats of the UN. You know, our land is held in trust by the US government rather than sovereign nations. And so I really feel that as I began to talk more and more with folks who really attached the idea of performing native identity, playing Indian, I really began to feel that this was deeply tied to, you know, the actual fuzzy nature of our political identity that in order to take the land, they had to make our political identity incredibly blurry, you know, sort of around the edges. And so this is, so I began to feel really that we needed to strengthen our political identity and create more of a modern presence. And so with the Halloween thing, I think that is tied to that as well is the more we are politically real. And I have this whole podcast about a federal and sort of a response to kind of creating a federal indigenous government as a way of making us more politically real and therefore making it harder for people to assume our identity, whether you're talking through masketry, through, you know, dressing up in red face or in actually taking on live action role playing native life in order to gain clout and to gain a career. And so I think all of that is of a piece. So I'm sorry, that's probably, but yeah. That's great. And last question for you is, and what's next, you know, do you see that you're going to start a campaign against Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, Chicago Blackhawks, what's next? Well, I would say that what's, so I had this whole other thing before ready to talk about the Cleveland Indians thing. So I'm a little, could I show just a little bit of that? Would that be okay? Because I had sort of really prepared something for your question about the Cleveland Indians, which I guess is gone. I'd also like to say that I was also, I did, I had interviewed Simon Tam for Indian Country Today, an extensive interview about his perspective on the case, which was really informing. And I actually am in a chapter of his book about, you know, that issue. And, but yeah, I think maybe we've run out of time for me to present the things I wanted to present here. But I would like to actually start here with, you know, this was the article I wrote in 2014 about being born in Cleveland and what that meant to me, right? And having a deal with Chief Wahoo in my life. And, but right now I'm, but like I said, what's next for me is actually a political solution. And actually creating a political solution to this problem because I believe it has a political solution. And I have a much longer presentation on that that you can see at Pollination Magazine where I have a whole podcast on that. But, but yeah, so that's, but yeah, we've, you know, this whole movement has been going on for a while in an attempt to try to really make people see us rather than see a stereotype, right? And so this is a big part of why we do what we do. And, but yeah, this is, my parents actually met in Cleveland because of relocation. The relocation was a program to basically depopulate reservations and to send Indian people to urban centers and to basically terminate tribes. This was in the 50s and the 60s. This was congressional action. And so this is why there were 20,000 young people in Cleveland in the 1960s and 70s. And this is why they started working on, you know, fighting the mascot issue. And so this is my parents. So this is sort of, but I think for native people, changing the way that we are perceived is deeply tied to our political status because everything about the United States and what's my book standoff is about as well is talking about these origin stories that we have, right? The stories of a colonial origin story versus that of an indigenous origin story. And then what, and of course with this standoff, because I'm looking at the bundies, I'm looking at the armed violent nature of that standoff right now in this country as we saw on January 6th at the Capitol. And also, you know, the opposite side, which is of course at Standing Rock, which is the indigenous perspective, the assertion of our treaty rights and our rights as sovereign nations. I believe all of this is tied to our political reality. And so the more politically real we are, right, the less this will be an issue. And so that's how I pursue this. I don't know, there's a lot more to that, but yeah, you'll have to read my other stuff, I guess. Thank you so much, Miss Keeler. And now, and we're gonna go over a bit on time because we started five minutes late, back to Miss Harjo, and again, if you have any questions, please put it in the Q and A. So Miss Harjo, actually someone asked me personally if you could please speak first about how you put the lawsuit together and then we'll go on to a few other questions, but someone had asked me that. So if you wouldn't mind speaking towards that, Miss Harjo. Well, let's see. The Patent and Trademark Lawyer from Minnesota approached me after the 1980s when I was Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians. And I guess I was the most identifiable person with Native person with this issue. And he asked two questions. He wanted to, he was writing a law review article and he wanted to know why I had rejected, oh, he had read quotes that, where we had worked at NCAI to try to find a, just the right kind of lawsuit that we could bring and the right moment. And we couldn't find it that was a good fit for the Washington football team because it was all about the money. And we wanted, so the civil rights approaches didn't seem to work. And so here comes Stephen Baird from, at that time Dorsey and Whitney Law Firm. And he said, well, could you answer two questions? Why did you reject the forum of the US Patent and Trademark Board for your lawsuit? And why did you reject the Lanham Act section two, A, as your cause of action? And I said, I have no idea of what you just said. None at all. And so he explained it to me. And by the time we finished talking and the evening had worn on, he was my lawyer. And then I, he went on to convince his law firm to take the case on a pro bono basis. And I went on to select six of my closest friends who I felt could withstand protracted litigation and weren't vulnerable, couldn't be taken out by anything that the Washington team might put before us. And then the second lawsuit I organized was, and all of them stuck to the bitter end and went on to a third lawsuit. I'll get to the second one quickly, but when we finished our lawsuit, what started in 92, we completed it at the end of 2009, when the Supreme Court declined the opportunity to review the dumb way that the federal district court judge had interpreted latches to mean that our case was, that we were out of time because each of our people were too old. We waited too long from the time we turned 18 to the filing of the lawsuit. And so when that, after the, the judge whose husband had interestingly worked done some PR for his law firm had done some PR for the Washington team, after she had written a decision that regurgitated a lot of the lies of the propaganda, I guess, was the kinder way to say it of the Washington team about their beloved coach William Lone Star Dietz and how fine he was. And that, of course, this name honored Native Americans because he was a Native American and they described him as a full-blooded Sue Indian from South Dakota, none of that is true. And she presented it as if it were not only true, but as if it were the law. So we appealed her decision to the Court of Appeals and they wrote back to her. They didn't remand the case. They just, they didn't release the case to her. They asked her a question. They said, okay, so if latches runs against these people, what about Matteo Romero? Does it run against him? Well, he was in diapers when the Patent and Trademark Board issued the first license to the Washington football team in 1967, the first of six licenses. And so she thought about that for several years. And then after, I think three years, wrote back, yes, even Matteo Romero. But when they first sent that question to her, they said, presumably there'll always be Native people. Presumably some of them will be offended by this. What about them? Does the latches run against them? I thought, oh, how interesting, they're inviting another kind of lawsuit. So I recruited Amanda Blackhorse and other people, Phil Gover, and Jillian Papan and Courtney Zotai and some wonderful, wonderful people. And they, the criteria was they had to be between 18 and 24. So we had a good shot at latches not running against them since that was an identified weakness of our case. And that we would, and the same thing had applied to us getting together in our first group of plaintiffs, could they be taken out in any way? As their garbage was being gone through by the Washington team as private investigators were hired, as people were hired, lugs were hired to stalk them and to issue death threats. Could they withstand this sort of thing? Could they withstand the scrutiny and the brutality of it? And that's a very tough thing for young people. It was a tough thing for us to withstand, withstand it we did, and there you have it. So that's how, that the first person that I wanted to be that lead plaintiff for the young people's case, which was identical to our case. They accepted the record. They later stipulated to everything that both sides did that they would just accept the record in order to have an expedited proceeding. But the very first person I wanted to be, take the lead on that suit, who missed it by the age thing by a few months, was Rhonda Lovaldo, who I want to raise up here. Anacama Pueblo woman used to be the president of the Native American Journalist Association, who's a communications instructor at Haskell University and who is a communications professor. Excellent, and she has the hashtag, the website called Not In Our Honor. And if you want to know about the specific way that Native peoples are addressing the Kansas City professional team, contact Rhonda Lovaldo at Not In Our Honor. And then Amanda Blackhorse still has her hashtag. There are lots of people who are doing that, and I appreciate Jack Bolin's work in bringing visibility to all of those who are doing the really hard, heart-breaking, painstaking work of changing these schools, because it still has to be done one by one, whether it's one state by one state, which is great, or one district by one district, which Amber McEmer and Chumash people, her Chumash family changed the first one of those broad districts was the LA Unified School District. An amazing job changing all those schools at once. I've worked on all the schools at once in the Louisville, Kentucky districts, two school districts, one city, and we changed them all at once, including one of them that had the name of the Washington football team today. And here's the good news. I just want to make this point. It's not all bad news. The good news is we've changed over 2,000 of these. We've changed most of them. We still have a lot to go and a long way to go, and we still need a lot of help. And let's just speed it up. But if it were a game, you would say we're on the downhill slide. And we no longer have a single college that is called that name, that horrible R-word, California, to develop the law even after decisions against our lawsuits, eliminating the public schools with that name. So good. And so these are following. They're the proper place for these names and mascots or in the history books, in the museums. Well, in the time we've been fighting the sports world and the academic world about this issue, we've also built the National Museum of the American Indian. And yay, we have a place for them so we can retire all these mascots over there. They're going the way of the long jockeys. And pretty soon people will look at these things and say, what were they thinking? Chief Wahoo? Chief Nakahoma? Really the chiefs? The Tomahawk chop? And then take it beyond the sports arena, Land O'Lakes Butter? What were they thinking? All of these are going though. And so if you want to show them, you should get your camera out and show them as they're departing. Because all of them are gonna be gone in very short order. The time calls for it. Thank you very much for organizing us. Thank you so much Ms. Harjo and to all the panelists. I'd like to also add on some good news that I found. In Washington two months ago, a bill was introduced in the state legislature prohibiting the inappropriate use of Native American names, symbols or images as public school mascots. In Colorado, just last month, the bill was introduced to ban Native mascots statewide, imposing a fine that would go into an education fund. Ms. Harjo mentioned California. Maine and Oregon have statewide bans. In Utah, just last month, the resolution was proposed that would have encouraged Utah schools to retire any Native American mascots. Unfortunately, it failed to pass the house. Nonetheless, they made the attempt. So thank you all very much for attending. Thank you so much to the panelists. Again, please email me at ipla.rwu.edu for a copy of the recording. And good night to all.