What Does a Story Tell? Eddi Gislason's (1901-1986) Personal Use of Traditional Material (1)

ABSTRACT/RESUME This article examines stories recorded from the Icelandic-Canadian, Eddi Gislason, in 1972-73. They are discussed in the light of issues relating to the copyright of material derived from traditional communities (cf. the ongoing discussion within UNESCO as to the relative rights of the individual and of the community). Eddi uses stories from his community in New Iceland, Manitoba, in order to give expression to his views on different aspects of the world--views which are not always in harmony with those of the majority within that community. It must be recognized that this is how individuals work within a tradition. Each utterance needs to be regarded as the reflection of an individual's view before it can be taken as representative of the community at large. Too much regard paid to the rights of the community in the context of traditional materials can thus very easily lead to censorship of the individual. Such censorship would be viewed as unacceptable in western societies, and we should guard agains t its being seen as a viable option in respect of other societies. Le present article examine les histoires recueillies en 1972-1973 par le Canadien d'origine islandaise Eddi Gislason. Elles sont etudiees ici a la lumiere des questions soulevees par le droit d'auteur concernant lessocietes traditionnelles (cf. la discussion en cours au sein de l'UNESCO ausujet des droits relatifs aux personnes privees et aux communautes). Eddi utilise les histoires provenant de sa communaute de la Nouvelle Islande (New Iceland), Manitoba, dans le dessein d'exprimer ses propres idees concernant differents aspects du monde, idees qui ne refletent pas celles de la [much less than]majorite morale[much greater than] au sein de cette communaute. Il convient d'admettre que c'est de cette maniere que les individus travaillent au sein d'une communaute. Chaque enonciation doit necessairement etre consideree comme refletant une conception individuelle plutot que d'etre regardee comme representative d'une communaute dans son ensemble. Le fait d'accorder une trop grande attention aux droits de la communaute dans le domaine du materiau d'origine traditionnelle peut tres facilement conduire a censurer les droits de l'individu. Une telle censure serait consideree comme inacceptable dans les societes occidentales, et nous devons nous garder d'envisager son existence comme etant une solution acceptable en ce qui concerne les [much less than]autres societes[much greater than]. INTRODUCTION Are the views and values expressed in the oral traditional stories of any community representative of what people in general--that is, the folk--think and feel in the community where the stories are known and told; or are those attitudes limited to the individual who tells the stories, particularly when they may represent a challenge to the community's silent moral majority? This question is of fundamental importance in determining who should hold the copyright or publishing rights of folklore material. Do those rights belong to the individual, to the community at large (that is, the folk among whom the material was collected), or to the institution responsible for collecting the material? The problems raised by these questions can become serious when folklorists publish their findings in such a way that official and/or self-appointed representatives of those individuals who shared their lore with the folklorist do not approve of the picture of their culture which emerges. In fact, individual voices from with in a community can even be regarded as a threat to those same representatives, as they seek to present a positive, unambiguous image of their particular ethnic community to society at large. According to the 1989 UNESCO Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore, the general consensus of opinion has been that all rights should lie with the community in which the folklorists have collected material from individuals. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.