If you still don't know which of our services your case falls into – contact us!
Contact us
After the initial euphoria of Bulgaria's historic Eurovision victory with the song Bangaranga has passed, it is time for us as a society to look deeper and conduct a more thorough analysis. The project undoubtedly conquered the European stage, but along with the wave of pride, it also opened another, more complex discussion in the public sphere.
Many observers, linguists, and critics were quick to point out that „bangarang“ is not simply a fun, made-up word, but a real expression borrowed from Jamaican Patois (Jamaica's local Creole language), where it means „riot“, „disorder“, „noise“, or „chaos“. The use of this specific word provoked serious debate, with some of the audience even deeming the practice a form of cultural appropriation.
But what exactly lies behind this concept which we are hearing more and more frequently in the modern world? Cultural appropriation refers to the borrowing of elements from one culture by members of another, usually more dominant, culture, without deep understanding, respect, or permission. Most often it is recognised by the following characteristics:
The topic of cultural appropriation is extremely important, as in the digital age, art knows no borders, but moral and legal responsibilities remain. But where does creative inspiration end and unauthorised use begin? To examine this case professionally, objectively and in depth, today we are talking to Adv. Iva Georgieva from IPfabrika Intellectual Property Law Firm.
The short answer is no. Cultural appropriation is a socio-cultural and ethical concept, not a legal term. There is no definition in international or national intellectual property law that criminalises or prohibits it.
Law deals with concepts such as copyright, trademarks, and geographical indications. Traditional intellectual property law protects a specific, individual creator or company, whereas cultural heritage, such as linguistic expressions or folklore, usually belongs to entire communities and often lacks a clear individual rights holder.
In the classic sense of the word – no. As it is not an illegal act, you cannot sue someone directly for „cultural appropriation.“ However, there is sometimes an overlap with the law. If a cultural element is registered as a collective trademark or geographical indication, then there is legal protection.
Specifically, in the case of our Eurovision winner, the word „bangarang“ is part of the public domain and the linguistic richness of Jamaica. Therefore, its use in a song is a completely legitimate creative decision that the law fully permits, without leading to negative consequences for the artist.
But when the line of registered trademarks is crossed, things change. A prime example of such overlap are the cases with the traditional patterns of the indigenous Navajo people in the USA, which were protected as collective trademarks.
When the brand Urban Outfitters used them on their products without permission, it led to a major lawsuit for trademark infringement and false association with the tribe, which ended in a multi-million pound out-of-court settlement.
From a legal perspective, the line is clear: it's called copyright and public domain.
If you use elements that are part of the general cultural heritage or linguistic wealth (like the word „bangara-nga“), you are in the zone of inspiration, and the law protects you.
However, if you borrow a specific contemporary copyrighted work, trademark, or design without a licence, you enter the realm of plagiarism and infringement of others' rights and the law.
In this case, there is an important detail. Authentic folklore (with an unknown author) is in the public domain and no permission is required to use it. Any artist can freely sing an old folk song or weave it into their own new arrangement.
However, if you use a specific existing recording or arrangement by a well-known composer (such as Philip Koutev, for example), the law requires permission from:
This is why contemporary artists often prefer to re-record folk motifs in a studio, thus avoiding the need to deal with legal permissions.
Attempts to legally regulate this phenomenon have been ongoing for decades. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is actively developing international treaties for the protection of traditional folk creativity. However, their aim is not to criminalise "cultural appropriation" as a general concept, but to give indigenous communities the right to control the commercial use of their heritage.
Introducing a global law against cultural appropriation is unlikely, as its boundaries are subjective and ethical. Legal text that prohibits borrowing words or motifs would threaten freedom of creativity, which is a fundamental right in modern society.
In most cases, this is a classic cultural exchange and freedom of artistic expression. Historical events, ancient mythology, and old legends have long been part of the global public domain. No one has exclusive copyright over ancient Greek myths, Norse sagas, or the history of the Roman Empire. Hollywood has every legal right to interpret, film and adapt them for a global audience.
The difference with „cultural appropriation“ here manifests more on an ethical level and depends on respect for the source. When film studios invite consultants from the relevant cultures to authentically recreate the details, we are talking about a full exchange that enriches world art.
The problem (from a moral standpoint) only arises when the living traditions of vulnerable or indigenous communities are caricatured or commercialised without their knowledge and consent. However, from a legal perspective, cinema remains protected by freedom of speech, unless it infringes specific rights or legal restrictions.
Yes, there are several countries that have felt the economic and cultural pressure from global brands and have created so-called *sui generis* (specific, of their own kind) laws.
Panama is a pioneer in this regard. As early as 2000, they passed Law 20, which protects the collective intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples. They created a special register for traditional textile crafts – such as the famous colourful „mola“ fabrics of the Guna community. Any foreign brand wishing to use them in a fashion collection must obtain permission and pay licensing fees.
Kenya also adopted a comprehensive law in 2016 to protect traditional cultural expressions. According to it, local communities can block the unauthorised commercial use of their rituals, costumes and symbols outside their traditional context. However, a major problem with these laws remains: they only apply within the borders of the respective country and have no automatic effect abroad. Therefore, the battle at an international level is still ongoing.
My advice is first to thoroughly research the origin of the element they wish to use and if it is part of the living heritage of a specific minority community, it should be approached with respect, and not simply as an exotic fashion trend.
Secondly, there is the obligatory legal check: ensure you are not borrowing contemporary authorial treatment or registered trademarks. If you use a pre-recorded audio track, always arrange rights with the producer and other copyright or related rights holders.
And finally – be completely transparent and openly state your source of inspiration, because the public and the law always value honesty.
