I come from the perspective that I'd like to see the exceptions for use still left in the Copyright Act and left as is. Part of that is because, even as an author, I expect people to be able to use 10% of a published work. A published work is different from when knowledge is taken without prior consent and approval. If you are publishing something, you fully expect libraries and the general public to be able to have fair use, so that 10% isn't an issue.
It's when things are taken without permission and used in the wrong context that I have an issue. As an indigenous person, I wouldn't publish sacred knowledge. I would say that, if you want more information on that.... My late great-uncle Pat said to me, “If you want the rest of that story, come back next year, and when I've fulfilled those cultural protocols, I might get the end of that story.” I wouldn't publish that.
I think that's where we need to be able to do the acknowledgement, but then also to work with communities. What works for the Anishinaabe, the Cree, and the Métis is not going to work for the Tahltan. It's going to be different. It's going to be different for the Mohawk. That's where we need to have that kind of openness where we do the general statement and then work with people.
As a published author, if something is published in the public domain and the appropriate safeguards have been put in place, then I don't see an issue with that. Some things—and I think I said that in my brief—that are in the public domain currently that have not followed those protocols need to be retracted from that domain. That's where we work with individual communities, and where there are examples of art pieces or cultural pieces being taken from museums, put into storage, and used in the proper cultural way, instead of being out on display all the time.