Two new treaties adopted this year by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) aim to address Indigenous peoples' interests, though some question their strength and implementation.
WIPO director general Daren Tang described the Riyadh Design Law Treaty (DLT), adopted in November, as recognising the role of design in "promoting heritage and transforming culture".
The DLT introduces a potential disclosure requirement for applicants seeking design rights, stating they may need to declare traditional cultural expressions or knowledge relevant to the design's eligibility.
This mirrors the mandatory "disclosure of origin" provision in the Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRT), adopted in May.
The GRT seeks to address biopiracy by requiring patent applicants to disclose the source of genetic resources or traditional knowledge used in their inventions.
However, the treaty does not actively protect Indigenous rights; it primarily prevents others from patenting resources or knowledge without consent.
Professor Jessica Lai, a commercial law expert from Victoria University of Wellington, argues both treaties are procedural compromises, shaped to align with the interests of developed nations.
Stronger disclosure requirements, which could better protect Indigenous knowledge, were opposed by countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom.
"The GRT and DLT signal progress, but they remain limited in their ability to stop misappropriation," Professor Lai said.
The DLT's focus on design rights, often considered less significant than patents, has drawn limited attention.
Yet Lai highlights the economic potential of design rights, pointing to examples like Eames chairs and digital designs such as graphical user interfaces.
This conversation reflects ongoing issues around cultural misappropriation globally.
Following Melbourne's Queen Victoria Market decision to ban fake Indigenous art by mid-2025, pressure is growing on other major tourist markets to take similar action.
Cairns Night Markets director, Mark Stanley said fake art undermines genuine creators.
"If the Queensland Government can adopt protectionist measures, it would help push out Chinese copycat products that push down the value of authentic work," Mr Stanley said.
Fremantle Markets in Western Australia no longer hosts fake Aboriginal art vendors.
A spokesperson said, "Fremantle Markets does not support the sale of fake Aboriginal art".
The Productivity Commission's report from July found two-thirds of Indigenous-style souvenirs are inauthentic and called for mandatory labelling.
"There's a certificate of authenticity given with each piece of art, with a photo of the artist and everything there," Mindil Beach Sunset Markets general manager Howard Halter said.
Professor Lai emphasised that despite these measures, global misappropriation continues.
"Patents contribute to economies and GDP, but design rights can protect commercially valuable creations, like digital designs or even graphical user interfaces," she said.
While the GRT and DLT treaties mark incremental progress, they reflect procedural compromises rather than active protection of Indigenous rights.
Globally, the misappropriation and commercialisation of Indigenous knowledge remains unresolved – from inauthentic Māori designs sold online to patents on mānuka honey.
The challenge of protecting cultural heritage persists, demanding stronger international and domestic measures.