A/HRC/58/60 60. In any case, it is up to source and heritage communities to prove that their digitalized heritage falls within the above-mentioned exceptions so that they can be in control of its use. Clearance of the rights of the source or heritage community from any copyright restrictions takes time and involves costs, which may make their claims unfeasible. Their claims may also be unsuccessful in the case of orphan works (i.e. where copyright owners cannot be identified or located), resulting in the “locking up” of culturally relevant material. 61. Obtaining copyright for the source or heritage community over the original or the digital form of the heritage also poses problems. Apart from the cost and time barriers, conventional intellectual property frameworks tend to prioritize individual ownership, often failing to recognize the collective nature of many cultural heritage and living practices. For Indigenous Peoples in particular, protection mechanisms must respect collective ownership so that Indigenous Peoples can maintain sovereignty over their knowledge. Indigenous heritage is often excluded from conventional intellectual property frameworks, leaving it vulnerable to unauthorized use. 82 Despite the good practice to not impose copyright on heritage, even if collective ownership becomes possible and the difficulties that communities face are overcome, the digitalization process would only secure copyright for the source or heritage community for a specific period. Once the period of exclusive economic and moral rights was over, copyright law would no longer protect the “moral and material” interests of the “authors”, leaving the source communities without legal protection over their inherited cultural expressions because they are now open to all. 62. Overall, market actors are much more likely to use intellectual property regimes to impose limitations on access to and use of digitalized products by all, even source and heritage communities. Limited attempts have been made to address this imbalance. Article 14 of the European Union directive on copyright and related rights in the digital single market provides that there will be no new copyright on reproductions of visual art once the original copyright has expired, but it does not apply to all works. This directive also permits exceptions for the digitization of copyrighted works by cultural institutions for preservation purposes. 63. The protection of authorship represents an important safeguard for the recognition of the work of creators and is compatible with the protection of the moral and materials interests of creators. However, it is very evident and well documented that copyright rules can violate cultural rights. To ensure that the right balance is found, a cultural rights approach to copyright needs to be applied and recognized by intellectual property systems and organizations at the national, regional and international levels. In its general comment No. 17 (2005), the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides important guidance in this regard. 64. A complementary mechanism would be the establishment of licensing systems in international agreements to ensure fair compensation and benefit-sharing for communities when their cultural heritage is digitized. Cultural protocols, in which guidance is provided on how cultural materials can be shared, the terms under which they can be shared and the obligations of digital platforms to engage with and represent diverse cultural expressions in a fair and respectful manner, have been initiated and are gaining momentum. However, these practices must be followed by more generic, better regulated multilateral agreements encompassing the processes related to digitalized heritage. 65. Despite years of scholarship and interventions that acknowledge the problems, there are still no specific and agreed global standards that articulate the intellectual property regime in a way that is compatible with international human rights standards. Differing national laws and practices result in inconsistent protection and accessibility of digitized heritage, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities and large areas of the world. In recent years, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has considered the need to account for both cultural rights and intellectual property in matters relating to traditional knowledge, but its scope is too limited to provide for a universal approach to the heritage of all. There needs to be a sui generis system in which the collective nature of cultural expressions, as opposed to individual ownership, is recognized. WIPO could develop, or at 82 16 A/HRC/28/57, para. 58. GE.25-01705