Who Owns Creativity? IPESAC 2026 Brings Intellectual Property, Fashion and Cultural Heritage into Focus

At the British Council headquarters in London, an engaging panel brought together voices from fashion, cultural heritage, museums and sustainability to examine who owns creativity, who benefits from it and whether the law adequately protects those who create.

An idea can take years to develop and only moments to appropriate. A designer may spend months perfecting a collection, an artist may devote a lifetime to developing a distinctive body of work, and a community may preserve its cultural traditions over generations. Yet when those creations enter the commercial world, recognition and financial reward do not necessarily follow their originators.

These questions formed the basis of an engaging discussion at the British Council headquarters in Stratford, East London, during IPESAC 2026, an initiative dedicated to intellectual property, innovation and the protection of creative achievement.

Invited by Marianie Morazzani, founder and CEO of MM-Art Consult, who moderated the discussion, I joined a distinguished group of speakers for the panel "The View on Intellectual Property for the Arts, Fashion, & Cultural Heritage."

The gathering brought together different professional experiences, from the protection of traditional cultural expressions to the commercial realities facing independent designers, the stewardship of historical archives and the ownership of sustainable innovations.

Cultural heritage and the responsibility of protecting identity

The discussion opened with HRH Princess Moradeun Adedoyin-Solarin, Director of The New Pan-Africa Movement CIC, whose contribution was particularly eloquent and deeply focused on the cultural significance of intellectual property.

Her perspective encouraged reflection on the ownership of traditional craftsmanship, artistic expressions, textiles and cultural symbols that have been preserved and passed down through generations.

For many communities, these creations represent considerably more than commercial products. They embody identity, history and collective knowledge.

Yet traditional cultural expressions frequently find their way into international fashion collections, decorative arts and luxury products without adequate acknowledgement of their origins.

Her contribution raised an important question: where should we draw the line between cultural appreciation and commercial exploitation?

It was a thoughtful opening that established the wider human and historical significance of the discussion.

Fashion, originality and the unequal ability to enforce the law

My own contribution, representing the UK Parliamentary Society for Arts, Fashion & Sports, focused on the difficulties faced by independent designers attempting to protect their work in an industry where commercial trends move considerably faster than legal proceedings.

Having worked closely with fashion designers and emerging creative entrepreneurs for many years, I have seen how vulnerable smaller businesses can be when their original work is reproduced by companies with substantially greater financial resources.

The question put to me was straightforward: what is the most important change needed to protect designers and artists when those copying their work frequently move faster than the law?

My response was that intellectual property protection must become faster, more affordable and genuinely accessible to independent creators.

Britain already has copyright, trade marks and registered and unregistered design rights. The difficulty is that enforcing those rights can be expensive, complicated and slow.

A major fashion house can employ specialist lawyers and pursue international disputes. A young designer, who may have invested personal savings in a first collection, often cannot.

Two designers may possess comparable legal rights but have profoundly unequal abilities to defend them.

A right that exists on paper but cannot realistically be defended is not an effective right.

I advocated more accessible mechanisms for resolving infringement disputes, stronger accountability for online marketplaces and better intellectual property education for emerging designers.

Artificial intelligence adds another dimension. Although it offers considerable opportunities for creative development, it also raises questions about the use of protected work, authorship and commercial exploitation.

Ultimately, protecting intellectual property should not mean restricting inspiration or innovation. It should mean ensuring that originality remains economically viable, particularly for those without substantial financial resources.

Dr Les Johnson: Who owns a community's history?

One of the afternoon's most insightful and eloquent contributions came from Dr Les Johnson, founder and chair of the National Windrush Museum.

His observations brought a different intellectual dimension to the conversation, examining the ownership and preservation of historical archives and the responsibility institutions carry towards the communities whose stories they safeguard.

Museums may possess photographs, documents, oral histories and personal testimonies, but physical possession does not necessarily confer ownership of the intellectual property associated with them.

Dr Johnson's reflections encouraged a broader understanding of the relationship between legal rights, historical responsibility and collective memory.

This is particularly relevant to the Windrush generation, whose experiences and contributions form an essential part of modern British history.

His contribution was a reminder that protecting cultural heritage involves more than preserving objects. It also means respecting the people, experiences and histories that give those objects their significance.

When someone else takes your idea

Fajli Bibi, President and Founder of the Global Sustainability & Inclusion Centre of Excellence, brought a particularly personal perspective to the discussion.

Drawing upon her own experience, she spoke about the consequences of seeing ideas taken or used by others without having adequate intellectual property protection in place.

Her account illustrated the vulnerability of innovators who invest considerable time, knowledge and resources in developing original concepts, only to discover how difficult it can be to establish ownership or obtain recognition once those ideas have been adopted elsewhere.

Her contribution also highlighted the importance of intellectual property education, particularly for women entrepreneurs, independent innovators and those developing sustainable products and solutions.

It was an important reminder that behind every discussion of intellectual property legislation are individuals whose professional opportunities and financial security may depend upon their ability to protect what they create.

Dr Bola Olabisi and the importance of empowering innovators

The wider purpose of IPESAC 2026 was reflected in the work of Dr Bola Olabisi, founder of the Global Women Inventors & Innovators Network (GlobalWIIN), whose commitment to recognising and empowering inventors, innovators and creative entrepreneurs has helped bring these important conversations to wider audiences.

Her initiative recognises that creativity and innovation alone do not guarantee commercial success.

Without appropriate knowledge, legal protection and access to professional networks, many promising ideas may never deliver their full economic or social potential to the individuals responsible for developing them.

IPESAC provides an opportunity to connect intellectual property awareness with entrepreneurship, cultural preservation and commercial development.

Beyond the discussion

The gathering at the British Council headquarters offered an enjoyable opportunity to exchange ideas with individuals from different creative, cultural and professional backgrounds.

What made the afternoon particularly worthwhile was the diversity of experiences represented around the table.

Princess Moradeun Adedoyin-Solarin approached intellectual property through cultural identity and heritage. My own contribution examined the economic vulnerability of independent fashion designers. Dr Johnson explored the responsibilities associated with preserving historical narratives, while Fajli Bibi brought the discussion into the personal realities of innovation and inadequate protection.

Although our professional perspectives differed, a common concern emerged: creativity generates cultural and economic value, but those who create it do not always receive the recognition or protection they deserve.

Intellectual property should encourage creativity rather than restrict it. Artists must remain free to draw inspiration from the world around them, designers must be able to innovate, and cultural traditions must continue to evolve.

But there must also be a fair balance between inspiration and exploitation.

The afternoon left me reflecting on a principle that applies equally to fashion, the arts, innovation and cultural heritage:

Creativity should be protected because of its originality, not because of the wealth of its owner.

If intellectual property is to serve future generations of artists, designers and innovators, that principle must be reflected not only in legislation, but in the practical ability of individuals to defend and benefit from their work.