2007年原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例立法三讀通過，2015年原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例實施辦法公布，原住民族文化保護與發展議題在法制度上開創了新的一頁，然而我們在面對這條例的解釋與適用時，卻出現了許多對於權利主體、客體、性質以及利用關係的解釋問題。
對於權利主體，傳智條例第6、7條限於原住民族或部落，然而在實際運作上我們看到通過的申請案有以「社」或「家族」為單位的申請案提出，這不禁讓本文開始思考，所謂的權利主體是什麼?是我們民法所熟悉的「人」的概念嗎?又我們當代熟悉的權利主體概念又是如何發展的?這樣的結果是固定抑或是有流動性的?然而關於這些問題，我們勢必要跳脫既有的西方法制度框架，重新以另一角度以原住民族的視角去看所謂的權利主體，而在我們尋找這些答案前，我們須先有一個觀念「文化表達」的權利歸屬並非僅有族群或部落兩種分類方式，我們仍須回到個別原住民族的傳統社會制度裡去觀察，才能正確的將文化表達歸屬到正確的原住民群體，族或部落僅是國家分類族群的方式。
對於權利客體，傳智條例第3條將其限於文化表達，然而在傳智條例裡面什麼叫做「文化表達」，在智慧財產體系中對於「表達」有嚴格的限制不及於思想，然而當我們觀察原住民族與文化表達間的關係時，我們似乎難以將文化表達與其背後的思想做分割觀察，因為這樣就會造成文化的不完整，且從原住民族對於他們的文化被利用的感受來觀察，他們所在乎的並非完全以「族服錯置」、「未經同意跳某個舞蹈」，而是對於這些錯誤的使用文化，對於族群文化體系、禁忌的破壞與侵犯，就這個觀點就與當代社會在討論保護客體時，很自然的將保護客體視為對「物」的討論有所不同，因而文化表達背後所彰顯的族群文化價值觀是否要成為保護的對象值得我們深深的思考。
對於權利性質與利用關係，我們習慣將權利分為財產權與人格權，又人格權我們多聚焦在第三人對於權利人人格上的侵害，而侵害必須以客觀上足以妨害名譽為侵權的判斷要件。然而當我們仔細思考原住民族與這些文化表達的關係時，他的概念並不像當代法社會是由人去支配物，而是人與物是一種共生共存立於相同地位，而那支配人與物的是來自神靈，關注的並非人對文化表達的支配關係，而是誰有權利來利用這些文化表達，是一種照管責任；在原住民族的文化表達其所蘊含的概念是人格利益高於財產利益，因而我們在看待原住民族文化表達時，對於權利的關係要與當代社會以財產利益為核心的思維顛倒，從一種非資本主義的思維去看待，而我們到底該如何去定性這樣的權利性質，將決定我們如何去看待文化表達的利用關係，並且這將決定我們如何看待傳智條例這部規範非原住民族利用原住民族文化表達時所應遵守之事項的法律。
回過頭來，雖然這部法律看似在規範非原住民族與原住民族間對於文化的利用關係，然而其核心要討論與解決的問題還是原住民族與非原住民族，因為歷史經驗而產生的民族不平等問題，在當今民族自決思潮、尋找自我認同，以及多元文化的社會環境下，我們不禁要來思考，當今我們所熟悉「法律」所追求的價值或制度真的合於當代多元文化主義的需求嗎，還是在看似自由平等的法律下，卻是另一種的壓迫?並且在面對原住民族與非原住民族間，因世界觀的差異而對於「法」的想像不一樣時，如果我們選擇尊重差異，甚至賦予原住民族自治權，那下一步我們要思考的就是這兩種「法」我們要如何銜接互動，這問題不單單是一個法律問題，而是一個跨人類學、民族學、法哲學等等的問題，而這就是本文最後要提出的思考。
就此，本文分為三大部分，從泰勒肯認政治論的多元文化主義，到對於原住民族文化權與集體權的詮釋，最後到對於原住民族傳統智慧創作專用權制度的探討，進一步的我們藉由前兩大部分的詮釋，論述我們在解釋與適用原住民族傳統智慧創作專用權時，對於權利主體、客體、性質以及利用關係，在法律上的定位以及各該議題的內涵，我們會以多元文化主義為核心，從原住民族社群之角度去重構原住民族傳統智慧創作專用權制度，並且以「特殊權利」的觀點，去論述原住民族社會與主流社會，在利用原住民族文化表達時的觀點差異，以及試圖在這樣的差異中，提出一個新興觀點，使在文化資源的利用上秉持著尊重原住民族習慣法以及文化完整性，重新論述合理使用的概念與我們在利用時應該注意的地方。

The Act, “Protection Act for the traditional intellectual creations of indigenous people” passed by The Legislative Yuan, Republic of China in 2007. And “Regulations of the traditional intellectual creations of indigenous people” was announced in 2015. This is a great progress in Taiwan legal system, but the new Act cause some issues on the subject of right, the object of right, the nature of right and the relationship of using traditional intellectual creation between indigenous people and other people when we interpret and apply the Act.

About the subject of right, the Act §6 and §7 define the subject as indigenous community or clan, but in the actual cases that was passed, some subjects are as “group” or “family”. This made the author think about, what is the subject of right? Is it what we are familiar with the concept of “human” in Civil Law? How do we develop the subject of right? Is the result fixed or changeable by case? For the questions, we need to jump outside of the traditional legal system, and observe the subject of right in the angle of indigenous community. And while we look for the answers, we need to have a concept of “cultural expression” is not only for indigenous community or clan, these two categories. We must go back to the social system in each individual community for observation. Then, we will correctly interpret the subject of right for indigenous community.

Regarding the object of right, the Act §3 defines and limits the scope for “culture expression”. But what is “culture expression”? In intellectual property system, the “expression” has not included ideas. But it seems impossible to separate culture expression and the ideas behind culture, this cause incompletion of the culture. Also, from the observation of their culture was taken advantage by others, instead of “wrong clothes on wrong community” or “dances without their consent ”, they care more about the misunderstanding of their culture, destroying their community cultural system and their prohibitions. From this point of view, it is very different from the modern society while we are discussing about protecting a subject. Therefore, we need to think about whether the cultural value behinds indigenous culture expression is worth protection.

For the nature of right and the relationship of the use of traditional intellectual creation between indigenous people and other people, we are used to separate property and personality right in Civil Law. But when we think about the relationship between indigenous people and culture expression, their philosophy is close to the nature, the souls of the dead or belief, so we couldn’t clearly separate property and personality from indigenous community’s philosophy. Also, from whom have the right to use these cultural expressions, is a “custodial duties”. Thus, when we study the relationship of using culture expression between indigenous people and other people, we need to think by indigenous community philosophy.

The Act wants to solve the conflict between indigenous people and other people from the culture expression, however the core issue is “different ethnic groups” by colonial history. Thus, it is worthy for us to think about our legal system is multiculturalism or not and when we admit indigenous people’s community custom in our legal system, how can we create a new system to connect the two different legal systems.

I will separate three point to discuss my idea. First, I will discuss Taylor’s Multiculturalism , then discuss indigenous cultural right, finally, I will discuss the subject of right, the object of right, the nature of right and the relationship of using traditional intellectual creation between indigenous people and other people from “Exclusive Rights to Use Intellectual Creations” by Multiculturalism and indigenous cultural right. And I will propose a new idea under the respect of the indigenous culture and integrity of their culture resources. I hope the idea can promote indigenous culture and let other people understand the culture which is different from us and we need to respect them.