Before attempting to answer the question of whether culture can be owned, we should address what it is we mean by "culture."

The traditional anthropological use of the term "culture" referred to a group of people with "shared values" (Battiste & Youngblood Henderson, 2000, p. 30). While this definition might help us make superficial distinctions between very different groups of people, it does not adequately reflect the fluidity of the human relationships that affect cultural groupings (Anderson, 2003). For instance, interaction between different individuals or groups tends to initiate exchanges of ideas, information, beliefs, and even genes. Jane Elizabeth Anderson has observed that the ambiguousness of the term "culture" not only complicates the idea of ownership, but throws into doubt what we mean by "cultural appropriation" (Anderson, 2003, p. 19). Anderson asserts that cultural appropriation is not "as clear as the 'taking' by one culture of what is 'owned' by another" (Anderson, 2003, p. 37), though there are instances where this is the case. Some Indigenous people find "culture" an artificial, Eurocentric label and reject it outright (Battiste & Youngblood Henderson, 2000, p. 30).

Ownership of culture, then, is not a simple idea. Even where it is used to assert the rights of Indigenous peoples, the idea of culture is hampered by its existence as a theoretical construct (Anderson, 2003, p. 36). In his book, Who Owns Native Culture?, Michael Brown observes the risks of engendering too rigid a conception of indigeneity. Conflating different groups and interests under terms such as "heritage" and "culture," he argues, has "the paradoxical effect of flattening cultural difference" (Brown, 2003, p. 218).

Many Indigenous peoples would be inclined to agree that overinclusivity and the application of inaccurate terms does them more harm than good (Battiste & Youngblood Henderson, 2000).