NORMAL MEANS. It’s part of the process for determining the creative context behind the work. That’s Reed.

Given the ALRC's proviso, and Australia's recognition of the copyrightability of some Indigenous cultural expressions, Stoianoff and Wright interpret the second fair use factor as potentially requiring appropriators to consult with Indigenous communities before a use of their cultures can be considered "fair." 272 Consultation would allow potential fair users (and courts, ex post) to determine what the work is from an Indigenous point of view, and then take the necessary precautions to ensure Indigenous interests are protected. 273 In effect, this interpretation of the second factor would mean fair users likely would have to comply with existing protocols adopted by Indigenous communities prior to making publicly beneficial use of their cultural materials without express permission.

While scholarship dedicated to the second fair use factor is sparse, commentators recognize the factor's continued importance in assessing its potential impact on creative networks and its potential to account for Indigenous protocols governing the creation and circulation of culture.

B. Identifying the "Nature" of Culture

Given these insights, how should courts shape the forgotten factor going forward, particularly in cases of cultural appropriation from Indigenous peoples? Based on the commentary just discussed, the second factor should at least reveal an unauthorized appropriation's impact on the specific drivers supporting the [*1427] particular kind of cultural production at issue. 274 But it should also be grounded in the actual relationships involved in producing cultural creativity - relationships that may be governed by local community protocols and cultural norms. By looking at the "reasonable and customary expectations" of creators within their particular creative networks, a court may be able to assess whether an unauthorized use will disrupt motivation to create similar works. 275