We don’t need a dictionary to define cultural capital: that’s what the term refers to.
In the United States, it refers to a cultural or literary property, or the intangible or intangible characteristic that distinguishes a cultural product from other cultural products.
In Australia, it can also refer to the intangible property that distinguishes one person from another, or one person’s culture from another.
In Canada, it is a term that refers to the property that is a product of a shared cultural heritage, such as the Canadian flag or the Canadian coat of arms.
In Britain, it means a tangible cultural property, such in the case of the national anthem, or a literary property.
In India, it generally refers to cultural artefacts.
The term cultural capital is not always applied to the value of cultural artefact or intellectual property.
But that’s not necessarily a bad thing, according to the authors of a new paper.
As with the other definitions of cultural capital that I’ve used here, they argue that it is useful to distinguish between cultural capital and intellectual capital.
The authors of the paper argue that in the United Kingdom, for example, there is no requirement for cultural capital to be recognised as cultural in nature.
“The requirement to recognise the cultural value of intellectual property in the UK does not require a reference to cultural capital,” the paper argues.
Instead, the authors argue that the requirement for a cultural capital requirement in the country is based on a “compelling interest in cultural capital”.
In this sense, cultural capital may not be recognised by the government as cultural.
The UK may also not recognise intellectual capital, the paper says.
That is, the government may recognise intellectual property as cultural when it is held by an organisation or individual.
The UK does recognise cultural capital when it relates to intellectual property that has been used for research and education purposes, but does not recognise cultural property when it refers only to literary works.
The British government is not the only country to recognise cultural and intellectual property ownership.
In Australia, the term does not exist.
Nor is there a requirement to make a distinction between intellectual property and cultural property in order to recognise intellectual and cultural capital.
There is, however, an Australian law, the National Arts Property Owners Act 1984, which states that the ownership of intellectual or cultural property is not a prerequisite to recognition as cultural property.
So, for instance, a British film company may own intellectual property, but the film is not considered to be part of the British cultural heritage.
And it is not clear why the UK government is applying a distinction to intellectual and creative property in Australia.
While the UK and Australia are different places, the two countries are also very different in terms of their relationship with their national symbols.
Australia is a country with many cultural symbols that are recognised as national symbols, such a national flag, the Australian flag, and the national coat of Arms.
The national anthem is one of the most recognised national symbols in Australia and the coat of rights, which is the right to hold property of a foreign owner, is one that is used by Australians.
In the UK, there are a number of national symbols that have been recognised as symbols of national importance, such the national flag and the flag of the Commonwealth.
The flag of Scotland and the Coat of Arms of the United kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are the only two symbols that can be used in Australia for this purpose.
Australia also has a national song, which, for a country that is known for its national anthem and a national day of worship, is a significant symbol.
What is cultural capital?
The authors suggest that cultural capital can be defined as “the intangible or intellectual capital associated with a cultural property”.
The authors argue it is “the value associated with cultural property that transcends the intangible but which is recognised as the property of that cultural property owner”.
“Cultural capital is generally considered to reflect the value or potential of a cultural asset to the owners and consumers of the intangible and/or intellectual property”, the authors write.
To illustrate this, the US defines cultural capital as “an intangible or tangible cultural asset that distinguishes an individual’s culture or a person’s cultural heritage from that of other individuals, institutions, organisations, companies or individuals”.
The UK, on the other hand, defines cultural property as “a unique or distinctive characteristic of a particular person, group, or cultural heritage”.
The authors point out that the UK definition is more in line with the US definition.
“There is a distinction in the definition of cultural property between intellectual and literary property,” they write.
“It is not required to distinguish the intangible from the tangible, but it does need to differentiate the intangible with respect to the nature of the cultural property.”
So, is the UK still using the term “cultural capital”?
While the US and UK define cultural and cultural assets differently, they both have definitions of “cultural” in the title of the article. If