Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd

Last updated

Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court Federal Court of Australia
Full case nameGeorge Milpurrurru, Banduk Marika, Tim Payunka and the Public Trustee of the Northern Territory v Indofurn Pty Ltd, Brian Alexander Bethune, George Raymond King and Robert James Rylands
Decided13 December 1994
Citation(s) [1994] FCA 1544
Legislation cited Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Von Doussa J
Area of law
Copyright, Intellectual property

Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd (the Carpets Case) was one of three Federal Court of Australia judgments in the 1990s involving the use of copyright law in Australia relating to Indigenous cultural and intellectual property (ICIP), the others being Yumbulul v Reserve Bank of Australia (1991) and Bulun Bulun v R & T Textiles (1998), or "T-shirts case".

Contents

The trial was the result of three Aboriginal artists and the estates of five others taking action against Perth import company Infordurn, for using their designs as a basis for carpets which were made in Vietnam and then imported into Australia. After a trial lasting two weeks, Justice Von Doussa awarded damages of A$188,640 in total, for breaches of the Copyright Act 1968 and Trade Practices Act , awarding punitive damages for cultural harm.

Background

In 1993, it was found that a number of designs by Aboriginal artists had been reproduced without permission on rugs made in Vietnam and marketed by the Perth-based company Indofurn Pty Ltd, [1] [2] named Beechrow at the time. The firm had used documents produced by the Australian National Gallery as educational materials and a calendar published by the Australian Information Service as a basis for the designs, both of which included text noting the spiritual significance of the designs. Beechrow did not seek permission from the artists, although they did write a letter to the Aboriginal Arts Management Association (AAMA, later the National Indigenous Arts Advocacy Association (NIAAA)) which was not received or acknowledged. [3]

The issue went beyond copyright relating to individual ownership, as the designs were sacred or sensitive, and the artists had specific responsibilities to their communities with regard to how they were represented and used. Walking on the designs would not have been acceptable to the communities. There were secret Dreaming stories included in the art, specific to and only understood by those in the cultural group concerned. [3] As an example, one of the artists, Banduk Marika, had particular responsibility and rights for representing the story of Djang'kawu and his two sisters, ancestral creators who landed at Yalangbara and gave rise to the Rirratjingu clan. She explained: "I hold the image on trust for all the other Yolngu with an interest in the story". [4]

Banduk Marika, George Milpurrurru, Tim Payungka Tjapangarti, and five other artists or their estates moved to seek reparations under the Copyright Act 1968 and the Trade Practices Act , [5] [2] in a case that became known as the "carpets case", [6] officially referred to as Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd. [4]

The NIAAA, a not-for-profit Indigenous arts advocacy organisation (1990–2002; formerly AAMA – see above), conducted the case on behalf of the artists. [7]

Trial

Hearings took place in Darwin and Perth, between 25 and 29 July 1994, and 22 November and 1 December 1994, presided over by Justice John von Doussa, with the judgment delivered from Adelaide by videolink to Perth on 13 December 1994. [4] [8] [3] [7]

Findings

Justice Von Doussa, saying that the copyright infringements had been "plainly deliberate and calculated", [9] awarded damages of A$188,640 to the artists as a group, in line with their wishes, and ordered that the rugs be released to them. The award included compensation for cultural damage stemming from the unauthorised use of sacred imagery, [5] and in particular the "cultural hurt suffered by the artists as a result of the company's persistent denial of their copyright". [3] The judge took into account that some deliberate changes made to some of the designs, for labour-saving purposes, had caused the artists further humiliation and distress, as they did not properly represent the Dreaming stories. [3]

In addition to the copyright breaches, the Trade Practices Act was infringed because the labels misled consumers into thinking that royalties would have been paid to the original artists. [3]

Justice Von Doussa said: [3]

The reproduction of paintings which depict Dreaming stories and designs of cultural significance has been a matter of great concern to the Aboriginal community. Pirating of Aboriginal designs and paintings for commercial use without the consent of the artist or the traditional owners was common for a long time. The recognition of the sacred and religious significance of these paintings, and the restrictions which Aboriginal law and culture imposes on their reproduction, is only now being understood by the white community.

Aftermath and significance

This was the largest penalty awarded for copyright infringement against Australian artists up to that time, and it included compensation for cultural damage stemming from the unauthorised use of sacred imagery. [5] However, no damages were ever paid to the artists or their next-of-kin, because the company was declared bankrupt and wound up. [3]

The trial was the second of three Federal Court judgments on the issue of Indigenous intellectual property, the other two being Yumbulul v Reserve Bank of Australia (1991) and Bulun Bulun v R & T Textiles (1998), or "T-shirts case". [10] [11] In the 1991 case, Galpu clan artist Terry Yumbulul's Morning Star Pole had been reproduced on the ten-dollar note. [7] [12] [13]

Michael Blakeney (1995) noted that the Carpets Case had represented an improvement on Yumbulul v Reserve Bank of Australia, in terms of protection of Aboriginal works and folklore. However, the Copyright Act "requires creators who are in a position to assert copyright ownership", which proves a problem where the designs had been created more than the specified time after the creator's death; in the case of many ancient designs, it is impossible to identify the creator. [9]

Erin Mackay of the Indigenous Law Centre at UNSW (2009) wrote that the case has been noted as an important one in Indigenous case law because of the damages awarded for the cultural harm done; however, the Act does not provide "judicial recognition of the nature and obligations of Indigenous groups in establishing copyright ownership", [14] and was the subject of further legal analysis relating to the protecting Indigenous art, and its relationship to Indigenous communal moral rights (ICMR). [7]

Related Research Articles

The Djang'kawu, also spelt Djanggawul or Djan'kawu, are creation ancestors in the mythology of the Yolngu people of Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory of Australia. It is one of the most important stories in Aboriginal Australian mythology, and concerns the moiety known as Dhuwa.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy</span> 1990s controversy involving indigenous land rights

The Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy was a 1990s Australian legal and political controversy that involved the clash of local Aboriginal Australian sacred culture and property rights. A proposed bridge to Hindmarsh Island, near Goolwa, South Australia attracted opposition from many local residents, environmental groups and indigenous leaders. In 1994, a group of Ngarrindjeri women elders claimed the site was sacred to them for reasons that could not be revealed. The case attracted much controversy because the issue intersected with broader concerns about Indigenous rights, specifically Aboriginal land rights, in the Australian community at the time, and coincided with the Mabo and Wik High Court cases regarding Native title in Australia.

<i>Where the Green Ants Dream</i> 1984 West German film

Where the Green Ants Dream is a 1984 English-language West German film co-written and directed by Werner Herzog, made in Australia. Based on a true story about Indigenous land rights in Australia but slated as a mixture of fact and fiction, the film only got a limited release in Australia and was not well received by critics, although it did fare a bit better in Europe and North America.

Timmy Payungka was an Aboriginal Australian artist, a Pintupi man who worked at the Papunya Tula school of painting. He was born at Parayirpilynga, near Wilkinkarra in the Pilbara region of Western Australia.

Indigenous intellectual property is a term used in national and international forums to describe intellectual property that is "collectively owned" by various Indigenous peoples, and by extension, their legal rights to protect specific such property. This property includes cultural knowledge of their groups and many aspects of their cultural heritage and knowledge, including that held in oral history. In Australia, the term Indigenous cultural and intellectual property, abbreviated as ICIP, is commonly used.

Raymattja Marika, also known as Gunutjpitt Gunuwanga, was a Yolngu leader, scholar, educator, translator, linguist and cultural advocate for Aboriginal Australians. She was a Director of Reconciliation Australia and a member of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. She was also a director of the Yothu Yindi Foundation and a participant in the 2020 Summit, which was held in April 2008. Marika advocated understanding and reconciliation between Indigenous Australian and Western cultures.

Wandjuk Djuwakan Marika OBE, was an Aboriginal Australian painter, actor, composer and Indigenous land rights activist. He was a member of the Rirratjingu clan of the Yolngu people of north-east Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory of Australia, and the son of Mawalan 1 Marika.

The copyright law of Australia defines the legally enforceable rights of creators of creative and artistic works under Australian law. The scope of copyright in Australia is defined in the Copyright Act 1968, which applies the national law throughout Australia. Designs may be covered by the Copyright Act as well as by the Design Act. Since 2007, performers have moral rights in recordings of their work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John von Doussa</span> Australian judge

John William von Doussa is a former Australian judge and public servant. He was a judge of the Federal Court of Australia from 1988 to 2003, president of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission from 2003 to 2008, and chancellor of the University of Adelaide from 2004 to 2010.

Roy Dadaynga Marika was an Aboriginal Australian artist and Indigenous rights activist. He was a member of the Marika family, brother of Mawalan 1 Marika, Mathaman Marika, Milirrpum Marika and Dhunggala Marika.

Banduk Mamburra Wananamba Marika, known after her death as Dr B Marika, was an artist, printmaker and environmental activist from Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, Australia, who was dedicated to the development, recognition and preservation of Indigenous Australian art and culture. She was the first Aboriginal person to serve on the National Gallery of Australia's board.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terri Janke</span> Australian lawyer

Terri Janke is an Indigenous Australian lawyer of Wuthathi/Meriam heritage. She is considered a leading international authority on Indigenous cultural and intellectual property (ICIP), and is the Solicitor Director of Terri Janke and Company.

Dhuwarrwarr Marika, also known as Banuminy, a female contemporary Aboriginal artist. She is a Yolngu artist and community leader from East Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory of Australia. She belongs to the Dhuwa moiety of the Rirratjingu clan in the homeland of Yalangbara, daughter of Mawalan Marika. Marika is an active bark painter, carver, mat maker, and printmaker.

George Milpurrurru (1934–1998) was an Australian Aboriginal artist known for his bark paintings.

Mawalan Marika (c.1908–1967), often referred to as Mawalan 1 Marika to distinguish from Mawalan 2 Marika, was an Aboriginal Australian artist and the leader of the Rirratjingu clan of the Yolngu people of north-east Arnhem Land, in the Northern Territory of Australia. He is known for his bark paintings, carvings and political activism.

Yalangbara is a coastal area in the East Arnhem (Miwatj) region of Australia's Northern Territory, around 35 km (22 mi) south of Nhulunbuy, the largest town in the area. It is on the country of the Rirratjingu clan of the Yolŋu people, and is one of the most significant cultural areas for the Yolŋu because of its role in the creation story of the Rirratjingu clan, based on the Djang'kawu ancestors.

Mawalan Marika, also referred to as Mawalan 2 Marika to distinguish from his grandfather Mawalan 1 Marika (c.1908-1967), is a Yolngu artist and land custodian of Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory of Australia. He is the son of well-known artist and leader Wandjuk Marika, and nephew to Banduk Marika.

Milirrpum Marika, also known as Jacky and also referred to simply as Milirrpum, was a Yolngu artist and community leader from East Arnhem Land, Northern Territory of Australia. He was best known for his involvement in the landmark court case Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971), aka the Gove land rights case, which was the first significant legal case for Indigenous land right and native title in Australia and led to the federal Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976.

Mathaman Marika (c.1920–1970) was an Aboriginal Australian artist and Indigenous rights activist. He was a member of the Rirratjingu clan of the Yolngu people of north-east Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory, and one of the well-known Marika family, brother of Mawalan 1 Marika, Milirrpum Marika, Roy Dadaynga Marika, and Dhunggala Marika. Mathaman was second oldest after Mawalan.

References

  1. ↑ "Art and Indigenous rights". National Museum of Australia . NMA. Retrieved 8 August 2021.
  2. 1 2 McLennan, Chris (15 July 2020). "Northern Territory's 2020 Senior Australian of the Year Banduk Marika's ancestral stories retain their relevance". Bega District News. Retrieved 8 August 2021.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Case study 4: 'The carpets case'". NSW Educational Standards Authority. 1 May 2007. Archived from the original on 2 March 2021. Retrieved 8 August 2021.
  4. 1 2 3 Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 1544 , 54 FCR 240; 130 ALR 659 (13 December 1994), Federal Court.
  5. 1 2 3 Marika, Banduk; West, Margie (2008). Yalangbara : art of the Djang'kawu. Darwin, N.T.: Charles Darwin University Press. p. 159. ISBN   9780980384673.
  6. ↑ Janke, Terri (February 1995), "Copyright: The Carpets Case", Alternative Law Journal 20(1) Alternative Law Journal 36.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Janke, Terri (2003). Minding culture: Case studies on intellectual property and traditional cultural expressions (PDF). Study No. 1. World Intellectual Property Organization. pp. 8–27, 51, 135.
  8. ↑ Fitzgerald, Roxanne; Toomey, Jade (16 July 2021). "Dr B Marika AO, trailblazing Yolngu artist and activist, dies aged 66". ABC News. Retrieved 8 August 2021.
  9. 1 2 Blakeney, Michael (1995). "Milpurrurru & Ors v Indofurn & Ors: Protecting expressions of Aboriginal folklore under copyright law". Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law. (1995) 2(1) Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law.
  10. ↑ Janke, Terri; Quiggin, Robynne (10 May 2006). Indigenous cultural and intellectual property: The main issues for the Indigenous arts industry in 2006 (PDF) (Report). Written for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board [of the] Australia Council.
  11. ↑ Bulun Bulun v R & T Textiles Pty Ltd (T-Shirts case) [1998] FCA 1082 , 86 FCR 244; 157 ALR 193(3 September 1998), Federal Court
  12. ↑ "Case study 3: Terry Yumbulul and the ten-dollar note". NSW Educational Standards Authority. Archived from the original on 3 March 2021. Retrieved 8 August 2021.
  13. ↑ Yumbulul v Reserve Bank of Australia [1991] FCA 332 (25 July 1991), Federal Court.
  14. ↑ Mackay, Erin (2009). "Indigenous traditional knowledge, copyright and art – shortcomings in protection and an alternative approach" (PDF). UNSW Law Journal . 32 (1): 1–26. Retrieved 8 August 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.