Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd facts for kids

Quick facts for kids Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd
Court	Federal Court of Australia
Full case name	George 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
Decided	13 December 1994
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 (also known as the Carpets Case) was an important court case in Australia. It happened in the 1990s and was about protecting the unique art and cultural stories of Aboriginal artists. This case, along with two others, helped shape how Australian law deals with Indigenous cultural and intellectual property.

The case involved three Aboriginal artists and the families of five others. They sued a company called Indofurn Pty Ltd. This company had used their art designs to make carpets in Vietnam. These carpets were then sold in Australia without the artists' permission. After a two-week trial, Justice John von Doussa ordered the company to pay A$188,640. This money was for breaking the Copyright Act 1968 and the Trade Practices Act. The judge also included extra payments for the cultural harm caused to the artists.

What Happened: The Background

In 1993, it was discovered that many designs by Aboriginal artists were copied onto rugs. These rugs were made in Vietnam and sold by a company in Perth called Indofurn Pty Ltd (which was then named Beechrow). The company had used pictures from educational materials and a calendar to copy the designs. These materials clearly stated that the designs had deep spiritual meaning.

Beechrow did not ask the artists for permission to use their work. They did send a letter to an art association, but it was never received.

Sacred Stories and Art

This case was more than just about who owned the art. Many of the designs were sacred or very important to the artists' communities. The artists had special duties to their people about how these designs could be used. For example, walking on carpets with these designs was not acceptable in their culture.

Some of the art included secret Dreaming stories. These stories are special and only understood by people within that cultural group. One artist, Banduk Marika, had a special responsibility for the story of Djang'kawu. She explained that she held the image "on trust for all the other Yolngu with an interest in the story." This means she was protecting it for her whole community.

Because of this, Banduk Marika, George Milpurrurru, Tim Payungka Tjapangarti, and five other artists (or their families) decided to take legal action. They sought payment for the damages under the Copyright Act 1968 and the Trade Practices Act. This case became known as the "carpets case."

The National Indigenous Arts Advocacy Association (NIAAA), an organisation that helps Indigenous artists, managed the case for the artists.

The Court Trial

The court hearings took place in Darwin and Perth. They happened between July and December 1994. Justice John von Doussa was the judge. He announced his decision from Adelaide through a videolink on 13 December 1994.

What the Judge Decided

Justice Von Doussa said that the company had copied the designs "plainly deliberately and calculated." This meant they knew exactly what they were doing and did it on purpose. He ordered Indofurn to pay A$188,640 to the artists as a group. The judge also ordered that the carpets be given to the artists.

The money awarded included payment for the cultural damage caused. This was because the company used sacred images without permission. The judge also noted that the company kept denying the artists' copyright. Some designs were even changed slightly to save money, which caused the artists more distress. These changes meant the designs no longer properly showed the important Dreaming stories.

The company also broke the Trade Practices Act. This was because the labels on the carpets made customers think that royalties (payments) had been made to the original artists. This was not true.

Justice Von Doussa explained how important this issue was:

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.

Why This Case Was Important

This case resulted in the largest payment ever awarded for copyright infringement against Australian artists at that time. It was also important because it included money for the cultural harm caused by using sacred images without permission.

However, the artists or their families never received any money. This was because the company was declared bankrupt and closed down.

The Carpets Case was the second of three major court cases about Indigenous intellectual property. The others were Yumbulul v Reserve Bank of Australia (1991) and Bulun Bulun v R & T Textiles (1998), also known as the "T-shirts case." In the 1991 case, an artist's work was copied onto the ten-dollar note.

Experts like Michael Blakeney (1995) noted that the Carpets Case was an improvement in protecting Aboriginal artworks. However, the Copyright Act mainly protects individual creators. This can be a problem for very old designs where the original artist cannot be identified.

Erin Mackay (2009) from the Indigenous Law Centre at UNSW wrote that this case was important for Indigenous law. This was because it recognised and awarded money for cultural harm. However, the law still needed to better understand and protect the rights of entire Indigenous groups when it comes to art ownership.