Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd

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, 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. officially referred to as Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd. The NIAAA, a not-for-profit Indigenous arts advocacy organisation (1990–2002; formerly AAMA – see above), conducted the case on behalf of the artists. ==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. ==Findings==

Justice Von Doussa, saying that the copyright infringements had been "plainly deliberate and calculated", 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. 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. Justice Von Doussa said: ==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. In the 1991 case, Galpu clan artist Terry Yumbulul's Morning Star Pole had been reproduced on the ten-dollar note. 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. 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", and was the subject of further legal analysis relating to the protecting Indigenous art, and its relationship to Indigenous communal moral rights (ICMR). == References ==