Indigenous IP rights
p2pnet.net OT special:- Late last year the Australian federal government announced a senate inquiry into Australia’s Indigenous visual arts and craft sector. The inquiry received 72 submissions, and is being followed with public hearings around the country.
The inquiry isn’t surprising given the increased worldwide popularity of Indigenous Australian arts and craft. Recently an Albert Namatjira painting sold for $96,000 at a Sotheby’s auction in Melbourne. The auction was attended by over 500 investors interested in Aboriginal art. The auction featured the Wallent Collection, which included 38 watercolours from the Hermannsburg Mission in central Australia.
It’s estimated that up to 7,000 Aboriginal people are estimated to be actively occupied making arts and craft. Further, it is estimated that Indigenous arts contribute between $100 and $300 million to the Australian economy. It’s not just Aboriginal artists profiting from arts and crafts. Retailers earn income selling boomerangs, carvings, glass works, hand-carved emu eggs, didgeridoos, jewellery, masks, and statues to tourists seeking a piece of genuine Australian memorabilia. Galleries display paintings by artists they hope will be the next Namatjira. Suppliers provide raw materials to artists which are used to create their works. Truck drivers deliver and warehouses store raw materials used in arts and craft. Developers create websites for e-tailers of arts and craft. Telcos and ISPs also benefit from e-commerce in Indigenous arts and craft.
However, Indigenous Australian artists are becoming victims of their own success, with a substantial growth taking place in the counterfeiting of Indigenous arts and craft. This exacerbates the already parlous nature of the market where the vast majority of artists are excluded from the high value gallery market, and are instead consigned to the lower value tourist souvenir market.
Tourist areas in most Australian cities contain shops with souvenirs based on Indigenous Australian creativity. Some shops sell key rings with imitation Aboriginal designs, plastic didgeridoos, $5 boomerangs, imitation carvings, cheesy postcards, and placemats with designs lifted directly from Aboriginal paintings. These souvenirs are cheap imitations, of poor quality, often imported from Indonesia or China, and their availability for sale in Australian souvenir shops devalues Indigenous Australian culture.
There have been reports of local backpackers being hired to copy Indigenous Australian designs from a book. Some retailers falsely try to pass off their goods as ‘made by Australian Aborigines’. Some arts and crafts are also falsely labelled in the same manner. eBay and other auction websites are also stocked with Indigenous items of questionable authenticity.
These products are more than cheap and nasty: they represent Australia in an embarrassing and demeaning manner, reducing our Indigenous heritage to an anthropological oddity, and Indigenous artists to the status of pre-literate artistic stereotypes. These products rely on Indigenous Australian designs, shapes, colours and patterns, and do so without obtaining a license from the rights holder.
These products are counterfeits, and are no more genuine than market stall holders selling pirate DVDs or CDs. Yet while court cases against film and music pirates proceed, with some defendants being imprisoned, there seems to be no enforcement activity to protect Indigenous Australian rights owners. Why?
It could be that Indigenous Australians are less well organised and resourced as a group, compared to other industries. Maybe they’re not as efficient at beating their own drum in Canberra. Perhaps they suffer because they are widely dispersed in regional areas, and are unaware of their legal rights. Most likely, the Indigenous Australian artistic community, which contributes culturally and commercially to Australia, are in no position to help or adequately defend themselves.
Add to this an almost complete lack of interest in the plight of Indigenous victims of copyright infringement from academics or law firms who are keen to accept funding to inform artists of their legal rights, rather than getting their hands dirty actually fighting piracy. It’s safe to assume an Aboriginal artist trying to deal with copyright infringement is not in the market for a first tier law firm and vice versa!
The Government’s inquiry is an opportunity to raise suggestions to reduce the counterfeiting in this sector. The Government may wish to consider include increased funding for broader community education on the value of Indigenous Australian arts and craft. The Government should fund civil and criminal actions against infringers of Indigenous rights, or at least expect some of the funds they presently give to self-appointed protectors of Indigenous artists to be spent on enforcement actions rather than talk fests about enforcement. Unscrupulous operators will continue their operations while they have no fear of criminal or civil proceedings.
Indigenous IP rights owners should be given the benefit of a special trade mark which guarantees the legitimacy of indigenous products that carry the mark. The development and widespread usage of such a mark would create a commercially viable enforcement and protection mechanism. Consideration should also be given to a copyright registration system which will directly protect Indigenous rights owners and allow them to earn greater license revenues.
Indigenous Australian culture developed over thousands of years. Indigenous art is one of those rare things that unarguably answers the question ‘who is an Australian’. Yet, as a result of counterfeiting, there is a danger of significant aspects of Indigenous Australian culture being wiped out in a single generation. The present state of affairs is tantamount to foreigners stealing Australian culture. Recent Government changes to copyright laws have ignored Australia’s dead heart. Perhaps the first step in remedying that deficiency is for the Government to recognise that Australia has a living and creatively thriving centre, and this centre is in need of protection: just ask the painters, crafts people, sculptors, weavers, jewellery makers, and musicians of Central Australia.
Their livelihood depends on it.
Alex Malik – p2pnet
[Malik is currently undertaking a PHD in Law, with a specialisation in intellectual property rights enforcement, at the University Of Technology, Sydney, Australia. From 1997 to 2000 he was a senior legal officer with the Australian Communications Authority, and from 2000 to 2002, the legal counsel for ARIA (Australian Recording Industry Association) and the PPCA, the collecting society. In 2006 he conducted a research project on intellectual property rights enforcement for the Australian Institute of Criminology on behalf of the stakeholders, the Commonwealth Attorney General's Department and IP Australia. You can contact him here.]
[And what Malik says of Australian aboriginal work can also apply to Canada's First Nations.]
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at thIs the end (of the Net) nigh?zze University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local politicians. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance. Don’t just complain. Do something!
March 5th, 2007 at 11:09 am
What a crock of S#it!
Hey my ancestors, developed bangers and haggis. Someone should pay me for the privilege of selling kilts. Come on guys this ip turf wars has gone way too far.
I’m all for organizing the aboriginals and registering a trademark to be put it ‘genuine’ works. That alone is all they need.
FTA: “Consideration should also be given to a copyright registration system which will directly protect Indigenous rights owners and allow them to earn greater license revenues.”
Sure it will give then greater licensing revenue. But they are no different then the RIAA if they think that any measure which allows them to increase there revenue is by definition justified.