CASE STUDY

ON
JOHN BULUN BULUN & ANOR V. R & T TEXTILES PTY LTD

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

When you think of copyright infringement you think of someone copying your original work or
your work which have invented. So basically what is copyright and what is copyright
infringement .
Section 141 of Copyright Act 1957 defines the meaning of copyright. Copyright is a exclusive
right given to the owner of the work to protect his invention from for other purposes from
others. Copyright relates to artistic creations, such as books, music, paintings and sculptures,
films and technology-based works such as computer programs and electronic databases. Section
52 talks about the infringement of copyright.

CASE STUDY- BULUN BULUN CASE

Ganalbingu people are the people from North-Central Arnhem who have developed a
relationship of legal understanding with the Federal Court of Australia by entrusting that Court
with an mutual understanding of the importance of their corpus of ritual knowledge. John bulun
bulun with the permission of senior member of the Ganalbingu people painted the artistic work
Magpie Geese and Water Lilies at the Waterhole in 1978 . Bulun bulun initially sold the work to
Maningrida Arts and Crafts Centre, where it was sold to the Northern Territory Museum of Arts
and Sciences. Afterwards, with the consent of John Bulun Bulun the work was reproduces in a
book by Jennifer Issacs, Arts of the Dreaming - Australia’s Living Heritage. But Bulan Bulun's
paniting was copyrighted as a fabric print in Indonesia imported into Australia by R &T
Textiles.Approximately 7600 metres of the fabric was imported and approximately 4231 metres
had already been sold before the withdrawing of the fabric for sale by defendant. Afterwards,
when M , (representative of ganalingu people and also a co-applicant to the proceeding ) sought
claim that the Ganalbingu people were the equitable owners of the copyright subsisting in the

1
Copyright Act 1957

THE BULUN BULUN CASE Page 1

artistic work created by Bulun Bulun and thereby claim an equitable interest in the copyright of
the artistic work that entitled him

Initially, during the proceeding defendant admitted the infringement of copyright in the artistic
work and also pleaded that they were unaware of copyright ownership by plaintiff. Planitiff gave
evidence that it was his duty to create such works as part of his traditional land ownership
responsibilities in accordance with Ganalbingu custom and law. Plaintiff also stated that he was
obliged to consult with other traditional owners on certain kinds of reproductions of the painting.
Mr Bulun Bulun gave evidence that reproduction that was not subject to proper consultations
threatened the framework of Ganalbingu society.

It was held that Bulun Bulun's obtainted full relief in respect to the responded infringement. But
in the second applicant where the Ganalbingu people claim the equitable owners of the
copyright subsisting in the artistic work created by plaintiff, in that case court dismissed their
claim and stated that unless the artistic work is a ‘work of joint ownership’ (within the meaning
of the Copyright Act) where one or more artists created the work, there is no communal
ownership in an artistic work. And here, it was clearly mentioned that Bulun Bulun was the only
creative author of the artistic work.

CONCLUSION

In the Carpets case,2 the Court took Aboriginal law and tradition into account in assessing
damages for a breach of copyright. According to me, the decision given by the honorable justice
von doussa was the right decision because first of all ,the defendant i.e. R &T Textiles,
themselves admitted that they were unaware of the fact that the ownership of the artistic work
belongs to the plaintiff and therefore they should be liable for the infringement of the artistic
work and secondly, when it comes the second question that whether the people of ganalbingu
are entitled to get the claim of equitable interest so in order to prove that the people of
ganalbingu need to prove that the artistic work is "the work of joint ownership" and they failed to
prove this. In T -Shirts case3 and the Ten Dollar Note case 4 established that traditional

2
M & Ors v Indofurn Pty Ltd & Ors (1994) 54 FCR 240.
3
Bulun Bulun & Nejlam, FCA 1998
4
Yumbulul v Reserve Bank of Australia [1991] FCA 332; (1991) 21 IPR 481

THE BULUN BULUN CASE Page 2

Aboriginal artworks constituted 'original' works for the purposes of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
and were therefore protected against breach of copyright.

However, the federal court also appreciated the fiduciary relationship between the people of
ganalbingu and Bulun Bulun and also considered that plaintiff owed the duty to M and the
people to protect the traditional knowledge.

Further, the court believed that Bulun Bulun had fulfilled his obligation by taking action against
the company because he had a fiduciary relation to the people of Galanbingu people and it is his
duty to insure that the image if reproduced than it should be in such a way that it shouldnt
destroy or moreover it should preserve the integrity of the culture and the knowledge, and if any
breach of obligation bases on fiduciary relationship occurs than the people of the land have a
right to bring an legal action in personam against the artist.

THE BULUN BULUN CASE Page 3