These symbols and words are not in the local “trademarks” or “intellectual property” data bases? Would the Royal family be called “moral pygmies” for claiming others refrain from using their Coat of Arms?

So why should Harry Harry be allowed to COPY (not create) a very distictive patterned lizard in his paintings — which represents several tribes and clans from Western Australia? By doing so, he’s denoting that he is associated with those tribes.

Aboriginal culture cannot be understood in the same way western culture is. This is not an intellectual property rights issue about “logos”, “trademarks”, “property” or “ownership”. Among other things, its about identity.

For two hundred years, the British govenment (and its representatives) have stolen aboriginal land, attempted genocide, discarded aboriginal culture and tradition and stolen aboriginal children. Surely we can refrain from stealing the one thing the aboriginal community has left: their personal spriritual and traditional language and stories all of which are rooted in these very distictive symbols.

If we can’t do that, who is the real “moral pygmies”?

Perhaps, but such a work of art could only be made for the purpose of upsetting Brits which is I think is a different matter all together. Personally I would just think that they are sad and should get out more often.

Itellectual Properety Rights = mental taxation.

I sure some taxes could be described as useful but in the main, many are not. This is one example that causes lost sleep for creative ideviduals and tends only to benefit lawyers.

Having fought and won several IPR cases I would still be more than happy to give up my rights if everybody else gave up theirs. While the idea may be reasonable (or perhaps reasonably argued) the results in many cases are less than understandable.

This link should work.