Racist Ideology & Hashtag activism: The Collision of Art, Brand and Law in Peter Drew’s Aussie Folk Hero, Monga Khan

Racist ideology is reproduced in daily communications and in art. Racism is also challenged. In this essay I explore the way ideology is present in Peter Drew’s ‘Monga Khan’ posters — artwork designed to provoke critical reflection about representations of race and Australian identity. Part I discusses the ideological engagement Peter Drew anticipated arising from his art ‘hactivism’ and critical reception of the work. I compare Drew’s oeuvre to 1970–80s protest posters, showing the effects of greater exposure to intellectual property constructs, marketing, and commercial branding on the ambition of art activism. Part II shows how attribution practices in the art world and media connect the politics of hactivist art with commodification. I discuss how ‘Blackness’, represented by Drew in the form of challenge to racialized ideas of Australian identity, functions as Drew’s ‘second skin’, or brand identity. Subaltern voices also challenge the authority of white artists to speak for the ‘Other’, but due to the way today we attribute ownership to image and voice, these protests metamorphise into a passing parade of objectified cultural difference. Part III draws out the implications for law, addressing the socio-legal reproduction of ideology, outside of relations normally identified with the lived experience of law

Decolonising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research

There is an important but unwieldy research policy infrastructure designed to engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research and researchers. This framework links the key performance indicators and policies of funders and institutions to researchers and communities. In this article, we explain the relevant policies and targets, with a view to showing how sector regulation interconnects in practice and identifying ways to strengthen institutional commitments to meaningful engagement with, and implementation of, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research policy. We suggest next steps that are needed to help researchers comply with funder and institution-mandated obligations and to empower Indigenous Peoples to make informed decisions about the benefits of research collaboration with universities

Disney in Spain (1930–1935)

This article looks at the ways in which the global brand par excellence – Mickey Mouse – spread throughout Spain in the early 1930s. In tracing the creative and commercial interplay with the Mickey character we show how the Disney Company failed to obtain any significant intellectual property rights in its own name or obtain a sympathetic hearing by Spanish patent and trademark officials. Yet this was undoubtedly a period of significant global development of the Disney brand. With the attempt to explain such an apparent contradictory situation, this article highlights the importance of the management of particular struggles in the flux of desires, appropriation and investments that contributed to the emergence of the elusive ‘merchandising right’

Rip, Mix, Burn: The Politics of Peer to Peer and Copyright Law

Rip, Mix, Burn: The Politics of Peer to Peer an

Rip, Mix, Burn: The Politics of Peer to Peer and Copyright Law

Whereas Lessig's recent work engages with questions of culture and creativity in society, this paper looks at the role of culture and creativity in the law. The paper evaluates the Napster, DeCSS, Felten and Sklyarov litigation in terms of the new social, legal, economic and cultural relations being produced. This involves a deep discussion of law's economic relations, and the implications of this for litigation strategy. The paper concludes with a critique of recent attempts to define copyright law in terms of first amendment rights and communicative freedom.

Rip, Mix, Burn: The politics of peer to peer and copyright law (originally published in August 2002)

This paper is included in the First Monday Special Issue: Music and the Internet, published in July 2005. Special Issue editor David Beer asked authors to submit additional comments regarding their articles. Since this paper was first published in 2002 there has been a constant stream of litigation surrounding P2P in the US and in other jurisdictions. In the United States, the District Court and the Court of Appeals controversially held that Grokster was not liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Justice Thomas of the Federal Circuit observed: "We live in a quicksilver technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet innovation." The United States Supreme Court is due to hear an appeal by copyright owners against the Grokster decision in 2005. In Australia, litigation was initiated against Sharman License Holdings, LEF Interactive and Brilliant Digital Entertainment, as the controllers of the peer to peer network Kazaa. Again, media owners have emphasized that the network is a pirate bazaar. Global legal forum shopping is one of the intriguing aspects of P2P. We see the arguments of both sides, originally developed specifically for US deliberation manifest across the globe. The Media naively ask whether there is any point in the Australian court considering these issues, given the litigation ongoing in the US. Here the US is seen as the world leader for legal ideas surrounding P2P, with the currency in ideas about technology, innovation and growing the global information economy clouding appreciation of national sovereignty and the distinctiveness of local jurisprudence. This context makes an appreciation of the cultural uniqueness of the US views all the more important. Rip, Mix, Burn: The Politics of Peer to Peer and Copyright Law by Kathy Bowrey and Matthew Rimmer Whereas Lessig's recent work engages with questions of culture and creativity in society, this paper looks at the role of culture and creativity in the law. The paper evaluates the Napster, DeCSS, Felten and Sklyarov litigation in terms of the new social, legal, economic and cultural relations being produced. This involves a deep discussion of law's economic relations, and the implications of this for litigation strategy. The paper concludes with a critique of recent attempts to define copyright law in terms of first amendment rights and communicative freedom