Great-nephew seeks $30m over $50 note portrait
Posted
Updated
Time for settlement...Allan Campbell walks into the Reserve Bank in Sydney. (ABC TV)
The great-nephew of Indigenous author and inventor David Unaipon is meeting with the Reserve Bank about what he has described as the "unauthorised use" of his great-uncle's image on the $50 note.
Allan Campbell says permission to use Mr Unaipon's image was given by someone posing as a relative before the polymer notes were introduced in 1995.
"They jacked this woman up and proclaimed that she is the daughter of his nephew, my uncle Topha Jenaphan and when we found out they blocked us and they chucked all the barricades there," he said.
"We are the family, I had to produce my genealogy, I had to produce my documents and documentation, they don't have to, they just say it, and they accepted it.
"But when it comes to me, I have to produce everything and say I got my document, I got my proof, I've got my genealogy I written up my own genealogy and I produced it."
Mr Campbell say he is seeking a settlement of more than $30 million which he will use to start a charity for children with mental health problems.
"We fellas have got to renegotiate proper settlement and I've got that settlement in mind," he said. "It's not going to be tea leaves, sugar and flour.
"We aren't going to settle for anything less than the figure I got in my hand.
"It's over $30 million."
He says he has received no compensation so far.
"Nothing. We now ask them for damages and we also ask them for renegotiate the proper settlement that should have been took place in 1994 with the real family," he said.
Search for news
ABC News Online takes a look at the big stories from 2008.
Comments (59)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
John:
27 Nov 2008 11:24:07am
It's time for the great Intellectual Property (aka Imaginary Property) swindle to be put to death. Someone demanding $30million for a picture on a $50 note is a joke. Someone demanding millions for the genes in the food we eat and the medicines we take is obscene.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
James:
27 Nov 2008 12:27:50pm
Geez, I'll have to keep an eye on this one. Somewhere down the line I'm related to the old boy on the $100 note.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
TomM:
27 Nov 2008 11:25:16am
And I would have thought that having your great-uncle's image on the $50 note would have been a great honour. Apparently not!
Agree (4) Alert moderator
-
Andrew:
27 Nov 2008 11:46:07am
People never know when to just say thanks, and not just stick their hand out for more.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
matt hein:
27 Nov 2008 12:07:37pm
sure - thanks for destroying our land, traditions, culture
thanks for the lowered life expectancy
thanks for the media-fed stigma
thanks for rewriting historyAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
rosie:
27 Nov 2008 12:28:59pm
it shouldn't matter that it an aboriginal on the note or not its a great-newphew wanting money for something that should be consided an honour.
this is an isolated incident so stay on topicAgree (1) Alert moderator
-
BlzBob:
27 Nov 2008 12:31:48pm
Recall all the notes and burn them, they can put my portrait on the replacements (as the Aussie who expected nothing) if they like, free of charge.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Pen Pal:
27 Nov 2008 12:03:58pm
Honour TomM, is only supported these days at the end of a cheque book - shame really as I too think it would be a great honour to have a portrait my great grandfather on anything.
I think on this one the Government should consign this effort to the dustbin.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Laki:
27 Nov 2008 12:28:49pm
TomM, if you had a chance of making $30 million out of the government you might do the same as Allan Campbell too. I know I would!
Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
-
darren:
27 Nov 2008 11:26:00am
Monetary notes.
It's probably the only thing you could put a picture of someone on,
and no-one can successfully argue that you did it for profit or gain.
If it was on a box of wheaties I could understand.
The guy should be proud, i would be.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Stev0-P:
27 Nov 2008 11:26:45am
The article says, "permission ... was given by someone posing as a relative".
Allan Campbell will probably become no more than a footnote to this episode as "an ambit claim made by someone posing as a relative".Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Tabby:
27 Nov 2008 11:27:21am
I just thought, its been a while, wouldn't the image have been noticed by now?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
John D:
27 Nov 2008 11:27:37am
This is a joke isn't it?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Chappy:
27 Nov 2008 11:47:13am
One would think so....hell they can put my image on the $50 note for free....Mr Campbell should realise that having your image potrayed on currency and/or even stamps for that matter is indeed an HONOUR.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
kelvin:
27 Nov 2008 11:28:26am
yah right... sound so noble... protecting the grand uncle eh? And another lawyer looking for headline news & a share of the $30m.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Dessy Cartes:
27 Nov 2008 11:28:41am
Good luck to you Allan, I hope you get it.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
sarah:
27 Nov 2008 12:11:31pm
Dessy Cartes,
on what grounds do you 'hope he gets it'?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Dave:
27 Nov 2008 12:25:28pm
As long as it's your tax going up to pay for it and not mine.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
chalkie:
27 Nov 2008 11:29:15am
Can someone own (and thus rent /sell / licence) a representation of a long dead relative?
What is the law on this?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
johnf:
27 Nov 2008 12:15:13pm
Any copyright in an image vests in the creator of the image, not the subject. While there have been some exceptions sought where indigenous issues arise, I would doubt that this claim has any legs at all.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Felix:
27 Nov 2008 11:29:15am
Will this grab for cash mentality ever end...................
The only people that win are lawyers.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Spooky:
27 Nov 2008 12:01:36pm
Are you kidding? I find this hilarious.
For every lawyer who considers this case has any merit, there will be a hundred who tell him that he is joking.
How could the government be illegally profiting from the image? They print their own money. It wouldnt matter what image was on the note.
And was Mr Campbell losing profits because of the governments use of the image? I doubt it.
The entire point of the image was to pay respect to notable people in Australian history. I think Mr Campbell might have missed this point.
If I ever got my face on a note, I would have hoped that my descendents would be damn proud of it.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Lindsay Cooper:
27 Nov 2008 11:32:52am
If they give me $30m. to use my portrait I will start a charity for retired politicians.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Chappy:
27 Nov 2008 11:34:17am
I wonder if Mr Campbell knows how to go and get nicked.....sure appears like he is trying to obtain a bit of charity himself in order to start HIS charity...
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Richard:
27 Nov 2008 11:38:35am
Call me cynical but it seems like just another cash grab from the Tax Payer Gravy Train Express....
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Dan:
27 Nov 2008 11:38:44am
I think it's a good thing this individual is testing whether they have any rightful claim. There is an established body of law dealing with the public and/or commercial use of a person's likeness. If they can't reach a negotiated settlement on the merits of the claim or the amount the courts will no doubt be able to sort it out.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
chalkie:
27 Nov 2008 11:49:40am
and I hope ol' Regina goes for costs
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Guy:
27 Nov 2008 11:41:57am
Simple, remove the image.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
bravo:
27 Nov 2008 11:50:33am
Typical...why don't we replace it with one of the soldiers that lost his life fighting for this country.
Agree (3) Alert moderator
-
paul:
27 Nov 2008 12:13:38pm
100% behind that idea mate
i wonder if David Unaipon would contest that? Or if he would be ashamed of his great-nephew's audacityAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Sage:
27 Nov 2008 12:26:36pm
And which soldier would that be? Someone who died on behalf of the Europeans in this country whose ancestors originally and illegally invaded the Aboriginal peoples land - what we now call Australia, perchance?
Anyway why would we want to "honor" someone whose only job is to go around killing othersAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Dave:
27 Nov 2008 12:43:18pm
You should be ashamed of yourself. Next time you post in on the ABC forum, or any forum, you should thank those soldiers for protecting your rights and freedoms. There are a lot of countries around the world that wouldn't allow you to voice your opinion on matters.
The job of soldiers is not to go around killing people. They are there to defend our country. Most sign up to serve the country. They do not ask to go to war and do not want to go to war. But when some politician decides they should go to war, they don't ask questions, they go.
P.S I am not a soldier, nor do a I know any. But I'm bloody thankful for them and what they do.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
dazza:
27 Nov 2008 12:33:24pm
Not a bad idea. How about the image of LT, later Major, Duncan Chapman. Credited with being the first man ashore at Gallipoli, and later dying in Aug 1916 at Pozieres - the battlefield that has more Australian dead per sq m than any other in the world. He was my Great Great Uncle, and the first of 4 generationn my family to serve in the Defence Forces from WW I to Iraq. I have no probs with them using his image. And if Mr Campbell really wants compensation for the "misuse" of his great uncles image, shouldn't he pursue the bloke who posed as a relative and gave permission in the first instance.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Marcus:
27 Nov 2008 12:46:07pm
I am also 100% behind that idea
Put a couple of Diggers on it insteadAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Loxley:
27 Nov 2008 12:31:55pm
And while we're at it, lets remove the image of that parasite, the british queen, from our coins as well
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Dave:
27 Nov 2008 11:45:53am
Assuming proper checks were done to confirm the man's identity, and they didn't just take the word of some guy on the side of the road, I fail to see how it was anyone's fault but the person who posed as the relative.
Also why has it taken 13 years for someone to come forward with a lawsuit? Could it be they didn't care until they thought they could get some money out of it?
If he wins they should pay him in $50 notes.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Chappy:
27 Nov 2008 12:34:14pm
"pay him in $50 notes"....???? lol...
May I suggest paying him in de-commissioned 1 & 2 cent pieces...Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Merlin23:
27 Nov 2008 11:48:38am
Move to America
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Martin:
27 Nov 2008 11:48:50am
Just where do these people get their inflated ideas and equally inflated egos from? One just can't take this matter seriously - or can one? As has often been said Australia is daily moving closer to Americia's litigious society where seemingly stupid claims do indeed "get up". Hopefully the RBA will send Mr Campbell away with the appropriate response!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
RobS:
27 Nov 2008 11:51:12am
How sad! This man's relative has been honoured in a way that very people are; and all he can do is reduce that honour to a petty, profit-driven whinge. If this matter was such a galling sticking point for this relative, he should have voiced that concern years ago. But, then again, the time wasn't 'right' for maximum media impact, with potential profit, was it?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Mick:
27 Nov 2008 12:13:15pm
Sad indeed and to also hide behind an attempt to paint yourself as a charity saviour "use to start a charity for children with mental health problems." Tell him he's dreamin'
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
John D:
27 Nov 2008 12:22:39pm
I would of thought he would at least have said the charity was for aboriginals
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Dave:
27 Nov 2008 11:52:51am
Exactly who owns the image?
It's a bit like the paparazzi. If you are in a public place they can photograph you and they own the pictures.
Besides that, you can't argue that the reserve bank is profiting from the image so there really is no case.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pravda:
27 Nov 2008 11:53:04am
Don't worry folks, this is what the Americans call a "hey Martha" story, designed to bring someone out of their slumber as they read the newspaper (or in this case, scroll the ABC website)
It will get a run in the Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun where it will whip up a bit of outrage, and then be forgotten about.
Allan Campbell will probably get a nice cup of tea and a biscuit at the Reserve Bank, and that will be about that.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
rocky:
27 Nov 2008 12:15:02pm
Agreed. The story isn't worth the pixels it's printed on, its just designed to stir up some indignant commentary.
It looks like the ABC have started trolling their own forums...Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
JC:
27 Nov 2008 11:55:28am
So much for PRIDE in ones ancestors. Seems it now comes with a hefty price tag. And how ironic that this (not so "great") great nephew suddenly discovers the image! Hmmm.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Bartlebooth:
27 Nov 2008 12:04:16pm
The bloke has a reasonable claim in my view: imagine having the memory of your relly insulted in such an embarrassingly poor likeness. In my view, the quality of artwork on the Australian currency should be a cause of national shame. I hope Allan Campebll is successful in his bid, then maybe the RB will be forced to retender for the artwork on all our notes....
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
tonyg:
27 Nov 2008 12:05:35pm
If I tried to claim any control or benefit from an image on which no copyright or intellectual property has been established, I would be laughed at.
If any benefit were to accrue from the image, surely it would be shared by all the descendants of Mr Unaipon.
This person is not a descendent.
The hide and cheek of some people.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Tricky:
27 Nov 2008 12:14:31pm
Wow. If/when Charles becomes King, he'll be able to claim a motza for his relatives.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Dave:
27 Nov 2008 12:24:36pm
I'd love it if the Government just agreed and then had his image removed from all public places. IE, schools, libraries, museums, art galleries etc...just wipe him out of history, that should make the relative happy.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pravda:
27 Nov 2008 12:24:59pm
Is it a coincidence that a week or so ago, there was a very interesting program on David Unaipon on Radio National?
Sounded like a very deserving person to be recognised by the nation in this way.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ishmael:
27 Nov 2008 12:27:54pm
There is only one owner of this "likeness" and he has long since ceased to have an interest in what happens to it. The claim is a disgrace.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
sadman:
27 Nov 2008 12:28:50pm
I fully support this claim for compensation, purely on cultural grounds because I know how sacred is an image of a deceased indigene.
However, for the claim to be upheld, DNA testing should be used to prove the relationship of the claimant to the deceased.
Oops. Indigenous blood is also sacred.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
aegis:
27 Nov 2008 1:04:56pm
congrats on being the first one to acknowledge that many indigenous people dislike having images of themselves made or viewing images of deceased relatives. Not quite sure what to make of the rest of your post though.
Who wants to be 'honoured' by an oppressor?
All this comment, and so little of value. sure its a quirky news story but perhaps you should all calm down until its been through court.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Tom:
27 Nov 2008 12:30:04pm
I am well and alive, saint and mentally alert. I guess I am capable of giving legal consent for use of My portrait for free! No worry about any of my relatives suing the government, now or ever. Note: no charge for using my portrait
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
werdan:
27 Nov 2008 12:35:15pm
maybe it's about time for a picture of 'The Don' to be on a bank note anyway.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Sync:
27 Nov 2008 12:36:05pm
After 13 years he's decided that he needs $30 million - if it was a picture that he'd drawn or if he had any sort of creative input he might conceivably have a case for compensation - otherwise - tell him he's joking.
Now I happen to be related (many greats back) to a certain James Cook from Yorkshire. If Allan Campbell can claim $30 million for a banknote picture, then I should be able to claim an awful lot more - just think of all the places great-great-great-etc-uncle James' name and picture are used. Should be worth a few billion to me at least.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Peter D:
27 Nov 2008 12:46:57pm
This is outrageous!! Firstly how can somebody 'purport' to be a relative? Either they are or they aren't - simple. I would say that a grand-nephew is too far removed from the original person to even warrant consideration. If the Government or the Reserve Bank gives in to this -- shame sshame shame. Come on Kev, tell this clown where to go.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
chris:
27 Nov 2008 1:00:01pm
I wonder if it was on the $5 note instead, he'd only be asking for $3million???
Agree (1) Alert moderator
