SUMMARY ON IP 1 BY MOSES YAZAAMA 0751067285

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 1 supports transactions where authors, artists, and

composers are compensated for the use of their
SUMMARY. work. Copyright protection applies to a wide range
of creative outputs, including music, dramatic
This summary provides a detailed overview of
works, sound recordings, and more.
Intellectual Property 1, focusing on its core
principles and key areas. Intellectual Property (IP) Historical Outline of Copyright Evolution
plays a critical role in fostering innovation and
protecting creative works in today’s knowledge Development of Modern Copyright Law
driven economy. By examining fundamental IP Copyright law developed alongside technological
categories such as copyright, this summary offers a advancements, especially the printing press in the
clear understanding of how these legal frameworks 15th century, which enabled mass production of
help safeguard the rights of creators while books. This led to early regulations concerning book
contributing to economic and cultural progress. I trade practices, starting with the 1710 Statute of
will also explore emerging areas of IP, including Anne. This is considered the first modern copyright
neighboring rights and the protection of personality statute. It provided authors with rights over their
rights, as well as key case law that demonstrates the works for a limited time and helped establish the
application of these principles in real world legal basis for future copyright laws. The 1911
scenarios. Copyright Act unified various laws and simplified
Over the past 50 years, Uganda has experienced the framework, expanding protections to
growing concern and interest in copyright and unpublished works and removing formalities for
related rights. This is evident in the efforts by both copyright registration. This act helped solidify
the Ugandan government and the international copyright as a distinct area of law. The 1956
community to establish laws and treaties that protect Copyright Act introduced new provisions in
copyright holders, enabling them to benefit from response to technological advances such as cable
their intellectual creations. A key challenge is television and computers, while the Copyright,
striking a balance between the rights of copyright Designs, and Patents Act2 further adapted to
holders and those of users, something that remains changes in technology.
poorly understood by both groups. Modern Copyright Law and Its Rationale
The concept of copyright, as defined by the Copyright is viewed as a property right designed to
"Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 1. This Act protect the works of creators (literary, artistic,
frames copyright as a statutory property right, musical) from unauthorized use and exploitation.
protecting intellectual works in Uganda. The CNRA The key goal of copyright law is to ensure that
provides the legal basis for copyright protection, creators benefit from their labor, preventing others
applying to various forms of creative works, from profiting off their works without permission. In
including literary, scientific, and artistic creations. Sawnlins v. Hyperion Records Ltd, the court
Copyright law is concerned with the creation, emphasized that copyright law protects not only the
regulation, protection, and enforcement of commercial value of a work but also the creator’s
intellectual works. It grants authors exclusive rights control over its use.
to use and profit from their works for a limited
period, ensuring control over their publication, Intellectual Property (IP) in Uganda
distribution, and reproduction. This legal foundation

1 2
Cap 222" (CNRA) 1988

1
SUMMARY ON IP 1 BY MOSES YAZAAMA 0751067285

The Constitution of Uganda (Article 189)3 Uganda is not a party to the WIPO Copyright
acknowledges intellectual property as a form of Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and
property. The government is responsible for Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), which focus on
handling IP matters, which include copyrights, protecting digital works and performances globally.
patents, and trademarks. While the central This means Uganda is not bound by these
government oversees IP regulations, local international treaties, which could affect the
governments may be delegated powers related to IP country’s copyright regime in a global context.
matters.
The Need for Comprehensive Legal Framework
Post-Independence Developments in Uganda
There is an ongoing academic and legal debate about
Uganda Motors Ltd v. Wavah Holdings Ltd whether Uganda's copyright laws, though
where the Supreme Court ruled that British colonial modernized, are sufficiently comprehensive to cope
laws, such as the Orders-in-Council (O.I.C.), no with rapid technological developments in other
longer applied after Uganda gained independence, jurisdictions. While Uganda has updated its laws, the
signaling a need for a locally adapted legal lack of alignment with certain international treaties
framework. The 1964 Copyright Act was largely raises questions about whether the country’s
based on British law but became outdated by the copyright regime is competitive on the global stage.
1990s, leading to the adoption of the Copyright and
Scope and Eligibility of Copyright Protection
Neighbouring Rights Act of 2006 which has since
been revised in 2024 to become CNRA4.
In Uganda, copyright protection is a statutory right
Modernization of Uganda’s Copyright Law governed by the Copyright and Neighboring Rights
Act (CNRA)6. It covers specific categories of works
This new act5 aligned Uganda’s laws with
under Section 4, requiring originality and creativity.
international standards, particularly addressing
The Act is territorial, protecting only works created
neighboring rights and digital copyright protection.
within Uganda, including literary, scientific, artistic,
Uganda’s copyright laws were influenced by and derivative works which are well elaborated on
international agreements like the WTO's TRIPS below;
Agreement (1994) and the Universal Copyright
Convention, which aim to standardize copyright 1. Literary Works
laws across nations.
Literary works encompass a wide range of written
Technological Evolution and Legal Challenges material as defined in Section 2, including novels,
The rapid pace of technological change has posed essays, plays, encyclopedias, speeches, and other
challenges to copyright law globally. In Uganda, the forms of literature. In University of London Press
2006 Copyright Act Cap 222 was a response to Ltd v. University Tutorial Press Ltd7 "original
emerging digital technologies, but concerns persist literary work" as any work that provides knowledge,
about whether the current law adequately protects instruction, or enjoyment, beyond being a mere word
creators in the face of new technologies. compilation. Further in Exxon Corp. v. Exxon
Insurance Consultants Int’l Ltd8 emphasized that

3 6
Providing for Sixth schedule 6 Supra
4 7
Cap 222 [1916] 2 Ch. 601
5 8
CNRA Cp 222 [1982] Ch. 119

2
SUMMARY ON IP 1 BY MOSES YAZAAMA 0751067285

originality in literary works goes beyond simple sculptures, photography, tapestry, and more. Artistic
word arrangements. works must show originality and creative intent. In
Geiger Brothers v. G. A. Hott’s Hotels Ltd14
2. Dramatic Works established that an artist’s purpose, as well as
objective artistic character, are critical in
Dramatic works, including performances like dance, determining protection eligibility. Also, Stella Atal
mime, or musical drama, must be capable of v. Anns Abel Kiruta15 where Atal sued a former
performance to qualify for copyright. Courts have business partner who reproduced her artwork
scrutinized dramatic works to determine whether without permission. The court awarded damages and
they demonstrate unity, performance capability, and upheld her right to protection, underscoring the
structural cohesiveness. In Tate v. Fullbrook9 court economic value of creative originality.
ruled that a dramatic work must have performance
capability to be copyrightable; abstract or conceptual 5. Protection of Functional Works such as
ideas alone are insufficient 10. Further in Green v. Computer Programs and Software
Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand11 held
that disjointed elements, such as a television show’s As a member of the WTO and WIPO, Uganda
format without unity, lack the structural certainty to abides by TRIPS Agreement guidelines (Article 10),
qualify as a dramatic work. which mandate copyright protection for computer
programs as literary works and for data compilations
3. Musical Works if they involve intellectual creativity.

Musical works, as per Section 4(10)12, include Section 216 defines computer programs as sets of
compositions and arrangements intended for singing instructions for performing tasks, while Section
or instrumental performance. Both lyrics and 4(1)(e) protects them similarly to literary works.
musical composition are protected, but originality is
a key criterion. In Sukuta & Another addressed In Digital Solutions Ltd v. MTN Uganda Ltd, the
whether modern arrangements of out-of-copyright plaintiff’s software for peer-to-peer airtime transfers
musical works were eligible for protection. The was protected against infringement, with the court
court concluded that simple alterations to existing granting a temporary injunction and compensation.
works do not qualify for protection unless they show Also, Apple Computer Inc. v. Franklin Computer
significant originality. Further more also in Wood v. Corp17 it’s an influential internationally, established
Boosey13 examined if a posthumous musical that computer programs in both source and object
arrangement met originality standards; the court code are literary works and thus eligible for
ruled it was not a new creation but rather derivative. copyright.

4. Artistic Works Sui Generis Protection for Functional

Innovations
Artistic works are protected under Section 4(1) of
the CNRA and include drawings, paintings,

9 14
[1908] 1 KB 821 (unreported)
10 15
Section 5 CNRA Cap 222 2003
11 16
[1989] RPC 700 CNRA
12 17
CNRA [1983] 714 F.2d 1240
13
(1868) LR 3 QB 223

3
SUMMARY ON IP 1 BY MOSES YAZAAMA 0751067285

The CNRA includes provisions for specific Section 4(1)(g)20. Its defined as one "which by
intellectual property challenges in the digital age, selection and arrangement of its content, constitutes
particularly around computer software, databases, an original work" eligible for copyright protection in
and technology. While copyright covers these, Uganda . This definition is crucial as it ensures that
further protections are achievable through patents for even works which are based on pre-existing material
inventive software or through confidentiality can be recognized for their originality, provided that
doctrines, as emphasized by intellectual property the new work results from substantial intellectual
scholars like Professor Torremans. effort.

6. Legal Frameworks and International Further clarification is provided under section

Obligations 4(2)(a), which outlines examples of derivative
works. These include adaptations, translations, and
Uganda, under WTO and WIPO agreements, aligns other transformations of pre-existing works,
with international copyright laws, particularly provided the new works meet the originality
through the TRIPS Agreement and the Berne threshold set out in the CNRA. According to section
Convention. Article 10 of TRIPS mandates 4(3), however, derivative works must not affect the
copyright protection for computer programs and original works from which they are derived,
databases, setting a global standard that Uganda reinforcing the principle that the underlying original
upholds under Section 4(1) (e)18. work must still be recognizable.

7. The Legal Protection of Computer Software Moreover, the law also delves into issues
and Derivative Works in Uganda surrounding electronic representation, as defined
under Section 2 of the Computer Misuse Act 21. This
The justification for the legal protection of computer provision includes "data or mere electronic
software stems from its recognition as a product of representation of information in any form" within
intellectual property. Intellectual property law the scope of protected works. In light of such legal
acknowledges that computer software, being a interpretations, works that may initially seem
manifestation of human intellect, warrants protection mundane, such as data compilations or software
similar to other forms of creative work. As noted by codes, qualify for intellectual property protection if
Bainbridge19, this protection is fundamental because they meet the standards of originality as prescribed
"there should be strong reasons for depriving a by the law.
person of property rights in what he or she has
created". Intellectual property law in Uganda An illustrative case that addresses the scope of
extends this protection to computer programs, derivative works is Byrne v. Statist Company 22,
software, and compilations of data, in accordance where the court was tasked with determining
with the TRIPS Agreement's provisions. whether a translated work could be considered a
derivative work. The King’s Bench Division held
Derivative Works that a translation indeed constitutes a derivative
work, as it transforms the original text into a new
Derivative works form a part of the subject matter of form without undermining the underlying property
protection under the CNRA in Uganda under rights of the original author. This case highlights the

18 21
CNRA Cap 96
19 22
(Bainbridge, 2009) (1914)
20
CNRA

4
SUMMARY ON IP 1 BY MOSES YAZAAMA 0751067285

breadth of Uganda’s copyright law in capturing and public domain), the new additions and adaptations
protecting various forms of intellectual effort, even introduced by the applicant were deemed original
in adapted or translated forms. and eligible for protection. The Registrar clarified
that copyright extends to creative expressions,
Copyright Protection of Derivative Works in particularly in cases where the author introduces
Uganda’s new elements, changes, or expressions into a pre-
existing work. The Registrar further noted that
In understanding the nature and scope of copyright copyright in derivative works does not prevent
protection in Uganda, it is crucial to consider how others from using the pre-existing work for their
derivative works are treated under the law. own purposes, provided they do not reproduce the
Derivative works, defined under section 4(1)(g) of derivative aspects introduced by the original author.
the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act
(CNRA)23, are works that involve some The Registrar ultimately allowed the registration of
transformation or adaptation of existing works but You want another rap as a derivative work under the
still maintain elements of originality. This principle CNRA. This decision is significant because it
was also echoed in section 4 of the Copyright Act, underscores the legal framework surrounding
191124, which similarly protected translations and derivative works in Uganda. It illustrates that while
other forms of transformed works . elements of public domain works can be
incorporated into new creations, the originality of
One of the landmark cases dealing with derivative the additional material ensures that the derivative
works in Uganda is the Matter of an Objection by work is protected under the law. The decision helped
Mr. Muwumburya Ndiweza and Dr. Katono clarify the application of section 4(1)(g), providing
Ntawa Deo v. Yousef Kaguta Museveni, where the guidance on the protection of works that build on
objectors contested the registration of a derivative existing cultural heritage while introducing modern
work titled You want another rap, claiming that the creative inputs.
musical work was in the public domain. Their
primary argument was that the song relied on Thus, Uganda’s copyright law provides a structured
traditional folklore, which was freely available and approach to protecting derivative works, ensuring
not subject to copyright. However, the applicant that while traditional cultural expressions may
argued that his work involved modern adaptations of remain in the public domain, any new and original
the folklore, combining traditional elements with adaptations or transformations by an individual can
modern rap styles. The key issue before the be safeguarded under intellectual property law. This
Registrar of Copyright was whether this modern case serves as an essential precedent in
adaptation constituted a derivative work and whether understanding how Ugandan law distinguishes
it was eligible for protection under Ugandan between public domain material and original
copyright law. derivative works.

The Registrar, in resolving the matter, emphasized Key Elements of Copyright Protection in Uganda
that the applicant’s work was original in its
combination of folklore and modern musical 1. Authorship
elements. While traditional folklore itself may not be
eligible for copyright protection (as it belongs to the

23 24
Cap 222 (as referenced by Babikambo & Kakungulu)

5
SUMMARY ON IP 1 BY MOSES YAZAAMA 0751067285

Section 2 defines “author” means the physical Section 528 requires that for a work to be eligible
person who created or creates work protected under for copyright, it must be "reduced to material
section 4 and includes a person or authority form." This means that the work should be in a
commissioning work or employing a person making tangible form, which allows for proof of its
work in the course of employment. The provisions existence. The law protects the expression of
of section 3(1)25 are to the effect that that the creator ideas in material form, not the ideas themselves.
of any work listed in Section 4 of the law is entitled In University of London Press Ltd v University
to copyright protection as long as the work is Tutorial Press Ltd29, where it was held that a
original and exists in a tangible form (material work in material form reflects originality,
form). The protection applies regardless of the fulfilling a copyright requirement.
work's quality or its intended purpose. In Walter v
Lane26, the House of Lords addressed the concept of Moral and Economic Rights, and Rights of
authorship in copyright law. A journalist had Copyright Owners
recorded and published speeches delivered by Lord
Rosebery, which were later reproduced by a Under the Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act
publishing company without permission. The (CNRA), copyright owners hold both economic and
journalist claimed copyright as the author, arguing moral rights over their work.
that skill and effort went into accurately transcribing
and organizing the speeches. The court held that the Economic Rights
journalist was indeed the "author" of the reports,
establishing that copyright protection extends to Per Section 8, the owner of a copyrighted work in
works where an individual’s skill, labor, and Uganda has exclusive rights to control the use of
personal effort contribute to recording and arranging their work. This includes;
content, even if the content itself originated from
someone else. -Publication and Reproduction. The right to publish,
produce, or reproduce the work.
2. Originality
-Distribution and Sale. The right to distribute, sell,
For a work to receive copyright protection under or transfer ownership of copies.
Ugandan law, it must be original, meaning it should
originate from the author and involve independent -Public Performance and Broadcast. The right to
creative effort. The CNRA under section 3(1) perform the work publicly or broadcast it.
provided for original work as fit for protection. In
Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) -Public Communication. The right to communicate
Ltd27, where the court emphasized that copyright the work by wire, wireless, or online, allowing
concerns the expression of thought rather than the public access at chosen times.
originality of ideas.
-Derivative Works. The right to create new works
3. Material Form based on the original.

25 28
CNRA 222 CNRA Cap 222
26 29
[1900] AC 539 [1916] 2 Ch. 601
27
(1964) W.L.R. 273

6
SUMMARY ON IP 1 BY MOSES YAZAAMA 0751067285

-Commercial Use. The right to commercially rent or Definition of Authorship and Protected Works
sell the work.
The Copyright and Neighboring Rights ActC30
-Future Technologies. Rights extend to any future defines an "author" as a physical person who creates
modes of distribution or reproduction. a work that is protected under Section 4. This
protection extends to works created during
-Accessibility. The right to reproduce in braille for employment or on commission but is limited to
the visually impaired. specific types of works enumerated in Section 4,
excluding ideas and concepts (Section 5). The ruling
Violation of these rights constitutes copyright in Springfield v. Thame emphasized that copyright
infringement, with remedies such as injunctive relief only protects the form of creative expression and not
and damages, as seen in Prof. George W. Kakoma v. mere facts or ideas. Thus, a journalist’s reshaped
Attorney General, where copyright was confirmed article content, for example, does not confer
as an exclusive, licensable, and assignable right that authorship if it lacks creative transformation.
eventually lapses into the public domain.
AI-Generated Works and Copyright Under
Moral Rights international standards like the Berne Convention,
AI cannot hold copyright because it lacks physical
Moral rights protect the personal connection of the personhood or nationality. Similarly, Section 231
creator to their work. These include: restricts authorship to human creators. In Nova
Productions Ltd v. Mazooma Games Ltd, the court
-Right to Attribution ensuring the creator is credited. ruled that copyright in computer generated works
belongs to the person who arranged for the
-Right to Integrity preventing unauthorized production, so in Uganda, AI-generated work would
alterations that may harm the creator’s reputation or belong to the facilitating entity.
misrepresent their message, as highlighted in
Angella Katatumba v. The ACCU, where Ownership and Copyright Duration Ownership
unauthorized use without attribution was challenged rights, according to Section 12, last for the author’s
as a violation of moral rights. lifetime plus fifty years. Ownership also covers the
right to assign, license, or bequeath economic rights.
Ownership and Claim of Copyright In Classic Art Works Ltd v. Vincent Lukenge &
Children of Grace, unauthorized reproduction led to
Copyright can only be claimed by the author or a ruling in favor of the copyright holder, underlining
those deriving rights from them. In joint works, all the necessity of proper licensing.
authors are co-owners unless otherwise agreed.
Merely owning a copyrighted item does not transfer Joint, Collective, and Derivative Works
copyright ownership, which requires a written
transfer agreement, per Section 8. Joint Works. These are created collaboratively by
authors who intend their contributions to merge into
Authorship and Ownership of Copyright in a unified work. Levy v. Rutley illustrated that minor
Uganda edits do not qualify as joint authorship without

30 31
Cap 222 CNRA Cap 222

7
SUMMARY ON IP 1 BY MOSES YAZAAMA 0751067285

mutual intent to co-create. Further scrutinize Section Beloff v. Pressdram, a journalist’s employment
10. determined copyright ownership by the employer.

Composite Works. These are collections of -Contracts Overriding Default Ownership Section
separate, distinct works created by different authors. 7(1)(b) permits agreements that assign copyright to
employees. In Noah v. Shuba, long-standing
Derivative Works. Derivatives modify pre-existing practices gave the employee copyright.
works and require authorization from the original
copyright holder. Refer to Sections 4(1)(g), (2) and -Consultants and Independent Creators as
(3)32. consultants retain ownership unless rights are
assigned, as in Warner v. Gestetner Ltd, where a
Ingredients of Joint Authorship consultant held copyright to client drawings.

-Authors must work towards a common goal, as seen -Fiduciary Relationships where works created by
in Levy v. Rutley, where a collaborator’s minor edits individuals in fiduciary roles, such as directors, may
did not establish joint authorship without shared belong to the company, as seen in Vitof Ltd v. Altoft.
intent.
Joint Ownership Section 10 covers joint ownership,
-Original Contribution where each contributor’s where multiple parties share rights to a work they
input must be substantive and unique, as seen in co-created. Joint ownership often applies to works
Martin v. Kogan, where even unequal contributions with collaborative input from each creator.
could establish joint authorship if integral to the
final work. Rights of Copyright Owners

-Authorship Beyond Physical Act as authorship 1. Right to Copy the Work

includes the conceptual effort, not just writing, Copyright owners have the exclusive right to
emphasized in Martin v. Kogan. reproduce their work in any material form.
Unauthorized copying includes reproducing,
-Inseparability of Contributions as the final work storing digitally, or photographing
must reflect the integration of both authors’ inputs, substantial parts of the work (literary,
making it inseparable, a concept reinforced by dramatic, musical, or artistic). In Spelling
Martin v. Kogan. Productions v BPC Publishing Ltd33 the
court ruled that copying a single frame from
Ownership Rules and Exceptions a film constituted copyright infringement
because it represented a substantial part of
-Default Ownership, by common law, copyright the work.
typically resides with the author, as specified in the 2. Right to Issue Copies to the Public
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK). This right restricts anyone from distributing
copies of a work to the public without the
-Employee Created Works where section 7 states copyright owner’s consent.
that works created in employment generally belong 3. Right to Rent or Lend Copies
to the employer, unless a contrary contract exists. In Copyright owners have exclusive rights to

32 33
CNRA Cap 222 [1981] RPC 225

8
SUMMARY ON IP 1 BY MOSES YAZAAMA 0751067285

rent or lend their work to the public, except In Corelli v Gray37, the defendant's creation of a
for architectural works (e.g., buildings). dramatic sketch based on a novel was ruled as an
Renting is defined as making a work infringing adaptation of the claimant’s work.
available for use for commercial benefit,
while lending does not require a commercial Neighboring Rights
advantage.
4. Right to Publicly Perform or Show the Neighboring rights protect certain individuals and
Work organizations who contribute to the creation and
Copyright owners have exclusive rights to dissemination of creative works but are not
publicly perform, show, or communicate considered the original authors. These rights cover
their work to a public audience. A "public" three main categories;
performance differs from a private one
based on the nature of the audience. In Duck 1. Performing Artists
v Bates34, here, a play performed in a 2. Producers of Sound Recordings
hospital room for staff without public access 3. Broadcasting Organizations
was not deemed a public performance, as it
was private and did not harm the copyright These rights do not affect the existing copyright in
owner. Also, in Performing Right Society the underlying work; instead, they provide additional
Ltd v Harlequin Record Shops 35 Playing protection to the contributions made by these
recorded music in a record store, open to the groups.
public, was held as a public performance.
An injunction was issued to stop the store 1. Rights of Performing Artists
from playing the music without the required
license. Performing artists hold rights over live
5. Right to Broadcast performances, including music, drama, or other
Broadcasting includes making work public displays. These rights cover the recording and
available to the public by sending visual broadcasting of live performances but should not be
images, sounds, and other information. confused with copyright in the original work itself.
Unauthorized broadcasting constitutes The following sections under the Copyright and
copyright infringement. In Shetland Times Neighboring Rights Act protect the performer’s
Ltd v Dr Jonathan Wills 36 here, rights: Section 22 provides for non-property rights
reproducing website headlines as part of for performers, which include;
internet articles without permission was held
to infringe copyright. -Right to be identified as the performer.
6. Right to Adapt the Work
Copyright owners can authorize adaptations, -Right to have their name mentioned each time the
which include translations, dramatizations, performance is broadcast.
or converting a dramatic work into a literary
work and vice versa. In music, adaptation -Right to object to derogatory treatment of their
includes transcription or arrangement. performance.

34 36
(1884) 13 QBD 843 [1997] FSR 604
35 37
Ltd [1979] 2 All ER 828 [1913] TLR 570

9
SUMMARY ON IP 1 BY MOSES YAZAAMA 0751067285

Non-property rights are not assignable or Broadcasting organizations have rights related to
transferable, except in cases where the performer their broadcast content, which includes television
wills them to a specific person or representative. and radio programs. These rights cover the
Section property rights, including: unauthorized rebroadcasting, reproduction, or
commercial use of their content. In Asege Winnie v
-Broadcast rights: The exclusive right to authorize or Opportunity Bank U Ltd & MAAD Ltd a claim
prevent the broadcasting of their performance. was made by the plaintiff, who alleged that her
image was used in advertisements without her
-Reproduction rights: Control over recording, consent. The court recognized the right to control
reproduction, and distribution of their performance. one’s image, particularly when used for commercial
purposes, and awarded damages. Although not
-Rental and lending rights: Rights regarding the directly a neighboring right, this case demonstrates
commercial rental or lending of their performance the recognition of image rights, especially where
recordings. public figures are concerned.

In Rickless v United Artists Corporation38 the Image or Personality Rights

defendants used film clips of the late actor Peter
Sellers from "Pink Panther" films without Image rights protect an individual’s identity,
permission. The court awarded $1 million to the including their name, likeness, and voice, from
actor’s estate, reinforcing the protection of unauthorized commercial use. The justification for
performers' rights even posthumously. these rights is grounded in the notion of personal
control over how one's image or identity is used.
2. Rights of Producers of Sound Recordings
Two Types of Personality Rights;
Producers of sound recordings have rights
concerning the recordings they produce. These - Right to publicity. The right to prevent
recordings, whether derived from live performances unauthorized commercial exploitation of one's
or broadcasts, are protected against unauthorized likeness.
use, especially if they are commercially exploited.
Section 23 grants producers’ exclusive rights to -Right to privacy. The right to be left alone and to
authorize the reproduction, distribution, and public prevent unauthorized public display of one's
availability of their sound recordings. In Al Hajji persona.
Nasser Ntege Ssebagala v MTN & SMS Media39,
the court held that the producer, who had fixed the In Asege Winnie v Opportunity Bank U Ltd &
recording in material form, was the rightful MAAD Ltd, the plaintiff’s image was used in an
copyright holder, not the person whose voice was advertising campaign without permission. The court
recorded. This illustrates that producers hold the awarded her damages, affirming her personality
rights over sound recordings, even if these contain rights under common law. This case highlights the
another individual’s voice. tort of "passing off" and emphasizes the right to
prevent unauthorized commercial use of one’s
3. Rights of Broadcasting Organizations image.

38 39
(1988) 1 K.B 40 HCCS No. 283 of 2012

10
SUMMARY ON IP 1 BY MOSES YAZAAMA 0751067285

Collecting Societies (Collective Management -Facilitating reciprocal agreements with foreign

Organizations) CMOs to protect members' interests internationally.

Collective Management Organizations (CMOs) are -Acting as an intermediary between the public and
entities that represent copyright owners and related rights holders.
rights holders, facilitating the licensing and royalty
collection process on their behalf. They play a -Providing resources and standard contracts for
crucial role in managing the complex landscape of members.
copyright licensing, especially in cases where
numerous rights holders and users are involved, such -Enforcing rights by acting as an agent for its
as in the broadcasting or public performance of members.
music.
Qualifications for Registration:
Key Functions and Structure of CMOs
Section 57 outlines that a CMO must primarily
Under the Ugandan Copyright and Neighboring promote the economic and social interests of its
Rights Act40, sections 56 and 57 govern CMOs. members and be capable of handling rights
These organizations are required to incorporate as management effectively. To register, a CMO must
companies and must register with the Registrar of have at least 30 members, demonstrate adequate
Companies. Section 56 mandates that only one governance capabilities, and be incorporated under
CMO can operate per "bundle of rights" to prevent the Companies Act.
redundancy and ensure efficiency. CMOs represent a
single, unified point of contact for users seeking to According to Section 59, a formal application to the
license copyrighted works. For example, if a Registrar is required, including:
restaurant wants to play background music or a
broadcasting station needs to transmit songs, a CMO 1. Copies of the society’s proposed articles and
allows them to secure the necessary permissions rules.
without directly contacting each individual rights 2. Proof of registration as a Non-Governmental
holder. Organization (NGO).
3. Statements about its financial status, legal
A registered CMO has responsibilities, including; status, and lists of management members,
among other details.
-Licensing works and collecting royalties for
members. Under Section 60, new CMOs are placed on an 18-
month probation, during which they must operate to
-Distributing royalties after deducting the Registrar’s satisfaction to receive permanent
administrative costs, and sometimes additional certification. Probational CMOs must indicate their
deductions for social and cultural programs. temporary status on official documents, such as
letterheads, and the Registrar has the authority to
-Promoting awareness of copyright and extend or cancel this probation as per Section 62.
neighboring rights.
Membership Requirements:

40
CNRA 222

11
SUMMARY ON IP 1 BY MOSES YAZAAMA 0751067285

Section 64 mandates that to become a member, one v. Universal City Studios, where rightful ownership
must meet residency requirements or represent a was a prerequisite for pursuing infringement claims.
qualified entity (such as a registered society or
Copying of Original Elements. The plaintiff must
company under the Companies Act). Members must
show that the defendant copied unique parts of the
pay membership fees to participate fully and have
work. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone
voting rights.
Service Co. clarified that even minimal originality is
needed for copyright, emphasizing protection for
Rights and Limitations of CMOs
creative expressions rather than facts.
A CMO, once registered, becomes a corporate body. Unauthorized Use. Any unauthorized reproduction,
It simplifies rights management for members and adaptation, display, or distribution is an
users alike. For instance, with the law requiring only infringement. In Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v.
one CMO per bundle of rights (Section 56), this Nation Enterprises, unauthorized publication of a
exclusivity ensures streamlined processes, as book excerpt was infringement, underscoring
licensees can work with a single entity instead of authors' exclusive rights.
negotiating with multiple parties.
Exclusive Rights Under Copyright Law
Infringement of Copyright Copyright grants economic rights reproduction,
Professor Bakibinga defines copyright as the legal adaptation, distribution, and public performance—
right of creators to control the use of their original which allow creators to control and financially
works. It includes rights over literary, artistic, benefit from their works. Section 8 of the CNRA
musical, and dramatic works, giving authors outlines these rights, as highlighted by Bakibinga43,
exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and perform who emphasizes that these rights are vital for
their works. Infringement, defined as unauthorized encouraging creative work production.
use, may be direct (primary) or indirect (secondary) Actions Constituting Copyright Infringement
depending on the infringer's involvement in the (Under CNRA)
misuse of the work.
Infringement under CNRA includes;
Under the Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act
(CNRA), infringement occurs when an individual or Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, public
entity exercises rights reserved for the copyright exhibition, and reputational harm to the author (per
holder without authorization. Attorney-General v Section 4544). Penalties may include fines and/or
Sanyu Television41 and also Uganda Performing imprisonment.
Right Society v Fred Mukubira & Mengo Publist
Types of Copyright Infringement
Limited & Others 42.
 Primary Infringement: Directly violating
Elements of Copyright Infringement
copyright, without needing proof of intent,
 For a copyright infringement case, three as seen in Goodwill v. Machinery
main elements must be established: Marketing International Ltd, where
unauthorized copying and sale amounted to
Ownership of Valid Copyright. The plaintiff must primary infringement. In Angella
show ownership of the copyright, as seen in Miller

41 43
(H.C.C.S. No. 614 of 1999) In His Book Intellectual Property In east Africa.
42 44
(Arising from H.C.C.S No. 842 of 2003) CNRA Cap 222

12
SUMMARY ON IP 1 BY MOSES YAZAAMA 0751067285

Katatumba v. ACCU, primary infringement quantity and quality of the copied content. In
involved unauthorized use of a significant Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v. William Hill
work portion. (Football) Ltd, the court ruled that the
copied part was insubstantial and didn’t
 Secondary Infringement: Indirectly
constitute infringement.
facilitating infringement, such as helping or
profiting from another’s infringement. Forms of Copyright Infringement
Moore House of Copyright v. New South
1. Text and Images: Unauthorized reproduction
Wales recognized secondary liability in
of text or graphics, common in academic
providing facilities for infringement. In
and digital settings. University of London
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City
Press Ltd v. University Tutorial Press Ltd
Studios, Inc., the court noted that mere
ruled that even exam papers meet originality
provision of an infringement-capable device
requirements for copyright.
without intent does not constitute secondary
infringement. 2. Web Use: Infringement through internet-
based sharing of copyrighted material, such
Differences Between Primary and Secondary
as in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,
Infringement
where Napster was held liable for
Professors Bently and Sherman explain two main facilitating copyright violations.
differences;
3. Digital Reproduction: Unauthorized digital
-Scope. Primary infringement involves direct copying of media. Sony Corp. of America
copying, while secondary infringement covers v. Universal City Studios, Inc. established
indirect, commercial facilitation. that devices capable of non-infringing use
do not automatically cause liability.
-Mental Element. Primary infringement does not
require knowledge of infringement, but secondary 4. Photocopying: Unauthorized copying of
infringement may involve intent. printed materials, often in education or
business. Oxford University Press v.
Substantial vs. Insubstantial Infringement
Nairobi Pentecostal Church highlighted
 Substantial Infringement: Copying a infringement through unauthorized
significant portion that affects the copyright photocopying of educational texts.
holder’s market or control, as illustrated in
Exemptions and Limitations of Copyright
Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v. Bron, where
Infringement
even a small copied portion was substantial
if commercially or creatively valuable. In Purpose of Exemptions is to reduce restrictions on
Angella Katatumba v. Anti Corruption knowledge by allowing limited use of copyrighted
Coalition Uganda, a significant portion used materials without needing permission, extending
without permission was considered copyright for 50 years post-owner's death (e.g.,
substantial infringement. Copyrights and Neighboring Rights Act).
Historically, exceptions like the Statute of Anne45
 Insubstantial Infringement: Minor
were created to enhance public access.
copying that does not meet the threshold for
infringement. Courts consider both the

45
(1710)

13
SUMMARY ON IP 1 BY MOSES YAZAAMA 0751067285

Importance of Exceptions. 2. Non-Commercial Private Use (Section 1447):

Allows personal, non-commercial use. In
-Reduces excessive permissions for users.
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City
-Facilitates access for writers, researchers, and the Studios, Inc. ("Betamax case"): Court
public. allowed private time-shifting of video
recordings as fair use due to non-
-Prevents censorship by copyright owners. commercial nature.
-Balances owner rights with public access. 3. Fair Dealing for Specific Purposes: Allows
-Encourages creativity, research, and education. use for criticism or review with citation and
adherence to fair dealing. In Hubbard v.
Defenses to Copyright Infringement Vosper: Allowed quotes from a book for
1. Fair Use / Fair Dealing (Section 14, 46): critique if fair.
Allows limited, unlicensed use under 4. Research and Scholarship: Permits limited
conditions like criticism, news reporting, use for research if it doesn't harm the
teaching, and research. Key factors include; copyright holder's market. In Ashdown v.
Purpose and Character: Must be transformative or Telegraph Group Ltd use of unpublished
value-added, not purely commercial. material for research allowed but limited if it
affects market competition.
Nature of Work: Factual works more likely to
qualify. 5. Amount Used where Small, non-substantial
portions can qualify as fair use. In Angella
Amount Used: Only a small, non-central portion. Katatumba v. Anti-Corruption Coalition
Uganda, large reproduction ruled as
Market Impact: Should not affect original’s value.
infringement for using substantial parts
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.: U.S. without authorization.
Supreme Court upheld fair use for 2 Live Crew’s
6. Purpose and Intent as educational, critique,
parody, citing its transformative nature despite
or non-commercial research use is preferred
commercial intent.
over profit-driven use. In Sega Enterprises
Three-Step Test Ltd v. Accolade, Inc allowed reverse
engineering for game compatibility as it
Derived from international treaties (e.g., WIPO
served an educational purpose without
Copyright Treaty), which mandates that exceptions
market harm.
must (1) apply only to special cases, (2) not conflict
with normal work use, and (3) not unreasonably Remedies to Copyright Infringement (Section 44)
prejudice rights holder interests.
Civil remedies include;
Fair Dealing Exceptions: Include private study,
1. Damages48: Compensation for financial
criticism, news, and non-commercial research,
harm due to infringement. In Fitzgerald v.
allowing use in teaching, library reproduction,
CBS Broadcasting Inc.: damages awarded
judicial processes, and accessibility (e.g., Braille).
proportional to losses from unauthorized

46 48
Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act Cap 222 Section 44(4)
47
, Copyright Act, Cap 222

14
SUMMARY ON IP 1 BY MOSES YAZAAMA 0751067285

use. Further In Konshens V Airtel Ug the

same was held.

2. Injunctions49: Court orders to halt ongoing

infringement. In Salinger v. Random House,
Inc.: Injunction to stop unauthorized
publication of J.D. Salinger's letters,
protecting economic and moral rights. Also,
in stella Atal V Anns Abel Kiruta also an
injunction was granted to restrain Abels
from infringing on the art works of the
plaintiff.

3. Delivery Up and Destruction of Infringing

Copies where courts may order destruction
of infringing copies to prevent further
unauthorized distribution. In UPRS v. Fred
Mukasa court ordered destruction of copies
to avoid unauthorized circulation.

4. Order for Account: Requires infringer to

disclose and hand over profits made from
infringement. In John Murray v. Seadle
court ordered profit accounting as a
deterrent and compensatory measure.

5. Anton Piller Order / Inspection or

Removal which allows inspection or seizure
of infringing material from infringer’s
premises to prevent evidence destruction. In
UPRS v. Fred Mukasa order given to
prevent loss of evidence.

Criminal Sanctions: Infringement can lead to

fines and imprisonment (Section 46 50).

R v. Cuthbert where criminal penalties imposed for

distributing counterfeit music CDs.

*******END*******

49 50
Sections 44(1-3) CNRA Cap 222

15