1) The document discusses copyright law in Uganda and highlights some cases related to unauthorized use of creative works such as images, songs, and designs. 2) Copyright law in Uganda is governed by the Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act and provides protection for creative works like songs, drawings, and sculptures for 50 years. 3) However, the notion of copyright protection is still not well established in Uganda. The document reviews cases in Uganda and Kenya where companies were sued for using other's creative works without permission.

1. What you should know before using someone’s image/song without permission.
Muhangi Kenneth
LLB (Hons) LLM (Wales) Dip Lp (LDC)
“The Secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources”
Albert Einstein(Nobel prize winner for Physics 1921.
It is undeniable that the level of creativity we have in Uganda is enviable. We are fortunate
to have a number of poets, authors, artists, musicians and designers etcetera.
Copyright in Uganda is currently governed by The Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act
(CNRA). Ironically, although copyright’s core attribute is originality, for historical reasons,
Uganda modeled its copyright laws around the British copyright system. The act provides
protection for almost all physical forms of creative work such as songs, drawings, designs,
plans, sculptural works among others.
Copyright protection works in three simple ways, have an idea or concept; express that
idea/concept in material form and get automatic protection.
Copyright protection is granted to the expression of the idea, not to the idea itself. Usually
this protection lasts for 50 years but the right to be associated to your work lasts even
beyond an author’s life time.
Sadly, the notion of copyright protection is yet to take root in Uganda. In the more
developed jurisdictions where copyright protection is more strictly enforced, we have seen
a number of famous cases that have the headlines.
In 2008, a Famous street artist Shephard Fairey created the Hope poster during President
Obama’s first run for presidential election in 2008. The design rapidly became a symbol for
Obama’s campaign, technically independent of the campaign but with its approval. We
were later to learn that the photograph was taken in 2006 by Mannie Garcia for the
Associated Press which demanded for compensation for its use in Fairey’s work.
Fairey claimed fair use and that his work did not reduce the value of the original
photograph. The artist and the AP came to a private settlement in January 2011, part of
which included a split in the profits for the work.
Although the case did not go to trial, this case created a lot of discourse around the value
of work in these copyright battles. It’s unlikely that Garcia’s work could have ever reached
the level of fame it did, if not for Fairey’s poster. Garcia himself stated he was”so proud of

2. the photograph….” but still had a problem with the fact that Fairey took the image without
permission and without credit for it’s originator.
In 2004, a Kenyan company Alternative Media sued Safaricom Ltd for copyright
infringement on its design. The design which was modeled on a campaign against the
spread of HIV/AIDS had been submitted to Safaricom to be used on their Kshs 250 airtime
scratch cards.
Safaricom had turned down Alternative Media’s proposal but later used an almost similar
design to it, in its airtime scratch cards with intention to run the campaign. The Kenyan
courts agreed that Safaricom infringed on the plaintiff’s copyright but declined to grant
Alternative Media the desired interlocutory injunction stating that the defendant was a
major stakeholder in the country’s telecommunication industry and that an injunction will
hamper an integral part of the county’s economy.
That is not to say that Uganda is completely in the dark. In 2013, a group of young
entrepreneurs T/A Urbane Entertainment sued Nile Breweries Ltd for Copyright
infringement for the unauthorized use of their copyrighted material.
Urbane Entertainment claimed to have come up with a TV production for a Music Video
Awards show, which they pitched to Club Beer. They further claimed that Club, in
circumstances similar to the Kenyan case, copied their idea and hosted the Club Video
Music Awards. Although this case was settled at mediation, it shed some light on the level
of impunity with which copyright infringement takes place.
We still see so many downloaded images on billboards that are used to advertise even the
most mundane of items. However, most of these images are used without credit to the
author. This can only mean that the authors do not know that they have a cause of action
against the users of such work. The lesson from the cases is clear, when using someone
else’s work, make sure everyone knows the source.