Each year, the world celebrates World Intellectual Property Day on April 26th—a day to reflect on the crucial role that intellectual property (IP) plays in encouraging innovation, supporting the creative economy, and shaping our shared future. The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), which leads the celebrations for the day, set the theme for this year’s celebrations to be "IP and Music: Feel the Beat of the Music". This theme invites us to explore how IP rights and innovation policies empower creators, innovators, and entrepreneurs to bring new ideas to the music industry, safeguarding the work of songwriters, composers, performers, and all those who shape the music that moves us.

What is intellectual property?

Before we can understand how IP rights empower creators, we need to understand what intellectual property means.

Intellectual Property (“IP”) refers to a category of intangible rights protecting commercially valuable products of human intellect. The category primarily comprises trademark, copyright, and patent rights, but also includes trade-secret rights, publicity rights, moral rights, and rights against unfair competition¹

What intellectual property exists in music?

Music is protected under intellectual property law through two distinct categories, each governing different creative aspects and their associated rights:

a. Copyright

Copyright is the most well-known form of intellectual property in music. This is the right to copy: specifically, a property right in an original work of authorship (including literary, musical, choreographic, pictorial, graphical, sculptural and architectural works; motion pictures and other audio-visual works; and sound recordings) fixed in any tangible medium of expression, giving the holder the exclusive right to reproduce, adapt, distribute, perform and display the work.³

Copyright protects original musical works (compositions and lyrics) and sound recordings (master recordings). It grants the creator exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, perform, and adapt the work. Creators may assign their copyright to another party (e.g., a record label or publisher) through contract, transferring some or all of their exclusive rights.

The duration of copyright protection in Uganda varies depending on the type of author:
i.    Natural persons: The author's lifetime + 50 years after death.
ii.   Corporations/ Companies: 50 years from the date of first publication.
iii.  Anonymous/unknown authors: 50 years from first publication.

b. Performance Rights

These refer to the right to publicly perform a song (e.g., on the radio, at concerts, in clubs or restaurants, etc.). For example, a radio station playing “Dawa” by Elijah Kitaka must pay performance royalties to the rights holder. In Uganda, Collective Management Organisations (CMOS) like the Uganda Performance Rights Society (UPRS)collect royalties on behalf of rights holders.

c. Mechanical Rights

These refer to the right to reproduce and distribute a musical composition (e.g., CDs, downloads, streaming). Mechanical royalties are paid to songwriters and publishers when a song is reproduced. For example, Spotify pays mechanical royalties for streams of “Nana” by Joshua Baraka.

d. Synchronisation (Sync) Rights⁴

Sync rights permit the use of music alongside visual media (films, ads, video games). Permission is required from both the composition owner (e.g., songwriter/publisher) and the recording owner (label/artist). For example, Netflix needed a sync license to feature “Mbilo Mbilo” by Eddie Kenzo in “Holiday in the Wild”.

e. Master Rights

These are owned by the entity (often a record label or artist) that controls the original recording. These rights determine who can license the recording for commercial use.

f. Moral Rights

These protect the creator’s non-economic interests, including:

g. Trademarks

Unlike copyright, along with the neighbouring rights, trademarks protect brand identifiers such as artist and band names, logos, slogans, and other distinctive signs. Their primary purpose is to prevent consumer confusion and ensure that artists, record labels, and entertainment companies can safeguard their brand identity. For example, if Swangz Avenue, a Ugandan music label, registers its name as a trademark, this would prevent unauthorised parties from using the same (or a confusingly similar) name.

Music plays an important cultural, economic, and social role in Uganda. It has also evolved over the years from the old days of Minsuseela Ssegamwenge, Stanley Kamparo, Christopher Ssebadduka, Fred Masagazi, Eva Nanyonga, Prof. George Kakoma, and Elli Wamala to Philly Bongele Lutaaya, Afrigo Band, Lord Fred Ssebatta, Jimmy Katumba, Dan Mugula, Carol Nakimera, Herman Basudde, Kezia Nambi, Fred Maiso, Prince Paul Job Kafeero, Alex Mukulu, Rasta Rob, to Jose Chameleon, BebeCool, Bobi Wine, Eagles Production, Da Twinz, Annet Nandujja, Blue 3, The Obsessions, Mariam Ndagire, Abdu Mulaasi, Radio & Weasle, Chagga, Juliana Kanyomozi, Iryn Namubiru, Ragga Dee, Sweet Kid, and now Eddie Kenzo, Sheebah Karungi, Spice Diana, Elijah Kitaka, Winnie Nwagi, King Saha, Joshua Baraka, Apass Bagonza, Kenneth Mugabi, Naava Grey, Maurice Kirya, Alien Skin, Fresh Kid; the list is endless. Understanding that the primary objective of creators is to derive income from music, there’s no doubt that disputes will inevitably arise over time, particularly around copyright, royalties, licensing, contracts, and more. This article reflects on notable, if not all, court decisions related to music copyright in Uganda and a few from other East African countries, offering insights and lessons for artists, entertainment companies, legal professionals, and policymakers.

UGANDA

Uganda Performing Rights Society Vs MTN (U) Ltd (HCCS No. 287 of 2010).

Facts:
In 2006, the the Performing Rights Society of UK (PRS -UK) signed a contract of reciprocal representation with Uganda Performing Rights Society (UPRS). UPRS learnt of MTN’s intention to host a concert featuring UB40, a UK-based band and informed MTN of its obligation to pay performance royalties as some members of the band had executed Deeds of Assignment wherein they assigned all their copyrights for purposes of effective management to PRS-UK. In 2008, UB40 performed at Lugogo grounds upon being contracted by MTN. Mtn never paid the performance royalties as was required and UPRS instituted a suit against MTN claiming that the concert at which UB40 held a public performance in Kampala in February 2008 was unauthorized and thus an infringement of copyright.

Decision:
The court acknowledged UPRS’ right to sue under the reciprocal agreement. However, UPRS failed to prove that the specific songs performed were protected, or that the performing UB40 members had assigned their rights to PRS-UK. The court ruled that UPRS lacked a valid cause of action against MTN and dismissed the case.

Key takeaways:
i.    Successful copyright claims require clear evidence of ownership and infringement.
ii.   Societies like UPRS can enforce rights under reciprocal agreements with other collecting societies upon adducing concrete contractual proof.
iii.  Hosting entities must verify copyright ownership of the artist before public performances.

Prof. George W. Kakoma Vs Attorney General (HCCS No. 197 of 2008).

Brief Facts:
Back in 1962, Prof. Kakoma composed the national anthem in response to a competition organized by the government to find a suitable anthem for the country. His composition was selected and later adopted as Uganda’s national anthem. In 2008, he sued the Attorney General (Government) seeking compensation for composing the national anthem arguing that he had not been adequately compensated for his creative works, which had been in use since 1962 when Uganda got her independence. He further argued that despite the anthem being used for over 42 years, he had been paid only UGX 2,000/= (at the time) and had received no royalties for the anthem’s continued use, a breach of his IP rights as a composer. He sought damages for the unauthorized use of his work, royalties and recognition as the composer. The Attorney General argued that the national anthem had become public property after its adoption as the national anthem and in any case, the Kakoma was adequately paid for composing the anthem and thus the government was not under any obligation to pay any royalties and compensation to him.

Decision:
Court recognised Kakoma’s partial legal interest in the anthem as the composer. However, it held that courts ought to promote equitable negotiations in IP disputes by emphasizing that commissioned works should not involve coercion in copyright assignment.

To resolve the dispute, court ordered Kakoma to assign the copyright of the national anthem to the government to ensure that the government acquires full and exclusive rights of the national anthem and awarded him Ugx 50,000,000/= as a fair compensation for his partial copyright interest in the anthem.

Key takeaways:
i.    There’s need for clear contracts when dealing with commissioned works. Once there’s no contract or where the contract doesn’t provide for express assignment of the copyright to the commissioner, the copyright remains with the author.
ii.   Dual ownership exists of work exists. This basically means a work can have a legal owner as well as a beneficial user.
iii.  Copyright infringement claims should be brought in time.

Obsessions Company Ltd Vs Warid Telecom (HCCS No. 373 of 2010).

Facts:
Obsessions Company, an entity registered by the Obsessions, a girl music troop, sued Warid Telecom (later merged into Airtel) for distributing its music works as caller tunes without their permission. Warid contended that it had not infringed the intellectual property rights of Obsessions because they obtained them lawfully through a contract, they had entered into with DMark Co. Ltd which provided the musical works as theirs.

Decision:
Court found that Obsessions owned the copyright in the songs and not DMark which meant had infringed the Obsessions copyright. Court ordered Warid to compensate Obsessions with Ugx 60,000,000/- in general and exemplary damages. Since DMark had warranted to Warid that it had the legal right and capacity to deal with the intellectual property of the songs, court ordered DMark to indemnify Airtel.

Key Lessons:
Authority to use copyrighted works can only be issued by only the rightful copyright owner or their licensee. Its imperative on the person or entity intending to deal with the copyrighted work to conduct due diligence and ascertain whether the person or entity representing themselves as having the authority to authorise use in anyway actually have such authority even when dealing with artists themselves.

Angella Katatumba v Anti-Corruption Coalition Uganda (Civil Suit No.307 of 2011)[2014] UGCommC 107.

Facts.
In 2011, Angella Katatumba, a Ugandan musician and copyright holder of the song “Let’s Go Green” discovered that a substantial portion of the lyrics and content of the song were incorporated into and released as part of an advertisement by the Anti-Corruption Coalition Uganda (ACCU), an NGO which aired on FM stations as part of ACCU’S advocacy to prevent the giveaway of Namanve Forest. Katatumba sued ACCU for copyright infringement alleging use of her song in an advertisement campaign without her consent. She also claimed that the unauthorized use caused reputational damage and economic loss, as it degraded her work and harmed her relationship with stakeholders.

Decision:
The court found that Katatumba was indeed the composer and copyright holder of the song, and as such ACCU’s use of her song without permission constituted copyright infringement. The court further found that ACCU’s use did not qualify as fair use under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act. The court ordered ACCU to pay a total of 55 million Uganda shillings as general and aggravated damages.

Key takeaways:
I)    The use of “Fair use” as a defence to copyright infringement is limited, and public interest or advocacy does not automatically excuse copyright infringement unless it meets statutory fair use criteria.
II)   Copyright infringement isn’t limited to just the use of one’s work in the whole portion; liability can arise if what is used is substantial in quality, not just quantity.
III)  Consent before the use of copyrightable works is non-negotiable and as such, organizations must seek and obtain explicit consent before using someone’s intellectual property, regardless of non-commercial intentions.

Uganda Performing Rights Society v Mega Standard Supermarket Miscellaneous Application No. 1042 of 2015

Facts:
A copyright inspector for Uganda Performing Rights Society(UPRS) visited Mega Standard Supermaket along Burton Street Kampala. The music playing at the premises included musical works verified to be under UPRS’s repertoire, the copyright inspector proceeded to record this music. UPRS sued Mega Standard Supermaket for copyright infringement. To stop Mega from further infringement or even destruction of the infrining material, UPRS applied to court for an Anton Pillar order which could allow it to obtain access to enter, inspect and remove the copyright infringing materials from Mega’s premises and use it as evidence.

Decision:
Court was persuaded that Mega had in its premises incriminating material which could be destroyed before the main suit can be heard and as such ordered Mega to permit UPRS into its premises to inspect all computers or other gadgets used for the public performance of various music works in UPRS’s repertoire in Uganda and clone the said music works on flash disks or any other medium which should be put into the custody of the court for purposes of the inter-party hearing.

Key takeaways:
Evidence is everything in copyright infringement disputes. Once the victim is so sure that the other party has copyright infringing material, provided that can be proved to court, then the courts are willing to assist in ensuring incriminating evidence is not destroyed

Garfield Spence a.k.a Koshens v Airtel Uganda & Others, Civil Suit No. 545 of 2015

Facts:
Konshens, a Jamaican Musician, sued Airtel Uganda Limited, OnMobile Global Limited and Mtech Limited for infringement of his exclusive intellectual property in his songs by unlawfully accessing the songs and availing them as caller tunes to Airtel’s subscribers. Konshens further added that Airtel and the others refused to account for proceeds from the infringement or to pay him any royalties. In its defence, Airtel stated that it entered into a caller Ring Back Tone (CRBT) Service Agreement with Onmoblile to provide artistic work to be digitally distributed to its customers as caller tunes and it was assured by Onmobile that it had authorization and permission to use, distribute and provide content to Airtel subscribers. Onmobile’s defence was that it entered into a content provider agreement with Mtech to provide artistic work digitally distributed to its clients. Mtech however denied the allegations, stating that it only supplied licensed content which did not contain Konshens’s songs.

Decision:
Court found Airtel (U) Ltd and OnMobile jointly liable for unlawfully accessing and using Konshens’s musical works as caller tunes to its customers without Konshen’s consent and awarded Konshens a total of USD 193, 466 in general and exemplary damages as compensation for the infringement.

Key takeaways:
i.    Its important to conduct due diligence to ascertain whether someone or an entity have the authorize you to use copyrightable material.
ii.   Courts are ready to also hold aiders and abettors to copyright infringement liable.

Malinga Sulaiman & Others Vs Black Markets Records (BMR) HCCS No. 864 of 2021

Facts:
In 2019 and 2020, the Plaintiffs, upcoming musicians executed contracts with BMR, a record label to manage, record, re-record, produce and market their music. In the agreement, the musicians assigned their copyright interests in their music to label. The label however failed execute its obligations in a number of ways such as failing to sponsor the musicians to record new music, not paying the musicians their share of the royalties, among others. The musicians sued the label for breach of the agreement, the 1st to 3rd plaintiffs later settled and the 4th plaintiff, Khabuya Vanesa a.k.a Kvan, proceeded litigating the matter.

Decision:
The Court found that the label has breached the terms of the Exclusive Recording Artist Agreement and as such awarded the musician Ugx 20, 000,000 /= in general damages to compensate her for the breach together with a permanent injunction prohibiting the label from dealing with the musician’s musical works.

Key takeaway:
This decision wasn’t copyright infringement but rather on aspects of breach of contract. The reason it comes up here is the understanding that once an artist assigns their copyright to a record label in an agreement, there has to be something the artist receives in exchange which in this case was a share of the royalties plus sponsorship to work on more music. Labels should never take their obligations to artists lightly as artists can use courts of law to enforce their rights. We successfully represented the artist in this matter.

Bruno Kiggundu a.k.a Bruno K Vs Black Market Records Entertainment & 3 Others HCCS No. 1025 of 2022 [2025]

Facts:
This is the most recent decision. In 2022, Bruno K and Black Market Records Entertainment (BMR) signed a one-year Exclusive Recording Artist Agreement (Agreement) with BMR undertaking to finance all songs composed by Bruno K and share royalties collected therefrom with him. The Bruno K produced one song in collaboration with another artiste during the subsistence of the Agreement and upon expiry, he informed the BMR of his intention not to renew the Agreement. He produced several songs there afterwards and uploaded them onto his You Tube channel for marketing. However, the BMR made claims that they owned the Bruno K’s musical works, the songs were taken down from YouTube and his You tube channel banned by You Tube for continued copyright infringement due to the BMR’s claims. Bruno K sued BMR for copyright infringement, unlawful and fraudulent commercial exploitation of his songs.

Decision:
Court found that BMR had no capacity to enter a contract in the first place which meant that the contract signed with Bruno K was void. By making false copyright infringement complaints against Bruno K, distributing Bruno K’s songs to its profit without the Bruno K’s consent and without remitting royalties due to Bruno K, BMR infringed on Bruno K’s copyright and exploited his songs. Court issued a permanent injunction restraining the BMR from infringing the Bruno K’s copyright and ordered it to compensate him Ugx 130, 000,000/- in general and aggravated damages plus remitting all royalties due to him. Court also ordered Bruno K to refund the money BMR offered for production of the one song.

Key takeaways:
i.    A record label’s entitlement to musical works arise from contract. Extra attention therefore has to be put to the contracts to ensure they iron out benefits and obligations of both parties plus ensuring both parties actually have the capacity to contract. Otherwise, the label wont be able to enforce any of its rights.
ii.   Contribution to the production of a musical work doesn’t entitle you to a share of the royalties unless there is a contract that provides the same.
iii.  Once royalties to songs are collected, the collecting party is obligated to account to the other party and pay them their share as required by the contract.
iv. Before raising claims of copyright infringement with any steaming platforms, ascertain that you rightfully have copyright for the same and that the other party doesn’t otherwise if they do then a suit of the similar kind may arise.

TANZANIA

Nurdin Mohamed Ahmed Sheikh Kishkin Vs Mic Tanzania Ltd (Civil Appeal No.85 of 2019)

Facts:
Nurdin alleged that Mic Tanzania Ltd used his original artistic works specifically, ring-back tones without his consent. He claimed that these works were his intellectual property and that their unauthorised use by the Respondent constituted copyright infringement. The trial court dismissed his claim, dissatisfied with its decision he appealed.

Decision:
The court found that Nurdin had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove ownership of the alleged artistic works. There was lack of documentation or registration to substantiate his claims. The court emphasized that, under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, while registration is not mandatory, the burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish ownership and infringement.

Dotto Bernard Bwakeya (Lameck Ditto) Vs Multichoice Tanzania Ltd (Civil Case No.180 of 2020)

Facts:
Tanzanian musician Dotto Bwakeya, a.k.a Lameck Ditto, sued Multichoice Tanzania Ltd, alleging unauthorised use of his song “Nchi Yangu” in a commercial advertisement during the 2019 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) campaign. He claimed that the company used his song without consent for commercial purpose. He sought compensation against Multichoice. As evidence, he presented a flash drive containing the advertisement’s audio and video whose authenticity was challenged by the defence but court allowed the video to be played in court.

Decision:
The court dismissed Ditto’s claims however, acknowledged Ditto’s copyright over the original version of “Nchi Yangu” but found that the version used by Multichoice was not the original track owned by Ditto.

KENYA

Kimani Vs Safaricom Limited & 2 others; Music Copyright Society of Kenya & another (third party) (Civil Case 445 0f 2015)[2023]

Facts:
Timsimon Kuria Kimani, a Kenyan artist popularly known as “Mr. Bamboo,” sued Safaricom Limited, a telecommunications company in Kenya and two other companies for infringing his copyright by distributing and selling his music on the Skiza Tunes platform without his authorisation between 2009 and 2014. In their defence, Safaricom and the others claimed they obtained the music through third-party agreements with the Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) and Sub-Saharan Limited, and that they were indemnified in case of legal challenges. Kimani denied authorising MCSK or any other party to license his works.

Decision:
The court found that the defendants indeed infringed on Mr. Bamboo’s copyrights and emphasized that they had a duty to conduct due diligence before distributing the musical works. The court awarded Mr. Bamboo general damages amounting to Kshs. 4,500,000/-. Additionally, the court held that while the defendants were free to seek indemnity from MCSK and Sub Sahara Limited, they remained directly liable to Mr. Bamboo for the infringement.

Conclusion

There are several lessons that can be derived from some of these cases, many of which have been shared. What tops the list is due diligence before dealing with copyright material. Copyright protection of musical works can only be effective through the vigilance of the authors- i.e., artists, producers, songwriters, etc.- record labels, collecting societies like the Uganda Performing Rights Society, multimedia service providers- i.e., radio and television stations, event organisers, among others- all of whom must understand copyright, its benefits, and the impact of infringement. It's also important to note that the amendment of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act of Uganda is a step in the right direction; however, the biggest challenge will be compliance and enforcement. This challenge stems from the lack of understanding by the stakeholders that the benefits of copyright protection outweigh the effects of copyright infringement.