Last updated on August 16th, 2024 at 10:25 am
Topic: Copyright infringement, intellectual property rights, and fair use in public art.
Date of Judgment: January 28, 2015
Court: High Court of Uganda at Kampala (Commercial Division)
Case Number: Civil Suit No. 443 of 2010
Judge: Lady Justice Flavia Senoga Anglin
Summary Facts of the Case
Sylvia Nabiteeko Katende, an artist and lecturer, created a model for a sculpture as part of a competition organized by Kampala City Council (KCC) – present-day KCCA.
The model was later transformed into a sculpture by Dr. Pilkington Ssengendo, commissioned by Shell Uganda Limited, and placed in the KCC Centenary Park.
In 2010, the Bank of Uganda issued a 20,000/- shilling note featuring the sculpture.
Katende claimed infringement of her copyright by the Bank of Uganda, arguing that she had not consented to the reproduction of her work and had not been compensated.
Legal Issues Before the Court
- Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action.
- Whether the Plaintiff owned the copyright in the sculpture.
- Whether the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright by using the sculpture on the banknote.
- What remedies were available to the Plaintiff?
The decision of the Court
The court found that the plaint disclosed a cause of action but held that the Plaintiff did not own the copyright in the sculpture.
The sculpture’s copyright was vested in KCC, which had commissioned the work.
As a result, there was no infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyright by the Bank of Uganda since she had none, and the Plaintiff’s claims for remedies were dismissed.
Each party was to bear its costs.
The court determined that the copyright in a commissioned work belongs to the entity that commissioned and paid for it, in this case, KCC.
The Bank of Uganda’s use of the sculpture’s image on the banknote fell under the fair use exception as the sculpture was located in a public place.
Key Quote: “The Plaintiff was commissioned by KCC to do a design for a sculpture. Meaning that the model design was made to the order of KCC. The work the Plaintiff produced was a drawing of the sculpture and not the sculpture.” – Lady Justice Flavia Senoga Anglin.
Law Applied by the Court
- Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006; Section 8(1)(b) regarding the copyright of commissioned works, Section 15(1)(g) concerning the fair use of works located in public places
Counsel on Record
Unknown
Conclusion
This case illustrates the principle that copyright for commissioned works belongs to the commissioning entity unless otherwise contracted.
It also highlights the fair use provision for works of art situated in public places.