the person who creates it under the UK statutory law of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
section 9 thereof. This definition is similar to that found under section 2 of the Ugandan
Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006.
David Bainbridge (supra) in the discussion also states that the author does not have to be the
person who carries out the physical act of creating the work. In other words a person who takes
dictation is not the author of the dictated work. In the review of the case of Robin Ray versus
Classic FM plc (reported in [1998} FSR 622) David Bainbridge quotes from Lightman J for
the proposition that someone acting as a mere scribe producing the copyright expression
accurately in accordance with instructions and without making any creative contribution
whatsoever can never be an author or co-author of a work.
The cases reviewed however do not deal with recording using a device and editing of the
recording which is the category in which the Plaintiff's case falls. As far as they use of devices is
concerned David Bainbridge (supra) notes at page 80 that in the case of sound recordings the
author is deemed to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the
work was undertaken. The author of a sound recording is the producer according to the statutory
law. Under the Ugandan law section 2 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006
defines a producer to mean the person who organises and finances the production of an
audiovisual fixation or sound recording.
In the main submissions the Plaintiff's Counsel relied on the case of Walter versus Lane (1900)
AC 539 between pages 556 – 557 per Lord Brampton for the definition of the author of a speech
as the author of the language orally uttered by the person. After making reference to this case,
the Plaintiff's Counsel subsequently in rejoinder rejected the case as an outdated authority on the
ground that the case was decided under the Copyright Act 1842 which had no originality
requirement. In that case the Earl of Roseberry delivered speeches on five occasions between
1896 and 1898 and the speeches were taken down by the Times reporters in shorthand, corrected,
revised and punctuated and thereafter published. An action was brought against the appellants on
the ground that the copyright in the works vested in The Times. He held that the producer of the
written composition is the person who is the author of the book within the meaning of the statute.
Lord Davey further held that in his opinion the reporter was the author of his own report. It was
he who brought into existence in the form of writing the materials in question. He further noted
that copyright under UK law at that time had nothing to do with originality or literary merits of
the author or composer.
I agree with the Plaintiff's Counsel when he retracted the use of the above case and the case is
not directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the Plaintiff‟s case. This is because the
reporters in that case used their skill and expense to render the speeches into typescript and
added punctuation and did editorial work. Lord Davey further expressed himself on the issue and
held that another person shall not just reap where they have not sowed. Can that analogy be used
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Izama *^*~?+:
24