The evidence of the Defendant's witnesses is that in 2010 the Defendant
Company entered into negotiations with advertising companies to display all the
products of the company because previously the company only showcased
different products. According to Dennis Tusabe the Defendant Company intended
to show the public the high-quality products made by the Defendant Company
were produced in Uganda. As to whether the advertisement company required
the Plaintiff’s consent is not part of the Plaintiff’s suit and cannot be considered.
As part of the team the Defendants servants organised for a photo shoot at the
factory and the Employees were briefed on the expected event. The Defendant’s
Servants took steps to clean up the factory and distribute new uniforms and
protective gears to all Employees and ensure that the machines were working
properly. All the Employees were aware of what was happening and according to
DW4 they were enthusiastic. Dennis Tusabe testified as DW4. He admitted that
the advertisements appeared in NTV and UTV as well as in the Monitor
newspaper and the New Vision newspapers. It was also published in the SAFAL
Magazine. DW1 Ojambo John testified the Plaintiff works under the colour section
which consists of 10 to 12 staff per shift and he works in the day shift. In a
meeting of supervisors they were informed by Mr Varun Sood, DW3 and the
Works Manager that the event was going to take place to showcase the
company's products. The date prior to the event the Plaintiff and other members
of staff were briefed about the impending event. The brief was that a team would
be visiting the factory to take the visual and audiovisual photographs and films.
DW1 was cross examined and testified that the events took place on a working
day. The Plaintiff was present. The photo was taken and the filming was done
when the Plaintiff was working on his machine and he was not sure whether the
Plaintiff was aware and whether he had authorised his picture being taken. He
further testified in cross examination that anyone who was not willing to
participate should not appear.
I have contrasted this testimony to that of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff testified that
his case against the Defendant is for unlawful use of his pictures and images when
the Defendant was advertising its products. Secondly that the Defendant benefits
from the use of his images for commercial purposes. The advertisements were
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
16