meant to promote products of the advertiser for commercial gain but the
Defendant never consulted him about the use of his image. He testified that the
use of his image without his consent was illegal and unlawful when the Defendant
derives financial gain from the advertisements and marketing. He admitted under
cross-examination that a uniform was given by the company. The uniforms are
issued by the works manager but were given to him by the quality control or
handed over the uniform. The plaintiff’s case is that he ought to be paid for the
photos and audio visuals of his person used in the Defendant’s advertisements.
DW3 Mr Varun Sood the Works Manager and Acting Business Head of the
Defendant Company confirmed that the event was intended to show the public
the company's high-quality products which were being made in Uganda. He also
testified that he briefed all the Employees and informed them that they would be
a filming and photography event in which anybody was not willing to participate
may not appear. A majority of the Employees had been with the Defendant
Company for several years and were proud of their work. The filming was
supposed to take place while the Employees were working. None of the staff
members were required to pose in anyway but were to continue working
normally. During the meeting that was called the Plaintiff never said anything. He
was present when the photos were being taken and the Plaintiff was going on
with his ordinary work.
Does the evidential material showcase the Plaintiff prominently as part of the
advertisement? No television or audiovisual works were adduced in evidence to
demonstrate what the film or video clips complained about are like. Secondly the
only evidence in terms of exhibits comprises of photos exhibit P1 which is a
calendar in which there is a photo having some workers in the background one of
which is the Plaintiff. Secondly there is exhibit P2 comprising of an advertisement
showing the Plaintiff at work. There are other workers also in view who are at
work. It is debatable whether the advertisement prominently portrays the
Plaintiff’s photo or actually displays the Defendant’s products together and
incidentally with the workers engaged in the work of production of the products
using the machinery. The plaintiff is not at all the major or main feature of the
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
17