advertisement. The headline reads “Uganda Baati”. Secondly it is written that it is
“a welcome expansion as Uganda Baati takes over Tororo Steel Works Ltd”.
Prominent in the photos is the machinery and the product which is purposefully
displayed.
The definition of the term "author" includes a person or authority commissioning
work or employing a person making work in the course of employment. The
Plaintiff’s photos were shot in the course of employment. Did the Employer have
the duty to ask the Plaintiff to participate in the works? I.e. the works related to
the audiovisual and photographic works for purposes of the Defendant’s
advertisement of the company and products.
Under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 section 11 (2) as quoted in
Intellectual Property Sixth Edition by David Bainbridge at page 83; the basic rule
is that the author of the work is the first owner of the copyright. This would apply
in a good number of cases to persons creating works, independent persons not
employed under a contract of employment and even to employed persons if the
work in question has not been created in the course of their employment. Where
artistic work is made by an Employee in the course of his employment, the
Employer is the first owner of the copyright subsisting in the work subject to any
agreement to the contrary. This is similar to section 8 of the Ugandan Copyright
and Neighbouring Rights Act which provides that where a person creates a work
in the course of employment by another person, or on commission by another
person or body, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the copyright in
respect of that work shall vest in the Employer.
I have already concluded that the Plaintiff did not enjoy any neighbouring rights
since he is not a performer as defined by the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights
Act. Finally no terms of employment of the Plaintiff were adduced in evidence so
as to consider whether the Employer/Defendant was obliged to ask the Plaintiff to
be present at work while filming was going on to advertise the Defendant's
products. The Plaintiff is not an artist and he was not bringing special skills so as
to properly present the Defendant's products. He was merely going about his
business when he was filmed. Subject to any right of privacy which I will consider,
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
18