dealing" but when considering what is fair, it was appropriate to take into account use made of the infringing work in extent and purpose. The Plaintiff‘s evidence is that she produced the song on being commissioned by the British Council solely for the purpose of the campaign for protection of the environment. This purpose rhymes with the purpose for which the Defendant used elements of the song "Let's Go Green". The Defendant's use of portions of this song was intended to report on the current giveaway of Namanve Forest and safeguard the public interest by ensuring that the forest was protected from illegal giveaway. Secondly the use was a minimum use and in any case was intended to protect the environment and could not have depreciated the value of the song. There was no distribution by way of sale, hire, rental or any similar commercial purpose. Thirdly the exhibition of the work by broadcast to the public was not for commercial purposes. Because the jingle was made, the Forest giveaway did not take place. Additionally the Plaintiff did not adduce any evidence to prove that the Defendant gained from the project. It was presumptuous to assume that there was an increase in donations to the Defendant as a result of the campaign. The burden of proof is on the Plaintiff to prove that use of her work led to increased donations which burden was not discharged. Secondly the ground advanced under section 46 (2) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act is bound to fail because no evidence was adduced by PW1 to prove how her interests had been prejudiced by use of the work by the Defendant. Furthermore there is no evidence adduced by way of witness testimonies that the Defendant's jingle set the Plaintiff on a coalition course when government officials because the officials never testified about this. The evidence adduced by the Plaintiff is not sufficient to prove prejudice to her reputation as an author. In the premises the Defendant‘s Counsel maintains that there was no infringement of the Plaintiff‘s copyright and the Plaintiff‘s suit should be dismissed. In rejoinder the Plaintiff‘s Counsel reiterated submissions on the duration of the use of the Plaintiff's song at the beginning and at the end and also that it constitutes the background music throughout the jingle and is inextricably embedded in the advertisement. The argument that the Defendant used the Plaintiff's song under article 39 of the constitution which entitles every citizen to a clean and healthy environment is a polite way for stealing intellectual property. The right to clean environment does not give the right to steal another person's intellectual property. The rest of the Defendant's analysis of issue two departs from the written statement of defence. As far as the pleadings are concerned the Defendants defence is that a negligible portion of the song was used for teaching and educational purposes but in the submissions the Defendants Counsel instead submitted that it was for purposes of reporting current events and therefore fell within the ambit of section 15 (1) (f) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act.