private right to copyright but the court must look closely at the facts of individual cases. There are three key tests for the success of the fair use defence: firstly the most important factor is whether the alleged fair dealing is in fact commercially competing with the proprietor's exploitation of the copyright work. If it is not, then that is moderate taking, the defence is likely to succeed especially if the Defendant‘s additional purpose is to right a wrong, to ventilate an honest grievance etc. Secondly the most important factor is whether the work has already been published or otherwise exposed to the public. If it does not, and if the material has been obtained by a breach of confidence or other means or underhand dealing, the courts will be reluctant to say that this is fair. Lastly the most important factor is the amount and importance of the work that has been taken. Although it is permissible to take a substantial part of the work, in some circumstances the taking of an excessive amount or the taking of event a small amount if on a regular basis would negative fair dealing. In the jingle and the purpose for which it is used the Defendant met the three tests set out by the above court. The purpose of the campaign was to ventilate an honest grievance i.e. the intended destruction of Namanve Forest. Secondly in the case of Acode versus Attorney General High Court Miscellaneous Cause No 0100 of 2004 honourable Justice Rubby Aweri Opio applauded the Plaintiffs, an NGO for taking action to safeguard the environment. A significant part of the forest had been given to a private company to grow sugarcane. One of the grounds was that the government had issued the company a 50 year sugarcane growing permit in respect of the forest reserve in issue in contravention of the Constitution and the law. Secondly the action was taken amid protests from local communities who depend on the forest for their livelihood. Thirdly the award of the forest land violated the applicant and other Ugandan‘s rights to a clean and healthy environment as well as protection of the country's natural resources. The land in question was held by the government of Uganda in trust for the people of Uganda to be protected for the common good of citizens. Furthermore government may grant authority to alienate the property pursuant to authority from Parliament and consent of the local community in which area the land is situated. The applicant had a right to bring the action against the Attorney General. Consequently the Plaintiffs case involves a public issue of the Namanve Forest giveaway and improper destruction of the forest by the government and there was sufficient justification for the Defendant to use some elements of the "let's go Green Song" in line with section 15 (2) (f) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006. As far as the definition of fair use is concerned section 15 (2) sets out a four-part test. In determining whether the use of the work in any particular case is a fair use, the purpose of the character of the users including whether the user is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes is considered. Secondly the nature of the protected work is taken into account; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the protected work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for the value of the protected work may also be taken into account. In the case of Hubbard versus Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84 Lord Denning held on the question of what amounts to fair use, that it is impossible to define "fair