chorus of the Plaintiff's song forms the very heart of the Defendant's advertisement. The Plaintiff's Counsel submitted that the use of this song was unauthorised and does not fall within the fair use exception and it followed that the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff's copyright. In reply the Defendant‘s Counsel submitted that the Defendant is an NGO whose objectives include improving transparency and accountability in the management of forests and wildlife reserves in Uganda and exposing corruption and advocating for good governance. In the year 2011, the media widely publicised the impending de-gazetting of Namanve forest reserve. The Defendant as an advocacy organisation found it necessary and within their mandate to communicate to the public the intended giveaway of the forest at that time. One of their campaigns came up with the jingle that incorporated a portion of the song "Let's Go Green". The Defendant's use of the song was of a non-commercial nature and was justified in the public interest for saving Namanve forest at that time. The Defendant's case is that there was no infringement of the copyright in the audio sound recording "Let's Go Green". Secondly there was no reproduction or imitation of the audio and the portion of the song that was used were within the permissions of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006. Furthermore there was no loss suffered by the Plaintiff as the result of the Defendant's use of portions of the audio "let's go green" as the jingle was made for a non-commercial cause and in the public interest. On the issue of whether the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright? The Defendants Counsel submitted that the evidence that emerged was that PW1 in cross examination testified that she was commissioned by the British Council produce the song "Let's Go Green". Section 2 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 defines an author as a physical person who creates the work or an authority commissioning work. Under section 8 (6) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 where a person creates a work on behalf of another person or body, then in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the copyright in respect of the work shall vest in the employer or person or body that commissioned the work. PW 1 testified that she paid 3000 pounds in full for this work. Under section 8 the law implies a statutory assignment of the commissioned works and copyrights subsequently vested in the British Council. The normal assumption with commissioned works is that the rights to the works are assigned upon payment to the creator of the works. For the Plaintiff to assert any legal ownership of the works, PW1 had to adduce evidence of a transfer contract between the Commissioner of work, which is the British Council, and the Plaintiff stating that the copyright still vested in her. Section 14 (3) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act provides that a valid transfer shall be in writing between the owner of the right and the person to whom the right has been assigned. The function of the law in this case is to provide clarity of title in commercial transactions relating to the protected works or in contentious matters such as the Plaintiff's case. The Defendants Counsel further submitted that the Plaintiff is not able to enforce a copyright that she had already signed away to the British Council. He suggested that this was why the Plaintiff refused to tender a contract to support her claim to the Copyright in issue. He further contended