protected work as a whole; and (d) the effect of the use upon the potential market for value of the
protected work. Subsection 2 of section 15 deals with the general principles.
The principles spelt out under section 15 (2) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act are
similar to those under exhibit D5 on fair use that was printed from YouTube. The first principle
in exhibit D5 is that the four factors to be considered include the purpose and character of the
use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational
purposes. It is almost word for word with section 15 (2) (a) of the Copyright and Neighbouring
Rights Act. Secondly the courts consider the nature of the copyrighted work. This is word for
word with section 15 (2) (b) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act. The third principle
in exhibit D5 is the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole. The principle is word for word with section 15 (2) (c) of the Copyright and
Neighbouring Rights Act. Lastly the last principle in exhibit D5 is the effect of the use upon the
potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work. Again the fourth principle is the same as
that stipulated by section 15 (2) (d) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act. Exhibit D5
which the Defendant relies on primary deals with the United States of America and how the
judges have approached the issue. It is not authority for understanding the provisions of section
15 (2) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act. It is however useful for comparative
purposes since the Defendant and the Plaintiff in the agreed facts agreed that the Plaintiffs work
was also released through YouTube. It is written in the YouTube printout on use that in many
countries, certain uses of copyright protected works do not infringe the copyright owner‘s rights.
For example in the United States, copyright rights are limited by the doctrine of "fair use," under
which certain users of copyright material for criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching,
scholarship, or research may be considered fair. It is further written in exhibit D5 that US judges
determine whether a fair use defence is valid according to the four factors, which I have set out
above and which are similar to section 15 (2) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act.
The extract from YouTube is therefore consistent with the Ugandan section 15 (1) and (2) of the
Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act. It however does not add anything new because it also
talks about criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research. It supports
my finding that the four principles can only be considered when looking at the use to which the
work was being put particularly in the criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching,
scholarship or research among others. In Uganda those parameters for fair use are spelt out by
section 15 (1) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act. Therefore the four principles are
used in determining whether the use as stipulated by section 15 (1) which spells out what
amounts to fair use is indeed fair use according to the further principles for determining the
question set out in subsection 2 of section 15 of the Act.
Before concluding the matter I was additionally referred to some judicial precedents from other
countries on the question of fair use specifically on the principle of "substantial use" found under
section 15 (c) of the Act. Furthermore I was referred to some precedents on the question of