Counsel for the plaintiff also argued that reciprocal agreements as laid down in section 58(d) of
the Act enable the management and enforcement of rights in foreign jurisdictions. He also added
that section 58(i) permits the plaintiff to do any act necessary in relation to the copyright and
neighboring rights.
The plaintiff’s counsel reiterated the argument that the relevant provision under which the
plaintiff took legal proceedings to enforce the rights of the PRS (UK) was article 2(1) (c) of
Exhibit P6.
I do not agree with the submission of the defendant that the plaintiff required a power of attorney
to bring this suit. That submission was misconceived as it was based on the assumption that the
plaintiff was suing as an agent of PRS (UK). The plaintiff did not claim to bring the suit as an
attorney of PRS (UK). While it is true that rule 2 (a) of Order 3 requires a recognized agent to be
a person holding power of attorney authorizing him or her to make appearances and applications,
that rule is not applicable in this case. It was the plaintiff’s case as pleaded and as submitted by
its counsel that it did not sue as an agent of PRS (UK) but rather in its own right as a collecting
society with a statutory mandate and contractual obligation to collect royalties in Uganda on
behalf of PRS (UK) under the contract of reciprocal representation between the two collecting
societies. This contention was supported by a copy of the contract of reciprocal representation
(Exhibit P6).
The question is therefore whether that contract clothed the plaintiff with sufficient authority to
bring this action in its name. This question can only be properly answered if one appreciates the
background of the relationship between the plaintiff and PRS (UK) as collecting societies and
how they operate. The rationale for assignment of copyrights by the owners to collecting society
was explained by PW2 Ms. Karen Fishman, the Senior Corporate Counsel for PRS (UK) in her
evidence. When she was asked how they enforce the rights of their members outside the UK, she
stated that when their members join the society they are required to assign/transfer their
performing rights in their copy rights work throughout the world to PRS (UK). As a result of the
world wide assignment PRS (UK) becomes the owner of the performing rights so far as that
right subsists.
She then explained that their members benefit from this arrangement because they would no
longer be concerned with ensuring that anyone who wishes to perform their works has attained a
license from them. Furthermore, that it would be impossible for the individual copyright owners
to monitor the performance of their works whether in the UK or elsewhere as well as collect
royalties. That is why they assign their rights to collecting societies that have the resources to
enforce it on their behalf.
5