HISTORY BACKGROUND OF COPYRIGHT LAW

copyright is defined as The right to copy; specif., a property right in an original work of authorship
(including literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, and architectural
works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; and sound recordings) fixed in any tangible
medium of expression, giving the holder the exclusive right to reproduce, adapt, distribute, perform,
and display the work.1

Copyright law has a relatively long history and its roots can be traced back to before the advent of
printing technology which permitted the printing of multiple copies quickly and at relatively little
expense.2 The case in point is Statutes of the University of Paris in 1223 which legalized
duplication of texts for use within the university. However, two factors limited the importance of
protecting literary Works. Before the late fifteenth century, works of literature were mainly religious
and were written by scholarly monks who would work painstakingly for considerable periods
preparing their gloriously illuminated books.3 Obviously, because of the substantial human labor and
skill required to produce such works, plagiarism of books was not usually a viable consideration.
Additionally, there was not a market for books due to the general illiteracy of the population at large.
The religious books which were produced were made mainly for use within monasteries or
churches4.

However, in the late fifteenth century, two inventions changed everything. Gutenberg invented the
moveable type, first used in 1455, and Caxton developed the printing press and published
Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in 1478, the first ‘bestseller’. An Act of Richard III in 1483
encouraged the circulation of books from abroad. In 1518, the first printing privilege was issued to
Richard Pynson, the Royal Printer, which prohibited the printing, for two years, of a speech by
anyone else. A copyright notice was appended to the speech.5

1 Black‟s law dictionary 8th edition page 1020

2 Incredibly, in the year AD567. Apparently, St Columba surreptitiously made a copy of a Psalter in the possession of his
teacher Finnian: see Bowker, R.R.(1912)Copyright: Its History andits Law , Houghton Miffl in, p 9.
3 Bowker, R.R., ibid, p 19.
4 Intellectual property by Bainbridge 9th edn
5 ibdem
Until the early sixteenth century, the art of printing was practiced freely and England was established
as an important Centre for printing in Europe. However Henry VIII, desiring to restrict and control
the printing of religious and political books, eventually banned the importation of books into
England. By an Act of 1529, Henry VIII set up a System of privileges and printing which came to be
controlled by the Stationers‟ Company.6

Originally a craft guild The Company received a Royal Charter in 1557 which gave them a monopoly
in printing and the Company kept a register of all books produced in
England. With the backing of the infamous Court of Star Chamber, the government and
The Stationers‟ Company maintained an elite group of printers and regulated publishing.
Only registered members of the Stationers‟ Company could print books, the titles of
Which had to be entered on the Company‟s Register before publication ,Members of the
The company had the right to print their books in perpetuity and this right became known
As „copyright’, the right to make copies7. The Stationers‟ Company had powers to enable it to
control printing and it could impose fines, award damages, and confiscate infringing copies.
However, following the abolition of the Star Chamber by the Long Parliament in 1640, infringement
of copyright was still subject to statutory penalties. For example, in 1649, a penalty of 6s 8d was
imposed for reprinting registered books without permission. Eventually, after the lapse of this
system, common law copyright was enforced in the Court of Common Pleas which soon recognized
that copyright could be assigned as a property right.

The system of privileges, registration, and control survived, going through phases
of varying effectiveness and licensing systems, until its ultimate collapse in 1695; and,
following a brief period when piracy of books flourished, the Statute of Anne was passed in 1709.

This Copyright legislation was rooted in the vested interests of the printing and publishing
communes. The English Statute of Anne (1709) was the first copyright law in the modern sense. It
granted exclusive rights to authors, rather than publishers. The first forms of copyright protection
were the granting of monopolies and privileges to certain stationers (predecessors of publishers).
This Act provided that authors had the exclusive right to print their work for 14 years after its first

6 8 Anne c. 19.
7 Bowker, R.R., op cit, p 23.
publication. If, after the expiry of this period, the author was still alive, the right was extended for
another 14 years. Thus, the origin of British Copyright legislation is rooted in the vested interests of
the printing and publishing community. The England Statute of Anne (1719) was the first copyright
law in the modern sense.8 It granted exclusive rights to authors, rather than publishers. The special
characteristics of copyright law lay in the total absence of formal requirements and limited
monopoly9. The Case in point is Prince Albert vs. Strante (1849) 64 ER 293University of
London vs. University Tutorial Press (10Albert & Son vs. Fletcher construction11

BACKGROUND OF COPYRIGHT LAW IN UGANDA

The realization of copyright law in Uganda was incepted with the reception of the copyright act
based on the United Kingdom Act which commenced in 1953.
In 1973, Uganda joined the World Intellectual Organization and on 10th –dec-1982, Uganda signed
onto the Harare protocol on patents and industrial designs.
Nevertheless, in 1985 Uganda formed its first copyright administration to serve authors specifically
for musicians. This was a member company limited by guarantee. Subsequently, the Uganda
Performing Rights Society (UPRS) was formed and recognized by the government as a collecting
society and became a member of the inter-confederation of societies of authors and composers.12
UPRS entered reciprocal agreements with other societies worldwide under the auspices of (CISAC),
protecting both local and foreign works falling within Uganda, and other societies protecting works.

In 2004, WIPO, engaged in artistic works so that the management of copyrights was systematic
subsequently this was taken up by the UPRS for the effective management of copyright. 13
Currently, copyright is regulated by the Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act of 2006.

8 5 Geo. III c. 53.

9
Intellectual property law by Farrand, Benjamin Howell, Claire
10 1916) 2 ch 601
11 1974)2 NZER 107.
12 Study by Uganda law reform commission available on

https://www.ulrc.go.ug/sites/default/files/ulrc_resources/Copyright%20%26%20Neigbouring%20rights%20body_0.
pdf
13 Copyright – A Quick History on Uganda available onhttps://bssennoga.wordpress.com/2019/11/28/copyright-a-

quick-history-on-uganda/
WORKS ELIGIBLE FOR COPYRIGHT PROTECTION (SEC.5 OF THE ACT)
i) Literary works
ii) Scientific
iii) Artistic works
iv) Musical works
v) Maps and technical drawings photographic works
vi) Computer programs
vii) Sound recordings etc.

Literary works
Literal work covers all works of literature expressed in print and writing. These works include
Novels, poems, stories, Textbooks, lectures, encyclopedias, biographies, and all other works of
literature. However, courts have extended the word literal works to include books and anything that
may or may not have a literature style. The literal works should be given their literal meaning; works
expressed in writing or print. It is of no effect whether the quality of the work is high or low or
whatever style the authors used. However, there is a lingering question of whether speeches and
interviews qualify for copyright. This was resolved In Falwell V Penthouse International
Ltd 14The plaintiff alleged that his utterances during interviews were products of his intellectual
creation and thus his property. The court did not agree with him. It was held that a plaintiff cannot
allege that every word he or she speaks is valuable property and that the same is a product of his
intellectual labors which should be protected.

Dramatic Works

Dramatic Works include all activities involving dancing or miming. The general rule is that these
Works must all be in writing or recording. This is because copyright does not protect ideas but their
expression. In Tate v. Fullbrook15 concerning the determination of whether a visual kit for a
musical sketch involving the use of fireworks could be copyright protected, the Court argued that it

14 215, U.S.P.Q 975( US: District Court, West Virginia. 108)

15 1908) 1 KB ,
was not because it had not been reduced to writing. In other wards for dramatic works to be
protected, the must be reduced in writing or video or sound setting

Artistic Works

Artistic Works have one feature that distinguishes them from others they are all non-moving. They
include graphic Works, photographs, things like jewelry, and sculpture. In The case of George
Hensher Ltd v Restawhile Upholstery16, the House of Lords attempted to lay down a test for
determining whether a specific work falls under the category of artistic Works. They all came to a
consensus that the test is a question of fact and evidence in particular, and as such expert evidence
could be used. Lord Reid said that a work of artistic craftsmanship would be regarded as one if any
substantial section of the public genuinely admired and valued the thing for its appearance even
though others may have considered it common or Vulgar.

Musical Works

Musical works are divided into two; the composition of the song and the production. Its
Common in today‟s music industry for a song to be written by another person, sung by another
person, and produced by another person. Each party takes a portion of the rights attached to his
work and such rights are copyright protected. In Obsessions Co Ltd v Warid Telecom17, it was
held that the defendant had infringed on the plaintiff's copyright by using their songs as caller
tunes.(refer to Garfield spence (alias Konshens) V Airtel Uganda ant 2 Ors18)

Derivative Works

Derivative works, for example translating a movie or book into another language, adaptations, and
collections of preexisting works like encyclopedias and anthropologies are considered original even
if they do not originate with their authors. This does not affect the copyright protection of the
16 (Lancs) Ltd164
17 Hct -00-cs-373-2010
18 Civil suitno.545 of 2015
source of the work from which the derivative works are derived or adopted. Supposing V.J. Jingo
translates Disney‟s Queen of Katwe into Luganda. The original copyright of the movie will vest in
Disney; however, the copyright of the translated version will vest in V.J. Jingo.

In Martin v. Polyplas Manufacturers Ltd,19 the plaintiff sued for infringement of copyright. He
had created some plastic coins from photographs of the coins, with the consent of the designer of
the coins, who owned the copyright in the photograph, making a three-dimensional engraving and
then creating a die, from which the plastic coins were impressed. The defendant made plastic coins
copied from the plaintiff‟s plastic coins. When the plaintiff sued for infringement of copyright in the
engraving from which his coins were made, the defendant said that the engraving was not “original”.
Chief Justice Wild held that:
“Copyright protection has been given to the published verbatim report of a speech, a
Photograph of a picture, a sketch of a piece of machinery, and a translation of a foreign
Work: Halsbury‟s Laws of England, 3rd ed. 373. Though each of these is made from
Existing subject matter the medium of expression has been changed. Where the author
Has made use of existing subject matter in this way the question is whether, in changing
The medium, he has himself done sufficient independent labor to justify copyright
Protection”

In Redwood Music Ltd v Chappel and Co Ltd20, it was held that if any author composes work
the copyright of that work vests in him or her. However, if he decides to license some other person
to adapt the work, the copy of the work created from the original work stands on its own as original
and copyright vests in the licensee “Someone may think that nobody can own a work that is
unlawfully created. Yet even a thief can stop everyone else except the true owner and the police
from interfering with his possession of the stolen goods.

19 [1969] N.Z.L.R. 1046 (New Zealand: Supreme Court)

20 ( 1982) R.P.C 109 (UK: High court)
 BIBILIOGRAPHY

Statutes

Copy right and neighboring act 2006

Cases (full citation refer to footnotes)

1. Prince Albert vs. Strante

2. University of London vs. University Tutorial Press (21Albert & Son vs. Fletcher construction
3. Falwell V Penthouse International Ltd
4. Tate v. Fullbrook
5. George Hensher Ltd v Restawhile Upholstery
6. Obsessions Co Ltd v Warid Telecom
7. Garfield spence (alias Konshens) V Airtel Uganda ant 2 Ors
8. Martin v. Polyplas Manufacturers Ltd
9. Redwood Music Ltd v Chappel and Co Ltd

Textbooks/dictionaries (editions and pages see footnotes)

1. Intellectual property by Bainbridge 9th edn

2. Intellectual property law by Farrand, Benjamin Howell, Claire
3. Black‟s law dictionary 8th edition.

Periodicals

1. Incredibly, in the year AD567. Apparently, St Columba surreptitiously made a copy of a

Psalter in the possession of his teacher Finnian: see Bowker, R.R.(1912)Copyright: Its History
andits Law , Houghton Miffl in, p 9.
2. Bowker, R.R.,.
3. Study by Uganda law reform commission available on
https://www.ulrc.go.ug/sites/default/files/ulrc_resources/Copyright%20%26%20Neigbou
ring%20rights%20body_0.
4. Copyright – A Quick History on Uganda available on
https://bssennoga.wordpress.com/2019/11/28/copyright-a-quick-history-on-uganda/

21 1916) 2 ch 601