The inaugural meeting of the Creative Commons (CC) Kenya Chapter was held on 25 July 2018. This meeting marked the transition of the CC community in Kenya into a CC Country Chapter. A key agenda item was the election of several officials to manage the affairs of the CC Kenya Chapter. As readers of this blog may know, the Creative Commons community in Kenya was previously organised using an ‘Affiliate’ model with two Leads, a Public Lead (based at CIPIT – Strathmore University) and a Legal Lead (based Kenya Law i.e. National Council for Law Reporting).
Under the new structure, the Creative Commons Global Network (CCGN) co-ordinates and provides leadership in the global CC movement. The Global Network Council (GNC) is the governing and decision-making body of the CCGN. It consists of elected representatives of all CC Country Chapters and representatives from CC HQ. CC Chapters serve as the central coordinators of the work of the individuals and institutions participating within a country in support of the CCGN. As such, all those interested in becoming members of CC must register here either as Network Members or Network Partners (for Institutions) and belong to a Country Chapter.
Endless wrangles in Kenya’s collective management system have made us all experts in copyright law. The thorny question of how and to what extent key players in the collective administration of copyright and related rights must comply with the Constitution remains a hotly debated topic. This brings us to a recent judgment by the High Court in the case of Laban Toto Juma & 4 Others v. Kenya Copyright Board & 2 Others Consolidated Kakamega Petition No. 3B of 2017 delivered on 13 July 2018. A copy of this High Court judgment is available here. Not surprisingly, both sides in this see-saw legal battle are claiming victory following the court’s final verdict. So, this blogpost will attempt to examine the key issues tackled by the court in its judgment as well as some of the questions that have been left unanswered.
Like clockwork, behind every mega corporate launch in Kenya is a law suit over allegedly ‘stolen’ intellectual property (IP). In a recent High Court ruling in Incognito Productions Limited & another v Nation Media Group  eKLR, the learned judge appeared to sympathise with the Plaintiffs but not enough to grant their application for a temporary injunction against the Defendant, one of Kenya’s largest media conglomerates that recently rolled out a multi-million shilling project dubbed ‘Lit Music’.
The face of Lit Music (which is really just a record label) is ‘LIT 360’, a 1-hour programme made available simultaneously on Nation’s radio, television and digital platforms. LIT 360 was designed with the aim of talent scouting, soliciting and harvesting content, as well as distribution, marketing and promotion of musical talent. As readers may have undoubtedly figured out by now, the Plaintiffs’ claim is that Nation unlawfully appropriated their concept which underlies Lit Music and LIT 360 based on a series of confidential business proposals made to Nation by the Plaintiffs between July 2016 and March 2017.
‘Fire in the Sky’ (pictured above) is a stunning photograph of Nairobi’s skyline lit up against the backdrop of New Years’ fireworks. In April 2018, this work by Reinhard Mue aka Rey Matata was unlawfully copied and used by Law Society of Kenya (LSK). In June 2018, Reinhard wrote to LSK complaining about infringement of the rights to his copyright work and threatened to take legal action. To-date, LSK and its elected leaders have failed to respond to Reinhard at all, either formally or otherwise. As a member of LSK, this blogger is disappointed that the LSK leadership has allowed such a straight-forward matter to become a public spectacle.
The recently reported High Court case of Evans Gikunda v. Patrick Quarcoo & Two Others  was born out of a business deal gone bad. At the heart of this dispute is a music application (app) that the plaintiff (Gikunda) claims to have conceptualised, designed and developed between 2012 and 2016. However Gikunda joined the employ of the 2nd Defendant (Radio Africa Group Limited) in 2013 where the 1st Defendant (Quarcoo), the Chief Executive at Radio Africa, ‘persuaded Gikunda to partner with him to ensure that the product gets to market’.
According to Gikunda, Quarcoo proposed that that once Radio Africa’s Board of Directors sanctioned its participation in his app, they would share out the ownership of the app as follows: Radio Africa – 40%; Gikunda- 30%; Quarcoo- 20%; and the remaining 10% to a strategic partner. However, in mid-2016, Gikunda resigned from Radio Africa after which he alleges that Quarcoo and Radio Africa sold the app, without his knowledge, to the 3rd Defendant (Safaricom).
This Friday 29th June 08:00-09:00am you are all invited for an informal meet-up to discuss formally setting up the Creative Commons (CC) community in Kenya as a CC Chapter. As some may know, the CC Global Network is going through a restructuring process and the reorganisation of country teams into chapters is a part of this process. As such, CC would like to invite everyone interested to join this process. To this end, CC HQ has put together a toolkit to guide country teams through the process of setting up a chapter.
In the meantime, you are all invited to formally register as members of the CC Global Network by signing up at http://network.creativecommons.org.
Finally, feel free to connect on the CC Kenya WhatsApp group which you can join through this link: https://chat.whatsapp.com/4Eyf9KDh8Mq7dh5veOh7sn
Presently the Copyright Register (pictured above) shows that the same audiovisual work called “MY SKOOL TV SHOW” has two separate owners who registered it almost a year apart. In a recent High Court judgment in the case of Republic v Executive Director, Kenya Copyright Board & another Ex-Parte Sugarcane Communications Ltd  eKLR, the court quashed a decision by Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) to cancel the copyright registration of “MY SKOOL TV SHOW” by the ex parte Applicant (Sugarcane Communications Limited). This judgment is perhaps a wake-up call for KECOBO which, unlike the Registrar of Trade Marks at Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI), is not accustomed to having its decisions regarding registration of intellectual property (IP) rights challenged by courts of law.