#ipkenya Weekly Dozen: 27/07

CISAC AFRICA COMMITTEE REGION 2018 DjGrq71XsAA8DYh

  • Improving creators’ royalty collections in Africa: CMOs gather in Abidjan for CISAC’s Africa Committee [Official]
  • Figures of the week: Africa’s energy innovation landscape [Brookings]
  • 5th Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, Sept 27-29 Washington DC [Register Now]
  • Nigeria announces national airline, didn’t register domain names [iAfrikan]
  • South Africa’s Proposed Copyright Fair Use Right Should Be A Model For The World [InfoJustice]
  • Kenya: MCSK asks MPAKE to stop collecting royalties [Pot Calling Kettle]
  • Africa Has an ‘Uber’ Opportunity to Disrupt Farming Technology [AGRA]
  • Poor e-commerce policies slow the uptake in Africa [The Star]
  • How broke public universities can change fortunes [Captain Obvious]
  • Does the fourth industrial revolution call for a sui generis form of IP protection? [A+ Bunch of Lawyers]
  • Comesa to set up team on digital free trade area [East African]
  • Time for a Sui Generis Technology Importation Right? [Afro-IP]

For more news stories and developments, please check out #ipkenya on twitter and feel free to share any other intellectual property-related items that you may come across.

Have a great week-end!

Advertisements

CMOs Behaving Badly: Kenya Featured Alongside EU and US Copyright Collecting Societies

UKIPO-Copyright-Law-iplogium-1

The raison d’etre of  the collective administration or collective management system in copyright law is to bridge the gap between rights holders and users of copyright works. So, what happens when collecting societies, or as they are commonly called collective management organisations (CMOs), fail to carry out this core function and instead become poster children for corruption, mismanagement, lack of transparency, and abuse of power?

Back in 2013, Jonathan Band and Brandon Butler published an insightful article titled ‘Some Cautionary Tales About Collective Licensing’ which exposed the dark side of CMOs around the world. This blogger was pleased that some of our work in the context of CMOs in Kenya was featured in the article, specifically the on-going wrangles between Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) and literally everyone else including the copyright regulator, copyright owners, copyright users and even other Kenyan CMOs in the music industry.

Continue reading

High Court Judgment on Caller Ringback Tones, Definition of Public Performance and Regulation of Collecting Societies

IMG-20151023-WA0023 edaily dot co dot ke

Previously we reported here that several members of Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) had filed a case in the Commercial Division of the High Court challenging a license pertaining to the caller ringback tones (CRBT) service known as “Skiza Tunes” owned by mobile network operator, Safaricom issued by the three music collective management organisations (CMOs) including MCSK.

While the outcome of this commercial suit is still pending, we have come across a recently delivered judgment in the case of Petition No. 350 of 2015 David Kasika & 4 Ors v. Music Copyright Society of Kenya in which several MCSK members alleged that the collection of royalties by MCSK under the CRBT license agreement in question violates their constitutional rights, that the making available of works for download on Safaricom’s CRBT service amounts to a private performance as such section 30A of the Copyright Act does not apply and thus the CMOs cannot collect royalties on behalf of its members as required under the section. Finally, the petition invited the court to weigh in on several damning allegations made regarding mismanagement by MCSK in its collection and distribution of members’ royalties.

Continue reading

High Court Judgment on Constitutionality of Equitable Remuneration Right and Copyright Collective Management

skiza safaricom caller ringback tone service copyright license collective management society

 

Previously we reported here that two content service providers and three individual copyright owners had filed a constitutional petition at the High Court challenging the content of the equitable remuneration right in section 30A of the Copyright Act, the application and implementation of section 30A by the collective management organisations (CMOs) and the manner of licensing and supervision of the CMOs by Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO).

Recently in the case of Petition No. 317 of 2015 Xpedia Management Limited & 4 Ors v. The Attorney General & 4 Ors Lady Justice Mumbi Ngugi (known to many readers for her landmark decision on anti-counterfeit law and access to medicines here) delivered a judgment at the High Court dismissing claims by content service providers and the copyright owners that the contents and implementation of section 30A are unconstitutional.

Continue reading

Revisiting Section 30A of the Copyright Act: Right to Equitable Remuneration for Performers and Producers

eric

“For many years Kenyan composers and authors have received royalties from the broadcast or public performance of their songs. These royalties are collected by the Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK).
The Copyright Act has since been amended to acknowledge the essential contribution of performers and producers of sound recordings in the creation of recorded music and works by including a right to equitable remuneration for both the performers and producers, which is in line with international best practices. The rights to equitable remuneration are the rights of performers and producers to be paid fairly for the broadcast and communication to the public of their works.” – Performers Rights Society of Kenya (PRiSK)

In 2012, the Copyright Act was amended with the insertion of a new provision, section 30A which introduced the right to equitable remuneration for use of sound recordings and audio-visual works. This blogger has discussed this section in several blogposts available here, here and here.

In a recent article, intellectual property (IP) lawyer Judy Chebet argues here that section 30A is unconstitutional as it obliges performers and music producers to cede some of their rights to collective management organisations (CMOs). While this blogger fundamentally disagrees with Chebet, it is argued that her views raise serious concerns that must be addressed by the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) and the related rights CMOs both of whom play an important role in explaining to the Kenyan public (in a fair amount of detail) exactly “what section 30A is all about”.

Copyright and related rights are bundles of different rights which can be exercised individually or, where for practical purposes it is very difficult to enter into individual arrangements, can be managed by collective management organisations (CMOs). Because of the uses to which sound recordings and fixations of performances are traditionally put, collective management has become an indispensible method by which performers and producers can be remunerated for the uses of their performances or recordings.

Both Article 12 of the Rome Convention and Article 15 of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) give performers and producers of sound recordings a right to a single equitable remuneration for broadcasting and communication to the public. In most CMOs this will be the great bulk of the collectable remuneration.

The WPPT goes on to provide that the contracting parties may establish in their national legislation that the single equitable remuneration shall be claimed from the user by the performer or by the producer or by both. The single equitable remuneration may be shared by agreement or domestic legislation may provide how the remuneration must be shared.

Given this modern environment it has started to make more sense for the activities of performers’ and producers’ CMOs to be merged into one organisation; the users are the same and the remuneration has to be shared so that it can be more efficient for one organisation to collect and to manage the distribution of the remuneration to the different parties. The efficiencies also benefit the user who only has one organisation to pay. Even in cases where there are two separate CMOs, they can collect jointly but distribute separately. This is the case for instance in Kenya with Kenya Association of Music Producers (KAMP) or even the case of Sweden with SAMI and the Swedish Group of IFPI. In the Kenyan context this blogger has previously discussed the amalgamation of KAMP and PRiSK here.

Therefore, to the extent that Chebet argues section 30A creates a conflict with the WPPT in that the latter does not allow compulsory licensing, this blogger concurs fully with Chebet. However, the point of departure with Chebet’s views is that this form of mandatory collective management through compulsory licensing amounts to a limitation of Article 40 of the Constitution (Protection to right to property) that is not in accordance with Article 24 (Limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms).

Compulsory licensing is the term generally applied to a statutory license to do an act covered by an exclusive right, without the prior authority of the right owner. This concept of compulsory licensing in copyright is derived from patent law, where the owner is forced to face the competition in market, similarly in copyright law; the copyright holder is subjected to equitable remuneration. One of the main reasons for introducing non-voluntary licenses is where the users of certain works have access to these works on terms which are known in advance and it is not practicable for them to locate right owners and obtain an individual license from them.

According to copyright scholars, legislative arrangements for equitable remuneration occupy a position on the continuum of copyright and author’s right somewhere between exclusive rights and absolute exemptions. In strictly economic terms, these arrangements reflect the legislator’s judgment that to extend an exclusive right would hamper socially important uses, typically because of the high transaction cost of negotiating a license, but that to make the use entirely free would seriously impair needed rewards for the author. Compulsory licenses trade the bargaining power conferred by the prospect of injunctive or other coercive relief for a monetary award aimed at approximating the sum a reasonable licensee would in good faith offer and a reasonable copyright owner would in good faith accept.

Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention provides the legal basis for compulsory licensing in copyright law. The Article reads:

“It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the union to permit the reproduction of such works in special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.”
This provision provides the Convention’s exclusive basis for equitable remuneration and provides for the conditions which should be met before a member country can entirely excuse a use which includes the equitable remuneration and not prejudicing the reasonable interests of the author. Therefore this Article provides the so-called three (3) step test for compulsory licensing, namely exceptional circumstances, no conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and no unreasonable prejudice to legitimate interests of the author.

Article 11 bis (2) provides that:-

“It shall be a matter for legislation in the country of the Union to determine the conditions under which the rights mentioned in the preceding paragraph [11 bis (1)] may be exercised but these conditions shall apply only in the countries where they have been prescribed. They shall not in any circumstances be prejudicial to the moral rights of the author, nor to is right to obtain equitable remuneration which in the absence of agreement, shall be fixed by competent authority.”

Therefore in order for Chebet’s unconstitutionality argument to succeed, this blogger submits that the enactment of section 30A must be proved to be a violation of the Berne 3-step test in a manner that unreasonably and unjustifiably limits the rights enshrined under Article 40 as set out in Article 24.

Meanwhile, this blogger reiterates that the real elephant in the room is the government’s regulatory role vis-a-vis equitable remuneration.

In the UK, the Copyright Tribunal established under the Copyright, Patents and Designs Act, 1988 is empowered to determine the amount of equitable remuneration payable to performers where commercially published sound recordings of their works are performed or communicated to the public. In Australia, the Copyright Tribunal, established under the Copyright Act 1968, is similar in the scope of its jurisdiction to the 1988 UK Tribunal, including determination of remuneration to be paid in respect of certain uses which are subject to compulsory licenses.

In the US, the US Copyright Act 1976 created a Copyright Royalty Tribunal comprising five government-appointed Commissioners with a Chairman appointed annually. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction includes determining royalty rates payable under certain compulsory licenses, and the distribution of royalty fees deposited with the Register of Copyrights in respect to those compulsory licenses.

Meanwhile here in Kenya, the Competent Authority established under section 48 of the Act remains non-existent over a decade since the establishment of the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO). This situation is problematic as there are no mechanisms in place to monitor the practical implementation of the compulsory licences under section 30A.

To Photocopy or Not to Photocopy: The Role of the Reproduction Rights Society in Kenya

photocopier-lg

One of the local newspapers recently published an article titled: “Can’t someone stop this photocopying madness?”, which raises the alarm over high levels of illegal photocopying especially in tertiary institutions of learning, namely our universities. The writer explains:

We were taught in classes that photocopying a book without the requisite permission of the copyright holder would be against the law, except for the very strict exemptions made on the copyright page of the book. Yet at student centres and other photocopying areas in institutions of higher learning, the exact opposite of this lesson goes on in the open.
Students photocopy entire books. Some shop owners photocopy books in advance and store them for sale. With such scenarios, what does the student learn? That the lessons on copyright law are a mere hot air?

Recently, a news feature was published by Al Jazeera titled: “Photocopying courts India campus controversy” which was premised on the on-going Indian High Court case of Oxford University Press and Others vs Rameshwari Photocopy Services and Delhi University. In this case, Cambridge University Press (CUP), Oxford University Press (OUP) and Taylor & Francis, the three of the world’s largest publishers have filed a case in court seeking to stop the reproductions of their work into study packs and course packs for students.

Authors and publishers all over the world contend that they fully support free access to information. But they have come to realise that their contended principle of free flow of information must not be confused with the idea of the flow of free information. After all, books, journals, newspapers etc. cost money to produce and the same must apply to the right to reproduce them, particularly through photocopying. The only way authors and publishers have been able to deal with this situation has been through collective administration of rights. It is widely agreed that no single author or publisher can effectively police the use or abuse of its bundle of rights throughout a whole national territory let alone the world at large. Thus, collective administration is a solution devised to overcome the many difficulties which individuals authors and other rights holders face in the enforcement of their rights separately by themselves in the face of fast-growing technologies of the modern world.

In the case of reproduction rights, one of the practical, instrumental and utlity organs in the process of this collective administration is the reprographic rights organisation (RRO). Simply put, the RRO aims to deal with both unauthorised reproduction of copyright works for internal use as well as for the market place. This reproduction is dealt with through licensing. The RRO is therefore an intermediary organisation. It brings the rights holders in contact with the users. It facilitates understanding between the owners and users of copyright rights. Most importantly, it negotiates with, and grants licenses to the users to use the works of authors on the one hand; and on the other, it ensures that authors and publishers are justly remunerated for their works and investments.

This blogger believes that in both the Indian and Kenya scenarios highlighted in the media reports above, the RRO is clearly missing from the picture yet the latter plays an important role in striking the right balance between the rights of the copyright holders on the one hand, and the interests of the users on the other hand. This blogger is indeed surprised that the reprographic society in India (IRRO) has not sought to be enjoined in the Delhi University court case yet it is an interested party given the issues for determination by the judges in that case.

KOPIKEN Launch Collective Management Reproduction Rights Society of Kenya

Meanwhile, here in Kenya, we have the Reproduction Rights Society of Kenya (KOPIKEN) which is fully functional but seems not to have attained the critical mass in terms of licensees for reproduction of printed works yet all indications are that the photocopying business is booming in most urban centres countrywide. Regarding the universities in Kenya, this blogger would be correct in stating that over 95% of them are not licensed by KOPIKEN yet these institutions are actively engaged in photocopying both for internal use and also as indirect commercial activity.

Therefore, the time has come for KOPIKEN to assert itself on behalf of all the local and foreign authors, publishers and other rightsholders in the print medium whom they duly represent. Borrowing from the situation in India, this bloggers contends that time has come for KOPIKEN to consider litigation as a means of ensuring compliance with the copyright law, deterring infringers and creating jurisprudence in this silent area of the law. In respect to the last point of jurisprudence, litigation by KOPIKEN against one of the local universities would also allow the courts to revisit the questions surrounding the exceptions and limitations (fair dealing) provisions contained in section 28 of the Copyright Act, particularly as they relate to educational institutions, libraries and archives.