Image Rights, Privacy and Related Rights in the Workplace: High Court Case of Sikuku v. Uganda Baati

Circled: Sikuku, maybe.

Circled: Sikuku, maybe.

“The persons who created and did the video shooting or who employed the person who carried out the work of shooting the photos and video is/are the authors or author of the works. The exact relationship between an author and a person having neighbouring rights has to be clear and not hazy. A photographer who films activity in a market might not require permission of everybody in the market to publish or use the works.” – Madrama J. at page 15.

This blogger has come across a recent High Court decision of Sikuku v. Uganda Baati HCCS No. 0298 of 2012 before the very able Honourable Justice Mr. Christopher Madrama, whose decisions we have previously discussed here and here. A copy of the present judgment is available here. Sikuku, a long-time employee of Uganda Baati claimed that the latter was unfairly benefiting from the use of his images in Uganda Baati advertisements presented in both photographic and audio-visual forms to the public. Sikuku sought an order for the payment of Uganda shillings 150,000,000/= as “usage fees” from Uganda Baati. Sikuku contended that his employer had infringed his rights under the Uganda Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act as well as the Constitution of Uganda. The court dismissed Sikuku’s entire case against Uganda Baati. The learned Madrama J. found that Sikuku does not qualify to have neighbouring rights as protected by the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006. Further, the court found that Sikuku has not proved unlawful interference with his constitutional right of privacy under article 27 by Uganda Baati.

This blogpost discusses the Uganda High Court’s treatment of the intersecting issues of image/privacy rights, and neighbouring rights as they arose in the Sikuku case. Ultimately, this blogpost finds that this case is instructive for participants both behind and infront of the camera lens.

It is not disputed that Sikuku appears in photos used in Uganda Baati’s in-house SAFAL magazine and the Contractors Year Planner. It is also not disputed that Sikuku appears on audiovisual adverts commissioned by Uganda Baati which were broadcast on several television stations including WBS and NTV. However the court had to determine whether or not these “appearances” amounted to “performances” as defined in copyright law and by extension, whether Sikuku fell within the definition of a “performer”.

A “performer” under section 2 of the Uganda Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act is defined to include an:

“actor or actress, singer, musician, dancer or other person who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore.”

Madrama J. in his judgment states that Sikuku cannot be a “performer” under the Act. His reasoning is thus:-

“The evidence demonstrates that the Plaintiff [Sikuku] was going about his business when he was filmed and photographed. He was not required to pose for the photograph or for the filming though they had been given new uniforms for the occasion. He was filmed and photographed in the ordinary course of his performance as a worker. (…) From the definition under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act the Plaintiff is not an actor because he was filmed and photographed in the ordinary course of his work as an Employee of the Defendant. (…) the Plaintiff is not a performer whose action was deliberate so as to be a necessary ingredient of the works complained about and which ought to be paid in terms of performance fees (…) It is debatable whether the advertisement prominently portrays the Plaintiff’s photo or actually displays the Defendant’s products together and incidentally with the workers engaged in the work of production of the products using the machinery. The plaintiff is not at all the major or main feature of the advertisement. (…) The Plaintiff is not an artist and he was not bringing special skills so as to properly present the Defendant’s products. He was merely going about his business when he was filmed.”

On this point, this blogger concurs with the judge’s careful consideration of the definition of “performer”. Sikuku’s role in the audio-visual work cannot be likened to that of an extra in a movie or other production. While it is clear that Sikuku may fall within the category of “other person who acts, sings, delivers, declaims, plays in, interprets, or otherwise performs”, the missing part appears to be the subject matter of the “performance”. In the case of an extra, there is a script and an assigned role given to each “performer” such as “workman #1 operating heavy machine”, which would appear in the movie credits at the end of the movie.

On the issue of image/privacy rights, the court provides a useful analysis of the privacy clause in the Constitution of Uganda, which closely mirrors the privacy article in Kenya. In finding that there was no infringement of privacy rights, the court correctly reasoned as follows:-

“The court should consider whether photos of Employees taken in the course of their employment showing them at work cannot be used by the Employer for purposes of advertisement without consent or payment of consideration. The plaintiff should demonstrate that the filming or photo was taken in a private moment such us when eating or resting. Such a conclusion should be based on the terms of the contract. In the absence of the terms of any contract excluding an Employer from publishing photos and audio visual works of products including members of staff in a factory carrying out their work, the Plaintiff has no case presented before the court. As far as the rights to privacy is concerned, someone who works in a factory as contained in exhibit P1 and P2 cannot claim a right to privacy. The factory is owned by the Defendant and the Defendant can bring in people at any time to inspect the factory thereby excluding the rights to privacy.”

#PharmaGate: South Africa’s Push for Patent Law Reforms Exposes Both Government and Drug Companies

The Mail and Guardian (M&G) newspaper in South Africa published a story titled: “Motsoaledi: Big pharma’s ‘satanic’ plot is genocide” where it is reported that Health minister Aaron Motsoaledi is livid about a pharmaceutical company campaign he says will restrict access to crucial drugs. This plan which was leaked to the press is now at the heart of the so-called #PharmaGate scandal which has received widespread condemnation.

All in all, this blogger submits that #PharmaGate exposes the South Africa government’s criticized track record with regard to implementation of existing laws relating to access to medicines. In addition, the Trade and Industry’s Ministry unsatisfactory drafting of the DNIPP is exposed once more. Therefore the Health Minister’s latest sensationalist remarks reported by the M&G appear to be intend to deflect attention from the above issues of poor implementation and drafting by the Executive branch. As for the drug companies, #PharmaGate only exposes the capitalist and pro-intellectual property (IP) ownership stance of Big Pharma, aptly captured in the critically acclaimed documentary, “Fire in The Blood”, whose trailer is featured above.

Read the full story here.

#TellACABoss Online Debate: Balancing Protection of Public Health and Intellectual Property in Kenya

counterfeit-drugs

This blogger has inadvertently stirred a heated debate on social media involving health activists who are actively engaging the government to review Kenya’s Anti-Counterfeit Act. This blogger alerted the twitter accounts of Aids Law Project (ALP), the Anti-Counterfeit Agency (ACA) and the CEO of ACA to an article published on the CIPIT blog by Paul Ogendi – Deputy Director at ALP. In this article ALP raised concerns on the goverment’s implementation of the High Court’s judgment in Patricia Asero Ochieng & 2 Others vs Attorney General. This landmark decision declared the Anti-Counterfeit Act unconstitutional because of its provisions affecting access to essential medicines including generics. In his twitter response, Stephen Mallowah the ACA CEO stated as follows:-

These responses by the ACA sparked off a spirited twitter campaign under the hashtag #TellACABoss where various health activists reaffirmed that the constitutional rights of people living with and affected by HIV, TB and Malaria remain threatened unless the Anti-Counterfeit Act is reviewed particularly section 2 which defines “counterfeit”.

Read the rest of this article here.

Chief Justice Makes Rules for Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Under the Constitution of Kenya

Supreme Court Fountain Kenya

Today, the Law Society of Kenya reports that the Chief Justice (CJ) Dr. Willy Mutunga has made Practice and Procedure Rules for enforcement of the Bill of Rights under Article 22(3) as read with Article 23 and Article 165 (3) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya. A copy of these Practice and Procedure Rules (hereafter “Mutunga Rules”) is available here.

Jurisprudentially, the Mutunga Rules mark the beginning of a new era in the determination of constitutional questions by the courts of Kenya. From as far back as the Gibson Kamau Kuria vs Attorney General case of 1988, the courts relied on the absence of such rules made by the CJ to argue that they lacked jurisdiction to enforce rights and fundamental freedoms that were alleged to have been denied, violated, infringed or were threatened.

The right to property is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya. The said right was protected by Section 75 of the former Constitution. As discussed elsewhere, the 2010 Constitution in Article 40 read with Article 260 fundamentally transformed the right to property by extending its definition of property to cover both real property and intangible property rights such as IP rights. Article 40(6) also imposes a positive obligation on the State to support, promote and protect the IP rights of the people of Kenya.

Read the rest of this article over at the CIPIT Law Blog here.

How Laughter Works: XYZ Show, Parody and Intellectual Property Rights in Constitutional Kenya

XYZ SHOW BUNI TV

“A society that takes itself too seriously risks bottling up its tensions and treating every example of irreverence as a threat to its existence. Humour is one of the great solvents of democracy. It permits the ambiguities and contradictions of public life to be articulated in non-violent forms. It promotes diversity. It enables a multitude of discontents to be expressed in a myriad of spontaneous ways. It is an elixir of constitutional health.” – Justice Albie Sachs in Laugh It Off Promotions CC vs South African Breweries 2005 (8) BCLR 743 (CC)

A parody, also called burlesque, satire or spoof, in contemporary usage is a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humourous, satiric or ironic imitation. Parody, as a method of criticism, has been a very popular means for authors, entertainers and advertisers to communicate a particular message or view to the public.

In recent times, the popularity of parodies has brought this creative form of expression in direct conflict with the owners of the original works protected under intellectual property (IP) law, particularly copyright and trademark.

Read the rest of this article over at the CIPIT Law Blog here.

Paradoxes of Equality and Inequality: Multiple Exclusions in Intellectual Property Law and Practice

ALL MEN CREATED EQUAL

…To debunk the fallacies of equality does not depend as much on might or brute force as on subtle, seemingly miniscule but powerful actions taken every hour and every day.” – Prof. Patricia Kameri Mbote, SC., 24th January 2013.

Equality remains a difficult and deeply controversial social ideal. At its most basic and abstract, the idea of equality is a moral idea that people who are similarly situated in relevant ways should be treated similarly. This idea of equality has found its way into Kenya’s Constitution under Article 27, which states that every person is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law. Equality, we are told, includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms.

Prof. Kameri Mbote in her recent Inaugural Lecture discussed the paradoxical reality whereby the practical application of equality and non-discrimination as enshrined in the Constitution resulted in discrimination and inequality. In the context of intellectual property law, the idea of equality is indeed problematic given that the State may be said to discriminate indirectly against Kenyans on several grounds

Read the rest of this article over at the CIPIT Law Blog here.