#ipkenya Weekly Dozen: 22/06

  • Confédération Africaine de Football cries foul over infringement of World Cup broadcast rights [Official]
  • Celebrating Twenty Years of the WIPO Academy [Yup Its a Big Deal]
  • ARIPO IP Roving Seminar Meets Academic Institutions in Namibia [Official]
  • Engineering seeds: implications for African farmers [Pambazuka]
  • The problem with simply growing more tech hubs in Africa [Quartz]
  • Zimbabwe set to launch its National IP Policy and Strategy [Chronicle]
  • The cost of changing a country’s name: Swaziland is now the Kingdom of eSwatini [Kudos Afro Leo]
  • Uganda Farmers Working on Geographical Indication for Coffee [Observer]
  • Senegal: Akon wants to build ‘real-life Wakanda’ using a cryptocurrency called AKoin [Stay Tuned]
  • South African Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry Debates a General Copyright Exception [infojustice]
  • Nigeria: Need to address serious flaws in Patents and Designs Act [DailyTrust]
  • Kenya: Watch out for fakes on virtual shopping sites [Captain Obvious]

 

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!

#ipkenya Weekly Dozen: 15/06

Matthew Inman Oatmeal World Cup 2018 DfmH7qZVMAAkmZe

World Cup 2018 starts this week!

  • ARIPO holds the Second Symposium on Copyright and Related Rights [Official]
  • Tete Goat – First Geographical Indication of Mozambique [Inventa]
  • Namibia introduces new Industrial Property Act [A+ Bunch of Lawyers]
  • Competition Authority confirms Egypt’s right to air 22 World Cup games [Egypt Today]
  • Should Africa let Silicon Valley in? [The Guardian]
  • Kenya to publish draft data protection bill this month [Reuters]
  • Rethinking Uganda’s State Brand Strategy Using Intangible Assets [Amani IP Network]
  • Restriction on Parallel Imports Gets Red-Lighted By Competition Authority of Kenya [BD Africa]
  • Stolen melodies: Copyright law in Africa [Deutsche Welle]
  • Rwanda: Experts call for autonomous Intellectual Property office [The New Times]
  • Kenya: Sharing books online kills creativity, it’s outright theft [One-sided coin]
  • Anti-Counterfeit Agency Insults Intelligence of Stakeholders at ‘Consultative Forum’ on Proposed IP Law [Shameless Plug]

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!

Watching World Cup 2014 in Kenya: FIFA’s Media and Public Viewing Rights

Tonight the Brazil 2014™ FIFA World Cup™ (WC) kicks off in the South American nation of Brazil! As previously discussed here, FIFA has developed and protected an assortment of logos, words, titles, symbols and other trade marks to be used in relation to the 2014 FIFA World Cup™ (the Official Marks). In order to attract funding to stage such a large event, FIFA offers its partners, sponsors and supporters the exclusive rights to use of the Official Marks for promotional and advertising purposes.

In this post, we shall consider FIFA’s intellectual property (IP) rights in the broadcasts and public view of the WC. It is clear that all copyright and other (IP) rights subsisting in, and all goodwill associated with, broadcast coverage of the WC are exclusively owned by FIFA and protected by domestic and international law. In this regard, FIFA distinguishes between broadcasters who are defined as Media Rights Licensees and exhibitors who stage Public Viewing Events in relation to any matches of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™.

Read the full article here.

Intellectual Property Rights Protection and Brasil 2014 World Cup Fever in Kenya

FIFA WORLD CUP BRASIL 2014

In fourteen days time, the Brazil 2014™ FIFA World Cup™ (WC) kicks off in the South American nation of Brazil! As many readers may know, the WC is a Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) event embodied in the FIFA Statutes. As one of the largest single sports events and most-watched competitions on earth, the WC enjoys phenomenal interest from sports fans and the business world alike. From an intellectual property (IP) perspective, FIFA has developed and protected an assortment of logos, words, titles, symbols and other trade marks to be used in relation to the 2014 FIFA World Cup™ (the Official Marks). In order to attract funding to stage such a large event, FIFA offers its partners, sponsors and supporters the exclusive rights to use of the Official Marks for promotional and advertising purposes. The full picture of WC partners, sponsors and national supporters is available below:

FIFA WORLD CUP BRASIL 2014 PARTNERS SPONSORS SUPPORTERS

Therefore, according to FIFA, the protection of the exclusive rights is crucial for the funding for the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ and therefore non-affiliated entities are asked to respect FIFA’s intellectual property (IP) and conduct their activities without commercially associating with the 2014 FIFA World Cup™

Read the full article here.

Intellectual Property and Sports in Kenya: Copyright Protection of Image Rights?

IPKenya recently attended a seminar on Intellectual Property and Sports in Kenya co-organised by the Kenya Industrial Office KIPI and the Kenya Copyright Office KECOBO held in Nairobi. During the two-day seminar, several distinguished speakers from academia, legal practice and sports engaged us in a variety of interesting topics including: marketing, merchandising and licensing agreements and building successful sponsorship programmes, media and broadcasting rights, signal piracy, digital content and social media, sports contracts and key clauses to look out for, administration and enforcement of IP rights in sports and finally building an effective IP rights strategy in sports.

There was a lot of robust debate and discussions on these issues but there was one particular topic that IPKenya feels deserves special mention and examination. This is the intersection between intellectual property and image rights in sports.

Consider the recent case of Kenyan footballer Dennis Oliech who claimed his image rights had been violated and quit the national team, Harambee Stars.

The above photograph of Dennis Oliech, McDonald Mariga and Bob Mugalia celebrating after Stars scored their winning goal against Angola in a 2012 Africa Cup of Nations qualifier at Nyayo National Stadium.
This photo was altered slightly then used by East Africa Breweries Ltd (EABL), the current sponsor of Harambee Stars, in advertisements throughout Kenya including several road-side billboards.

AJ Auxerre striker Dennis Oliech, Parma midfielder Macdonald Mariga and locally based Sofapaka FC player Bob Mugalia demanded to be paid by EABL for using their images to run promotions for the team.
EABL declined and relied on the KES 110 million sponsorship deal with the Harambee Stars Management Board. Clause 9 of the agreement stated that the sponsor shall have the right “to use the images of members of the Harambee Stars team for promotional and advertising activities”

It was not in dispute that EABL had a group agreement with the entire Harambee Stars Team in respect of image rights, but can this agreement be relied on where certain players are singled out their images used in advertisements? In the present case, is EABL right to argue that the three players pictured represent the entire team so as to preclude EABL from entering into separate agreements for image rights with each of the three players? The players argued that EABL should have been required to seek their consent individually before using their image. In the absence of such consent being sought, EABL is in breach of their image rights and must pay them compensation.

The issue that arose during this discussion was that there is no single source of law that recognises image rights. The closest recognition is in the Copyright Act which defines artistic works to include photographs and recognises a photographer or a third party (in the case of a commissioned work) as the copyright owner.

IPKenya was however persuaded that the easiest way to provide for statutory recognition of image rights was to amend the Copyright Act. In this regard, the Argentinian Act is worth consideration.

Argentina’s Law No. 11.723 of September 28, 1933
states as follows:

“Article 31.
The photographic portrait of a person may not be commercialized without the express consent of the person portrayed and, where that person is deceased, of his spouse and sons or direct descendants thereof or, failing that, the father or mother. In the absence of the spouse, sons, father or mother, or the direct descendants of the sons, publication shall be free.
The person who has given his consent may withdraw it but must provide compensation for any damages caused.
Publication of a portrait shall be free where it is for scientific, didactic and general cultural purposes, or relates to facts or events of public interest or which have been developed in public.”

Despite of the above proposal, an overwhelming number of speakers and participants at the Seminar opted for a sui-generis law to protect image rights.

IPKenya wonder which way Kenya will go: sui-generis protection or amending the existing Copyright Act to provide protection of image rights?

The floor is yours.