Kenya Copyright Board Suggests Guernsey Approach to Image Rights Protection

Kenya Copyright Board Publication Copyright News Issue 18 2015 Cover

The most recent edition of Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) newsletter (cover pictured above) focuses on photography and image rights. A copy of the full Issue 18 is available here.

In the lead article starting on page 4 by KECOBO Executive Director, a compelling case is made in favour of specific legal protection of image rights, particularly in the case of celebrities. The article uses the oft-cited case of Dennis Oliech v. EABL (previously discussed here) to illustrate the limitations of existing intellectual property (IP) regimes in cases of commercial appropriation of one’s personality and/or image.

The article reads in part as follows:

“The use of images and personality rights is gaining currency and there is need to ensure that the same is well regulated and third parties do not take undue advantage of the commercialisation of the same. Guernsey provides a good example and maybe we should follow suit.”

This view from the Copyright Office begs the question: will Kenya be better off with a specific law on image rights like Guernsey? This blogger argues that the answer must be “No”.

Continue reading

Recap of WIPO African Sub-Regional Workshop on New Perspectives on Copyright

WIPO African Sub regional Workshop New perspectives on copyright organized by the World Intellectual Property Organization in cooperation with the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization Harare Zimbabwe July 2015

This week, African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) hosted the WIPO African Sub-regional Workshop on New Perspectives on Copyright organized by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) from 20 – 21 July 2015.

The Workshop drew Heads of Copyright Offices in the ARIPO Member States and some Observer States who took part in this crucial Workshop aimed at discussing the management of Copyright and Related Rights in the face of new challenges emanating from new digital technologies. Also in attendance were copyright officials from Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago who shared their experiences with their African colleagues.

What follows is a summary of the presentations made by the various participants at the Workshop.

Continue reading

Making Caller Tunes of Person’s Voice Not Copyright Infringement: Case of Ssebagala v. MTN Uganda Ltd & Anor

This blogger has come across a recent judgment from the High Court in Uganda in the case of Ssebagala v. MTN (U) Ltd & Anor. In this case, Ssebagala the former Mayor of Kampala spoke to journalists who were waiting outside the precincts of Parliament. Ssebagala was being vetted by Uganda’s Parliamentary Appointments Committee following his nomination for appointment as a Cabinet Minister.

During the question and answer (Q & A) session, Ssebegala is said to have responded to the journalists using his “characteristic style and skill which obviously generated a lot of merriment”. Ssebagala’s interaction with the press was publicly broadcast in Uganda as current news of public and political events. Thereafter SMS Media Ltd, the third party in the suit, adapted audiovisual recordings of Ssebagala into caller ring back tones (CRBTs) and offered these caller tunes to leading mobile network MTN Uganda for sale to the latter’s subscribers.

Continue reading

Protection of Image Rights in Kenya: New Court Cases Against Microsoft, Safaricom and German Embassy

camera-lense-eye-ced-nzomo

‘Image rights’ generally refer to an individual’s proprietary right in their personality and the right to prevent unauthorised use of their name or image or a style associated with them. In a previous blogpost here, we have discussed the commercial appropriation or exploitation of a person’s identity and associated images as a commercially valuable asset, particularly for individuals such as actors, musicians and athletes who commercialise their images in association with the promotion of products or services.

The protection of the image of an individual has increased over the years in many jurisdictions, either through case law or through limited inclusion in other Intellectual Property (“IP”) laws such as the Copyright Act in some jurisdiction. However, with the exception of Guernsey, no legislation exists anywhere in the world that is exclusively drafted for the protection of all aspects of someone’s image. In light of this gap, the protection of image rights remains largely a matter of contractual and/or constitutional interpretation, especially in Kenya. Therefore, it follows that disputes relating to the protection of image rights in Kenya may require some ‘judicial law-making’, as it were.

This year, there have been three cases relating to image rights that have arisen and received media attention in Kenya, namely Suzie Wokabi v. Microsoft; Kitosiosio Ole Kutuk v. Safaricom; Tealaso Lepalat v. the German Embassy in Kenya. No rulings and/or judgments have been reported in these cases thus far therefore this blogpost merely highlights the facts and issues presently in the public domain with a view to illustrate some of the challenges in protection of image rights.

In the Suzie Wokabi v. Microsoft case, media reports indicate that Wokabi accuses Microsoft East Africa of misappropriating images of her hands and her son’s foot and using them for billboard advertising of Microsoft products without her consent. According to the media, Wokabi was approached by Muthoni Njomba, a makeup artist and entrepreneur who asked whether she could use Wokabi and her son as models for her artwork. Njomba then got a professional photographer who took photos of Wokabi’s hands and her son’s foot.

Thereafter Wokabi claims she was “shocked” when her husband told her that he had seen the same photo on a Microsoft billboard accompanied by the words “Art Deeper with Windows 8”. Njomba in a media interview reportedly admits that she approached Wokabi but denies the allegations that she sold the photos to Microsoft claiming that the photos belonged to the photographer who had the rights to do whatever he wanted with the photos.

Wokabi has since reportedly gone to court to seek “a declaration that her constitutional right to property was violated by Microsoft, an order for compensation for general damages and compensation for being used as models, taking into account her celebrity status, recognisability and reputation”.

Kitosiosio Ole Kutuk Safaricom 2014

In the Kitosiosio Ole Kutuk v. Safaricom case, it is reported that telecommunications giant Safaricom misappropriated and used a photograph of maasai moran on its GSM Sim Cards. John Ole Muli, the brother of the maasai moran discovered his brother’s photo on the Sim Cards while in Loitokitok town where the the Sim cards were being sold. The maasai moran in question, Kitosiosio Ole Kutuk claimed that the mobile communication service provider did not seek his permission before the photograph was used in the GSM Sim Cards being sold countrywide.

Kutuk therefore sued Safaricom for using his image without his permission or signed contract and it is reported that High Court Justice David Onyancha has heard from Kutuk’s lawyers that there was neither a contractual agreement was entered between Kutuk and Safaricom nor any compensation paid to Kutuk.

German Embassy Tealaso Lepalat Lake Turkana Festival 2012 2013

In the case of Tealaso Lepalat v. the German Embassy, it is reported that the German Embassy in Kenya was a co-sponsor in the Lake Turkana Cultural Festival and that a photo of Mrs Lepalat was allegedly taken and used by the Embassy to promote the Festival. As a result of the photo being taken and used, Mrs Lepalat’s her husband physically assaulted and divorced her for not consulting him before allowing use of her photo to promote the event. Mrs Lepalat also claimed that she has since been cast out of her village because she failed to seek the consent of her husband and elders before having the photograph taken. Mrs Lepalat maintains that she never authorized any person to take and use her photo in connection with the event.

The photograph at the centre of the dispute has since 2012 been used to promote the Lake Turkana Festival, held in Turkana’s Loiyangalani Village every year.

Mrs Lepalat, supported by her brother Gideon Lepalo, has taken the matter to court and is seeking compensation from the German Embassy for her physical and emotional damages she has suffered.

However, the Attorney-General of the Republic of Kenya, who was enjoined in the suit as an interested party, has reportedly told the court that the German Embassy can only be sued if the Federal Republic of Germany waives diplomatic immunity it enjoys in Kenya under the Privileges and Immunity Act. The A-G further contended that that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter, as it is barred from hearing the dispute by the Privileges and Immunity Act alongside international laws that protect foreign diplomats.
Therefore the AG asked the court to dismiss the proceedings against the German Government and its Embassy in Kenya.

In rebuttal to the AG’s arguments, Lepalat insists that the the German Embassy waived its immunity when it violated her rights by using the photograph without considering the Samburu community’s beliefs. Lepalat and her family further argue that diplomatic immunity, as per Kenyan laws, does not cover professional or commercial activity. In this connection, Lepalat contends that the Lake Turkana Festival is a commercial activity for which the German Embassy cannot invoke immunity. In addition, the use of her photograph without her consent was not the embassy’s official duty hence cannot be covered by diplomatic immunity.

As these cases proceed to full hearing and determination, this blogger will be keenly following the developments.

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.