Remuneration Rights vs. Exclusive Rights: IFPI, SCAPR, Kenya Copyright Board Clash over Removal of Section 30A

music recording studio

The International Federation of Musicians (FIM) reports that powerful record label umbrella body International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has written to Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) demanding the removal of Section 30A of Kenya Copyright Act. (See our previous discussions of section 30A here)

According to FIM, the criticism of section 30A by IFPI is an unacceptable “step backwards, the implication of which is that all treaties guaranteeing artists’ rights would be made devoid of any meaning (Rome Convention, WPPT, Beijing Treaty).”

Continue reading

New Study on Patent, Utility Model and Industrial Design Activity in Kenya from 1990 to 2014

The Scinnovent Centre

The good folks over at The Scinnovent Centre have just published a new study titled: “Industrial Property Rights Acquisition in Kenya: Facts, figures and trends”. This March 2015 study was carried out with the aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) with the partnership, support and guidance of Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI) and National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI). The study used KIPI’s database of all industrial property applications and grants since its inception in 1990 to date (2014) and sought to answer four key questions: (i) Where do the inventions come from? In other words who owns the industrial property protected in Kenya? (ii) How does foreign (international) applicants compare with national (domestic) applications? (iii) In which economic sectors are the most industrial property applications registered? (iv) what are the key challenges/ bottlenecks faced by the applicants?

The data analysed in the study consists of the records of KIPI registry database on the filings, grants and registration of the IP protections for patents (1990 – 2013); utility models (1993 – 2013) and industrial designs (1991 – April 2014). The samples consisted of 2388 patents, 396 utility models and 1392 industrial designs. The study does not include data relating to patent, utility model and industrial design applications filed and granted through African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO).

Continue reading

Establishing Copyright Infringement: High Court Ruling in Nonny Gathoni v. Samantha’s Bridal Wedding Show Case

This blogger has come across a recent ruling by the High Court in Nonny Gathoni Njenga & anor v. Catherine Masitsa & 2 ors Civil Case No. 490 of 2013. In this case, the plaintiffs (Nonny Gathoni and Jane Odewale) applied to the High Court for orders of temporary injunction restraining the Defendants (Catherine Masitsa, Standard Group Ltd and Bauhaus Ltd) from infringing in any way on the plaintiff’s rights under copyright in the literary work registered as “Weddings with Nonny Gathoni” and later televised as “The Baileys Wedding Show with Noni Gathoni”. In particular, the plaintiff sought to have the court restrain the defendants from reproducing, adapting, communicating to the public or broadcasting the whole work or a substantial part thereof either in its original form or in any form recognisably derived from the original literary work.

A copy of the ruling is available here.

According to the learned High Court Judge Ogolla J the main issue for determination is whether the Defendants have infringed on the Plaintiffs’ literary work (as registered at KECOBO and evidenced by a Certificate of Registration issued by KECOBO and presented in court). The learned judge rightly singles out the core contention of the plaintiffs which is that although both parties had their own wedding show, the defendants changed the previous running order of their show by allegedly copying the running order expressed by the plaintiffs in the literary work “Weddings with Noni Gathoni”. The court ultimately finds in favour of the plaintiffs and allowed the orders sought for temporary injunction.

Continue reading

#ipkenya Monthly Review (July 2014)

VBN 155

This past month, we discussed several interesting developments and aspects of intellectual property (IP) in Kenya including: the Industrial Court decision in Gwer & 5 Others v. Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) & 2 others; the timeframe for the establishment of the Intellectual Property Office of Kenya, the revised Draft National Music Policy and the newly appointed Music Policy Committee and the inclusion of the artist’s resale right in Kenya. Outside Kenya, we discussed the Aereo and Vodacom Please Call Me decisions by the US Supreme Court and South African High Court respectively.

As always, your comments and views on these blogposts are more than welcome. This month was particularly memorable for this blogger, who was recognised among the Top 50 Most Influential People in IP worldwide!

In addition, this blogger was fortunate to travel to the Maasai Mara last week. Below are some of the photos from this memorable trip:

VBN 003

VBN 197

VBN 199

VBN 202

VBN 207

VBN 208

VBN 209

VBN 224

VBN 229

VBN 253

VBN 254

VBN 263

VBN 264

@victornzomo (c) MMXIV

VBN 324

VBN 328

VBN 331

VBN 335

VBN 336

VBN 337

VBN 339

VBN 342

VBN 016

VBN 026

VBN 039

VBN 045

VBN 048

VBN 051

VBN 060

VBN 074

VBN 081

VBN 082

VBN 086

VBN 090

VBN 095

VBN 102

VBN 104

VBN 105

VBN 107

VBN 119

VBN 122

VBN 124

VBN 125

VBN 126

VBN 127

VBN 128

VBN 129

VBN 131

VBN 134

VBN 150

VBN 151

VBN 157

VBN 178

VBN 277

VBN 280

VBN 283

VBN 285

VBN 287

VBN 307

VBN 308

VBN 315

VBN 316

VBN 317

VBN 344

VBN 346

VBN 350

VBN 351

VBN 354

VBN 356

VBN 359

The Lupita Factor as Kenya Prepares to Celebrate World Intellectual Property Day 2014

world ip day 2014 movies a global passion

The theme selected by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) for this year’s World Intellectual Property (WIP) Day celebrations, “Movies – a Global Passion”, could not be a better fit for Kenya. From an intellectual property (IP) perspective, there appears to be a renewed focus on the audio-visual industry (television and film) in Kenya, culminating in the introduction of section 30A which introduced the right to equitable remuneration for use of audio-visual works (see my comments on section 30A here, here, here and here). More recently, Kenya successfully negotiated and signed the WIPO Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (See my comments on Kenya and the Beijing Treaty here).

lupita by thewiredotcom

Enter: Kenyan Actress Lupita Nyong’o. Earlier this week, Kenya joined the rest of the world in celebrating Lupita’s Oscar win for Best Actress in a Supporting Role. Lupita’s sterling performance as an abused servant in the movie “12 Years A Slave” undoubtedly put Kenya on the global stage and the 31 year old actress becomes the first Kenyan to win an Academy Award.

Read the full article here.

Court Rules Public Performance and Communication to the Public Licenses Are Distinct Under Copyright

nairobi-pacific-hotels

On February 14, 2014 in the case of Nairobi Pacific Hotel vs KAMP & PRISK CMCC 7240 of 2013, the court dismissed an application filed by Nairobi Pacific Hotel seeking a grant of temporary injunction to restrain the Kenya Association of Music Producers (KAMP) and the Performers Rights Society of Kenya (PRiSK) from collecting fees with respect to their jointly-issued Communication to the Public license. A copy of the ruling is available here.

This court ruling creates an important precedent that a Public Performance License from the Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) is not sufficient for the protection of the rights of performers and producers represented by PRiSK and KAMP, respectively. In making its ruling, the court noted that KAMP and PRiSK are collective management organisations (CMOs) duly licensed by the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) to collect license fees from the users who broadcast or communicate sound recordings and audiovisual works to the public.

The court further finds that the clean hands doctrine applies since the user in question, Nairobi Pacific Hotel, had been implored upon to obtain a Communication to the Public License but neglected and/or refused to do so solely on the basis that the latter had already obtained a Public Performance License from MCSK.

Comment:

This blogger supports the court’s ruling in this matter and applauds the related rights CMOs for successfully using litigation as a tool to enforce and protect the rights of their respective members.

The existence of the MCSK license and KAMP-PRiSK for public performance is premised on the definition of the “communication to the public” in the Copyright Act. This definition reads:

“communication to the public” means
(a) a live performance; or
(b) a transmission to the public, other than a broadcast, of the images or sounds or both, of a work, performance or sound recording;”

However the Copyright Regulations of 2004 provide the clearest definition of what amounts to “Public Performance” as it is licensed by MCSK for the rights under copyright and KAMP-PRiSK for the related rights.

Section 2 reads as follows:

“public performance” means –
(a) in the case of a work other than an audio-visual work, the recitation, playing, dancing, acting or otherwise performing the work, either directly or by means of any device or process;

(b) in the case of an audio-visual work, the showing of images in sequence and the making of accompanying sounds audible; and

(c) in the case of a sound recording, making the recorded sounds audible at a place or at places where persons outside the normal circle of the family and its closest acquaintances are or can be present, irrespective of whether they are or can be present at the same place and time, or at different places or times, and where the performance can be perceived without the need for communication to the public.

From the users’ perspective, they argue that public performance licensing by KAMP – PRiSK and MCSK “feels like double taxation since one is paying 3 different bodies licence fees for the same thing”. Herein lies the biggest challenge for CMOs: to successfully convince users that “music”, as they know it, is simultaneously categorised as three different subject matter under copyright law, namely “sound recordings”, “musical works” and “audio-visual works”. In this regard, this blogger has previously argued here that it requires a great deal of skill and salesmanship for licensing officers from the CMOs to convince users to take out their respective licenses.

In the present case of the KAMP-PRiSK license, the tariffs are based on the area in square feet of the business premises wwhere the sound recordings and audio-visual works are used. The tariff structure is available below:

PRiSK KAMP Communication to the Public CTP license tariffs

In disputes between CMOs and users, the elephant in the room always seems to be the question of CMO regulation, in particular the reasonableness of the license terms and conditions imposed by CMOs on users. As previously discussed here and here, this blogger has noted that there is an increase in complaints by users against CMOs relating to license fees, in addition to the manner in which license fees are collected from users.

In the case of KAMP and PRiSK, CMO-user relations appear to have been complicated further with the enactment of section 30A in the 2012 Amendments to the Copyright Act. It would seem that Section 30A has introduced a system of compulsory licensing with the introduction of the right to equitable remuneration for use of sound recordings and audio- visual works. However, the term “equitable remuneration” remains undefined and where users of sound recordings and audio- visual works may have complaints against KAMP and PRiSK, the Competent Authority is not yet in operation to give directions on these matters.

EVENT: Unveiling of Proposed Law on Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions in Kenya

On Wednesday 8th May 2013, the Honourable Attorney General Prof. Githu Muigai will officiate the National Stakeholders’ Validation Seminar on the proposed legal framework on Protection of Traditional Knowledge (TK) and Traditional Culture Expressions (TCEs) at the Red Court Hotel, South C, Nairobi from 9:00am to 12:00noon. The legal framework aims to protect holders of TK and TCEs against misappropriation, misuse and unlawful exploitation by third parties for use in pharmaceutical products, therapy, arts and craft, music, design and even works of architecture.

This is a historic achievement for Kenya because it is the first country in the region and Africa, to develop a draft legal framework to validate legislation to protect TK and TCEs. It is also pursuant to Section 11, 40(5) and 69 of the Constitution of Kenya, which requires the State to protect the intellectual property rights of Kenya which includes TK and TCEs. The Kenya Copyright Board recognises that the protection of TK and TCEs is in tandem with Kenya’s “Vision 2030” blue print that aims to move our country to a middle income economy by the year 2030 through wealth creation, increased trade and national development.

Alongside KeCoBo and KIPI, there will be representatives from National Council for Science and Technology (NCST), National Museums of Kenya, State Law Office, ARIPO and WIPO.

Below is the program for the day:

SESSION 1:

0800-0830

Arrival
Registration
Prayer – Dr. Benson Mburu (NCST)

Master of Ceremony/Moderator : Dr. Evans Taracha (National Museums of Kenya)

09:10-09:20

Welcome Remarks:
by Chairman Kenya Copyright Board Mr. Tom Mshindi

Introduction:
by Executive Director KECOBO Dr Marisella Ouma, PhD

09:20-09:30

Overview and Objectives:
by Chairperson Inter-ministerial Expert Working Group, Mrs. Catherine Bunyassi Kahuria

09:30-09:45

Africa Position:
by ARIPO representative from TK Division

09:35-10:00

Opportunities for improvement:
by WIPO representative from TK division

10:00-10:30

Keynote address:
The Hon Attorney General Prof. Githu Muigai

10:30-11:00

Group Photo + Tea Break

SESSION 2:

11:00-11:15

Master of Ceremony/Moderator : Dr. Benson Mburu (NCST)

Presentation of the Draft Bill on Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions, 2013 – Key Highlights:
by KIPI, Mr. Stanely Atsali

11:15-01:00

Thematic Groups/Plenary Discussion/Q&A

01:00–02:00

Lunch

02:00-03:00

Group Discussion

03:00-04:00

Group reports and Recommendations

04:20-04:35

Tea Break

04:35 – 05:00

Closing Ceremony and Vote of Thanks

============

To RSVP, contact KECOBO at info@copyright.go.ke