The inaugural meeting of the Creative Commons (CC) Kenya Chapter was held on 25 July 2018. This meeting marked the transition of the CC community in Kenya into a CC Country Chapter. A key agenda item was the election of several officials to manage the affairs of the CC Kenya Chapter. As readers of this blog may know, the Creative Commons community in Kenya was previously organised using an ‘Affiliate’ model with two Leads, a Public Lead (based at CIPIT – Strathmore University) and a Legal Lead (based Kenya Law i.e. National Council for Law Reporting).
Under the new structure, the Creative Commons Global Network (CCGN) co-ordinates and provides leadership in the global CC movement. The Global Network Council (GNC) is the governing and decision-making body of the CCGN. It consists of elected representatives of all CC Country Chapters and representatives from CC HQ. CC Chapters serve as the central coordinators of the work of the individuals and institutions participating within a country in support of the CCGN. As such, all those interested in becoming members of CC must register here either as Network Members or Network Partners (for Institutions) and belong to a Country Chapter.
Endless wrangles in Kenya’s collective management system have made us all experts in copyright law. The thorny question of how and to what extent key players in the collective administration of copyright and related rights must comply with the Constitution remains a hotly debated topic. This brings us to a recent judgment by the High Court in the case of Laban Toto Juma & 4 Others v. Kenya Copyright Board & 2 Others Consolidated Kakamega Petition No. 3B of 2017 delivered on 13 July 2018. A copy of this High Court judgment is available here. Not surprisingly, both sides in this see-saw legal battle are claiming victory following the court’s final verdict. So, this blogpost will attempt to examine the key issues tackled by the court in its judgment as well as some of the questions that have been left unanswered.
- 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!
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.
This blogger has come across a recent judgment in the case of Mercy Munee Kingoo & Anor v. Safaricom Limited & Anor [unreported] Malindi High Court Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 2016 delivered by Mr. Justice S.J Chitembwe on 3rd November 2016. At the heart of this Petition was the claim that section 30A of the Copyright Act is unconstitutional. This Petition raised two important issues for determination: firstly, whether the petition is ‘res judicata’ in light of two earlier decided High Court Petitions (discussed previously here and here) in which section 30A was not found to be unconstitutional and secondly, whether the amendment of the Copyright Act and introduction of section 30A is unconstitutional for failure to observe the principles of public participation.
On 31 August 2016, President Uhuru Kenyatta (pictured above) assented to the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Bill, No.48 of 2015. The Bill was published in Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 154 on 7 September 2016 cited as the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act, No. 33 of 2016. The date of commencement of the Act is 21 September 2016, which means the Act is now in force. A copy of the Act is available here.
In previous blogposts here, we have tracked the development of this law aimed at creating an appropriate sui-generis mechanism for the protection of traditional knowledge (TK) and cultural expressions (CEs) which gives effect to Articles 11, 40 and 69(1) (c) of the Constitution. This blogpost provides an overview of the Act with special focus on the issues of concern raised previously with regard to the earlier Bill.
On the eve of its 40th anniversary, the Harare-based African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) has recently published the findings of a survey on collective management organisations (CMOs) conducted among its member states. A copy of the survey is available here. In the foreword, ARIPO Director General Mr. Fernando Dos Santos explains that:
“The findings [of the survey] indicate that CMOs in the ARIPO Member States are growing in numbers. It was also found that there is growth in collections of royalties and distributions. However, CMOs are also facing challenges which include insufficient or lack of awareness of copyright laws by users and the general public, users’ unwillingness to pay royalties, piracy of the copyrighted works, inadequate resources and manpower within the CMOs and inadequate availability of technologies that can be used by the CMOs.”