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.
Previously we reported here that several members of Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) had filed a case in the Commercial Division of the High Court challenging a license pertaining to the caller ringback tones (CRBT) service known as “Skiza Tunes” owned by mobile network operator, Safaricom issued by the three music collective management organisations (CMOs) including MCSK.
While the outcome of this commercial suit is still pending, we have come across a recently delivered judgment in the case of Petition No. 350 of 2015 David Kasika & 4 Ors v. Music Copyright Society of Kenya in which several MCSK members alleged that the collection of royalties by MCSK under the CRBT license agreement in question violates their constitutional rights, that the making available of works for download on Safaricom’s CRBT service amounts to a private performance as such section 30A of the Copyright Act does not apply and thus the CMOs cannot collect royalties on behalf of its members as required under the section. Finally, the petition invited the court to weigh in on several damning allegations made regarding mismanagement by MCSK in its collection and distribution of members’ royalties.
Previously we reported here that two content service providers and three individual copyright owners had filed a constitutional petition at the High Court challenging the content of the equitable remuneration right in section 30A of the Copyright Act, the application and implementation of section 30A by the collective management organisations (CMOs) and the manner of licensing and supervision of the CMOs by Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO).
Recently in the case of Petition No. 317 of 2015 Xpedia Management Limited & 4 Ors v. The Attorney General & 4 Ors Lady Justice Mumbi Ngugi (known to many readers for her landmark decision on anti-counterfeit law and access to medicines here) delivered a judgment at the High Court dismissing claims by content service providers and the copyright owners that the contents and implementation of section 30A are unconstitutional.
This blogger has recently come across Nairobi High Court Civil Case No. 262 of 2015 Irene Mutisya & Anor v. Music Copyright Society of Kenya & Anor. In this case Mutisya and another copyright owner Masivo have filed suit against Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) and mobile network operator Safaricom Limited for copyright infringement. The copyright owners filed an urgent application on 30th July 2015 for a temporary injunction to restrain Safaricom from remitting license fees to MCSK pursuant to a recently concluded license agreement for caller ring-back tones (CRBT) made available through Safaricom’s Skiza platform. The copyright owners also asked the court to restrain both Safaricom and MCSK from implementing the CRBT License Agreement pending the hearing of the application.
Editor’s Note: On 31st July 2015, the urgent application in this Petition No.317 of 2015 dated 29th July 2015 was heard and certain interim orders were granted. A copy of the orders is available here.
This blogger has confirmed a recent media report that two content service providers and three copyright owners have jointly filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of the right to equitable remuneration under the now infamous section 30A of the Copyright Act. The Petition was filed against the Attorney General, Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO), Kenya Association of Music Producers (KAMP), Performers Rights Society of Kenya (PRiSK) and Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK).
As stated above, the crux of the Petition filed by Xpedia Management Limited, Liberty Afrika Technologies Limited, Elijah Mira, Francis Jumba and Carolyne Ndiba is that KAMP, PRiSK and MCSK should be stopped by the court from receiving or collecting royalties under section 30A of the Copyright Act in respect of works owned or claimed by the Petitioners.
As many may already know, Safaricom, the largest mobile telecommunications company in Kenya is currently embroiled in a handful of intellectual property (read: copyright) law suits, with creators and innovators alike. See full list here. Recently, there have been some new developments in two of these cases, namely the M-Shwari and JB Maina cases.
To recap briefly, the M-shawri row arose late last year when Faulu Kenya claimed that it had pitched to Safaricom the idea of a mobile money service that allows users to save, borrow loans and earn interest using their mobile phones. On the other hand, the JB Maina case has been in court since 2010 when Safaricom was accused of copyright infringement in respect of musical works of JB Maina alleged to have been uploaded on Safaricom’s portals.
The Daily Nation now reports that the Court has declined to grant Faulu Kenya’s application for an interim injunction pending determination of its suit for breach of copyright and violation of trade secret. While this blogger is inclined to agree with this preliminary ruling by Justice Havelock, several concerns the learned judge’s reasoning on this case were raised.
Turning to the JB Maina case, a recent court ruling reported in full here has awarded limited Anton Piller orders to the plaintiff, JB Maina against Safaricom. The effect of these orders is that it allows JB Maina in the company of a copyright inspector to enter Safaricom’s premises, inspect its machines, take records, make copies of records for purposes of gathering and preserving evidence necessary to prove his claim. The court has also granted JB Maina a temporary injunction restraining Safaricom from dealing in JB Maina’s works, in addition to awarding JB Maina the costs of the motion to be paid by Safaricom.
This blogger will revisit this return of Anton Piller orders in Kenya’s IP litigation landscape in a subsequent post. However for the purposes of the JB Maina case, there are a couple of interesting questions that this blogger believes must be at the back of Safaricom’s mind. The first question is whether there is need to have such a complex web of relationships between the right holders (copyright owners); the music collecting societies (the copyright assignees); the content service providers and/or premium rate service providers (the middle men); and itself as a major user of copyright works. This first question requires Safaricom to think hard about eliminating the middle men altogether so as to deal directly either with the music collecting societies or the copyright owners themselves on an exclusive basis. The second question which flows from the first is whether the acts currently performed by Safaricom in respect to musical works and sound recordings ought to be licensed in the first place. This second question arises based on the various unlicensed rights currently being exploited by Safaricom, namely reproduction, communication to the public in addition to the performing right in the musical download.
At the very least, it is hoped that the final conclusion of both these Safaricom copyright suits may provide useful IP jurisprudence that will help settle some of the unanswered questions in Kenya.