NAME: ONORIA MARION RUTH

REG NO: CS19B11/374

ACCESS NO: A86495

FACULTY: LAW

COURSE: LLB

YEAR: 4

STREAM: C

CAMPUS: MUKONO CAMPUS

COURSEUNIT: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 1

LECTURER: MR. KENNETH MUHANGI

TUTOR: MR. KAJUBI BRIAN

PART A

Brief facts

Pastor Miriam Warugaba owns a local church and has a ticktock accord where she uploads video
clips. 11 months ago she performs a song that she uploads on her YouTube and TickTock. Later
two artists Dosa Dosa and Eddy Kenzo, recorded audio-visual works had similar songs titled
“Engaalo Zikuube” and “Nsimbudde” respectively. Dosa’s version got 8.9k views in 8 months
and Eddy’s version had 2.4 million views and 9k likes. They both maintain the chorus of Pastor
Miriam’s original song.

Issue 1: whether Pastor Miriam Warugaba enjoys copyright over a song titled “Zikuube
Bwe Pwaa”?

The Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006 provides for the statutory property right of
copyright in Uganda. Copyright is defined by Professor David Bakibinga as a regime of law
that protects literary, scientific and artistic works. He further elaborates that it’s a branch of
Intellectual property that is concerned with the mode of creation, regulation, protection and
enforcement of qualifying works1. Copyright was also defined in the case of Professor George
William Kakoma V Attorney General2 by Justice Bamwine as a set of exclusive rights
granted to the author or creator of an original work including the right to copy, distribute and
adopt the work.

The rationale for the protection of copyright is to protect works created by authors. This is in line
with Article 26 of the Constitution that protects the right to own property which involves
tangible and intangible property which include both intellectual property and copyright3. The law
of copyright therefore protects authors and their work from exploitation by other people as it
gives an author of original work exclusive rights for a certain period of time to exploit and
benefit from his or her work for example section 13(1)4 provides that the economic rights of an
author are protected during his or her lifetime and fifty years after his/her death.

1
D.J. Bakibinga & RM Kakungulu, Intellectual property Law in East Africa
2
Civil suit 197 of 2008
3
The constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995, as amended
4
The Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006
For work to be copyrightable, it must satisfy the elements of copyright that is to say Authorship,
originality, fixation (reducing it into material form) and that such work must be capable of being
protected under copyright. I shall now proceed to elaborate on the elements of copyright below
and relate them to the issue 1.

i) Authorship

An author is defined in section 2 of the Copyright and Neighbouring rights act to mean a
physical person who created or creates work that’s protected under section 5 and such a person
includes a person or authority commissioning the work or employing the person making work in
the course of employment. The person who originates the work and puts it in material form is
recognized as the author of that work. This was noted by court in the case of Al Hajj Nasser
Ssebagala V MTN (U) ltd and Anor5 that the conversation was not reduced in material form as
Ssebagala did not exercise skill, effort and labour to put it into recording and therefore copyright
belongs to SMS Media that had produced and reduced Ssebagala’s statements into material form.
Also that the skill employed by them gave them exclusive and moral rights to the recordings.
That although it was his voice in the speech, he could not claim to have ownership over it
because he did not author it.

In the instant facts, Pastor Miriam Warugaba is the author of the song “Zikuube Bwe Pwaa” as
she recorded it and reduced it in material form before uploading it.

ii) Originality

For work to be entitled to copyright protection, it must be original. Intellectual property is

defined as the protection accorded to products of the mind. This means that it protects authors’
creativity. The word original was defined in the case of University of London Press Ltd V
University Tutorial Press Ltd6 to mean that it should not demand original or inventive thought
and the work should not be copied but originate from the author. Originality is explained in
section 4(3) of the Copyright and neighbouring rights act, 2006 as work created as the
product of the independent efforts of the author. It’s also referred to as “sweat of Abrow”. The
work should have originated from the author and should not have been copied from somewhere

5
Civil suit 283 of 2012 [2015]
6
(1916) 2 Ch. 601
else. The author therefore must have used his skill, judgement, labour and effort in making the
work.

It should be noted that originality arises in times of reducing work into material form and not the
time of composition because the law provides in section 67 that the law does not protect ideas.
Court noted in Byte Legion Technologies Vs MTN (U) Ltd8 that the plaintiff was seeking to
protect an idea and not an original product. That Copyright is not concerned with protecting
original ideas but the expression of thought. The originality required relates to the expression of
thought in a tangible form.

Authors are hence recommended to reduce their work into material form after creation. They
should further register it with the registrar of copyright in case they do not intend to release to the
public immediately in order to be protected.

Pastor Miriam expressed originality in the song “Zikuube Bwe Pwaa” when she put in her
independent effort in it.

iii) Fixation

Fixation is defined by section 29 to mean the embodiment of images or sound or both images
and sound in a material form sufficiently stable or permanent to permit them to be perceived,
reproduced or otherwise communicated through a device during a period of more than transitory
duration. Fixation simply refers to reducing work into material form. It is trite law as provided
for under section 4(1) of the Copyright and neighbouring rights act, 2006 that the author of
any work shall have protection of such where its original and reduced to material form. The
rationale is that the law does not protect ideas, concepts, and procedures as it is in section 6 of
the copyright and neighbouring rights act, 2006. Fixation defers according to the type of work
but the law protects any work irrespective of the quality or purpose. Copyright is a reward for the
hard work and effort put into expressing the idea and not the idea. This was explained in the case
of Al Hajj Nasser Ssebagala V MTN (U) Ltd and SMS Media Ltd10 where court explained
that copyright belonged to SMS Media because they put in effort, skill and energy to record and

7
The Copyright and neighbouring rights Act 2006
8
HCT-00-CC-CS 95 OF 2009[2013]
9
The Copyright and neighbouring rights Act 2006
10
Civil suit 283 of 2012 [2015]
reduce his speech into material form and therefore it gave them exclusive moral and economic
rights to the recordings. That the copyright and neighbouring rights act, 2006 only gives
protection to speeches that have been previously recorded and reduced into material form before
being publicized.

In the instant facts, Pastor Miriam reduced the song “Zikuube Bwe Pwaa” into material form
when she recorded it and then uploaded it and so its protected by copyright law.

iv) Eligibility (that such work must be capable of being protected by copyright)

In order for work to be eligible for protection under copyright, such work should be protected
under section 5 of the copyright and neighbouring rights act. In this sense, Pastor Miriam
work is protected under section 5 (1)(b) of the copyright and neighbouring rights act,
2006 under dramatic, dramatic- musical and musical works. For work to qualify for
protection as musical works, it must be an independent musical composition. Copyright
protects the lyrics, performance, production and selling rights of the song. It protects musical
works and composition.

Musical works in Hyperion Records Vs Sawkins were defined by Mummary LJ as

musical works indicating that music is different from mere noise and is intended to produce
effects of some kind on the listener’s emotions or intellect11.

Pastor Miriam’s song “Zikuube Bwe Pwaa” therefore is eligible for protection under
copyright under section 5(1) b of the copyrights and neighbouring rights Act,2006.

Issue 1 is resolved in the affirmative that Pastor Miriam Warugaba has copyright over the
song “Zikuube Bwe Pwaa” because of the reasons well explained in the discussion above.

Issue 2: Whether Pastor Miriam Warugaba can sustain a cause of action against Eddy
Kenzo and Dosa Dosa of copyright infringement?

A cause of action is defined according to Halsbury’s Laws of England in paragraph 21 as

meaning simply the facts that exist and entitle one person to obtain relief or remedy from a court

11
[2005] EWCA Civ 565
against another person12. The elements of a cause of action are explained in the case of Auto
Garage Vs Motokov13 by Spry VP of the East African Court of Appeal;

i) That the plaintiff enjoyed a right

ii) That that right was breached
iii) That the defendant is liable for the breach

Section 46(1)14 gives instances that may give rise to an infringement as where one reproduces,
fixes, duplicates, extracts, imitates or imports, distributes by sale, hire, rental or like manner,
exhibits, broadcasts, publicly performs or such a manner work of an author without a valid
transfer, licence assignment or other authorization. Section 46(2)15 provides that even using an
author’s work in a manner that dishonors him/her or her reputation shall be deemed to be an
infringement. Section 45(5) provides Infringement occurs where it involves the whole piece of
work or a substantial part of the work. This was noted in Hawks and Sons Ltd Vs Paramount
Field Services Ltd16 that the use of only a little over 30 seconds out of a 4-minute recording was
found to amount to infringement.

The copyright and Neighbouring rights act, 2006 entitles an author to enjoy moral and economic
rights under section 10 and section 9 respectively. The rights given to owners are only enjoyed
and exercised by them or any other person authorized by them.

The economic rights enjoyed by an author include those to publish, reproduce, distribute or make
available to the public, perform, broadcast, communicate the work to the public, commercially
rent or sell, reproduce transcription work into Braille for use by the blind17. Therefore,
engagement in such activities by a non-author or one not permitted by the author is infringement
or an owner of the work. In John Murray(Publishers) Ltd and 10 others V William Senkindu
and Anor18, court passed their judgement in favor of the plaintiff with reason that the defendant
had infringed on their economic right by printing and selling counterfeit copies of the book
Introduction to Biology for which the plaintiff had copyright thus causing them loses.

12
Halsbury’s Laws of England/ civil procedure (volume 11, (2009) 5th edition)
13
(1971) EA 392
14
The copyright and neighboring Rights Act, 2006
15
supra
16
[1934] CH 593
17
Section 9 of the copyright and neighbouring rights act, 2006
18
HCCS NO 1018 of 1997
Eddy Kenzo and Dosa Dosa in the instant facts have infringed on the Pastor Miriam’s copyright
as an author because they reproduced part of her song and sold such and therefore caused her
economic loses. They did not seek permission to create derivative work from her as provided for
in section 9(f) of the copyright and neighbouring rights act, 2006.

Moral rights are defined by section 2 to mean the right to claim authorship or performance as
provided in section 10 and 23. Moral rights protect the integrity of the author and can be
enforced even after his/her death. Moral rights are non- transferrable and only belong to the
author. Section 10 (1) (b) that an author has a right to be acknowledged or have his/her name or
pseudonym every time his/her work is used or whenever any acts in section 9 is done in relation
to that work except where its impracticable to do so.

In the instant facts both artists Eddy Kenzo and Dosa Dosa do not acknowledge Pastor Miriam in
their songs as the author of the work so they infringe on her moral rights.

Issue 2 is resolved in the affirmative that pastor Miriam can sustain a cause of action for
infringement against Eddy Kenzo and Dosa Dosa.

Issue 3: what are the available remedies to Pastor Miriam Warugaba?

Article 126(2)(C) of the constitution of the republic of Uganda 1995, as amended provides
that in adjudicating cases of both a civil and criminal nature, the courts shall, subject to the law,
apply the principles of adequate compensation shall be awarded to victims of wrongs. This
entitles an aggrieved party with a remedy.
Copyright infringement rise to arrange of remedies, civil, criminal and administrative 19.
Injunction, section 45(1) of the copyright and neighbouring rights act provides that any
person whose right is infringed on or about to be infringed on may institute civil proceeding in
the commercial court for an injunction to prevent an infringement or to prevent its continuation.
Injunctions may be temporary or permanent. For example, court in Stella Attal V Ann Abels
Kiruta T/A Africa Arts & Crafts20 issued a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant or
her agents from reproducing, assembling, distributing artistic copies of the plaintiff’s work.

19
Cornish Welyn and Applin, 7th Edition.
20
HCCS NO 0967 OF 2004
Court can make an Anton Pillars order. This involves an application by an owner to make an
order for the inspection of or removal from the infringing person’s premises of the copyright
infringing materials which constitute evidence of infringement by that person21. This order was
first granted by court in the case of Anton Pillar K. G V Manufacturing Processes Ltd22
permitting the inspection of premises on which it is believed that some activity is being carried
out which infringes the copyright of the plaintiff. Court noted 3 grounds on which this order is
granted as: that the order is granted ex parte, that the terms on which the order is granted enable
the owner of copyright to inspect the premises of the defendant, that the order of inspection be
accompanied by an injunction restraining the defendant from removing or altering any
documents referred to in the order of inspection. This was also granted by court in Microsoft
corporation V Mitsumi Computer Garage Ltd23.

Laying accounts; this is when court orders the person who has infringed on one’s copyright to
bring the profits he/she has made out of the work to the owner of the work. Uganda Performing
Rights Society V Fred Mukubira24 where the plaintiff was seeking for orders of laying
accounts from the defendant. Court explained that an order of laying accounts is to enable the
other party to recover the money they lost due to the infringement.

PART B

Brief facts

An artist 1 da Banton released song alongside Kizz Daniel and Tiwa Savage titled “No
Wahala” A saxophonist called Mwesigwa Eddy performed the song and recorded the
performance which he uploaded on his YouTube channel. In the video he does not distort the
lyrics of the song.

Issue 1: What copyright rights does 1 da Barton enjoy against Eddy Mwesigwa?

Copyright was defined in the case of Professor George William Kakoma V Attorney
General25 by Justice Bamwine as a set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an
original work including the right to copy, distribute and adopt the work.
21
Section 45(2) of the copyrights and neighbouring rights act, 2006
22
[1976] RPC 719
23
[2001]1 EA 127
24
HCCS No. 842 of 2003
25
Civil suit 197 of 2008
As an author he enjoys moral and economic rights in his work. An author is defined in section 2
of the Copyright and Neighbouring rights act to mean a physical person who created or
creates work that’s protected under section 5 and such a person includes a person or authority
commissioning the work or employing the person making work in the course of employment.

The copyright and Neighbouring rights act, 2006 provides for moral rights of an author in
section 10 to include claim authorship, to have their song or pseudonym mentioned and be
acknowledged, seek relief in case of mutilation or distortion or modification of their work.

The two major elements in moral rights that court considers are the right of attribution or
paternity which refers to the right of author to be known to the public as the creator and integrity
which refers to the right of the author to prevent any distortion, mutilation, alteration or
modification of his/her works.

In the instant facts, Mwesigwa Eddy does not acknowledge 1 Da Barton as the author of
the song so he can claim ownership over it. He does not mention his name pseudonym in his
saxophone cover.

Section 9 gives an author economic rights which include those to publish, reproduce, distribute
or make available to the public, perform, broadcast, communicate the work to the public,
commercially rent or sell, reproduce transcription work into Braille for use by the blind. These
simply mean that an author has a right to exploit as much money from his work as he desires.

In Angella Katatumba V Anti- Corruption Coalition Uganda26 court noted that the actions of
the defendants of using the plaintiff’s song in which she had copyright as the author without her
contravened her moral and economic rights as provided for in section 10 and 9 of the copyright
and neighbouring rights act,2006.

Eddy Mwesigywa’s Saxon cover of the song on YouTube earns him income and that means
his infringing on the author’s rights by making money out of his work.

PART C

Brief facts
26
Civil suit 307 of 2011
Sheeba Karungi got drunk at a party and as she was asleep, Marvin Tee a tattoo artist draws a
tattoo on her that would make her look like the baddest girl in the business of music. He came up
with a unique tattoo on her face and she’s easily identified by it. A movie company Wakaliwood
comes up with a movie gets a similar tattoo like that of Sheeba tattooed on the face of their
actress Angel to be used as a major pull factor of the movie. Marvin Tee filed a suit against
Wakaliwood, Sheebah on the other hand claims that she has ownership over it. Wakaliwood
argues that copyright of the tattoo should not extend to it when its inked on someone’s face and
that it would give Marvin Tee control over Sheeba who has the tattoo.

Issue 1: Whether a tattoo is copyrightable?

A tattoo is a copyrightable under copyright law. A tattoo is sort of body modification where a
design is formed by inserting ink, dyes and pigments either indelible or temporary into the
dermis layer of the skin to change the pigment27. A tattoo has permanence and it’s the
permanence of fixation that’s used to determine if its copyrightable.

It should be noted that section 4(1) provides that work reduced into material form is protected by
copyright law. A tattoo falls under artistic works under section 5(1)(g) of the copyright and
neighbouring right act, 2006. This means that as long as the tattoo is original by an author,
fixed on to a physical object then its protected by copyright. For a tattoo to be protected under
copyright, it must be original to the artist who must have shown a minimum level of creativity.
This means that if the tattoo artist draws a copyrighted image onto a canvas, they can be sued by
the illustrator of the design28.

Issue 1 is resolved in the affirmative that a tattoo is eligible for copyright.

Issue 2: What are the parties right in the tattoo?

1) Marvin Tee

Marvin Tee being the author of the tattoo has economic and moral rights. The copyright and
Neighbouring act, 2006 gives him as an author moral and economic rights under section 10 and
9 respectively over the tattoo he drew. Marvin Tee being the sole creator of the tattoo owns that
rights over it including copyright because the tattoo is original and fixed in a tangible medium of
27
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4605-copyright-and-tattoos-who-owns-your-tattoo-.html
28
https://www.tattoodo.com/articles/tattoo-copyright-what-you-need-to-know-4521
expression. He came up with the design of the tattoo and used his skill, labour and judgement
into drawing the tattoo onto Sheebah.

It was noted in the case of Christopher Escobedo V T.H.Q, Inc.29 that artists have copyright on
their own work unless there is a written agreement of copyright, copyright belongs to the owner
of the work and in this case the tattoo artist owned registration of the copyright to the design.
Court noted;

“if a tattoo artist designed the tattoo and did not sign a “work for hire” agreement then
the copyright of the tattoo is his intellectual property therefore, I can’t take a copy of that
tattoo and make posters of it and nor can Condit. I can’t re licence it to other people.”

Also in Victor Whit Mill V Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.30, it was explained that Whit
Mill the tattoo artist had ownership of the tattoo because he and Mike Tyson had an agreement
that Whit mill alone owned the rights to the tattoo and therefore the film studio infringed on his
rights when they featured it in their movie “THE HANGOVER 2” without permission or a
licence from him.

Marvin Tee can therefore exercise his moral rights and claim ownership of his work, he can also
prevent his work from being distributed to the public.

In the instant facts, Marvin Tee created the tattoo and drew it on Sheebah’s face and there’s no
agreement of copyright so he has copyright over it as the owner and enjoys moral and economic
rights over it.

2) Sheebah

Sheeba has no rights in the tattoo because she did not commission Marvin Tee to draw it and
neither did they have an agreement on who the owner is or who has copyright over it. It was
noted in the case of Christopher Escobedo V T.H.Q, Inc.31 that artists have copyright on their
own work regardless of the canvas that includes the human body. Unless there is a written
agreement of copyright, copyright belongs to the owner of the work who’s the artist. Having a
tattoo on one’s body does not mean they own it.

29
2:12-cv-02470-JAT, US District court, district of Arizona
30
Civil Action No.4:11-cv-75
31
2:12-cv-02470-JAT, US District court, district of Arizona
3.) Wakaliwood.

Wakaliwood does not have any rights but rather instead infringed on Marvin Tee’s rights.
Wakaliwood without seeking permission from Marvin Tee or even acknowledging him as the
owner of the tattoo have copied it and put it on the face of Angel an actress in their upcoming
movie. Their unauthorized use and exploitation of the original Tattoo constitutes copyright
infringement. These facts are similar to those in the case of Victor Whit Mill V Warner Bros.
Entertainment Inc.32,where Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. copied a tattoo of Mike Tyson onto
their actor for a movie without a licence or permission or acknowledgement of him in his work.
They used the tattoo to market and promote the movie. He sued them for infringement and
succeded because he was the author and had copyright in the tattoo.

PART D

Brief facts

Racheal participated in the Tusker Project Fame auditions season 7 and she composed several
songs during the auditions which were released during live performances. Judges made
recommendations to improve on Racheal’s original compositions. Racheal has been approached
by Swangz Avenue to sign her as a recording artist with her winning song in her launch album.
Swangz Avenue receives a notice from Tusker Project Fame warning them not to use any
songs composed in the competition claiming it had copyright over them.

Issue 1: Whether Tusker Project Fame has copyright over Racheal’s song?

Tusker Project Fame has copyright over Racheal’s song. Section 8(1)(b)33 provides that
where a person creates work on commission by another or body, then in the absence of a contract
to the contrary, the copyright shall vest in the employer or the person or body that commissioned
the work. Commissioning is defined in the Cambridge International Dictionary of English as
to formally choose someone to do a special piece of work. If the author created musical work as
an integral part of employment or a song that is specifically recorded for inclusion in a motion or
compilation or other audio-visual work under certain circumstances such work is work for hire
and the employer has copy right in it.

32
Civil Action No.4:11-cv-75
33
The copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006
 In Professor George William Kakoma V Attorney General34, the plaintiff had composed a
song in a competition to find the national anthem with his song emerging the best and hence
becoming Uganda’s national anthem. Justice Yorokamu Bamwinwe disallowed all the
plaintiff’s prayers and ruled in favour of the defendant as the one with copyright of the anthem
because he was commissioned to compose the anthem.

It was noted in the case of Sylvia Nabiteeko Katende V Bank of Uganda35 that the plaintiff was
commissioned to draw the artwork by KCC and there was no further agreement on the contrary
therefore court found that the copyright belongs to KCC that commissioned the work and paid
for it.

Issue 2: Whether Racheal enjoys any rights in her song?

Racheal enjoys moral rights in her song as an author. Section 8 (4)36 provides that the moral
right in work made by an employed author under this section shall always remain with the actual
author of the work. Moral rights are defined by section 2 to mean the right to claim authorship or
performance as provided in section 10 and 23. Moral rights are non- transferrable and only
belong to the author. Rachel has a right to claim ownership of her song, to have her name or
pseudonym mentioned or acknowledged and to seek relief in case of mutilation or distortion.

Racheal enjoys performance rights in her song. Performance is defined in section 2 of the
copyright and neighbouring rights act, 2006 to mean presentation of a work by actions such as
dancing, acting, playing, singing, delivering, reciting, or projecting to listeners or spectators. A
performing artist has a right to authorize fixation of his/her live performance not previously fixed
on a physical medium. A performer under section 22(2) also has a right to enter into a contract
on terms that the performer may wish for performance or fixation by another person. A
performer has a right for his/her name being mentioned whenever his/her performance is used
i.e. broadcast, to object and seek relief in case of distortion, mutilation, alteration or modification
of his/her performance. The rights of a performer in Uganda are protected for fifty years from the
date of performance37.

34
HCCS NO.197 0f 2008
35
Civil suit no 443 of 2010
36
The copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006
37
Section 26 of the copyright and neighbouring rights act 2006
For example, in Lyto Boss Vs Irene Namubiru38, the claimant sued Irene Namubiru for
performing the song “Anjagala” without his authorization. His claim was that he was the owner
of the song being an author and that he did not permit her to do so and that she did not
acknowledge him while performing it hence infringing on his rights. He had a right as an author
to claim ownership of his song and be acknowledged. Court held that there was an infringement
and he was entitled to 40 million as damages.

This case explains the moral and performing rights an author can exercise in our instant facts
Rachael.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. STATUTES
i) The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995, as amended
ii) The Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006
2. CASELAW
i. Professor George William Kakoma V Attorney General Civil suit 197 of 2008
ii. London Press Ltd V University Tutorial Press Ltd (1916) 2 Ch. 601
iii. Al Hajj Nasser Ssebagala V MTN (U) ltd and Anor Civil suit 283 of 2012 [2015]
iv. Byte Legion Technologies Vs MTN (U) Ltd HCT-00-CC-CS 95 OF 2009[2013]
v. Hyperion Records Vs Sawkins [2005] EWCA Civ 565
vi. Auto Garage Vs Motokov Civil suit 283 of 2012 [2015]

38
Case Anjagala song battle in the commercial court in 2006
 vii. Hawks and Sons Ltd Vs Paramount Field Services Ltd [1934] CH 593
viii. John Murray(Publishers) Ltd and 10 others V William Senkindu and Anor HCCS NO
1018
of 1997
ix. Stella Attal V Ann Abels Kiruta T/A Africa Arts & Crafts HCCS NO 0967 OF 2004
x. Uganda Performing Rights Society V Fred Mukubira HCCS NO.842 of 2003
xi. Anton Pillar K. G V Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] RPC 719
xii. Microsoft corporation V Mitsumi Computer Garage Ltd [2001] 1 EA 127
xiii. Christopher Escobedo V T.H.Q, Inc. 2:12-cv-02470-JAT, US District court, district of
Arizona
xiv. Victor Whit Mill V Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. Civil Action No.4:11-cv-752
xv. Sylvia Nabiteeko Katende V Bank of Uganda Civil suit no 443 of 2010
xvi. Lyto Boss Vs Irene Namubiru
xvii. Performing Rights Society Ltd V Grand Threatres Ltd and Anor 1970 1 EA 576
3. TEXTBOOKS
a. David Bainbridge, Intellectual property law
b. D.J. Bakibinga & RM Kakungulu, Intellectual property Law in East Africa

c. Halsbury’s Laws of England/ civil procedure (volume 11, (2009) 5th edition)
d. Cornish Welyn and Applin, 7th Edition.
e. Cambridge International Dictionary of English

4. WEBSITES

a. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4605-copyright-and-tattoos-who-
owns-your-tattoo-.html
b. https://www.tattoodo.com/articles/tattoo-copyright-what-you-need-to-know-4521