Original essay question / assignment brief
With reference to the Copyright and Neighbouring Act, Cap 222 and other relevant authorities critically examine the role and effectiveness of collecting societies in the protection of Copyright in Uganda
Introduction
Copyright law grants creators exclusive rights over their literary and artistic works, forming a cornerstone of the creative economy. However, the individual enforcement of these rights, particularly against widespread, low-value uses such as public performances or broadcasting, is often impractical and economically unviable for the individual rights holder. In response to this challenge, the concept of collective management has evolved, with collecting societies emerging as key intermediaries. These societies are tasked with licensing works on behalf of their members, collecting royalties from users, and distributing this revenue back to the creators.
In Uganda, the legal framework for this system is principally established by the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006.¹ This essay will critically examine the role and effectiveness of collecting societies in protecting copyright within this Ugandan context. It will first outline the intended role of these societies as envisioned by the Act. It will then proceed to evaluate their effectiveness by analysing the significant practical challenges they face, including issues of internal governance, limited enforcement capacity, and low public compliance. This essay will argue that while collecting societies are legally empowered and essential in principle for the protection of copyright in Uganda, their practical effectiveness is severely undermined, leaving many creators without the remuneration the law intends to provide.
The Legal Role of Collecting Societies in Uganda
The Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 provides a detailed framework for the establishment and operation of collecting societies. The primary role of a collecting society is to act as an agent for rights holders, managing the economic rights that are difficult to administer on an individual basis. Section 59 of the Act allows for the formation of a collecting society by an association of persons who are holders of copyright and neighbouring rights. This body must then be approved and issued with a certificate by the Registrar of companies, a process intended to ensure a degree of formality and oversight.²
The core functions of a collecting society are explicitly outlined in section 61. These include negotiating licensing agreements with users of copyrighted works, collecting royalties under these licenses, and distributing those royalties to its members. This function is vital for both creators and users. For creators, it provides a single entity to manage their rights and collect income from a wide range of users. For users, such as radio stations, hotels, and event organisers, it provides a convenient 'one-stop shop' to legally access a vast repertoire of creative works without having to negotiate with thousands of individual rights holders.³
Crucially, the Act empowers collecting societies to enforce the rights of their members. Section 64(1) grants a collecting society the right to ‘commence an action in its name for the infringement of a right of any of its members’. This is a significant power, as it allows the society to bear the costs and complexities of litigation on behalf of the collective, something an individual artist might be unable to do. This legal standing is fundamental to their role as protectors of copyright, theoretically providing a powerful deterrent against infringement. The primary collecting societies in Uganda are the Uganda Performing Right Society (UPRS), which focuses on musical works, and the Uganda Reproduction Rights Organisation (URRO), which deals with literary works. In principle, therefore, the legal framework equips these societies with the necessary tools to be effective guardians of copyright.
The Ineffectiveness of Collecting Societies in Practice
Despite the comprehensive legal framework, the effectiveness of collecting societies in Uganda has been a subject of considerable debate and criticism. The intended role of these bodies often contrasts sharply with their actual performance on the ground, a reality shaped by a combination of internal and external challenges.
Internal Governance and Lack of Transparency
A primary factor undermining the effectiveness of collecting societies is internal mismanagement and a perceived lack of transparency. The Uganda Performing Right Society (UPRS) has been plagued by public disputes, leadership wrangles, and accusations from artists concerning the unfair or non-existent distribution of royalties.⁴ These internal conflicts erode the trust of the very creators the society is meant to represent. When artists do not believe that the society is working in their best interests or that collected funds will be distributed fairly, they lose the incentive to become members or to support the society’s collection efforts.
This lack of trust has led to situations where prominent artists have publicly criticised UPRS and even threatened to withdraw from it, thereby weakening its mandate and its bargaining power with users.⁵ Without a united front and a strong membership base, a collecting society cannot credibly claim to represent the interests of creators. The Act provides for the supervision of societies, but in practice, regulatory oversight appears insufficient to prevent or resolve these persistent governance issues, which fundamentally cripple the society’s ability to fulfil its role.
Low Public Awareness and a Culture of Non-Compliance
A second major hurdle is the widespread lack of awareness among the public and commercial users about their obligations under copyright law. Many businesses that publicly perform music, such as bars, restaurants, and transport operators, either are ignorant of the need for a license or wilfully refuse to comply. This creates a challenging environment for royalty collection. UPRS and other societies lack the resources for extensive nationwide education campaigns to change this deep-seated culture of non-compliance.
Furthermore, users often question the legitimacy of the society's demands for payment, partly due to the negative publicity surrounding its internal affairs. This resistance forces the society to expend significant resources on enforcement rather than on its core functions of licensing and distribution. The result is a cycle of low collection rates, which in turn means low (or no) royalties for artists, further diminishing their faith in the system.
Challenges in Enforcement
While section 64 of the Act grants collecting societies the right to sue for infringement, the practicalities of enforcement present a formidable obstacle. Litigation in Uganda is notoriously slow and expensive. A collecting society with limited funds, derived from the very royalties it struggles to collect, is ill-equipped to pursue legal action against a multitude of infringers across the country.
Even when cases are brought, they can take years to resolve. A recent case, Uganda Performing Right Society Ltd v Yo! Uganda Ltd & Anor,⁶ demonstrates the complexities involved. While the court ultimately found in favour of UPRS regarding the infringement of its members’ works by a digital service, the case highlighted the evidential burden and procedural hurdles involved in copyright litigation, particularly in the digital sphere. Such legal victories are rare and often pyrrhic, as the cost and time involved may outweigh the damages recovered. For every successful lawsuit, there are thousands of infringements that go unchallenged. Consequently, the deterrent effect of legal action is minimal, and users continue to infringe with a high degree of impunity. The legal power to sue is, therefore, a right that is difficult to effectively exercise.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 establishes a clear and important role for collecting societies as the primary mechanism for the collective management and enforcement of copyright in Uganda. In principle, they are designed to be efficient intermediaries that ensure creators are remunerated for the use of their work. However, a critical examination reveals a significant gap between this intended role and their actual effectiveness.
The performance of collecting societies, particularly UPRS, is severely hampered by a combination of debilitating factors. Persistent internal governance issues and a lack of transparency have destroyed trust among artists and weakened the societies' legitimacy. This is compounded by an external environment characterised by low public awareness of copyright law and a pervasive culture of non-compliance among users. Finally, while the legal tools for enforcement exist, they are difficult and costly to deploy effectively, rendering them insufficient as a widespread deterrent. The role of collecting societies in Uganda is therefore one of unfulfilled potential. For them to become truly effective protectors of copyright, significant reforms are needed, including stronger regulatory oversight to ensure accountability, sustained public education campaigns, and more streamlined and accessible legal enforcement mechanisms.
—
Bibliography
Legislation
Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 (Uganda)
Cases
Uganda Performing Right Society Ltd v Yo! Uganda Ltd & Anor (Civil Suit No. 275 of 2013) [2021] UGHCCD 8 (11 June 2021)
Secondary Sources
Kawooya D, 'Copyright and Creative Industries in Uganda' (WIPO, 2012) <https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/performance/pdf/creative_industry_uganda.pdf> accessed 15 May 2024
Sseruyigo T, 'UPRS Bosses Face the Sack as Artistes Call for New Leadership' (New Vision, 21 February 2020) <https://www.newvision.co.ug/news/1515647/uprs-bosses-face-sack-artistes-call-leadership> accessed 15 May 2024
Tumusiime C, 'UPRS Wars: Old Wine in New Bottles?' (The Observer, 10 March 2022) <https://observer.ug/lifestyle/73030-uprs-wars-old-wine-in-new-bottles> accessed 15 May 2024
Winnie M, 'The Role of Collecting Societies in the Enforcement of Copyright in Uganda' (KTA Advocates, 24 August 2021) <https://ktaadvocates.com/the-role-of-collecting-societies-in-the-enforcement-of-copyright-in-uganda/> accessed 15 May 2024
— Footnotes
¹ Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 (Uganda). The question refers to 'Cap 222', which is likely a typographical error, as the current and relevant legislation is the 2006 Act, which replaced the previous Copyright Act (Cap 215).
² ibid s 60.
³ Winnie Mitullah, 'The Role of Collecting Societies in the Enforcement of Copyright in Uganda' (KTA Advocates, 24 August 2021) <https://ktaadvocates.com/the-role-of-collecting-societies-in-the-enforcement-of-copyright-in-uganda/> accessed 15 May 2024.
⁴ Chris Tumusiime, 'UPRS Wars: Old Wine in New Bottles?' (The Observer, 10 March 2022) <https://observer.ug/lifestyle/73030-uprs-wars-old-wine-in-new-bottles> accessed 15 May 2024.
⁵ Taddeo Sseruyigo, 'UPRS Bosses Face the Sack as Artistes Call for New Leadership' (New Vision, 21 February 2020) <https://www.newvision.co.ug/news/1515647/uprs-bosses-face-sack-artistes-call-leadership> accessed 15 May 2024.
⁶ Uganda Performing Right Society Ltd v Yo! Uganda Ltd & Anor (Civil Suit No. 275 of 2013) [2021] UGHCCD 8 (11 June 2021).
