Wakilii

Sikuku v Uganda Baati (HCCS 298 of 2012)

High Court · [2014] UGCOMMC 135 · 2014 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaratory orders and damages
Decision
Plaintiff's claim for usage fees and damages dismissed with costs

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held that the plaintiff, an employee photographed and filmed during normal work duties for the employer's advertisement, was not a performer under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act and therefore had no neighbouring rights. The photographs and audiovisual works were created in the course of employment and copyright vested in the employer. The employee had no right to privacy in the factory setting, nor was consent required absent contractual terms excluding such use. Claim for usage fees and damages dismissed.

Outcome

Plaintiff's claim for usage fees and damages dismissed with costs

Facts

The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant for 18 years as a machine operator, alleged that between November 2011 and May 2013 the defendant used his image in commercial advertisements on television stations and in print media without his consent or compensation. The defendant contended the plaintiff volunteered and consented to participate in a photo shoot and filming event after being briefed and receiving a new uniform. The event took place during working hours at the defendant's factory. The plaintiff was filmed and photographed while performing his ordinary duties. The resulting images appeared in the defendant's in-house magazine, calendars, newspaper advertisements, and television commercials showcasing the company's products.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff has a cause of action against the Defendant.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff's neighbouring rights were infringed.
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any remedy or relief.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's action dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Defendant, assessed at one seventh of the taxed costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Copyright and Neighbouring Rights — Definition of Performer — Employee Filmed During Ordinary Work Duties
An employee filmed and photographed in the ordinary course of his work as a machine operator is not a performer within the meaning of section 2 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, as he was not acting, singing, delivering, declaiming, playing in, interpreting, or otherwise performing literary or artistic works.
Copyright and Neighbouring Rights — Neighbouring Rights — Auxiliary Role
Neighbouring rights under section 21 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act are rights attached to the auxiliary role played by performers, producers, or broadcasting companies dependent on the work of an author, and do not arise where a person is merely photographed or filmed without performing or interpreting a literary or artistic work.
Copyright — Authorship and Ownership — Work Created in Course of Employment
Under section 8 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, where a work is created in the course of employment, the copyright vests in the employer in the absence of a contract to the contrary, and an employee depicted in photographs or audiovisual works created by the employer during working hours has no copyright claim.
Employment Contracts — Use of Employee Images in Advertisements — Consent
Absent contractual terms to the contrary, an employer may include employees in advertisements of the company's products where the photographs and filming take place in the factory during working hours, and the employees are informed of the event, without obtaining separate written consent or paying usage fees.
Right to Privacy — Article 27 of the Constitution — Factory Setting
An employee working in a factory owned by the employer has no right to privacy under Article 27 of the Constitution that would prevent the employer from photographing or filming employees during work hours in the factory, as the factory premises are owned by the employer and not a private space of the employee.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (2)

  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 514
  • Halsbury's laws of England fourth edition volume 37

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Sikuku v Uganda Baati (HCCS 298 of 2012) [2014] UGCommC 135 (5 September 2014)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.