Introduction

On 13 May 2025, the Parliament of Uganda conducted the first reading of the 2025 Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Amendment) Bill,¹ (hereinafter the Amendment Bill) which proposes reforms aimed at domesticating international treaties such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886)², the World Intellectual Property Organisation Copyright Treaty (1996),³ the Beijing Treaty on Audio-Visual Performances (2012), and the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired or otherwise Print Disabled (2013),⁴ among other reforms.

The Amendment Bill is made in acknowledgement that the current 2006 Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act is outdated and lagging behind technological advancements and innovation.⁵ Furthermore, ‘[t]he current law, as it is, lacks adequate provision on enforcement mechanisms against online piracy and unauthorised exploitation, clear modes of remuneration of performers and regulation and administration of Collecting Societies, among others’.⁶

This blog seeks to provide an overview of some of the key proposals presented in the Amendment Bill to the copyright regime in Uganda.

New definitions

To align the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 with the aforementioned international treaties, novel definitions of words are proposed in the Amendment Bill.⁷ To highlight some key novel definitions: accessible format copy means a copy of work in an alternative manner or form which gives a beneficiary person access to the work, including to permit the person to have access as feasibly and comfortably as a person without visual impairment or other print disability.⁸ Beneficiary person is defined as an individual who is blind, visually impaired, or physically disabled in a way that prevents conventional access to printed works.⁹ Orphan works are defined as copyright-protected works whose author or owner cannot be identified or located, thus necessitating a licensing mechanism for lawful use.¹⁰ Copyright owner is defined as an author entitled to the economic rights to a work by assignment or transfer of rights.¹¹ Caller ring back tones are described as subscription music, sound or tone which a telecommunication operator plays to the originator of the call.¹² Expressions of folklore are defined broadly to include verbal, musical, performative and tangible cultural expressions, acknowledging their importance as protectable intellectual property.¹³ In doing so, the definitions reflect terms and approaches established under international copyright and related treaties, fostering harmonisation with global legal frameworks.

Reversion of Copyright to the author and Technological Protection Measures

Clause 6 proposes to insert Section 13A titled Reversion of Copyright to Author.¹⁴ Under this section, authors are to have their economic rights returned to them under an assignment, licence or transfer after a period not exceeding twenty years from the date of assignment.¹⁵ If the twenty-year period lapses, the rights automatically revert to the author. Reversion can happen in three ways: within five years before the twenty-year period ends; twenty years after the work was published (if the contract involves publishing rights); or twenty years from the contract date—whichever comes first.¹⁶ The Minister is also empowered to create rules on how this reversion process should be carried out.¹⁷ The proposed section aims to shield authors of copyright works from the consequences of the transfer of rights through deceptive assignments.¹⁸

The proposed section may benefit artists who enter unfavourable deals. For authors, reversion rights may serve as a necessary corrective mechanism. A study conducted in Canada has shown that publishing contracts frequently undermine authors’ interests by omitting critical provisions, including clear definitions of out-of-print status, the treatment of unexploited rights and temporal limits of contractual obligations.¹⁹ For authors, reversion rights may serve as a necessary corrective mechanism.

Section 13B of the Bill, titled Technological Protection Measure, aims to enhance protection of copyright in the digital era as well as domesticate obligations under the World Intellectual Property Organisation Treaty 1996 and the World Intellectual Property Organisation Performances and Phonograms treaty 1996.²⁰ The proposed section makes it illegal to bypass effective technological protection measures or to deal in tools—such as devices, software, or services—intended to do so.²¹ This includes items marketed for circumvention, those with little use beyond bypassing protections, or those specifically designed to facilitate it.²² Offenders face up to two thousand currency points in fines or seven years in prison, and may also be ordered to pay compensation to the victim.²³ However, exceptions apply for use in security, education, research, innovation, or by a beneficiary person (such as someone with a print disability).²⁴

Restriction on Reprographic Copying and Orphan Works

Clause 8 proposes to regulate reprographic copying — printing or digital data reproduction of images and even text documents.²⁵ The proposed section 14A titled ‘Restriction on reprographic copying’ provides that a person who carries out reprographic copying on a published literary or musical work shall not copy more than five per cent of the published literary or musical work at any one time or within 3 months.²⁶ The proposed section also allows for licensing schemes for reprographic copying; however, the proportion of work which may be copied cannot be less than five per cent.²⁷

Additionally, section 14B titled Orphan works aims to ensure that unidentified copyrighted works can be used legally while maintaining the original owner’s rights.²⁸ Exploitation of orphan works can only occur when an application is made for a licence to exploit the orphan works by regulations prescribed by the Minister;²⁹ additionally, an applicant must prove to the Minister that the author of the work cannot be found.³⁰ A person with a valid licence to use orphan works is entitled to the economic rights, but before the expiration of the license, the identity of the author is known the copyright shall revert to the author.³¹

Contracts relating to caller ringback tones

There has been litigation over copyright infringement concerning caller ring-back tones, in which music artists alleged that service providers exploited their works without authorisation or remuneration, in the case of Garfield Spencer alias Konshens v Airtel Uganda & Others, the plaintiff, a Jamaican artist, sued Airtel Uganda (1st defendant), Onmobile Global Limited (2nd defendant), and Mtech Limited (3rd defendant) for copyright infringement.³² He alleged that eight of his songs were illegally made available on Airtel’s Hello Tunes platform, where users downloaded them for a fee. He sought declarations of infringement and claims for general and exemplary damages.³³ The High Court confirmed that the plaintiff was the rightful author and copyright holder of the songs and held that the 1st and 2nd defendants had infringed on these rights by distributing the songs without proper authorisation, contrary to Section 46 of Uganda’s Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act. Upon examining the contracts, the court found that the plaintiff’s songs were not included in the catalogues and that Airtel and Onmobile failed to conduct proper due diligence. As such, their indemnity defences were invalid.³⁴

The Amendment Bill seeks to address this mischief by proposing a mandatory right to profit sharing and specific rates to be shared between agents and operators of caller ringback tones, the author, performer, operator, and aggregator.³⁵ The section establishes an inalienable right to compensation. 60% of the revenue goes to the author or performer, which recognises the creative origin of the content and places the creator at the centre of the remuneration structure.³⁶ 31.5% to the operator, which includes telecommunication companies that provide the infrastructure and digital platforms for distribution. 8.5% to aggregators and other intermediaries involved in facilitating the distribution or licensing of the content.³⁷

Higher penalties for copyright infringement offences

The Amendment Bill proposes to increase the amount for fines and imprisonment terms for any person who infringes on the copyright of another person.³⁸ With regards to the actions of publication, distribution, public performance, broadcasting, communication and importation, the bill raises fines from one hundred currency points to two thousand five hundred currency points.³⁹ Also, it raises four years imprisonment to ten years imprisonment.⁴⁰ Furthermore, for offences against copyright of a producer of a sound recording, audio visual fixation, broadcasting company, the Amendment Bill proposes raising the fine from twenty-five hundred currency points or imprisonment not exceeding one year to two thousand currency points or imprisonment not exceeding seven years.⁴¹ Fines and imprisonment terms are also raised for a person who deals in machinery or devices that are used to make infringing copies from fifty currency points or imprisonment not exceeding one year to two thousand currency points or imprisonment not exceeding seven years.⁴² The higher fines and imprisonment terms are to deter copyright infringement and privacy.⁴³

A study in Uganda revealed that authors of educational and non-fiction work are particularly vulnerable to copyright infringement, with their materials frequently subject to unauthorised photocopying, illegal downloads and unregulated sharing.⁴⁴ The 2025 Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Bill addresses this challenge by increasing penalties for infringement, a measure that could act as a deterrent against widespread violations. However, deterrence alone may be insufficient in the absence of broader public awareness about copyright law. Without a clear understanding among students, educators and institutions of the value of authors’ rights and consequences of infringement, stricter penalties risk remaining a largely symbolic reform.

Collecting Societies

The Amendment Bill proposes having enhanced and explicit registration requirements for collecting societies. The proposed amendment makes it mandatory that a collecting society seeking formal registration must furnish: a copy of the constitution outlining the objectives of the society; evidence of payment of prescribed fees; proof of search and reservation of name, and any other document the Minister may determine.⁴⁵ Registration is completed by issuance of a certificate of registration, and operating without a certificate is an offence that attracts a fine not exceeding five thousand currency points or to term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years or both.⁴⁶ Additionally, the Amendment Bill proposes provisions to the administration of collecting societies mandating collecting societies to hold annual general meetings within three months after the end of the calendar year.⁴⁷ A member of a collecting society may petition to compel the collecting society to hold an annual general meeting if the collecting society does not hold one. If an annual general meeting is not held, the members of the executive committee of a collecting society are liable to a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred currency points or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or both. These provisions are aimed at ensuring accountability and transparency for members of collecting societies.

The issues with collective societies have been litigated in the case Bwanika and 16 others v Uganda Registration Services Bureau and Another,⁴⁸ the case exposed governance failures in collective rights management, including prolonged failure to audit accounts, absence of financial estimates, weak enforcement of licensing standards and exclusionary membership practices.⁴⁹ The proposed Bill directly responds to such challenges by introducing enhanced registration requirements for collecting societies and mandating annual general meetings, with strict penalties for non compliance. These reforms, if effectively implemented, could mitigate the opacity and mismanagement by requiring financial accountability, ensuring member participation in decision making and reinforcing regulatory scrutiny. Nonetheless, success of implementation will ultimately depend on robust enforcement by the Uganda Registration Services Bureau.

Conclusion

The 2025 Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Amendment) Bill marks a progressive overhaul of Uganda’s copyright regime. By introducing clearer definitions, reverting economic rights to authors, regulating digital use through technological protection measures, and proposing equitable revenue-sharing models—especially in the context of caller ringback tones—the Bill prioritises the interests of creators in the digital age. Furthermore, it strengthens enforcement through stiffer penalties and addresses long-standing concerns around the governance of collecting societies by introducing stricter registration, transparency, and accountability requirements. By aligning domestic law with international copyright treaties, the Bill not only modernises Uganda’s legal framework but also fosters an environment where creators can thrive and be fairly compensated. If effectively enforced, these reforms hold great promise for advancing creators’ rights and promoting a more just and functional copyright system in Uganda.