Copyright Law: What it means for creators and consumers

Kampala, Uganda | URN | Parliament passed the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Amendment) Bill on 17 March 2026, raising hopes that Ugandan content creators and performing artists could soon be guaranteed legal protection against infringement of their works.

The Private Member’s Bill tabled by a musician-turned politician, Hillary Kiyaga, aka Dr. Hilderman, awaits Presidential assent. It has been widely supported by Ugandan Musicians whose work has been played without consent and adequate reward.

The Bill that, among others, directs that the originator of creative works, including musicians and authors, receive better remuneration for their productions.

While the country has an existing copyright law, its amendment, once assented to, will usher in stricter penalties aimed at deterring persons who publish, broadcast, distribute, or reproduce books, music, or other works without license and authorization from the owner or their agents.

Some have suggested that the Bill is too harsh by suggesting a ten-year jail sentence, a fifty-million-shilling fine, or both for copyright infringement.

This week, as part of the awareness, the Uganda Law Society, under its weekly Radical New Bar briefing, brought together a panel of experts to reflect on why the amendment and its likely implications.

Miriam Nabatanzi, Commissioner of the Copyright and Neighboring Rights Department at the Uganda Registration Services Bureau, said the bill is coming in to amend a few provisions.

“What that means is that we are not repealing our Copyright Law. We are only enhancing the provisions and the amendment.”

She added that the amendment will ensure that Uganda’s Copyright law conforms to the international treaties and conventions to which Uganda is a signatory.

“It’s important to demystify the saying out there that when the bill passes, local content is going to be shunned and users will opt for foreign content. That is not the case. The first treaty that comes into play is the Berne Convention.”

According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Berne Convention, adopted in 1886, deals with the protection of works and the rights of their authors. It provides creators such as authors, musicians, poets, painters, etc., with the means to control how their works are used, by whom, and on what terms.

Nabatanzi emphasized that the Berne Convention provides for the scope of works that are protected by copyright.

“It’s important to clarify that we are not looking at musical works only. Did you know that software programs are also protected as copyright? Did you know that architecture drawings are also protected? So, the domains are that wide.” Said Nabatanzi.

“The Berne Convention says you protect everything artistic, scientific, and literary, as long as it is original and it originates from a human mind. And then it also gives us the rights of the authors.”

She explained the rights in practical terms. “The authors are the people who create these works. When they create these works, we’ve already appreciated that this is private property. They have some rights that they enjoy. The first one—they control who uses their work. They determine which people can play their work, and for what fee. They determine their compensation.”

From the Convention she the authors also have a right to be credited. “You cannot use someone’s works and not acknowledge them. And finally, they also have the right to consent. You cannot use someone’s work without authorization.”

Kenneth Muhangi, an Intellectual Property lawyer who has advised the judiciary and other government bodies, said Uganda is obliged under the Berne Convention to protect works that originate from member states that are contracting parties.

“When their works are played in Uganda or utilized here, they must get compensated. This is how reciprocal agreements between collecting management organizations work,” he stated.

“When you are a broadcaster playing songs from Beyoncé, yes, you are indirectly contributing to Beyoncé’s royalties because Uganda Performing Rights Society has signed a reciprocal agreement with the CMOs in the US. The money accumulated from usage in the US is remitted to that foreign society, and then they remit it to UPRS. In exchange, UPRS will remit the royalties for the works. That’s how it works.”

Nabatanzi explained that under the principle of automatic protection. “Copyright is automatic once you reduce it into writing or a form that can be seen or heard. You do not need to register, although registration is desirable for evidential purposes.

About content generated through Artificial Intelligence, she explained that, as for now, the law in Uganda does not grant the creator copyright.

“In Uganda, we do not. Now, if someone creates works here that are AI-generated, the mere fact that they cannot protect them in Uganda does not stop them from benefiting from a country where that kind of work is protected. That is what the Berne Convention is saying.”

For Kenneth Muhangi, the country must explore o having such a law, “Because we are entering an era where AI-generated content is everywhere, from music and books to design and software. We cannot ignore this. The law needs to balance protecting human creators while allowing innovators to benefit from international protection,” he advised.

Nabatanzi also suggested that the amendment is in line with the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances. She said one enacted, Ugandan content creators should be rewarded for audiovisual works.

“Audiovisual means the work has sight and sound, for example, a movie, a music video. The person who features in that kind of work may be an actor; it can also be a musician. Musicians can fall into spaces; they can have the sound recording, and they can also have the visual work. The treaty says they must be remunerated. They must be remunerated for the use of their works. We ratified this treaty around 2021.”

She cited the lockdown as an example of its relevance. “Do you remember when we were confined? How many people were streaming movies? How many people were watching comedy? Do you know that the content had to be paid for? You didn’t know,” she asked.

Nabatanzi is of the view that while many were enjoying those skits, the actors in those skits were actually locked down in their homes, and they were not earning.

“It is a business. It may look like entertainment, but it is a job. The expectation of the actor is that they will also recover or be rewarded for their creativity. Otherwise, if we consume content without limitations, we discourage that sector. At the end of the day, you will not have the entertainment, but you also will not have the education.”

In support of the argument on the new reward Musicians, Muhangi emphasized that “People often think entertainment is free. But every movie, every skit, every music video is created by people who have invested time, resources, and talent. If the legal framework does not ensure they are compensated, the entire sector suffers.”

Nabatanzi outlined the specific rights under the Beijing Treaty: “You have the right to reproduction, you can’t reproduce someone’s movie without authorization. You have the right to distribution, but you cannot sell or distribute without authorization. You have the right to broadcast.”

The bill says there is freedom of contract. “If an artist wants to be promoted, execute a contract to that effect. But in the absence of that arrangement, they have to be paid.”

Essentially, broadcasting people’s content is not free. “We see an influx of bands; when they play live music at ceremonies, you have to pay for that performance,” said Nabatanzi.

Nabatanzi explained how the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) expands protections into the digital environment.

“ WCT protects computer programs and databases. More importantly, you cannot circumvent the safeguards put there to restrict access to that content. The bill also introduces stricter penalties.”

Muhangi said the WIPO Copyright Treaty is modernizing Uganda’s copyright law.

“We are moving from a paper-based, analog world into digital realities where online theft is rampant. The penalties now reflect the seriousness of the infringement,” he said.

On the Phonograms Treaty, Nabatanzi said, “This treaty says that musicians and performers in sound recordings must be remunerated.”

She also highlighted the Marrakech Treaty: “The visually impaired should be able to access copyrighted content in a format that is palatable to them, usually Braille. As long as it’s non-commercial, they don’t need permission from the rights holder.”

Muhangi emphasized the inclusivity aspect: “This is not charity. It’s about equality of access. A visually impaired student should have the same learning opportunities as anyone else. That’s why the law protects them.”

Nabatanzi addressed specific provisions: “Duration of protection for photographs and computer programs: it used to be 50 years from availability, now it’s harmonized to 50 years from the demise of the creator. Contracts, licenses, assignments, and transfers must be registered within 60 days of execution. Technological protection measures cannot be bypassed except for security, education, and visually impaired purposes. Online learning should continue without authorization during lockdowns. Reproduction for academic purposes is limited to 5% of content; exceeding that requires a license from the rights holder.”

Muhangi explained, “This is critical for educational institutions and libraries. People sometimes think copying a book for class is harmless. But without proper licenses, we are violating the rights of the creator. These clarifications remove ambiguity.”

On remuneration, Nabatanzi clarified, “Previously, we proposed that you must remunerate the performer every time you use their works. Parliament amended this, and the ‘every use’ bit was dropped. They introduced a clear breakdown: the author gets 30%, the performer 30%. These contracts must be written. CRBT agreements, for example, need to be registered.”

She added, “Reprogramming rights: previously, in the act, they gave a percentage for copying academic material. Now it’s limited to 5% of the content. If you exceed that, you need a license from the rights holder. The collecting society administering literary works is the Uganda Reproduction Rights Organization. Lawyers representing universities, please take note—photocopying books end-to-end without permission is a violation.”

Muhangi emphasized, “The point is to respect intellectual property while allowing fair use. The law balances creators’ rights and public interest.”

On enforcement, Nabatanzi said, “The registrar has quasi-judicial powers. You may appeal to the High Court if dissatisfied. Penalties: up to 50 million shillings and 10 years upon conviction. Takedown: Internet service providers can be instructed to remove infringing content, but the claimant must provide proof of registration. Enforcement costs will be borne by the convicted person.”

According to Nabatanzi, Copyright inspectors, who work with collecting societies, have the mandate to enter premises and pick infringing items.

“These include equipment used to infringe. If the case is prosecuted, all costs incurred—transport, storage, court fees—are borne by the convicted person.”

Muhangi added, “This is important because it ensures that enforcement is practical and that violators are held accountable. Previously, enforcement was weak because costs were ambiguous and penalties insufficient.”