Service providers risk sh40m fine, seven-year imprisonment in Copyright Bill

Clause 17 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Amendment) Bill, 2025, currently before a Parliament committee, outlines the grounds under which a registrar can take down, block, or obstruct infringing content.

The framers of the law propose inserting Section 49A into the Principal Act. This, in essence, shall allow an owner of copyrighted material or the registrar to issue a notice of infringement to a service provider, requesting removal of offending content.

The aforementioned notice shall be issued in consonance with Section 30 of the Electronic Transactions Act, which stipulates that a service provider who fails to comply commits an offence and, upon conviction, is liable to a fine not exceeding two thousand currency points (shillings 40 million) or imprisonment of up to seven years.

In addition, the court may order the offender to compensate the victim.

The provision goes to inhibit the registrar from issuing an order or notice where the purported owner of the copyrighted material has a Certificate of Registration.

Registrar General Uganda Registration Services Bureau, Mercy Kainobwisho and the deputy attorney general Jackson Kafuuzi before the legal and parliamentary affairs committee at parliament on August 21, 2025. (Credit: Maria Wamala)

Who is a service provider?

For contextual purposes, a service provider is any person who provides services related to the transmission, storage, or processing of electronic communications. Or anyone who provides related infrastructure or tools.

In Uganda’s case, these would connote to telecom companies such as MTN, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), online platforms such as YouTube, Netflix, Spotify, Apple Music that either host or distribute content, among others.

However, maybe what we are yet to explore is why Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB) headed by Mercy Kainobwisho, is so keen on the matter.

Justification

Stakeholders have opposed the proposal, arguing that the certificate of registration is a veiled attempt to introduce mandatory registration of copyright works and contravenes the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) framework, which provides blanket protection for any copyright works without any formalities such as registration.

However, while appearing before the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs committee chaired by Bukhooli North MP Stephen Bakka Mugabi (NRM) on Thursday, August 21, 2025, Kainobwisho explained that the document would serve as basis for any legal action.

“The Certificate of Registration acts as Prima facie proof of ownership, which aids the Registrar in executing his or her mandate. Requiring a complainant to present a certificate is a safeguard against potential liability of the Registrar of Copyright that should he or she issue a takedown order in respect of the work which does not belong to the claimant,” she argued.

“So, it is for evidential purposes and should be maintained. It is for the benefit of the authors and the creative industry themselves,” Kainobwisho implored.

Section 45 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 allows individuals whose rights under the Act are threatened or infringed to seek civil remedies in the Commercial Court.

Upon an ex-parte application, the court can order inspection or removal of infringing materials.

Image rights

The matter comes at a time when Patrick Nsanjja (Ntenjeru South MP) notes that some stakeholders believe image rights are not a copyright issue, arguing that they are already regulated under the Constitution. However, lawyer Robert Kirunda disagrees.

Image rights connote to an individual’s legal control over the commercial use of their image or identity. They protect a person from unauthorised use of their photo, name or recognisable features for commercial purposes.

“I happen to have litigated Anne Kansiime versus Uganda Telecom, which is fact itself an image rights question. Based on that dispute and the emerging jurisprudence in this country, I would argue number one that in my very humble but considered opinion not entirely accurate to divorce image rights from copyright,” Kirunda argued.

“Because the violation of image rights essentially arises out of copyright material. For instance, in Anne Kansiime, Anne Kansiime shoots an advert for use UTL, which then gives the advert to NBS. NBS and WBS play this advert without her consent. What makes the advert famous is not the content, it’s the person. But what is really protected in the law today is the production? You can’t have one without the other,” he reiterated.