The High Court in Kampala has issued a landmark verdict in a copyright infringement case, ruling in favor of Jamaican singer Garfield Spence, widely known as Konshens. The telecom, Airtel Uganda, alongside Onmobile Global Limited and Mtech Limited, has been ordered to pay general damages of $180,000 (approximately 670 million Ugandan Shillings) for unauthorized distribution of the artist's songs.
The case, filed in 2015, centered around Konshens' allegations that Airtel Uganda, along with its co-defendants, unlawfully distributed his musical compositions without obtaining his consent or compensating him for the use of his work. The contested songs included popular tracks such as "Gyal a bubble," "So Mitan," "Jazz Version," and "Simple song," among others.
Konshens argued that the defendants had accessed and utilized his songs as caller tunes for Airtel's subscribers through a program named "Hello Tunes," charging users Shs600 per download. This unauthorized use of his music, he contended, amounted to a violation of his copyright in the suit songs.
In a significant victory for the artist, the High Court's ruling delivered by Justice Patricia Mutesi affirmed that Airtel Uganda, Onmobile Global Limited, and Mtech Limited were jointly liable for the infringement of Konshens' copyright in the contested songs. The court declared that the defendants' distribution of the artist's songs without obtaining his permission and without remitting the proceeds amounted to unjust enrichment.
The court consequently ordered Airtel Uganda and its co-defendants to pay general damages totaling $180,000 to compensate Konshens for the infringement of his copyright. In addition, an interest rate of 15% per annum will apply to the general damages from the date of filing the suit until the full payment is made.
Furthermore, Airtel Uganda has been directed to pay an additional 20 million Ugandan Shillings as exemplary damages for the copyright infringement, underscoring the court's emphasis on the importance of respecting the intellectual property rights of artists and creators.
This ruling serves as a reminder of the significance of safeguarding artists' creative works and the legal consequences for entities that fail to obtain proper authorization for the use of copyrighted materials. The case sets a precedent for the protection of intellectual property rights in the entertainment industry and sends a strong message about the need to respect copyright ownership.
