Copyright Infringement
Muta v Safaricom Limited; Liberty Africa Technologies Limited [2016]
Facts
Ruth Wamuyu Muta, a music artist and member of the Music Copyright Society of Kenya, filed a suit against Safaricom Limited for copyright infringement of her 88 songs between 2009 and 2014. Muta alleged that Safaricom offered her songs on various platforms such as ring back tunes and Skiza tunes without her consent, resulting in financial losses including royalties and live performance opportunities. Liberty Africa Technologies Limited was joined as a third party, claimed by Safaricom to have authorized the use of Muta's songs through a deed of assignment.
Issue
The core issue is whether Safaricom Limited infringed Muta's copyright by using her songs without proper authorization and whether the deed of assignment with Liberty Africa Technologies was valid and binding.
Rule
Section 33 (3) of the Copyright Act, stipulates that for a deed assigning copyright to be valid, it must be in writing and signed by the copyright owner or their authorized agent.
Under Section 35 of the Copyright Act Copyright or related rights are infringed when a person engages in or causes others to engage in actions that are exclusively reserved for the rights holder. This includes any form of reproduction, distribution, public performance, or communication to the public of the copyrighted material without obtaining prior permission from the copyright owner.
Analysis
The court centered its analysis on the validity of the deed of assignment and whether it constituted a legally binding agreement between Muta and Liberty Africa, which would allow Safaricom to use the songs. Muta argued the deed was invalid due to missing essential details and her nonconsent to its terms. However, the court noted Muta had been receiving payments for the use of her songs, which she did not contest or return, and continued to supply new songs for the same platforms, indicating her acceptance of the terms of use established by the deed, whether signed by her or not. Thus, the court found that Muta's actions affirmed the deed's terms, leading to an implied consent over time.
The court's decision appears well-founded in legal reasoning and the principles of contractual obligations and estoppel. By receiving benefits under the deed, even if initially contested, Muta affirmed the arrangement allowing the use of her songs, which precluded her from later denying the validity of the contract. This decision underscores the importance of consistent and clear objections in copyright disputes and the significance of contractual conduct aligning with claimed rights and intentions. The judgment effectively balances the protection of copyright with the enforcement of contractual agreements, reflecting a sound application of the law to the facts presented.
Conclusion
The court dismissed Muta's claims, concluding that she had implicitly accepted the terms of the deed through her continued receipt of payments and provision of new songs for use on the platforms managed by Safaricom and Liberty Africa Technologies. The suit was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.
Judgement available here.