About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

United Republic of Tanzania

TZ025-j

Back

Patrick Balisidya v The Executive Director Audio Master and others, Civil Case No. 37 of 1989, High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam

Patrick Balisidya v The Executive Director Audio Master and others, Civil Case No. 37 of 1989, High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam

Kyando J.

Date of Ruling: May 19, 1990

Facts

The plaintiff, the composer of the “Bahati Album”, sued the defendants for copyright Infringement. The plaintiff alleged the defendants produced, sold, and/or distributed cassette copies of “Bahati Album” without a licence. AI Records (K) Ltd was the sole licensed producer and distributor of the “Bahati Album”. The plaintiff argued that since he was the author and composer of the musical production and AI Records was the sole producer and distributor of the album, the copyright was jointly owned. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had no cause of action against them in terms of section 13 (2) of the Copyright Act, 1966.

Holdings

(i) Under section 12 (1) of the Copyright Act, 1966, copyright “shall be transmissible by assignment, by testamentary disposition or by operation of law, as movable property.”

(ii) Copyright cannot be owned jointly because owner of copyright under section 13 (1) of the Copyright Act, 1996, is either the first owner, or an assignee of an exclusive license.

(iii) Once the first owner assigns or licenses his work to the assignee or an exclusive licensee, he ceases to be the owner of copyright and the assignee or licensee becomes the owner exclusively.

(iv) The right to sue in cases of infringement of copyright is conferred to the owner of copyright in terms of section 13 (2) of the Copyright Act, 1966

Decision

(i) Under the Copyright Act, 1966, copyright could be assigned or disposed of and there is more than ample evidence that the plaintiff assigned or disposed of the copyright in his composition to AI Records (K) Ltd

(ii) AI Records (K) Ltd were the owners of the copyright in the “Bahati Album”, not the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is not the correct party to sue for copyright infringement of the album.