Did you understand that copyright in any work does not consist of the proper to govern the inclusion of an inventive painting in a movie or broadcast?
Airtel Kenya used the argument based on the Copyright Act to win a case wherein it had been sued for using the Kenya Administrative Map to show its regions of network coverage.
The organization used the map belonging to Nairobi Map Services Limited to paste a pin region in a commercial aired on tv in August 2009.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the ad’s message had already been passed to visitors using illustrations other than the map that was secondary to the letter.
SEE ALSO: Airtel Money loses Sh670 million to a Group of workers fraud
Justice Philip Waki, Daniel Musinga, and Gatembu Kairu concurred with High Court Judge Justice Eric Ogola’s selection that the including the map in the advert turned incidental.
In the case, Nairobi Map Services Limited had sued Airtel Kenya Limited, ZK Advertising Limited, and The Sound and Picture Work Limited for fashionable damages at the rate of $three hundred per day or its equal in Kenya shilling from August 29, 2009, as much as a 5-12 months period, punitive damages and fees.
The employer filed the case because the three had infringed on its copyright. This application noticed The Sound and Picture Works Limited argued that the copyright to the map did no longer encompass the proper to manipulate the incidental inclusion of the plan inside the 30-second long advert.
The court heard that emphasis was on the data relayed and transferred to the whiteboard, and an engineer inside the ad had already established Airtel’s Network.
The High Court brushed off the case, and the organization lodged an enchantment, announcing the courtroom changed wrong in pronouncing that analyzing a map is exempted via copyright.
“The crucial problem, as already stated, is whether the Judge erred in preserving that there was no infringement of copyright due to the fact using the appellant’s map inside the impugned commercial changed into “incidental” and consequently included underneath Section 26(1)(c) of the Copyright Act,” reads part of the judgment delivered on June.