Ugandan Composer Wants Royalties For The National Anthem

from the welcome-to-ownership-culture dept

Wed, Sep 24th 2008 9:13am — Mike Masnick

One of the unfortunate byproducts of a culture that teaches us that something like a song can be "owned" and that each time it's played the "owner" needs to get paid, is you end up with situations like the following one, where the composer of Uganda's national anthem is suing the government for copyright infringement, claiming it owes him royalties for every time the song has been played by the government. Without knowing the details of Ugandan copyright law, there's a bit of a problem in that it appears the government did pay him (not very much) initially for composing the song, which would suggest that it was a work for hire, and he shouldn't have retained the copyright. However, from the sound of things, that wasn't particularly explicit. Either way, it sounds like cold hard cash outweighs national pride -- though, it is odd that the guy waited 45 years before suddenly realizing that he should get paid.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, national anthem, royalties, uganda

22 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2008 @ 9:18am

Work for hire =/ giving up copyright
Just because a service is work for hire, doesnt necessarily mean that the producer gives up copyright on the product.

Take wedding photographers, for example. They almost all are work for hire, yet many of them, as is spelled out in their contracts, retain copyright on the images, freely using them as they wish.

Yes, not all photographers do this - the key factor is what and how it is spelled out in a contract.

Hopefully the govt of Uganda had a contract with this guy in which details were spelled out. Otherwise, they may be in for a world of hurt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
some old guy, 24 Sep 2008 @ 9:25am

Re: Work for hire =/ giving up copyright
Right, in "work for hire" the photographer loses copyright to the customer.

Since he's a jackass, before he takes a pic, he makes the unwitting customer sign a contract whereupon the customer forfeits his rights to the copyright, and they fall back to the photographer. That's called a scam by most people, but for some reason is the norm in the photography industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
alex, 24 Sep 2008 @ 9:54am

Re: Re: Work for hire =/ giving up copyright
riiiight, because even though its a 'scam', youre the only one smart enough that in your 12 years of life you have singlehandedly determined that every wedding photographer who has a contract retaining copyright is scamming his customers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick Stamoulis, 24 Sep 2008 @ 10:25am

Hmm either it's time to get a new anthem or wait until this man passes away. That's kind of ridiculous no?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
some old guy, 24 Sep 2008 @ 10:34am

Re: Re: Re: Work for hire =/ giving up copyright
We've discussed this numerous times right here on techdirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I can haz cheezburger?, 24 Sep 2008 @ 10:53am

Schrodinger's Cat: Royalty Style
Back when the Government originally solicited and selected this Anthem, would this have been selected if it had royalties attached, or would something else be selected?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch, 24 Sep 2008 @ 11:02am

Re: Work for hire =/ giving up copyright
...many of them, as is spelled out in their contracts, retain copyright on the images, freely using them as they wish.

I've been married twice. The last time, all of the contracts I saw did say that they retained the copyright but specifically said that they couldn't reuse them without permission. The point being that they couldn't sell them to anyone but you but you ,i>would have to pay if you wanted additional copies.

This time, all of the photographers are boasting about giving away the CDs and rights to the images as part of the package.

The free market rules. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2008 @ 11:17am

Why would it matter if the guy died? Wouldn't his estate be entitled to the money for another 15 million years or is that just US copyright?

:p
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hegemon13, 24 Sep 2008 @ 11:18am

What a moron
If something I created were selected for National Anything, I would be thrilled. I would gladly let the government use it for little to no money. First of all, I still love my country (US), despite the current reprehensible leadership. But, more selfishly, don't you think that "composer of the national anthem" is a title you might be able to leverage elsewhere in your career?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2008 @ 11:25am

I guess it is a crazy idea that someone could "create" a song, and in that "creation" they would own what they "create." Gosh you are a moron, mike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2008 @ 11:37am

I guess it is a crazy idea that someone could "create" a song, and in that "creation" they would own what they "create."

Yep, it is. Since they didn't create each note, instrument, word, etc. specifically, what they are really doing is a collaborative work, and they should have to get permission from the very first person to use those specific notes, the people who built the instruments in the very first place, the first people to use the instruments, anyone else who has ever used the same notes in music, the first person to use any of those words and anyone else who has used those words, and God help you if you use a cliche in your lyrics...

All art is collaborative and should be done for passion and enjoyment or it isn't art at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch, 24 Sep 2008 @ 11:38am

Re:
Oops... The above was me, sorry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2008 @ 12:11pm

I can see the scam now... my uncle passed away while owed millions of dollars in national anthem royalities... send me your banking info so that I can spirit the funds out of the country.

Dr Fic Ticious
Musical Curator
National Anthem Library
University of Uganda
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2008 @ 12:15pm

Canada just went through almost the same thing... except it was the theme song for Hockey Night in Canada (arguably the second national anthem).

The Canadian Broadcast Corporation balked at paying more royalties to the lawyers for the composer and then a competing network bought the rights to the song.

Soon we'll have our own homegrown (groan) reality show to pick a new theme song.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
guy one, 24 Sep 2008 @ 12:17pm

this guy is about as unpatriotic as Ann and Nancy Wilson of "Heart", for being publicly upset at the McCain Camping for using "Barracuda". does not matter what party you support, thats just plain pathetic for a professional musician to complain about, let alone SUE????
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hampster Dance, 24 Sep 2008 @ 1:31pm

Re:
I guess it is a crazy idea that someone could "create" a person, and in that "creation" they would own what they "create."

Gosh, your a moron, anon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oscar Holito, 24 Sep 2008 @ 2:21pm

What a crazy guy
Why don't you be proud of your Country. I am living in America and the way Americans are so lovers and proud of their Country make me to be so sorry on the Composer.
When I was still in school, they could ask in examinations that who composed the Uganda Anthem. You should been very happy that the all Ugandans sing what you have compossed and you are well known by Name and you are in the History of Uganda, you shouldn't have open your mouth for money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 24 Sep 2008 @ 3:47pm

Re:
That had nothing to do with party affiliation or patriotism either one.

It was just some rock stars who didn't want some cranky old white guy who rambles on about his war record to be associated with their hit rock song.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 24 Sep 2008 @ 3:51pm

Re:
That's just ridiculous, Coward. To claim creation of something is just flat out egomania. No human being has ever created anything either real or abstract.

We're really only capable of sub-creative works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2008 @ 5:41pm

"One of the unfortunate byproducts of a culture that teaches us that something like a song can be "owned""

If you're a consumer just be happy you're lucky enough to have us creators around to create the stuff you cherish so much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NotBob, 24 Sep 2008 @ 7:55pm

Not so odd, really
"it is odd that the guy waited 45 years before suddenly realizing that he should get paid."

It's not so odd, Mike, when you realize that it was only recently that a lawyer was able to track him down and convince him he was being taken. All the while charging by the minute to consult with him.

PS: One would think I had an axe to grind with a lawyer but I actually don't. I just find the actions of the majority of them, distasteful, shall we say?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 24 Sep 2008 @ 10:45pm

Re:
If you're a consumer just be happy you're lucky enough to have us creators around to create the stuff you cherish so much.

Huh? What does ownership have to do with creation? It's been shown, quite clearly, that copyright and such false "ownership" concepts actually hinder creation of new content.

So what was your point again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]