.jpg)
Kenya continues to witness a steady exponential growth of internet access. The Communications Authority of Kenya (CA), in its Third Quarter Sector Statistics Report for the Financial Year 2017/2018 notes that, “(Kenya’s) total data/Internet subscriptions grew (from the last review) by 8.2 percent, to record 36.1 million subscriptions (up) from 33.3 million recorded during the second quarter of the same financial year.”[1]The report remoter highlights the total internet subscriptions as standing at 36.1 million subscriptions as at March 2018, growing from the previous 25.7 million in March 2017. The CA nature the growth in internet subscription to the proliferation of smart phones used to wangle video on demand, games, music, news and social media sites; which content is protected by copyright.[2]
The growth in internet wangle and digital liaison technologies, has expanded the vulnerability to increased infringement of intellectual property rights (IPRs) through pirated-copyright works[3] and counterfeited products. The nature of internet and digital communication technologies therefore not only increases by the volumes, the number of potential infringers, but it moreover heightens the exposure to possible infringement over the internet. The ease of modification and replication, coupled by access, reach; evinces the vulnerability and brings into focus the legal environment misogynist for asserting and protecting IPRs in this space. Consequently, from an enforcement perspective, the IPR owners are increasingly vulnerable in a social-media internet era. This post discusses three (3) recent instances in Kenya under which social media platforms have been venal to violate IP Assets.
Photographs and Photographic Works
First, photographs and photographic works are protected as copyrighted works, under the Copyright Act, 2001, any unauthorized use is prohibited. Two infamous cases of unauthorized user of copyrighted photographs[4], are instructive; one by the former Nairobi Governor Dr. Evans Kidero where he used an image of the Nairobi skyline[5] in his referendum wayfarers poster: it emerged that he had not sought nor obtained an work or license to use the photograph. This poster was widely circulated online, and as captured in the vendible afore-cited, the matter was settled-out of Court. The other instance involved the Law Society of Kenya Nairobi Branch’s unauthorized use of the copyrighted photo “Fire in the Sky Nairobi” in a flyer for one of its notices.[6] This matter was equally settled out of court. Both instances of unauthorized use of copyrighted photos, evince social media’s vulnerability in enabling ease of access, modification, replication and subsequent publication woolgathering authorization or consent of the copyright owner.
Books and Literary Works
Secondly, and similarly infamous is the infringement of copyright works involving ‘sharing’ and/or distribution of copyrighted literary works on various social media platforms particularly on whatsApp. The pursuit publications are noteworthy: Dr Miguna Miguna’s ‘Peeling Back the Mask’ and ‘Kidneys for the King’, Michelle Obama’s ‘Becoming’, Michael Wolf’s ‘Fire and fury: Inside the Trumps Whitehouse’ among others. Pirated copies of these publications were widely circulated online, to unconfined detriment of their IPRs. Unfortunately, the IPR owners have not been worldly-wise to enforce their IPRs versus the infringers, who are often ‘faceless’.
Counterfeits and online market space
Thirdly, quite a number of small and medium sized merchantry take wholesomeness of the sizeable online community[7]: there’s an upsurge in shop e-commerce platforms targeted at SMEs[8]. The online market space enhances ease of wangle but with little opportunity for verification of the authenticity of the products stuff traded in the online market place. The buyers would favor the convenience expressly for the sale of goods, but most aren’t unliable an opportunity to unearth the ‘authenticity’ or otherwise of the products stuff traded in the platforms. The worthier enterprises have equally sought to uncurl their marketing strategies and distribution to leverage on the online sphere e.g. the mabati rolling mills self-ruling online quotations.
Solutions?
It is however not all gloom and doom: the Anti-Counterfeit Act, 2005 (which recently underwent substantive amendments albeit under a miscellaneous statute law), primarily provides for enforcement against Counterfeiting. Copyright Piracy on the other hand is proscribed by the Copyright Act, 2001. These laws however are not ratherish framed to write piracy and counterfeiting in the online market place, and much like established e-commerce platforms the options remain limited to self-help strategies unexplored including authentication services, and, warrant and registration of merchants. The amendments to the Anti-Counterfeit Act include expansion of the telescopic of definition of counterfeits, and greater collaboration between the agencies involved, the ACA, KRA and KEBS. The Copyright Amendment Bill, 2017 equally seeks to help write piracy in the online sphere, through availing protection for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) but moreover enjoining them to take down infringing works upon notification. KECOBO properly clothed with jurisdiction would be a useful enforcer (in collaboration with ISPs) versus online piracy.
The Kenya Information and Communications Act, 1998 (KICA) regulates the online space by providing that the Liaison Authority of Kenya is obliged to facilitate development of e-commerce.[9] The Act however fails to write trade on counterfeits online: a realignment of these regimes without unduly encumbering the online space may suffice. The Competition Authority is equally tasked with protection of consumer welfare, under Part VI of the Competition Act, 2010, which mandate properly understood, extends to protection from counterfeits and pirated goods.
The rencontre for Kenya, therefore, lies not in an inadequacy in laws, its increasingly an sparsity of a purposive, scrupulous and harmonized using of the same – infringement online, certainly equates infringement offline stuff minded of the peculiarities of the digital sphere. The goods stuff traded online will usually ultimately be physically delivered, (with the exception of those consumed online expressly for pirated works) bringing them within the jurisdiction of the unstipulated laws on counterfeiting; and as such then this would be curbed by the existing legal regime.
The growth of internet with the contemporaneous growth of social media, with its inherent traits exposes the increased vulnerabilities to IPRs and IPR owners. There is need to ensure that plane within these increased vulnerabilities the law equally adopts, and adapts to prorogue what is proscribed offline from stuff perpetuated online. KICA equally fails to respond to infringement of IPRs in the online environment. The Computer Misuse and Cyber Crimes Act, 2018 (suspended) addresses itself to proscribing misuse of computer systems and cybercrime; despite regulating the digital sphere, it does not write illicit trade or piracy online. The enforcement of IPRs at the online market place calls for a wastefulness between consumer protection and asserting IPRs.
The growth of the online market place is certainly integral in facilitating local and international trade; however, it is necessary to prefer regulatory measures that do not bar trade, and opt for the ones that least interfere with the independence and self-rule of this space; al beit minded not to compromise the legitimate interests of consumers’ safety vis-a-vis the rights of IPR holders. One solution would be requiring the e-commerce platforms to prefer unrepealable minimum guarantees for their offerings embedded in their terms and conditions. Adoption of various self-help “non-legal” measures targeted at enhancing verification is apt; includes use of barcodes, use of light wavelengths inter alia.
[1] Communications Authority of Kenya, Third Quarter Sector Statistics Report For The Financial Year 2017/2018, pg 15
[2] ibid
[3] L. Bently & B. Sherman, Intellectual Property Law [4th Ed], Oxford 2014 pg 303
[4] Rampant Plagiarism of Kenyan Photographs Online
[5] Referendum Campaigns and IP Infringement accessed at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjosrWy9LHgAhWcAGMBHcMgDfoQFjAAegQIABAB&url=https://ipkenya.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/election-campaigns-and-copyright-infringement/&usg=AOvVaw02hPg7z-09utrjmjQ_86I1
[6]https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiomuvW-LHgAhWsA2MBHedKDAUQFjADegQIBxAB&url=https://ipkenya.wordpress.com/2018/07/02/fire-in-the-sky-law-society-shamelessly-remains-mum-in-copyright-claim/&usg=AOvVaw3TCQGoh3d_TeniqldKyHxg
[7] http://www.ejenzi.co.ke/index.php/component/sellacious/?view=product&p=P347V0S866&Itemid=101
[8] http://wazua.co.ke/inner.aspx?aid=99&sec=sme
[9] Kenya Information and Liaison Act, 1998 Sections 83C, 1(a), (c), (d) & (f)
The post Fakes and Pirates Online: Is it an Unregulated Space in Kenya? appeared first on Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Technology law.
Related Posts: