Introduction

The case of Jutoram Kabatele Mahalla vs. Vocational Education Training Authority (VETA) provides a critical examination of copyright infringement and the protection of intellectual property rights in Tanzania. It delves into the necessary balance between safeguarding creators' economic and moral rights and accommodating public access to intellectual property for educational purposes. This article analyses the key issues and rulings in this case, focusing on copyright infringement, moral and economic rights, and defences related to the public domain.

In this case, Jutoram Kabatele Mahalla (the Appellant) initiated a legal claim against VETA, accusing VETA of copyright infringement of five road traffic signs designed by the Appellant for people with disabilities. The Appellant registered the contentious road signs with the Copyright Society of Tanzania (COSOTA) in 2006, which granted the Appellant copyright protection over his unique designs.

The Appellant contended that VETA had reproduced the road signs in a book titled "Taaluma kwa Madereva Toleo la Pili") (Professional Drivers Training, Second Edition), which was utilised as instructional material in its training centres. The Appellant further asserted that VETA sold the books in 750 VETA centres without his authorisation, thereby infringing upon both his economic and moral rights tied to the copyrighted designs. It is on this basis that he filed a claim against VETA claiming, amongst others, payment of TZS 2 billion as a substantive claim and 3% for any continued production and sale of books containing the contended road signs, as well as general damages. These claims were dismissed by the High Court which led to the Appellant filing an appeal at the Court of Appeal. 

Court of Appeal's findings

At the Appellate level, both parties filed their written submissions, but VETA did not enter appearance on the hearing date. Notwithstanding this, the Court of Appeal meticulously analysed the evidence from both parties and reassessed the legal principles applied by the trial court, ultimately overturning the decision of the High Court. In considering the appeal, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Appellant’s copyright over the five road signs was valid and recognised by COSOTA and, as such, the Appellant had the right over the disputed road signs. The Court of Appeal concluded that VETA had utilised these signs in its training materials without obtaining the Appellant’s consent, thus infringing on the Appellant’s economic and moral rights. The Court of Appeal refuted VETA’s claim that the signs fell within the public domain as they were contained in the Highway Code, asserting that the road signs were registered in 2006, long before both the Highway Code and VETA’s book were published (in 2009 and 2013, respectively).

The Court of Appeal went further to hold that VETA had profited from the sales of the books that contained the contended road signs and had failed to provide the Highway Code or any relevant documentation that could have demonstrated that the contended road signs were in the public domain. The Court of Appeal underscored that, without such evidence, VETA could not justify its unauthorised use of the Appellant’s copyrighted works. The Court of Appeal considered, albeit briefly, whether VETA’s use of the Appellant’s works could be considered fair use, a legal doctrine that allows limited use of copyrighted works without permission under certain circumstances, as specified under section 12 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act [Cap. 218 R.E. 2002] (Copyright Act) including, as in this case, for educational purposes. However, the decision of the Court of Appeal fell short of addressing this issue and considering whether VETA’s actions fell within the boundaries of fair use. The principle of fair use as recognised under section 12 of the Copyright Act allows for limited use of copyright material without the need to obtain permission from the copyright holder. This principle is intended to balance the rights of the copyright holder with the public interest, allowing certain uses of works that serve important social, education and cultural purposes. Interestingly, in its defence, VETA did not adequately rely on fair use against the Appellant’s claims. Regrettably for VETA, the Court of Appeal also did not explore whether the use of the Appellant’s copyrighted work could be justified under the fair use doctrine. VETA, as a vocational training institution, used the contended signs in a book published for learner drivers, which qualifies for educational purposes. Against this background, the Court of Appeal should have given due weight to this consideration in assessing the copyright infringement claimed by the Appellant and considered the benefit that might be served by VETA’s use of the work, particularly where it is used to educate or train a group of people in a non-commercial context. It is likely that a more thorough consideration of this principle could have led to a more nuanced decision, where the public interest in education might have been given greater weight. 

Conclusion

In its final decision, the Court of Appeal overruled the High Court’s verdict and ruled in favour of the Appellant. The court determined that VETA had indeed infringed upon the Appellant’s copyright and awarded him TZS 50 million in damages. Whilst the decision of the Court of Appeal reinforces the vital importance of upholding intellectual property rights and ensuring that copyright holders receive just compensation for the unauthorised use of their creations, the decision brings to light the intricate dynamics between intellectual property rights and public accessibility in education. All in all, the financial penalty imposed on VETA serves as a deterrent against future infringements and reinforces the need for educational entities to adopt stringent compliance measures to respect intellectual property rights. This case exemplifies the necessity of balancing the interests of creators with the educational aspirations of society, illustrating that permissions and respect for intellectual property are foundational to fostering an environment where creativity and education can co-exist sustainably.