"/>
For years, Uganda’s creative industry has evolved far faster than the law designed to protect it.
Musicians became global through streaming platforms and TikTok. Films circulated online within hours of release. Content creators built businesses from digital audiences. Telecom companies generated significant revenue from caller ringback tones. Publishers, broadcasters and aggregators increasingly commercialise creative works in ways that were unimaginable when the original Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act was enacted.
Yet despite this rapid growth, many creators continued operating within weak legal structures. Agreements were often informal. Artists frequently signed away rights without understanding the long-term implications. Royalties remained a source of conflict and mistrust. Online infringement became rampant while enforcement mechanisms remained largely designed for physical piracy.
The Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Amendment) Act, 2026 appears to be Uganda’s attempt to finally bring the law into alignment with the realities of the modern creative economy.
What makes the amendment significant is not simply the number of provisions introduced, but the fact that many of the changes are direct responses to long-standing frustrations within the industry.
One of the clearest examples is the treatment of copyright transactions themselves.
For many years, copyright exploitation in Uganda largely operated informally. Artists entered verbal arrangements with producers. Publishers acquired rights through loosely drafted agreements. Broadcasters and distributors often operated under contracts that said very little about ownership, royalties, duration or future exploitation rights.
This became especially problematic as old songs and audiovisual works gained renewed commercial value through digital platforms. Many creators found that works they produced years earlier were still generating revenue for others while they themselves had little control or financial benefit.
The amendment responds to this by requiring copyright assignments, licences and transfers to be in writing and registered with the Registrar within sixty days. The law now requires such contracts to clearly state matters such as remuneration, payment terms, obligations of the parties and the rights being transferred.
This is a major departure from the industry culture that previously relied heavily on informal understandings and unequal bargaining arrangements.
Perhaps even more significant is the introduction of reversion rights. Under the amendment, assignments and transfers of economic rights cannot exceed twenty years, after which the rights revert to the author.
This provision appears to acknowledge a reality that has existed for decades within creative industries globally: young creators often assign away rights permanently before fully understanding the future value of their work. The amendment attempts to restore some long-term protection to authors by ensuring that creative ownership does not disappear forever.
The law also reflects a recognition that copyright infringement has fundamentally changed.
Previously, piracy was largely associated with street vendors selling counterfeit CDs and DVDs. Today, infringement occurs online through websites, streaming platforms, social media pages and digital sharing networks. Works can be copied, uploaded and redistributed almost instantly.
The old law struggled to deal with these realities because it was not built around internet-based exploitation.
The amendment introduces concepts such as service providers, technological protection measures and circumvention of technological protections. It criminalises the bypassing of technological safeguards and the distribution of tools used to defeat those protections.
Most notably, the law now introduces notice-and-takedown procedures that allow copyright owners or the Registrar to require service providers to block or remove infringing content.
This is one of the clearest indicators that Uganda’s copyright regime is shifting into the digital age. The law is no longer focused solely on physical piracy. It is now attempting to regulate online infringement and platform responsibility.
Another area the amendment directly addresses is the long-running tension surrounding caller ring back tones.
For years, musicians and performers complained that telecom companies, aggregators and intermediaries benefited disproportionately from the commercial exploitation of music while creators themselves received limited returns and very little transparency regarding actual revenues generated.
Disputes over caller ring back tone payments became a recurring issue within Uganda’s music industry, largely because there was no clear statutory framework governing revenue sharing.
The amendment now introduces a prescribed revenue allocation formula. Authors are entitled to thirty percent, performers to thirty percent, telecom operators to thirty-one point five percent, and aggregators and other intermediaries to eight point five percent.
This is significant because the law is moving the issue away from entirely private negotiations and into a regulated framework with legislatively recognised entitlements.
The amendment also reflects an important shift in how copyright law balances protection with accessibility.
Historically, copyright regimes around the world often prioritised protection of rights holders while giving limited attention to the needs of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled. Access to educational materials and literary works remained difficult for many people living with disabilities.
Uganda has now domesticated the Marrakesh Treaty and introduced provisions allowing works to be converted into braille, sign language and other accessible formats for beneficiary persons.
In many ways, this reflects a broader understanding that intellectual property law must also serve social inclusion and human dignity.
The amendment also attempts to bring greater structure to the governance of collecting societies.
Questions about transparency, accountability and royalty distribution have followed collecting societies for years. Many creators have raised concerns regarding how royalties are collected, how payments are calculated and whether governance systems adequately protect members’ interests.
The law now requires collecting societies to formally register with the Registrar, comply with governance obligations and hold annual general meetings. It also prevents multiple collecting societies from operating within the same bundle of rights.
This appears aimed at creating more centralised and accountable royalty administration structures.
The strengthening of criminal penalties also reflects a noticeable policy shift.
For many years, copyright infringement penalties were relatively modest and were often criticised as inadequate deterrents in an increasingly commercial creative economy. The amendment substantially increases fines and prison terms across several provisions.
The message appears clear: copyright infringement is no longer being treated as a minor offence, but as a serious commercial and economic violation.
Perhaps the broader significance of the amendment lies in Uganda’s decision to formally align itself with international copyright standards.
The law now expressly gives force of law to treaties such as the Berne Convention, the Beijing Treaty, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the Marrakesh Treaty.
This matters not only for creators, but also for investors, publishers, broadcasters, digital platforms and international creative collaborations. It signals Uganda’s intention to participate more fully in the global intellectual property framework.
Another important reform is the introduction of a legal framework for orphan works. In the past, there was uncertainty around the use of works whose authors or copyright owners could not be identified or traced, particularly old photographs, recordings, manuscripts and other creative material with historical or commercial value. Many institutions and users either avoided using such works altogether for fear of infringement or used them without a clear legal basis. The amendment now introduces a licensing framework allowing persons to apply for permission to exploit orphan works after demonstrating that the owner cannot be found or identified. The reform attempts to balance public access and preservation of creative works with the continued protection of ownership rights where an author later emerges.
Ultimately, the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Amendment) Act, 2026 is more than a technical amendment to an old statute. It is a recognition that creativity has become a serious economic sector requiring modern legal protection, digital enforcement systems and fairer commercial structures.
Whether the reforms will achieve their intended impact will depend greatly on implementation and enforcement. But the direction is unmistakable. Uganda’s copyright regime is no longer attempting to regulate a purely analogue world. It is now confronting the realities of streaming, digital distribution, online exploitation and intellectual property as a modern commercial asset.