EXPLAINER: Uganda’s new copyright bill promises artists more pay but big questions remain

Parliament’s passing of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Amendment) Bill, 2025 on March 17, 2026 was a major victory for Uganda’s creative industry. Musicians, authors and other artists celebrated because they believe the law could finally help them earn more money from work that businesses have used for years without proper payment.

At its heart, the Bill tries to fix an old problem. Uganda’s copyright law was last updated in 2006, long before streaming, digital piracy and modern music distribution became central to the industry.

The amendment now says performers and producers should be paid when sound recordings or audio-visual works are used for commercial advertising, broadcasting or public performance.

In simple terms, if a radio station, television station, bar, club, hotel, restaurant or another business uses music to attract customers or make money, artists should not be left out.

The Bill also strengthens the role of collecting societies, which are meant to collect royalties and pass them on to artists. It says these bodies should collect and pay royalties to members or copyright owners.

This matters because many artists have long complained that they create popular work but see little financial benefit from it. The law also says payments should go through a system established under the National Payment Systems Act, while the registrar monitors use and reports to the minister.

The amendment also introduces tougher penalties for piracy. Anyone convicted of publishing, broadcasting, distributing or reproducing protected work without permission could face up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to Shs 50 million, or both.

A person found selling or buying equipment meant for making illegal copies could face up to seven years in prison, a fine of up to Shs 40 million, or both. The message is clear: the state wants to make piracy more costly.

Another key point is registration. Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka told Parliament that a creator owns their work once they produce it, but registration is needed to fully benefit from the protections in the law. This means artists will now have stronger grounds to demand action against infringement if they have registered their work.

The Bill also widens protection to literary works such as novels, plays and encyclopaedias. It recognises translations, adaptations and expressions of folklore as derivative works. That is important because it gives more legal value to Uganda’s traditional knowledge and cultural expression.

It also introduces the idea of orphan works. These are works protected by copyright whose owner cannot be identified or found. Authorities may license someone to use such work, but only after it is shown that the author cannot be traced. If the author is later identified before the licence expires, the copyright returns to that author.

The Bill is meant to move artists from fame without income to fame with income. It tries to make sure creative work is treated like property that can earn money, not just free material for public use.

Still, there are concerns. Geoffrey Ekongot, Executive Director of the Uganda Musicians Association, welcomed the gains in the law but warned that one part of it could weaken artists’ earnings. He wrote, “The celebration was deserved. The bill contains real wins.”

But he warned that the phrase “net revenue” in the caller ring-back tone provision could allow telecom companies to deduct many costs before calculating the artist’s share. In his view, that could leave rights holders with much less money than the public expects.

Ekongot also argued that Uganda’s real copyright problem is not technology but weak coordination between existing institutions. In his words, “Uganda does not suffer from a lack of technology; it suffers from a lack of coherence.”

His point is that registration, licensing, enforcement and royalty distribution already have legal homes, but those institutions need better funding, better systems and better coordination.

Messiah Tabu also sees the law as an important step, but not the end of the struggle. He wrote, “the law is one thing… execution is everything.”

That may be the most important warning of all. Uganda has often passed strong laws that later struggled because of weak enforcement, unclear regulations and poor accountability.

Tabu summed up the promise of the new law in simple terms. “This law introduces something new: Structure,” he wrote. But he quickly added, “structure without execution is just theory.”

That means artists may celebrate today, but their real test will come after presidential assent, when government must issue regulations, set workable royalty systems and make sure collecting societies actually pay creators.

The Bill now awaits the President’s signature before it becomes law. If that happens and the rules are clear, artists could finally start earning more consistently from radio play, public performances, digital use and telecom products.

If implementation fails, the law may join a long list of reforms that looked powerful on paper but changed little in practice.