The High Court has ruled that digital content published on social media is protected by copyright, in a landmark decision that found Monitor Publications Limited and its affiliated broadcaster NTV Uganda liable for infringing an advocate’s intellectual property rights by inaccurately reproducing and attributing his posts.
In a judgment delivered on July 27, 2026, at the Commercial Court in Kampala, Justice Dr. Ginamia Melody Ngwatu held that lawyer and digital content creator Silver Kayondo successfully proved that his X (formerly Twitter) post was protected by copyright and that the defendants infringed his rights after reproducing, altering and falsely attributing parts of his work in a news article.
Kayondo had sued Monitor Publications Limited, Africa Broadcasting Uganda Limited trading as NTV Uganda, the Managing Editor of Monitor Publications, and journalist Deogratious Wamala. He alleged copyright infringement, false attribution, misrepresentation, negligence, defamation and unlawful processing of his personal data after his August 2023 social media post on the World Bank and Uganda was used in a September 2023 news article without his consent.
The defendants denied liability, arguing that Kayondo’s statements were merely ideas rather than copyrightable works. They also maintained that their publication amounted to fair use because it concerned a current economic and political issue, acknowledged Kayondo as the source, and served the public interest. However, Justice Ngwatu rejected that defence, holding that once ideas are reduced into a material form, including on social media platforms such as X, they become expressions capable of copyright protection.
The judge found that the defendants had access to Kayondo’s work, copied it and then inaccurately quoted and altered parts of it. The court ruled that changing the phrase “Lenders push values of their shareholders” to “Lenders push value for their shareholders,” together with attributing additional statements to Kayondo that he never made, materially changed the meaning of his work and exposed his professional reputation to harm.
Justice Ngwatu held that while the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act allows fair use of protected works for reporting on current events, that protection does not extend to inaccurate quotations or distortions that damage an author’s reputation. The court further found that the publication amounted to false attribution and misrepresentation because it attributed words to Kayondo that he did not write or publish.
After comparing the original X post with the published article, the judge answered that issue in Kayondo’s favour. In the judgment, the court also underscored journalists’ obligation under the Press and Journalist Act to ensure accuracy, noting that even minor grammatical changes can substantially alter meaning and unfairly affect an author’s reputation. Kayondo had sought declarations that he owned the copyright in his social media content, permanent injunctions against further infringement, damages totalling UGX 250 million, a published apology and other remedies.
However, the court awarded him Shillings 150 million in damages. The decision is expected to have significant implications for journalists, media organisations and digital content creators by affirming that original social media posts can attract copyright protection and that reproducing them inaccurately may expose publishers to legal liability-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
