the court should also consider what constitutes the ringtones. The Defendants Counsel further submitted that it is the tunes that were offered to the Defendant subscribers and not the Plaintiff's interviews per se. The ringtones were made by the third-party and derived from an audiovisual recording also made by the third-party. Although the audiovisual recording was of the interview between the Plaintiff and the press, that cannot in any way give the Plaintiff copyright in the eventual recording and the ringtones derived from the recording. The Defendant‟s Counsel further submitted that even if the Plaintiff had a copyright in the interview, the third-party would still have a copyright of the ringtones and the audiovisual recording as derivative work within the meaning of section 5 (2) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act and would be protected from liability. The ringtones were offered to the Defendant subscribers under contract from the third-party who is the copyright holder and consequently there was no infringement as alleged. In those circumstances the Defendants Counsel prays that the second issue should be answered in the negative. In rejoinder the Plaintiff's Counsel submitted that in the end the Defendant appears to have made its defence on derivatives a deduction from the earlier clamour of news of the day, which it is not and of general publication which it too is not. He submitted that the Defendant's position is a stubborn position devoid of merit under section 9 (1) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act to the effect that the author of primary work such as his speeches is the one who can permit the creation of derivative works. In the absence of such consent, the derivatives infringed the Plaintiff‟s rights and the law. By basing their defences on derivatives for the caller tunes, and the fact that caller tunes are premised on the alteration of a pre-existing copyright work, the Defendants in essence made the judicial admission of a pre-existing copyright which is in the Plaintiff‟s speeches and which copyright evidently belongs to the Plaintiff. In the premises the Defendant has put forth no lawful statutory defence against the Plaintiffs claim. Resolution of issues number 1 and 2. I have carefully considered the above written submissions as well as the authorities and the evidence on record. As far as the basic facts are concerned, there are certain basic facts which are not in dispute. I will start with the submission of the Plaintiff with regard to the caller tunes or ringtones, the subject matter of the dispute as to copyright. Paragraph 3 (a) of the amended plaint restricts the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendant for the use or sale of the Plaintiffs speeches/addresses to the ringtones/caller tunes coded as numbers 504529, 504530, 504528, and 504531. The Plaintiff seeks declarations that the use/sale of the Plaintiff‟s speeches/address as the ringtones/caller tunes constitutes an infringement of his copyright. Other remedies sought are consequential to the basic remedy based on the averred infringement of copyright. So the first basic facts agreed are that the caller tunes comprised mainly of the Plaintiff‟s oral voice recording which were recorded in the form of audio recordings. The caller tunes were stored electronically and were Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 15