agreed fact that the caller tunes bear the voice of the Plaintiff when he was recorded outside the precincts of Parliament having emerged from an interview with the Parliamentary Appointments Committee. The Defendant concedes in the written submissions that the recording of the material was subsequently converted into ringtones by the third-party. The talk was given to a group of assembled persons on the occasion of the Plaintiff's vetting by the Parliament of Uganda. There is controversy as to whether the Plaintiff's voice which comprises the ringtones arose as a consequence of interviews by journalists who were waiting outside (the precincts of Parliament). The consequences of whether it was an interview by journalists which elicited the Plaintiff‟s answers which were eventually converted into ringtones or whether it was a speech will be considered after reviewing the evidence. As a preliminary consideration some matters of interpretation may be attempted. The question is whether in the circumstances, the Plaintiff can be considered the author of the works, the subject matter of this suit. As far as section 2 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006 is concerned; the word "author" is defined as follows: "means the physical person who created or creates work protected under section 5 and includes a person or authority commissioning work or employing a person making work in the course of employment;" The key words which are used are the "physical person who created or creates work protected under section 5. We will subsequently consider the words "created or creates" as well as "work". The quoted words are critical in establishing the meaning of the word "author" under section 2 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006. Section 5 (1) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006 makes a list of literary, scientific and artistic works which are eligible for copyright. As far as the Plaintiff is concerned, the protected works listed under section 5 (1) (a) include articles, books, pamphlets, lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of a similar nature. With reference to the immediately preceding subsection, the Plaintiff's Counsel seems to rely on the provision made for "addresses" or sermons and works of a similar nature. Secondly the Plaintiff's Counsel addressed the court on the inclusive nature of this subsection to the extent that it includes under its ambit lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of a similar nature in which he submitted that speeches fall under works of a similar nature. On the other hand the Defendant's main line of defence can be juxtaposed against other subsections. The first is section 5 (1) (c) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act which includes under the protection of the enactment, audiovisual works and sound recording, including cinematographic works and other works of a similar nature. Secondly there is reliance by the Defendant and the third-party on derivative works under section 5 (2) of the Copyright Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 17