in a situation where an electronic device is used to copy exactly what somebody said? What would be the situation where a person secretly records a musician in a public live performance? Would that person be taken to be the creator of the musical works or sound recording? Further reference was made to the case of the estate of Martin Luther King Jr Inc versus CBS Inc (supra). There is no need for me to consider the case because in that case the question of who was the author of the works was not in dispute. What was in dispute was the copyright to the works. Moreover the works had been registered under the American law for copyright protection and the case is clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the Plaintiff‟s case. What is in controversy in the Plaintiffs action firstly relates to the issue of who the author of the ringtones is? The Plaintiff claims authorship by virtue of the ringtones having his words exactly from a recording made of his answers to questions put to him by persons who have not been clearly identified in the proceedings according to exhibit TPD1 and who surrounded the Plaintiff after he came out of parliament on the occasion of his interview by the Parliamentary Appointments Committee. I do not doubt the fact that some labour was expended in the recording and editorial work was done so as to produce the ringtones with exclusively have the Plaintiff‟s voice and talk or answers. The fact that the recording has the Plaintiff's characteristic style and personal charisma is also not doubted as the reactions to the Plaintiff's answers generated a lot of merriment from the listeners in exhibit TPD1 which is the video recording of the event. The fact that the Plaintiff is a public figure is also not in doubt and the style of his delivery is personal. The Plaintiff's answers was likely to be saleable material and that is the basis upon which it could be marketed by the third-party to the Defendant and the Defendant was able to offer it to its subscribers for a fee. It is the Defendant‟s defence that the Plaintiffs talk was intended to be published to members of the public. Secondly the audio recordings do not represent a prepared speech but was elicited from the Plaintiff by persons who asked some questions of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff answered them. In the second issue the Defendant's defence is that the Plaintiff has no copyright in the interview. After review of the statutory law provisions, the case law and the evidence, it is my conclusion that the word "author" has a specific meaning. In the relation to sound recording the word "author" has a restricted meaning by virtue of the definition of the expression "sound recording". It is the fixation of sound in a material carrier such as a tape, disc or similar material. Secondly by definition of the word "fixation", the meaning becomes more apparent as embodiment of sound in a material form sufficiently stable or permanent, to permit them to be perceived, reproduced or otherwise, communicated through a device. Last but not least the person who commissions or creates the work is the person who does the recording or commissions the recording of the works. In the restricted meaning therefore it is the third-party who is the author Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 25