The Plaintiff insists that she did not authorize Prof. Ssengendo to do the sculpture and there is no evidence that he ever acquired a license from her. Court agrees with the submissions of Counsel for the Defendant that Prof. Ssengendo created the sculpture on the basis that the model design had been commissioned to belong to KCC under S. 8 (1) (b) of the Copyright Act. And as Counsel rightly asserted, in cross examination the Plaintiff agreed that it was not an agreed term of the contest that she would translate the model into architectural form as a sculpture, although that was the purpose for which the model was created. It is therefore accepted that in those circumstances, it was open to KCC to commission any sculptor or sculptress of their choice to translate and create the sculpture for Centenary Park. Prof. Ssengendo was selected and was paid Shs. 20,000,000/- by Shell (U) Ltd for creating the sculpture. Prof. Ssengendo did not need the permission of the Plaintiff to do the sculpture or acquire a license from her for the purpose. Court further observes that the design and the sculpture are two different works of art, albeit one is based on the other. A drawing is one form of artistic expression just as a sculpture is another form of artistic expression. The sculpture can be described as a derivative work of art, derived from the drawing. The sculpture was contractually commissioned by KCC and paid for by Shell (U) Ltd. The copyright in the sculpture also belongs to KCC which also owns the Centenary Park where the sculpture is on display. It is on record that when the Plaintiff returned to Uganda in 1995, and discovered that the plaque (commemorative inscription) on the sculpture indicated her as an assistant and Prof. Ssengendo as the designer; she complained to Prof. Ssengendo who agreed to change the plaque; and which he did by writing to Shell (U) Ltd and KCC. - Exhibit P4. The Prof. indicated that the plaque and its inscriptions would be replaced to read as follows: “Designed by sculptress Sylvia Nakitende; Executed by artists Ssengendo; Contractors IOTA Consultants Consulting Engineers and Planners”. It is the argument of the Plaintiff that Prof. Ssengendo accepted to have the changes made since he appreciated the copyright legal implications. Despite the Plaintiff’s arguments, it is significant that she brought no action against KCC or Professor Ssengendo; possibly because she knew that no such action would have succeeded. It clear that the Plaintiff was cognizant of the purpose of the drawing she made and to what use it was to be put. And she rightly insisted that her role as designer of the drawing from which the sculpture was derived be recognized and from her evidence, Prof. Ssengendo took steps to have that done. And as pointed out by Counsel for the Defendant and rightly so, proper inscription ought to be placed on the plaque as indicated in Exhibit P4, crediting the Plaintiff for the design and