earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law requirement of originality (see Feist Publications, Inc versus Rural Telephone Service Company 499 US 340 (1991)). The Plaintiff's Counsel further maintains that section 10 (c) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act preserves the moral right of the author of the works including literary works to object to and seek relief in connection with any distortion, mutilation, alteration or modification of the work. In other words the author of the primary work must have consented to the derivative work to be created. In the absence of the Plaintiffs consent, the Defendant or the third-party do not have a defence and the ringtones remain the copyright of the Plaintiff. As to the defence that the Plaintiff's speeches were already in the public domain, the Plaintiff's Counsel submitted that in the case of The Estate of Martin Luther King Jr. Inc (supra), the speech "I have a dream" had gone into the public domain and it was submitted that the copyright did not vest in the estate. The court found that a general obligation only occurs where tangible copies of the work are distributed to the general public in such manner as allows the public to exercise dominion and control of any work or where the work is exhibited or displayed in such manner as to permit unlimited copying by the general public. However in that case it was held that the speech was a limited publication. Furthermore Counsel submitted that there must be dedication of the work to the public which must be so expressly manifest but in the circumstances of this case there was no such dedication. The defence of fair use for purposes of current information of the Plaintiff's political speeches. The Plaintiff's Counsel relies on section 15 (1) (h) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act for the submission that even if all the ringtones were political speeches, the ringtones which were run for over two years do not pass the test of being either news or current information. They were anything but current news. Even if they were, they did not meet the mandatory requirement attached of "fair use" under section 15 (2) (a) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act which provides that fair use is inconsistent with commercial use. Furthermore the Plaintiff's Counsel submitted that the Defendant was selling the ringtones for a fee. The ringtones also failed the test of amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the protected work and the nature of the protected work. The ringtones manifested they were constituted singularly of the Plaintiff's speeches and nothing more. For that reason the test of fair use is absent from the Defendant or the third-party. In the absence of a valid defence pleaded and proved by the Defendant/third-party, the Plaintiff's Counsel submitted that the second issue should be resolved in the affirmative. In reply the Defendants Counsel reiterated submissions on issue one that the Plaintiff's interview is not eligible for copyright and cannot as a consequence thereof be infringed. To constitute infringement of the copyright within the meaning of section 46 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that the Defendant has duplicated or reproduced the copyright material for commercial purposes or for sale. In considering this matter Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 14