Section 2 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act defines audiovisual fixation separately to mean: "works consisting of a series of related images, which impart the impression motion, with or without the accompanying sounds, susceptible of being made visible and where accompanied by sound, susceptible of being audible such as cinema, television or video films." The caller tunes in question are therefore sound recordings of the Plaintiff's voice. There is no controversy about the fact that the Plaintiff is the one who produced the voice comprising of words which were captured by the Third Party‟s agents and stored in a tangible form which forms the subject matter of the suit. However the words were recorded and kept in a tangible form capable of being reproduced and sold to subscribers of the Defendant by the Third Party. There is no doubt in my mind that the Plaintiff never intended the recordings to be made in the manner and used in the way that the caller tunes have been used. There is also no doubt in my mind that the Plaintiff did not collaborate with the third-party or the Defendant for the production and sale of his voice or talk. Furthermore the evidence establishes that the Plaintiff did not consent to and he was not asked for any participation or agreement for the use of his voice in the caller tunes. The sound recording in the sense of putting it in a tangible form was admittedly made by the third-party who claims ownership and as well as authorship. The Plaintiff in his written testimony testified that he had prepared for the interaction with the media. Secondly his testimony is that his speeches or literary works are of original composition and he does not imitate or copy from anyone. Thirdly he testified in writing that the Defendant repeatedly and without any prior authority from him, licence or consent or permission copied or otherwise reproduced the speeches for sale to the public as caller tunes and ringtones for their selfish and illegal economic benefit. Furthermore he protested the violation of his property rights occasioned by the publication for sale of the speeches by the Defendant but this was disregarded by the Defendant and Third Party. The Plaintiff testified as PW1 and was cross examined. He admitted that as a public figure he had been recorded very many times by newspapers, radio stations and TVs and he has not sued any of those stations. He further testified by agreeing under cross-examination that when he gave the interviews and statements in the suit, he knew he would be recorded. He further agreed that the recorded words were spoken in response to questions of members of the press and that the questions were put to him on an impromptu basis. He agreed that he did not allow the Defendant to edit the speeches or to sell the speeches. In re-examination the Plaintiff testified that he gave speeches in Parliament in front of people. They wanted to know his fate in the committee and he tried to answer their questions. He tried to give the information to the journalists but to his surprise he heard them in ringtones whereupon he went to his lawyers and complained. He did not sue the radio and TV stations because they had not tried to duplicate his speech. Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 21