celebrities and public figures all of whom may argue that their expressions should also be afforded the extra ordinary protection of copyright. Such a result was never contemplated by the development of the law regarding common law copyright, and such a result would run counter to the firmly established constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press.… However different or unique Plaintiff's thoughts opinions maybe, the expression of these opinions or thought is too general and abstract to raise the level of the literary or intellectual creation that may enjoy the protection of copyright. Although the general subject matter of the interview may have been outlined in the reporter‟s minds prior to their meeting with the Plaintiff, the actual dialogue, including the unprepared responses of the Plaintiff, was spontaneous and proceeded in a question and answer format. There is no defined segregation, either by design or by implication of any of the Plaintiff's expressions of his thoughts and opinions on the subject discussed which would aid in identifying Plaintiff's purported copyrighted material. In the case at bar, Plaintiff will fully and freely participated in the interview. An interview with members of the media is not a private conversation. Like a press conference, Plaintiff in this action responded to questions in a spontaneous manner and not from a carefully prepared text or even from notes. Moreover, Plaintiff was aware that his comments were not made in the context of a private conversation but rather was destined expressly for dissemination to the public.…" This case supports my conclusion that copyright in a sound recording vest in the producer. The above case is also very persuasive in this case in the sense that the Plaintiff made his utterances in public and meant them to be communicated or disseminated to members of the public. He did not give any restrictions as to how that information was supposed to be used by the people to whom he freely gave his answers. He has not come to this court claiming a tort of appropriation of his personality but claims inter-alia unjust enrichment and copyright infringement. Because he enjoys no copyright in the circumstances, the action for copyright infringement has to fail and is hereby dismissed. The other issues are corollary to the question of whether the Plaintiff enjoyed copyright by virtue of being the author of the works. Because it has been held that the Plaintiff is not the author, it followed that the Plaintiff enjoyed no moral rights under section 10 or 23 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006. Furthermore having held that the Plaintiff enjoyed no copyright to the ringtones, there is no need to consider the issue of derivative rights as well as defences of fair use of existing copyrights as provided for under section 15 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006. With regard to the cause of action founded on unjust enrichment, the cause of action is a species of quasi-contract. The Plaintiff relied on the case of Nipun Norattam Bhatia vs. Crane Bank Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 29