tunes. The audiovisual recording is the work of the third-party. It is the third-party who commissioned its employees to record the interview of the Defendant. Similarly the works, the subject matter of the suit is the work of the third-party who commissioned its employees to adopt the interview, reduce its speed, made it catchy and interesting and reduced into the appropriate format for caller tunes. The original audiovisual recording of the interview with the Plaintiff was adduced in evidence by the third-party and played in court. It demonstrates that the Plaintiff cannot be called the author of the works on the following grounds namely:     The Plaintiff was answering questions put to him by various persons about the proceedings of the parliamentary vetting committee and other subjects and on the audiovisual recordings there are several voices and persons speaking and it is not exclusively the Plaintiff who was speaking. The Plaintiff did not give a speech of any kind but he merely answered questions that were asked by the assembled journalists and other present people. The Plaintiff did not refer to or consult any notes or prepared speech. The Plaintiff did not record or commission anyone to record the speech but rather it was recorded through the independent efforts of the third-party. The caller tunes were adopted from the audiovisual recording adduced in evidence and the adaptation and conversion was carried out by the third-party. It had nothing to do with the Plaintiff save for the fact that it carried his voice, which does not ipso facto bestow upon the Plaintiff rights as an author. Furthermore the Defendants Counsel relies on the decision of this court in HCCS No. 298 of 2012 Sikuku Agaitano vs. Uganda Baati where the Defendant had used the image of the Plaintiff in photographs and videos for the advertisement of itself and its products. The court held that the persons who created and did the video shooting or the person who carried out the work of shooting the photos and video are the author or authors of the works. The Defendant‟s Counsel contends that the basis of the Plaintiffs claim is the assertion that he is the author of the questioned works. However as demonstrated the Plaintiff is not the author of the works. Even if the court were to find that the Plaintiff was the author of the interview, the Defendant‟s Counsel contends that the Plaintiff would not be entitled to protection under the law and would have no copyright because the work was not original and the Plaintiff never made any arrangements to reduce the work into material form. Furthermore the Plaintiff answers to journalists were neither reduced to material form nor were they original. The Plaintiff never reduced the tunes into material form. The embodiment of the interview was that the Plaintiff was getting out of the precincts of Parliament when he was accosted by journalists and other persons and was interviewed as to the proceedings of the Appointments Committee of Parliament and other matters. It was a spontaneous interview and the Plaintiff admitted under cross examination and it is as well apparent from the audiovisual recording that was played in court as exhibit TP Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 7