Ssengendo for executing the translation. In the circumstances, that is all the Plaintiff was entitled to. But even then the inscription does not make either the Plaintiff or Prof. Ssengendo the owner of the copyright in the sculpture or even in the model as the copyright in both vests in KCC which commissioned and paid for both items. The submissions of Counsel for the Plaintiff relating to Ss. 5, 14 (1) (a) and 35 of the Copyright Act are not applicable in this case. The other issue framed for courts determination is whether or not the Defendant infringed on the Plaintiff’s copyright through its use of the sculpture on the UG. 20,000/ Shs. note. I wish to point out from the outset that, having found that the Plaintiff did not own the copyright in either the model design or the sculpture derived there from, this issue is answered in the negative. Nonetheless, court will make some comments in respect of the arguments raised by both Counsel. The Plaintiff contends that no permission was given to the Defendant to copy the sculptural monument that was reproduced on the note. While the Defendant relies on the exception under S. 15 (1) (g) of the Copyright Act, to argue that the reproduction of the sculpture on the 20,000/- Shs. note did not require consent at it is situate in a public place and its use therefore amounted to fair use. It is true the Defendant Bank used a picture of the sculpture in the midst of a public park, that is, KCC Centenary Park; and printed a photograph of the same onto the 20,000/- shilling currency note. Consequently, no action is made out against the Bank given that the Plaintiff does not obtain a copyright in the in the design she produced. And all the subsequent works, that is, the sculpture or the photographs of the same in a public setting are not her works. As earlier indicated, these are derivative works and the authors are different. The Defendant Bank did not need the permission of the Plaintiff to print the photograph of the sculpture on the currency note. The Defendant did not infringe any right of the Plaintiff as she had none, or the right of the owner of the copyright KCC. Under S. 15 (1) of the Copyright Act, the fair use of a protected work in its original language or in a translation shall not be an infringement of the right of the author and shall not require the consent of the owner of the copyright where(g) Any work of art or architecture in a photograph …… is reproduced and communicated to the public where the work is permanently located in a public place or is included by way of background or is otherwise incidental to the main object represented in the photograph…… Remedies available to the Plaintiff, if any: