A Ugandan media entrepreneur has raised uncomfortable questions about the long-term implications of stricter copyright enforcement being championed by the country’s musicians federation, warning that unintended consequences could harm the very creative ecosystem the policy aims to protect.
Nyanzi Martin Luther, a youth entrepreneur in the digital media space, has challenged whether Ugandan artists fully understand what they’re asking for as the Uganda National Musicians Federation pushes for criminalization of unauthorized music use. His concerns focus particularly on how broad copyright enforcement could devastate Uganda’s unique video translation culture and limit entertainment access for ordinary citizens.
“If we say music should not be used without permission, are we ready for the same rule to apply to films, documentaries, or even educational content?” Nyanzi reportedly asked, pointing to potential ripple effects across Uganda’s informal creative economy. His intervention adds a critical voice to debates that have largely centered on musicians’ rights without fully examining broader cultural and economic implications.
The copyright push gained significant momentum earlier this year when President Yoweri Museveni approved a copyright management system in late February 2025. That presidential endorsement, secured after meetings between government officials and musicians led by UNMF President Eddy Kenzo, established mechanisms for collecting and distributing royalties from public venues including bars, radio stations, and television broadcasters.
Kenzo has expressed confidence that the Copyright Amendment Law will pass before Parliament recesses, with the bill recently gazetted and awaiting presentation to relevant parliamentary committees. The musician-turned-federation-leader frames the legislation as essential protection for artists who’ve historically seen their work exploited without compensation, describing it as potentially revolutionary for Uganda’s music industry.
However, Nyanzi’s critique targets what he sees as incomplete thinking about how aggressive copyright enforcement plays out in practice. He specifically highlighted Uganda’s VJ culture, where video jokers translate and narrate foreign films into local languages, providing affordable entertainment particularly popular in rural and low-income areas. Under strict copyright regimes, these VJs could face arrest or prohibitive licensing fees, effectively killing a cultural practice that serves millions of Ugandans.
“They are struggling for copyright, not knowing it may one day be used to silence or restrict them too,” Nyanzi reportedly stated, suggesting that today’s copyright advocates might become tomorrow’s targets when the enforcement machinery they’re building turns against them. His warning echoes concerns raised by other observers about whether Uganda’s creative community has thought through the double-edged nature of intellectual property law.
Critics of the copyright push argue that many of today’s prominent artists benefited enormously from informal distribution when they were emerging talents. Songs played freely on radio, in taxis, at events, and through unofficial channels helped build their popularity long before they had leverage to demand payments. The question becomes whether successful artists should now shut down the same informal networks that supported their rise.
The debate reflects broader tensions in creative industries worldwide between protecting creators’ economic rights and maintaining cultural accessibility. What makes Uganda’s situation particularly complex is the country’s robust informal creative economy, where strict enforcement could criminalize activities that currently provide livelihoods for thousands while delivering affordable culture to millions more.
Implementation challenges add another layer of complexity. The approved copyright management system reportedly envisions enforcement officers monitoring music use across Uganda’s countless bars, restaurants, events, and broadcasting outlets. If each officer earns approximately UGX 1 million monthly, enforcement costs alone could reach UGX 1.5 billion per month, raising questions about financial sustainability and whether administrative costs will consume most collected royalties before artists see payments.
The Uganda Revenue Authority, Uganda Communications Commission, and the musicians’ association will likely take administrative fees from collected royalties, further reducing what reaches artists. This administrative overhead, combined with challenges of fair distribution among thousands of musicians, has sparked skepticism about whether the system will deliver promised benefits or primarily create bureaucratic employment.
For VJs and other cultural intermediaries, the stakes are existential. Video translation represents not just entertainment but linguistic and cultural adaptation that makes global content accessible to Ugandans who don’t speak English or other foreign languages. Criminalizing this practice without viable alternatives means cutting off entertainment sources for populations already economically marginalized.
Educational content creators face similar concerns. Teachers, documentarians, and community educators frequently use music, film clips, and other copyrighted material in contexts where obtaining formal licenses proves impractical or impossible. Strict enforcement could chill educational initiatives that rely on cultural content to engage audiences, particularly in informal education settings serving disadvantaged communities.
Nyanzi’s call for policymakers to consider wider cultural and economic realities before implementing hardline copyright policies resonates with development experts who note that intellectual property regimes designed for wealthy countries often harm creative ecosystems in developing nations. Uganda’s informal cultural economy functions differently from contexts where most citizens can afford to pay for all content they consume.
The Ministry of Gender and ICT, which oversees both cultural affairs and communications policy, faces the challenge of balancing musicians’ legitimate demands for compensation against broader public interest in cultural access and creative freedom. How ministry officials navigate these competing priorities will significantly shape Uganda’s creative landscape for years to come.
Minister of State for Gender and Culture Peace Mutuuzo attended the February meeting with President Museveni where the copyright system received approval, signaling government commitment to advancing musicians’ agenda. Whether that commitment extends to addressing concerns raised by Nyanzi and others about unintended consequences remains unclear.
The Uganda National Musicians Federation has not publicly responded to Nyanzi’s questions, though the debate is expected to influence upcoming policy discussions. Federation leadership may view such critiques as attempts to undermine artists’ rights, or they might recognize legitimate concerns requiring thoughtful engagement before legislation locks in approaches that prove difficult to modify later.
What’s emerging is a classic tension between individual property rights and collective cultural goods. Musicians understandably want compensation for their creative labor. Simultaneously, culture functions as a shared resource that communities use, adapt, and build upon in ways that don’t always fit neatly into property frameworks designed for physical goods.
Nyanzi’s warning that “if creatives start fighting each other over access and rights, we all lose” captures the risk that copyright enforcement becomes a zero-sum battle pitting musicians against VJs, filmmakers against educators, and established artists against emerging talents. His plea to “protect content, but let’s also protect creativity” suggests seeking balance rather than maximalist positions that sacrifice cultural vitality for economic control.
As Uganda moves toward stricter copyright enforcement, the questions Nyanzi raises won’t disappear simply because musicians want them to. How the country answers them will determine whether its copyright regime nurtures or strangles the diverse creative ecosystem that makes Ugandan culture vibrant, accessible, and economically viable for more than just a small elite of successful artists.