Madaraka Day Celebration Blunder, That Cost State House Millions Of Money.

During the 57th Madaraka Day celebration in Kenya, the State House media and the organizers of the event made a mistake that finally forced president Uhuru Kenyatta to pay for it.

In the Madaraka Day celebration documentary that was created in the State House and was later shared to major television across the country, had copyrighted content belonging to one Travel Blogger, Ravjir Soin.

After realizing that his content was running on TV, Ravjir Soin had no option but to complain about it. He did that through his social media accounts.

Ravjir Soin, The Youtube Blogger Whose Content Was Used In The Madaraka Day Celebration Documentary.

The blogger complain that, he was shocked to see himself on TV during Madaraka day without any attribution and even permission from him.

“The state has stolen my content with no consent, no permission, no credit and even compensation. My content has been played on a Live television. I am not even counting the fact that they have used my face on live television, which is a separate cost on it’s own.”

For those who understand copyright issues, state house using Ravjir Soin  Youtube footage without permission was a serious mistake. To get permission to use somebody’s copyrighted content, you have to pay some amount of money to get permission.

State house did not take Ravjir Soin complain for granted. Ravjir Soin later post an update on social media saying that the statehouse has reached out to him for a negotiation for using his content without permission.

“I am so grateful for your support and voices. The State House media guys reached out to me.” Here the State House which have to part with a minimum of Ksh. 1 Million.

Copyright is a legal right created by the law of a country, that grants the creator of an original content exclusive rights to it’s use and distribution, usually from a limited time with the intention of enabling the creator to receive compensation for their intellectual efforts.

Therefore the state had acted against Copyright Act section 35 which states that,” copyright can be infringed by a person who without the license of the owner of the copyright does or causes to be done, an act the doing of which is deterred by the copyright and imports or causes to be imported otherwise than for his private and domestic use an article he knows to be an infringement.”