When the Uganda Performing Rights Society (UPRS) announced the distribution of Shs216 million in royalties to eligible rights holders this year, it should have been a moment of celebration for Uganda’s music industry. Instead, it triggered one of the most intense debates the country’s copyright ecosystem has witnessed in recent years. The controversy reached its peak after celebrated musician Douglas Mayanja, alias Weasel, publicly disclosed that he had received Shs285,498 in royalties.
To many fans and industry players, the figure appeared inconceivable for one half of Radio and Weasel, arguably one of Uganda’s most commercially successful music duos whose catalogue has dominated airwaves, concerts and public spaces for nearly two decades. The payment immediately ignited accusations of inefficiency, opacity and possible mismanagement within Uganda’s royalty system. Soon after, Goodlyfe Magic Limited announced its intention to terminate UPRS’ mandate over the Radio and Weasel catalogue, citing concerns over transparency and confidence in the collective management system. What followed was not merely a disagreement over one payment.
It exposed deeper questions about copyright administration, collective management, music rights documentation and whether Uganda’s royalty ecosystem is fit for purpose in an increasingly digital music economy. The debate has become less about one artiste and more about whether the country truly understands how royalties are generated, collected and distributed.
Could the popularity myth be at play here?
It is highly probable. For years, many Ugandans have believed that the biggest musicians automatically receive the biggest royalty cheques. The logic appears straightforward. Radio and Weasel music continues to enjoy regular rotation on radio and television stations, in bars, hotels, restaurants, public events and across digital platforms. Therefore, many assume the duo’s royalty earnings should naturally run into millions of shillings every distribution cycle.
Copyright administration, however, as music business consultant Geofrey Ekongot explains, operates very differently. Popularity alone does not generate royalties. ‘Before any musician receives payment, several processes must happen. A work has to be properly registered. Rights holders must be identified. Ownership percentages have to be documented. The collecting society must hold the necessary mandate,’ Mr Ekongot says, adding that music users must obtain licences and pay for them.
What explains the paperwork behind every song?
Put simply, usage data must be captured, matched to registered repertoire and reconciled before distribution is calculated. Break one link in that chain and even a hit song may fail to generate the royalties its owner expects. That distinction sits at the centre of the current debate. The dispute also highlighted a challenge of weak rights documentation that has quietly existed within the music industry for decades. Many artistes still operate under informal arrangements built on friendships, verbal agreements and studio understandings rather than properly documented contracts. A song may involve composers, lyricists, performers, producers, publishers, featured artistes and investors.
Each may hold different rights requiring clear documentation before royalties can be accurately distributed. Paying a producer for studio time, for example, is not automatically the same as acquiring that producer’s copyright interest. Likewise, paying a featured artiste does not necessarily extinguish future performer rights unless clearly agreed in writing. The Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Amendment) Act, 2026 strengthens this position by recognising written assignments, licences and transfers as central to ownership and rights administration. Without complete documentation, royalty distribution becomes increasingly complex. Many Ugandan musicians have managed successful careers but relatively incomplete rights records.
What has the response from the UPRS been like?
Facing mounting criticism, the UPRS defended its distribution process. Board Chairman Martin Nkoyoyo acknowledged that Shs216 million remains far below what Ugandan creators deserve, describing the latest distribution as ‘one step in a much larger journey’ towards building a stronger copyright economy. He argued that royalty payments are not rewards for fame or membership but compensation based on documented use of registered works and the society’s approved distribution methodology.
Mr Nkoyoyo said the society can only distribute money that has actually been collected from licensed users and matched to registered repertoire, for a particular year. The organisation also clarified that royalties are distributed proportionately rather than equally, meaning some members receive only modest amounts while others receive substantially larger payments depending on documented usage. UPRS further pointed to longstanding structural challenges affecting collective management in Uganda, including low copyright compliance, limited enforcement and widespread unlicensed commercial use of music. In other words, the society insists the size of the royalty pool itself remains one of the industry’s biggest challenges.
What has been the biggest lesson that has emerged from the dispute?
Perhaps the biggest lesson emerging from the dispute is that Uganda’s royalty problem begins long before distribution day.
‘A collecting society cannot distribute money it has never collected,’ Mr Nkoyoyo told the Weekend Monitor in an interview. For years, musicians have complained that businesses continue to play copyrighted music without licences. Others acquire licences but provide incomplete playlists or inadequate usage records. Some broadcasters and entertainment venues reportedly remain outside effective licensing systems altogether.
Consequently, even an efficient distribution formula cannot compensate for a relatively small collection pool. This explains why many observers believe Uganda’s royalty debate should shift from distribution alone towards improving collections, compliance and monitoring. The conversation, therefore, is no longer simply about how money is shared but how much enters the system in the first place. While UPRS has defended its methodology, the public reaction suggests something equally important: a crisis of trust.
Many musicians say they struggle to understand how final royalty figures are calculated. They receive payment notifications but often lack detailed explanations showing which songs generated revenue, how frequently they were used, what ownership percentages were applied and whether some earnings remain suspended because of missing information. Without such visibility, even correctly calculated payments can appear arbitrary. ‘UPRS must move beyond simply issuing payments and instead provide accessible royalty statements explaining every stage of the calculation process,’ songstress Beckie 256 urged adding that transparency is becoming just as valuable as the payment itself.
Can digital tracking be of any help?
The controversy has also renewed calls for technology-driven reform. Uganda National Musicians Federation president Eddy Kenzo has been among those advocating for digital monitoring systems capable of capturing real-time music usage across broadcasters, hospitality businesses and other commercial venues. Supporters argue that automated monitoring would reduce reliance on incomplete playlists and manual reporting while providing more reliable evidence of actual music consumption.
A modern Copyright Management System could potentially generate play-count data, improve repertoire matching and reduce disputes arising from incomplete usage records. Technology alone, however, is unlikely to solve every problem. ‘Digital systems remain dependent on accurate metadata supplied by artists themselves. Songs that are poorly documented, incorrectly registered or missing ownership information may still struggle to generate accurate royalty payments regardless of how sophisticated monitoring becomes,’ Mr Ekongot says. He adds that technology should strengthen-not replace-the existing copyright administration framework.