Interior Design Copyright in Tanzania: What's actually protected and for how long?

Highlights Your interior design may be protected by copyright, but the idea behind it may not be. Not every element of an interior design receives the same copyright protection or protection period. A Kenyan designer’s costly copyright dispute shows why registration, contracts and proper records matter. Your drawings may be protected, but without the right paperwork, proving what was copied can become the real challenge. Introduction If you ask most interior designers in Tanzania whether their work is protected, you will likely get some version of the same answer: since it is their design, their original expression and not a copy, it is automatically protected by copyright. That way of thinking is half true and half false. The true part is important; the false part is what can cost interior design companies and individuals money. Legally speaking, copyright arises automatically when an original work is fixed in a tangible form, such as on paper, in a video recording, digital file or photograph. You do not have to register anything to own copyright in a drawing you have created. This is provided for under Section 5 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, Cap. 218 R.E. 2023, hereinafter referred to as “The Act”. But that is only the beginning. Copyright protects the particular expression of a work; it does not protect everything contained in a design. More importantly, not everything in an interior design is protected under copyright. The law protects particular categories of artistic and creative works. In this article, I will take you through what the Act actually says about interior design work, how long different forms of work are protected, and what a Kenyan court decided in a case involving a designer who discovered the limits of copyright protection too late. Further, there is another practical issue. Although copyright arises automatically, failing to register and properly document the relevant parts of your work with the Copyright Society of Tanzania (COSOTA/Ofisi ya Hakimiliki) can create significant challenges when you need to prove your rights against infringement. What Counts as Your Work Under the Law Copyright does not protect everything a designer produces. In fact, it does not necessarily protect the part of the work that most designers consider to be their greatest value: the underlying concept. Section 5 of the Act sets out the categories of works in which copyright may subsist. The phrase “interior design” does not appear as a standalone category. Instead, different elements of an interior designer’s work may fall within several categories recognised by the law. (i) Drawings, architecture and related artistic works Section 5(g) of the Act covers works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography and tapestry. For interior designers, this may extend to built-in and structural elements of a design scheme where they fall within the relevant protected category. (ii) Works of applied art Section 5(i) of the Act covers works of applied art, whether produced by handicraft or on an industrial scale. This is particularly relevant to interior designers because it may include custom furniture, joinery, decorative fittings, bespoke pieces, fabric prints, jacquard weaves, decorative lighting and textiles. Like other works protected under the Act, these works are protected automatically from the moment they are created under Section 5(1), regardless of their form, quality or purpose under Section 5(3). (iii) Plans, sketches and three-dimensional works Section 5(j) of the Act covers illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relating to geography, topography, architecture or science. This is the technical basket, and it may contain much of an interior designer’s working output: floor plans and space layouts, elevations and section drawings, technical drawings, concept sketches, 3D renders, scale models, and site or level drawings for outdoor and landscaped projects. It may also cover interior architecture work where an existing indoor space is structurally remodelled. How long Is Your Interior design work protected in Tanzania? The above segmentation is not merely technical. The category into which a particular work falls can determine how long it is protected and what evidence may be relevant when establishing that it was copied. For most of the work discussed above, the protection period is substantial. Drawings, paintings, plans, sketches, renders and architectural elements are protected for the lifetime of the author plus fifty years after their death under Section 16(1). Where a work is created jointly and the contributions cannot be separated, the fifty-year period runs from the death of the last surviving author under Section 16(2). Video walkthroughs and other audiovisual works are treated differently. Under Section 16(4), protection runs for fifty years from the date the work was made, first made available or published, whichever is latest. Applied art is the notable exception. Custom furniture, joinery and decorative fittings are protected for twenty-five years from the date they were made under Section 16(5). Under Section 16(6), each protection period runs until the end of the calendar year in which it would otherwise expire. For example, a custom-made console made in 2026 would be protected until 31 December 2051. What Is Not Copyrightable in Interior Design? Section 7(c) Some disputes can be avoided at the outset by understanding Section 7(c) of the Act. Copyright protection does not extend to an idea, procedure, method of operation, concept, principle, discovery or mere data, even where that idea or concept is expressed, described, illustrated or embodied in a work. In simple terms, putting an idea into a work does not make the underlying idea yours. What copyright protects is the actual creative expression of that idea. When you draw, write or build something, the particular work may be protected: your drawing, your wording or your particular object. The idea sitting behind that work remains available for others to use. Embedding an idea in a protected work does not make the idea itself subject to copyright. Therefore, whether you have expressed the idea in your own words, described it in a proposal or brief, illustrated it as a sketch or render, or embodied it in a physical room or object, the underlying idea remains unprotected. What may be protected is your specific expression of it. Take this example. A designer’s concept is: "Turn a narrow Masaki apartment into a courtyard feel, with a central planter, pale timber and an open ceiling." The designer then describes this idea in her pitch deck, illustrates it in a render and finally embodies it in the finished apartment. Suppose a competitor sees the photos and does their own courtyard-feel apartment with a central planter and pale timber, using their own drawings. That is not infringement. The concept of Turning a narrow Masaki apartment into a courtyard feel was never protected, even though it appeared in three of her works. On the other hand, it would be infringement if the competitor copied her render, her drawings, or reproduced her specific design closely enough that it is a copy of her expression rather than a fresh take on the same idea. The logic behind this is, if ideas were protected, the first designer to execute an idea or concept would own it; no one else could work. Therefore, the law keeps ideas in the commons and rewards the effort of expressing them. While a designer's most valuable asset is often the concept, it becomes necessary to employ confidentiality and contracts to protect such ideas, especially where they must be communicated to the other parties and secured before they are shared. Your spatial concept is also not protected. Your palette is not protected. Your approach to zoning a small apartment, your signature way of handling light in a hospitality space, your method of specifying materials, none of it is protected, and drawing it out beautifully does not change that. While the drawing is protected, the idea inside the drawing is not. A Lesson from the Kenyan High Court There is, as yet, no Tanzanian decision squarely addressing these facts. But there is a Kenyan decision that offers a useful lesson for interior design studios in Tanzania. In Margaret Soares & Afro Italian Co. Ltd v Simon Kimani Njau t/a Bomas Interior Designs & Others, High Court of Kenya at Milimani Commercial Courts, Civil Case No. 262 of 2010, ruling of Koome J, 9 July 2010, the plaintiff had spent twenty-seven years building a business designing and manufacturing garden ornaments, pots and sculptures. Three of her craftsmen left and were allegedly recruited by a rival, who then began producing near-identical pieces using matching moulds, measurements and engraving. The plaintiff went to court seeking an injunction and an Anton Piller order, which would have allowed her to enter the competitor’s premises and seize the allegedly offending goods and moulds before they disappeared. Applying the test in Giella v Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358, including whether there was a prima facie case with a probability of success and whether irreparable harm would result that could not adequately be compensated by damages, the court refused both orders. Three aspects of the case are particularly instructive. (i) The plaintiff’s registration was reactive. She registered the copyright fourteen (14) days before filing the suit, after she had already become aware of the competing products. The court considered the timing in assessing the evidentiary value of the registration. (ii) The evidence produced was not sufficient to establish precisely what was being protected. The plaintiff relied on marketing photographs of finished products but did not produce dated technical records such as drawings, mould specifications and engraving measurements. Without evidence showing the distinctive features said to be protected, the court could not readily identify what had allegedly been copied. (iii) There was no restrictive contract between the applicant and her former employees. The court noted that the plaintiffs had not exhibited a contract restraining the former employees from creating works of their own after leaving employment. Twenty-seven years of skill, reputation and training did not automatically prevent former workers from using the knowledge and skills they had acquired. This decision is persuasive, rather than binding, in Tanzania. It is nevertheless relevant because Kenya’s copyright framework contains provisions that closely track aspects of Tanzania’s Section 5, and the factual circumstances have obvious parallels with the interior design industry. Studios train junior designers. They engage craftsmen, fundis, joiners and fabricators. Those people may learn a studio’s standards, details, suppliers and working methods and, eventually, some of them may leave. The question is what protection exists when they do. So, What Actually Protects You? Much of what the plaintiffs in the Kenyan case above were missing could have been addressed through documents put in place long before the dispute arose. For interior designers, practical protection should include non-disclosure agreements signed before renderings, drawings or concept books are shared with contractors, fabricators, suppliers or prospective clients. Confidentiality clauses should also be included in vendor and fabrication agreements, particularly where a workshop is producing a bespoke piece. The objective is to prevent the same confidential design information or bespoke work from being reproduced for another client. Client contracts should also contain clear assignment-versus-licence provisions, stating whether the client is acquiring copyright outright or receiving a licence, the scope of that licence and its duration. Section 19(2) of the Act requires assignment of copyright to be in writing and signed, so this should never be left to implication. For staff and craftsmen who have access to the full concept book, drawings, moulds, specifications or other confidential material, confidentiality and appropriate non-solicitation provisions may also be considered. Restraint of trade clauses must be reasonable in scope, duration and geographical reach to be enforceable. Finally, maintain dated and systematic records. Keep version-controlled drawings, dated digital files, signed handover notes and other records showing the development and delivery of your work. These records can become important evidence when asserting your rights against infringement. Conclusion Registration deserves a word of its own because it is widely misunderstood. Registration does not create your copyright because it is clear copyright exists from the moment a qualifying work is created. What registration and contemporaneous dated records can do is provide evidence of when the work existed and assist in proving your rights. That is precisely why timing matters. It is advised to register and record your work early, in the ordinary course of business and long before a dispute arises. A record created after you discover a competitor may be viewed differently from a record created years earlier as part of your ordinary business practices. If you suspect infringement, the first step is not necessarily the loudest one. Depending on the facts, the appropriate response may be a cease-and-desist letter, a formal demand, an urgent application for an injunction, or an application for a search-and-seizure order to preserve evidence before it disappears. These options carry different costs, timelines and risks, including the possibility of a costs order if you overreach. Get legal advice on which option fits your particular circumstances before taking action. If you take one thing from this, let it be this: copyright gives you a floor. It is automatic, free and narrower than many designers may assume. It protects qualifying expressions of your work, not your underlying ideas. Everything above that floor has to be built deliberately and, where appropriate, in writing, before something goes wrong. The designers who are better prepared for a departing craftsman, a copying competitor, or a client who assumes the drawings were always theirs are not necessarily those with the best portfolios, they are the ones with the best paperwork. Disclaimer This article is general information on Tanzanian law and is not legal advice on any specific matter. If you run a design practice and want your client contracts, NDAs, staff agreements and IP records reviewed and put in order before a dispute arises rather than after, that is exactly the kind of work our retainer arrangements are built for. Contact Us Victory Attorneys & Consultants, IT Plaza Building, 1st Floor Ohio Street/Garden Avenue, P.O. Box 72015, Dar es Salaam. WhatsApp: +255 673 717 790 info@victoryattorneys.co.tz https://victoryattorneys.co.tz/