Illegal streaming of live football, rugby and athletics broadcasts is now one of the most common forms of sports-related piracy in Kenya, but the legal tools to fight it are not new or speculative: they already exist in the Copyright Act, Cap 130. Kenyan law protects a broadcast as its own category of copyright work, gives the broadcasting organisation exclusive rights over rebroadcasting and retransmission, and provides a statutory takedown mechanism against internet service providers hosting or carrying infringing streams. This article sets out what current law actually provides, as distinct from separate, not-yet-enacted Copyright Amendment proposals sometimes discussed in the media.
A Broadcast Is a Protected Work in Its Own Right
Section 22(1) of the Copyright Act lists the categories of work eligible for copyright or related rights in Kenya: literary, musical, artistic and dramatic works, audio-visual works, sound recordings, and broadcasts. A live broadcast of a football match is protected independently of any copyright in the underlying footage or the match itself; the broadcaster’s signal, once transmitted, is its own protected subject matter. Section 23(2) fixes the term of protection for a broadcast at fifty years from the end of the year in which the broadcast took place, and the Act identifies the “author” of a broadcast as the first broadcaster, meaning the broadcasting organisation that transmitted it holds the initial ownership.
What the Broadcaster’s Exclusive Rights Actually Cover
Section 29 gives the copyright owner in a broadcast the exclusive right to control, within Kenya, the fixation of the whole or a substantial part of the broadcast, its rebroadcasting, its retransmission over any network, and the decryption of an encrypted broadcast without authorisation. This is the provision a broadcaster licensed to show a match in Kenya, whether a local free-to-air station or a pay-TV operator, relies on against a person who captures the signal and retransmits it, including retransmission over the internet through an unauthorised streaming service or app. Section 35 then defines infringement in general terms: doing, or causing to be done, an act controlled by the copyright without the owner’s licence, including circumventing a technological protection measure used to restrict access, such as the encryption on a pay-TV decoder or streaming service.
Civil Remedies: Damages, Injunctions and Seizure Orders
Section 35(4) gives a rights holder the same range of civil remedies available for infringement of any proprietary right: damages, an injunction, or an account of profits, together with an order for delivery up of infringing copies in the defendant’s possession, and the option to claim a reasonable royalty in place of ordinary damages. Section 37 supplements this with an Anton Piller-type order: the court or the Copyright Tribunal can order the preservation of documents, copies or equipment as evidence, which matters in a piracy case where evidence of an illegal stream, including the equipment or software used to capture and redistribute it, can otherwise disappear quickly.
An injunction is usually the remedy a broadcaster wants urgently during a live tournament, since damages awarded after the event do not stop a match being streamed illegally while it still matters commercially. Section 35D goes further and allows the High Court to order an internet service provider or online host to disable access to a specific online location, service or facility being used for infringement, which is the mechanism used against a streaming site or app itself, rather than only against the individual operating it.
The ISP Takedown Regime: Notice, 48 Hours, Counter-Notice
Sections 35A to 35C set out a notice-and-takedown regime. An internet service provider that merely transmits, routes or automatically caches content is not liable for infringement carried on its network, provided it acts on notice. Section 35B requires an ISP that hosts infringing material to disable access within forty-eight business hours of receiving a valid takedown notice, unless it receives a counter-notice contesting the claim; an ISP that fails to comply within that window becomes fully liable for the resulting loss or damage. Section 35C confirms an ISP has no general obligation to monitor content on its network for infringement, but can be ordered by a court to disclose a subscriber’s identity where infringement is suspected, which is often the first practical step in identifying who is operating an illegal streaming account or channel.
For a broadcaster or federation dealing with pirated streams distributed through social media platforms or dedicated streaming apps, this notice-and-takedown regime, backed by the section 35D blocking order where a platform does not cooperate, is the primary enforcement tool available today.
Criminal Enforcement Alongside Civil Action
Section 38 creates criminal offences for making, selling, distributing or possessing infringing copies for commercial purposes, and for unauthorised public performance of a protected work, such as screening a broadcast in a public venue without a licence. A first conviction under section 38(4) for dealing in infringing copies carries a fine of five times the market value of the legitimate work, or one thousand shillings per infringing copy, whichever is higher, or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; a subsequent conviction doubles both the fine multiplier and the maximum prison term. Public performance infringement under section 38(2) carries a fine of up to five hundred thousand shillings, imprisonment of up to four years, or both. These provisions give rights holders the option of reporting commercial-scale piracy, such as a bar screening pay-per-view matches without a licence, or an operator selling illegal decoder access, to the police or the Kenya Copyright Board for criminal investigation, alongside any civil claim.
How We Can Help
Clay & Associates Advocates advises broadcasters, federations and clubs on protecting broadcast rights, issuing takedown notices, and pursuing civil and criminal remedies against illegal streaming operations. Our guide to merchandising, sponsorship and IP for sports clubs covers trademark and brand protection, a distinct set of rights from the broadcast protection discussed here, and our piece on the Sports Bill 2026 and media rights looks at proposed reforms still going through Parliament. Contact our Sports practice to discuss protecting your broadcast or streaming rights.
Sources: Copyright Act, Cap 130 (No. 12 of 2001), sections 22, 23, 29, 35, 35A, 35B, 35C, 35D, 37 and 38.
Frequently asked questions
Does a Kenyan broadcaster need to separately register its broadcast to get copyright protection?
No. Copyright in a broadcast, like other categories of work under the Copyright Act, arises automatically on transmission; there is no registration requirement to obtain the protection under section 29, though keeping clear records of licence agreements and signal ownership helps prove the claim if it is challenged.
What can a broadcaster do while a match is still being illegally streamed live?
An urgent injunction application is generally the fastest route, and section 35D specifically allows the High Court to order an internet service provider to disable access to the offending stream, site or app. A section 37 preservation order can also secure evidence of the infringement before it disappears.
Is a social media user who shares clips of a match liable under the Copyright Act?
Sharing a substantial part of a broadcast without the broadcaster’s licence can infringe under section 35, though enforcement in practice is usually directed at the platforms and accounts distributing full unauthorised streams commercially rather than individual short clips, and each case depends on its facts.
Is the pending Copyright Amendment Bill on piracy already in force?
No. Any proposed changes to the Copyright Act aimed specifically at streaming piracy remain a bill before Parliament and are not current law. The remedies described in this article, broadcast rights under section 29, the ISP takedown regime, and the civil and criminal provisions, are already in force under the existing Act.
