Blog

Understanding Copyrights in Book Publishing in the Digital and AI Era.

aeolawpractice

Copyright law has long been the cornerstone of protection for literary creators and publishers alike. In Nigeria, the Copyright Act 2022 provides the legal framework for safeguarding the rights of authors, publishers, and rightholders. With the onset of the digital and artificial intelligence (AI) revolution, the traditional book publishing industry now faces profound transformation and accompanying legal complexities. This article seeks to demystify copyright in book publishing by exploring the nature, scope, and enforcement of copyright in Nigeria, while examining emerging global challenges shaped by digital technology and AI.

1. The Legal Nature of Copyright in Book Publishing

Copyright is the exclusive legal right granted to authors/creators over their original works of authorship. In book publishing, this includes rights over literary works such as novels, poetry, textbooks, biographies, and other forms of written expression. Section 2(1) of the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022 recognises literary works as eligible subject matter of copyright, provided they are original and fixed in a tangible medium of expression.

Once a literary work is created and fixed, the author automatically acquires exclusive rights under section 9 of the Act, which includes the right to reproduce, publish, adapt, perform, and communicate the work to the public (through wire or wireless means). These rights are essential to enabling authors and publishers control the commercial use of the literary work/content.

Copyright also provides for moral rights, consisting of the right of paternity i.e right to claim authorship over the work and the right of integrity, entailing the right to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action which will negatively affect the reputation of the author in relation to the said work.

2. Ownership, Authorship, and Publisher Rights.

Under section 48 of the Copyright Act 2022, the author of a literary work is the first owner of copyright, which implies that the author retains the initial ownership of copyright in their works, unless a specific agreement states otherwise especially in an instance where the work is created under a contract of employment.

In the publishing context, this distinction is significant. Publishers often secure rights through a license or assignment agreement with the author, which allows the publisher produce and distribute the book while retaining specific commercial benefits. This is crucial in publishing: unless the publishing contract assigns or licenses rights to a publisher, the author remains the copyright owner.

Where a book is written under employment or at the direction of a government agency, the copyright may vest in the employer instead of the author. Similarly, for collective works like anthologies or collaborative publications, the initiator may hold the collective copyright, but each contributor retains the rights to their specific portion and can use it independently.

For any copyright assignment — such as transferring publishing rights to a publisher — the law requires this to be done in writing. On the other hand, non-exclusive licences can be granted orally or implied from the author’s actions.

Importantly, authors should know that ownership of manuscript does not automatically vest copyright ownership in the author except where the manuscript is self published. Likewise, if someone inherits a manuscript through a will, they are not presumed to inherit the copyright as well — unless there is a copyright agreement providing that copyright vests in the author.

3. Case Law on Copyright and Publishing.

One notable Nigerian case that highlights the importance of written agreements in copyright ownership is the Court of Appeal’s decision of  Adenuga v. Ilesanmi Press Ltd [1991], where the court addressed the legal issue of whether the appellant, author of the manuscript in issue had consented to the publication of his book by the respondent publisher and printer, based on the respondent’s assertion that the appellant’s conduct—submitting the manuscript, visiting the publisher’s premises, and signing proof pages—amounted to consent. The Court of Appeal however held these acts were insufficient to imply consent to publication, as they could equally support a mere request for printing. Additionally, the respondent’s policy distinguished between printing and publishing, with publication requiring a written agreement, which was absent in this case.

The Court of Appeal found the letter demanding royalty, which the trial judge admitted in evidence, led to a wrong decision at the court of first instance. The respondent’s claim of authority to publish the book was based on an alleged exclusive license. However, under the Copyright Act 1970, such a license must be in writing. No such document was produced, and the respondent’s reliance on implied conduct was rejected. The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court erred in finding a non-exclusive license where the defence had only pleaded an exclusive one. It set aside the lower court’s decision, found the respondent wanting for copyright infringement, and directed that the cost ordered by the trial court to be paid to the respondent publisher be refunded.

4. Licensing and Royalties in Book Publishing.

Copyright ownership does not necessarily require the author to personally publish or commercialise their book. Through licensing, an author can grant permission to a publisher to exploit some or all rights in the work for a fee or royalty. Section 30 allows copyright owners grant exclusive or non-exclusive licenses to third parties, with specific rules, including that exclusive licenses must be in writing, while non-exclusive licenses can be oral or inferred. For example a non-exclusive license can be inferred where the author grants a book seller the permission to review the literary work at a monthly bookclub organised by the book seller.

On the other hand royalty provisions are central to the financial viability of publishing agreements. However, ambiguity in royalty arrangements often leads to disputes. Contracts should clearly specify the scope of rights granted, the duration of use, territories covered, royalty rates, and audit rights. With the rise of digital publishing, new forms of licensing such as e-book and audiobook distribution have emerged, necessitating updated contractual frameworks.

In the Nigerian publishing landscape, especially in contexts involving educational access or out-of-print books, compulsory licensing remains a pivotal regulatory mechanism. Section 32 of the Copyright Act 2022 introduces a significant provision for access to education and research. It authorizes the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) to grant compulsory licences for the reproduction, translation, or distribution of a work without the consent of the rights holder in certain public interest scenarios.

For example, where a literary work such as a textbook is not available in sufficient quantities or at an affordable price, especially for educational institutions, the NCC may issue a licence to reproduce or distribute such work under specific conditions. This provision ensures a balance between the exclusive rights of copyright holders and the societal need for access to knowledge.

A critical application of this framework is seen in the digitisation of academic materials for platforms serving visually impaired persons or public libraries, where the original publisher may not have issued accessible formats. While the author or publisher still receives royalties under such a licence, their control over reproduction and distribution is effectively limited in favour of public access.

This compulsory license framework becomes even more significant in the age of AI and digital publishing, where data-hungry models may rely on vast textual corpora for training. Although the Act does not directly address AI training datasets, publishers should be aware that a regulatory evolution could one day allow similar licenses for digital uses that are deemed essential to public interest—such as AI-generated educational content or accessibility tools.

This provision aligns Nigeria’s copyright law with global efforts promoting access to knowledge, especially in education and research. Section 32 thus represents an important exception to the rights conferred under copyright, offering an administrative check to ensure that the monopolies granted by law do not hinder educational development, cultural participation, or technological innovation.

5. The Digital Transformation of Book Publishing.

The digitalisation of content has dramatically altered how books are published and consumed. Platforms like Amazon Kindle, VitalSource Bookshelf, and Selar in Nigeria have enabled self-publishing, expanded readership, and lowered entry barriers for authors.  However, while technology empowers authors and publishers to reach global audiences, it also introduces serious challenges—chief among them is online piracy and unauthorized sharing of content.

To address this, the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022 provides robust statutory safeguards tailored for the digital age. Sections 54 to 56 of the Act establish a clear notice-and-takedown regime for service providers: EdTech, blogs, websites, digital and ePublishers, enabling copyright holders to act swiftly when their works are uploaded or shared online without authorisation.

5.1  Takedown Requests: What Authors and Publishers Can Do.

Under section 54(1), the owner of a copyright—such as a publisher ( in the case where the work has been assigned to the publisher) or author—may issue a formal notice of infringement to the digital platform or service provider where the content is being uploaded, such as a file-hosting service, e-library, or social media network. The purpose is to request the takedown or disabling of access to infringing material.

To be valid, the notice must be in writing (physical or digital) and include detailed information identifying the copyrighted work, the infringing content, and a sworn declaration affirming the belief that the use is unauthorised. This puts authors and rightholders in a proactive position to protect their digital assets.

5.2 Obligations of Service Providers.

Upon receiving such a notice, the service provider who in this case is a website, online or digital platform, must act promptly: notify the subscriber who posted the content, take down the infringing material, and inform the copyright owner once it has been removed.

In a balanced approach, the Act allows the accused subscriber to respond with a counter-notice if they believe the takedown was mistaken or misdirected. If the copyright owner does not respond within seven days, the service provider may reinstate the content.

Additionally, the Act imposes a duty on service providers to prevent re-uploading of infringing content through technical safeguards and to remove it again without further notice if it resurfaces.

5.3 Repeat Infringers and Account Suspension.

In cases of repeated infringement, section 56 of the Act introduces a three-strike rule. The digital or online platform must issue a warning after the first notice and suspend the subscriber’s account for at least one month after a second notification—unless the subscriber challenges the notice and refers the matter to the Nigerian Copyright Commission.

This procedure creates a structured digital enforcement mechanism while preserving the rights of both copyright owners and platform owners.

5.4 Legal Protection for Service Providers Acting in Good Faith.

To encourage compliance and cooperation, the Act shields digital, ed tech platforms from liability when they act in good faith to take down or disable access to infringing content. However, failure to act as required may result in the provider being held jointly liable with the infringing party for copyright violation.

5.5 Why This Matters in the Publishing Industry.

For authors, digital publishers, and edtech platforms, these provisions offer critical tools to safeguard their work. As more Nigerian authors distribute books via websites, learning platforms, and global marketplaces like Amazon Kindle or Genti Media, understanding the legal framework for content protection is essential.

This regime ensures that creators can protect their revenue streams, enforce their rights, and hold platforms accountable — a necessary foundation for sustainable growth in Nigeria’s evolving publishing ecosystem.

6. Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Challenges.

The rise of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has brought significant disruptions to traditional copyright paradigms. AI tools like ChatGPT, DALL·E, and Midjourney now create content that closely mimics human creativity—ranging from prose and poetry to musical sheets and more. However, their output poses a fundamental question: who owns copyright in a work largely or wholly produced by a non-human entity?

Under the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022, authorship is implicitly human-centric, and it does not recognize non-human creators. Consequently, AI-generated works—particularly those created without meaningful human intervention— has not been captured to qualify for copyright protection in Nigeria. This lack of legal clarity places an obligation on authors to disclose whether or not their work was either assisted by AI or generated by AI in order for publishers to determine the duration of the work whilst providing feedback for developers to ascertain the extent to which the AI models created, renders the desired outcome of the invention.

Globally, jurisdictions have begun confronting similar challenges. In the UK, Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides that for computer-generated works, the author is “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.” Recent scholarship, of Nikhil Mishra, and Digvijay Singh in the article, ‘AI-Generated Work and its Implications on Copyright Law in India’, emphasizes that while this human-centric approach is logical, it must evolve to ensure that only users who provide sufficiently original input—like complex prompts or editorial refinement—can claim authorship.

Meanwhile, in the United States, courts and the U.S. Copyright Office have repeatedly affirmed that only works with a human author are eligible for protection. This was reaffirmed in the Thaler v. Perlmutter decision, which denied copyright to a work solely created by an AI system. Similarly, in India, while Section 2(d)(vi) Copyright Act provides for authorship in computer-generated works, legal scholars argue that a mere user prompt is likely insufficient to satisfy the “minimum level of creativity” test for originality.

These developments illustrate a global hesitancy to accept AI as an autonomous creative agent. While some frameworks—like the UK’s—tentatively acknowledge AI-generated works, they still tether authorship to a human agent who exercises creative control.

In Nigeria, the current legal position reflects this cautious global trend. As such, authors and publishers using AI in their creative workflows must ensure that human contributions remain central and verifiable. This includes clearly defined roles in publishing contracts and documented human input in the creation process. This will however, require that the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022, clarifies the duration of works derived from human intervention on works generated from AI notwithstanding that the Act maintains a humancentric approach.

The road ahead likely involves legislative reform and possibly the additional recognition of new rights structures—such as neighboring or sui generis rights—for AI-assisted/generated works. For now, however, the principle remains clear: only humans can author copyright-protected works under Nigerian law, and AI must remain a tool, not a co-author.

7. International Frameworks and the Nigerian Context.

Nigeria is a signatory to several international treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), including the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the WIPO Copyright Treaty. These instruments obligate Nigeria to provide minimum standards of protection and facilitate international cooperation.

The UNESCO publication “The ABCs of Copyright” and WIPO Publication on digital publishing both stress the need for rights management, metadata standards, and technology tools such as Digital Rights Management (DRM) to combat piracy and enhance copyright governance in publishing.

8. Recommendations for Authors and Publishers.

In an increasingly digital and AI-driven publishing environment, authors and publishers must be proactive in protecting their rights. This includes registering their works with the Nigerian Copyright Commission, drafting detailed publishing license and/or assignment agreements with clarity on royalties, and using technological tools for content protection. Legal literacy and ongoing education, such as through copyright masterclasses and creative industry workshops, are equally critical.

Conclusion.

Copyright remains a vital asset in the book publishing industry, ensuring that creators and publishers can derive value from their intellectual efforts. While the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022 offers a comprehensive framework for protection, the evolution of digital technologies and AI presents new challenges that demand innovative responses. By embracing best practices in copyright management and engaging with legal developments, authors and publishers in Nigeria can thrive in the modern publishing landscape.

References

1. Adenuga v. Ilesanmi Press Ltd [1991] 5 NWLR (Pt. 189) 82

    2. UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

    3. Copyright Act 2022 (Nigeria)

    4. Nikhil Mishra, and Digvijay Singh, ‘AI-Generated Work and its Implications on Copyright Law in India’, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 30 January 2025

    5. United States District Court for the District of Columbia [2023]: Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 22-CV-384-1564-BAH

    6. WIPO, ‘Publishing Industry in the Digital Environment’ (WIPO Publication No 868, 2021)

    7. UNESCO, ‘The ABCs of Copyright’ (UNESCO Publication, 2010) <https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000187677> Accessed 6 April 2025

    8. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886, as amended 1979)

    9. WIPO Copyright Treaty (adopted 20 December 1996, entered into force 6 March 2002)

    Author: Adeola Osifeko LLB LLM ACIS ABR, is a Partner at AEO Law Practice

    Revised on 29 May 2025.

    Navigating the Nigeria Data Protection Act – GAID: Compliance Strategies for Data Processors & Data Controllers.

    aeolawpractice

    Introduction.

    On 20 March 2025, the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) issued the General Application and Implementation Directive (GAID) pursuant to its powers under the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (NDPA 2023).1 This directive serves as a comprehensive framework guiding compliance with the NDPA 2023, ensuring that data protection obligations are clearly understood and effectively implemented across various sectors, including startups and small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

    The GAID, structured into 52 Articles and 10 Schedules, replaces the Nigeria Data Protection Regulation (NDPR) 2019 and its Implementation Framework 2020, as such, acts carried out during their subsistence, remain valid. For businesses, particularly startups and SMEs, aligning with the GAID is crucial for data compliance, regulatory approval, and market competitiveness. This article examines the implementation requirements and effectiveness of the GAID, drawing comparative insights from the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, and outlining practical compliance strategies for startups and SMEs.

    Key Implementation Requirements Under the GAID.

    The GAID mandates data controllers/data processors to comply with twenty-three key compliance measures, including registration as a Data Controller or Data Processor of Major Importance (DCPMIs), annual compliance audits for Ultra-High and Extra-High-Level DCPMIs before 31 March each year, and semi-annual data protection reports assessing data processing activities every six months.2 In the United Kingdom, data controllers must register with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and conduct periodic Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.3 Similarly, Australia’s Privacy Act 1988 mandates that businesses handling personal data implement Privacy Management Plans (PMPs) to regularly assess compliance.4 For the Nigerian data processor, data controller or business/body  determining the purposes and means of processing personal data, adopting similar risk-based assessments ensures readiness for audits and regulatory compliance.

    The GAID further introduces a revised template for conducting annual compliance audits, with filing fees up to NGN1,000,000 for Ultra-High-Level DCPMIs processing over 50,000 data subjects.5 In Canada, under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), organizations must submit privacy audit reports to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC).6 This provision is similar with Nigeria’s GAID, which mandates transparent reporting mechanisms to maintain compliance. For Nigerian startups and SMEs processing personal data, the increased filing fees require budgetary planning to avoid defaults which attracts regulatory penalties.

    The GAID clarifies that reliance on legitimate interest as a lawful basis for processing personal data requires a Legitimate Interest Assessment (LIA).7 In the UK, the ICO’s Legitimate Interests Assessment (LIA) Framework requires organizations to document assessments before relying on legitimate interest.8 In Australia, organizations must demonstrate proportionality when relying on legitimate interest, ensuring data protection rights remain uncompromised. The Legitimate Interest Guidance provided by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) plays a crucial role in regulating fairness and reasonableness requirements for entities. It emphasizes that data handling practices must be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate, aligning with principles recognized under the Privacy Act 1988. This ensures that entities do not override individuals’ rights without proper justification.9 For Nigerian the startups and SMEs, this means conducting thorough assessments before relying on legitimate interest is essential to avoid the risk attached to non-compliance.

    Another key provision of the GAID is the introduction of the Standard Notice to Address Grievance (SNAG), a mechanism allowing data subjects to formally notify a data controller or processor if they reasonably believe that their right to data privacy has been violated. However, the submission of a SNAG is not a condition precedent for lodging a complaint with the NDPC or instituting legal action in court. Rather, it serves as a structured means for seeking internal redress from an organization suspected of infringing on a data subject’s privacy rights. Upon receiving a SNAG, the data controller or processor is required to communicate its decision on the matter to the NDPC through the electronic portal set up by the Commission.10 This provision is similar to Canadian provision, under PIPEDA, where individuals must first seek resolution with the organization before lodging complaints with the OPC.11 For Nigerian startups/SMEs, implementing internal data subject complaint mechanisms if well managed reduces and enhances consumer trust whilst eliminating the cost of securing the intervention of the Commission or instituting a lawsuit in addressing personal data infringement.

    Aligning Startups and SMEs with the GAID: Compliance Strategies.

    Data Controllers and Processors within the Nigerian Startups and SMEs ecosystem must develop an internal data protection compliance framework through data audits to manage personal data flows whilst designating Data Protection Officers (DPOs).12 Implementing risk-based data protection measures, such as encryption and access control mechanisms, is essential. Compliance with Data Breach Notification within 72 hours should be prioritized.13

    Data Processing Software Compliance Under GAID.

    The GAID imposes strict compliance obligations on Data Controllers and Processors deploying data processing software that enables tracking or facilitates swift personal data processing while establishing a communication link with data subjects, by mandating any data controller or processor using such software to conduct a Data Privacy Impact Assessment (DPIA) before deployment.14 Software must be designed in line with the principles of privacy by design and by default, adhere to data security guidelines, and include a privacy policy within the software interface. Additionally, the directive requires data controllers and processors to provide a privacy statement before installation, explicitly informing users of the types of personal data to be processed, the lawful purpose for processing, and the security measures in place to protect their data.¹5

    By mandating these measures, the GAID aligns with global best practices. For instance, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) requires DPIAs for software used to track or profile users, ensuring compliance with GDPR principles.16 Also in Australia, privacy-by-design principles are emphasized under the Privacy Act 1988, mandating software developers and organizations to integrate privacy safeguards at every stage of development. It is therefore required of Nigerian Data Processors utilizing data processing software to ensure compliance with these regulations to avoid reputational risks.

    The NDPC is committed to an open-door policy that balances individual rights with economic progress. To strengthen compliance, the Commission will issue guidance notices, advisories, and capacity-building programs to promote a robust data privacy culture across Nigeria, although the full implementation of the GAID 2025 will commence in September 2025, following a six-month transition period. Provisions related to fees and financial obligations will take effect in January 2026, allowing data controllers and processors ample time to comply with regulatory requirements. These measures aim to ensure a smooth transition while reinforcing Nigeria’s evolving data protection framework.

    Conclusion

    The GAID provides a structured compliance roadmap for data processors and controllers, ensuring alignment with the NDPA 2023 by incorporating international best practices from the UK, Australia, and Canada. With the GAID 2025, Nigerian businesses can be consistent with regulatory compliance, strengthen consumer trust, and mitigate data risks. Startups and SMEs must take proactive steps to implement data protection policies to secure long-term sustainability in Nigeria’s digital economy.

    Endnotes

    1. Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, ss 1(a), 6(c), 61, and 62
    2. Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, s 2.
    3. Data Protection Act 2018 (UK), s 16.
    4. Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Australia), s 33.
    5. Nigeria Data Protection Act – General Application and Implementation Directive 2025, art 10(6).
    6. Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, SC 2000, c 5 (Canada).
    7. GAID 2025, art 26(1), Schedule 8.
    8. Information Commissioner’s Office, ‘Guide to the UK GDPR: Legitimate Interests’ (ICO, 2024) < https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/lawful-basis/a-guide-to-lawful-basis/legitimate-interests/&gt; Accessed 23 March 2025.
    9. Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, ‘Legitimate Interests Guidance’ (OAIC, 2024) <https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/the-privacy-act/review-of-the-privacy-act/privacy-act-review-issues-paper-submission/part-6/&gt; Accessed 23 March 2025.
    10. GAID 2025, art 40(2),(5) & (6).
    11. PIPEDA (Canada), s 13.
    12. GAID 2025, art 11
    13. GAID 2025, art 33
    14. GAID 2025, art 31
    15. Ibid
    16. Information Commissioner’s Office, ‘Guide to the UK GDPR: When Do We Need A DPIA’ (ICO, 2024) <https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/accountability-and-governance/data-protection-impact-assessments-dpias/when-do-we-need-to-do-a-dpia/> Accessed 23 March 2025

    #DataProtection #GAID2025 #NDPA2023 #DataProtectionCompliance

    Written by Adeola Osifeko LLB, LLM, BL, ACIS, ABR

    The Legal Practitioners Remuneration Order 2023: Will It Strengthen or Strain the Legal Industry?

    aeolawpractice

    The legal industry in Nigeria is undergoing a significant transformation with the introduction of the Legal Practitioners Remuneration (For Business, Legal Service and Representation) Order 2023 (LPRO 2023). This regulatory framework, established under the Legal Practitioners Act (Cap LII, LFN 2004), seeks to standardise fees for legal practitioners across various areas of legal practice. While its objectives include ensuring fair compensation for lawyers and preventing fee undercutting, the broader economic and business implications of this regulation are profound. Against the backdrop of Alternative Legal Service Providers (ALSPs), this Order raises questions about its potential to strengthen or strain the legal profession in Nigeria.

    Economic and Business Implications of LPRO 2023 on the Legal Profession

    LPRO 2023 introduces minimum fees for various legal services, including consultations, incorporation of companies, litigation, property transactions, and other commercial dealings.1 By establishing prescribed fees, the regulation aims to curb price undercutting, which has historically affected law firms, particularly small and mid-sized firms. This structured pricing model ensures that practitioners receive adequate remuneration commensurate with their experience and the complexity of legal services rendered. However, the regulation also introduces rigid constraints on pricing flexibility, potentially impacting market competitiveness.

    For established law firms, particularly those operating in corporate commercial law and litigation, the LPRO 2023 provides a more predictable revenue stream2. Firms that cater to high-net-worth clients or corporate entities may find this beneficial as it aligns with international best practices. However, for younger lawyers, solo practitioners, and small firms that rely on competitive pricing to attract clients, the LPRO 2023 presents a challenge. Many clients, especially startups, SMEs, and individuals seeking legal representation for minor matters, may opt for ALSPs, online legal platforms, or non-traditional legal service providers offering more affordable solutions.

    The rigidity in the Order also poses concerns in dispute resolution practices. Given the increasing global shift towards flexible billing arrangements such as contingency fees, fixed retainers, and subscription-based legal services, the LPRO 2023 appears to constrain such innovations.3 While it does allow for percentage-based fee arrangements, it does not permit any arrangement below the prescribed hourly rate, thus limiting lawyers’ ability to tailor their services to market demands.

    The Rise of Alternative Legal Service Providers (ALSPs) and the LPRO 2023

    The global legal market has witnessed a surge in Alternative Legal Service Providers (ALSPs), which offer legal solutions outside the traditional law firm model.4 These entities, ranging from legal tech companies, document review services, online dispute resolution (ODR) platforms, contract automation providers, and freelance legal consultants, leverage technology and process efficiencies to deliver cost-effective legal services.

    In Nigeria, ALSPs are emerging as formidable competitors to traditional law firms, particularly in areas like legal research, contract drafting, compliance, and regulatory advisory services.5 With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven legal research tools, automated document generation platforms, and online corporate registration services, ALSPs are addressing clients’ needs faster and at lower costs.

    The LPRO 2023 inadvertently favours the rise of ALSPs by making traditional law firms less attractive to cost-conscious clients. A small business seeking corporate registration, for instance, may find online incorporation services preferable to engaging a law firm that charges statutory minimum fees as stipulated in the Order.6 Similarly, businesses needing contract review and compliance services may opt for subscription-based ALSPs rather than law firms constrained by hourly rate requirements.

    Furthermore, ALSPs often operate in a less regulated environment compared to traditional law firms. While law firms must adhere strictly to professional ethics rules and LPRO 2023’s fee structure, ALSPs may offer customised, on-demand pricing models.7 This regulatory gap could create an uneven playing field, where ALSPs thrive while traditional law firms struggle with compliance costs.

    The Role of the NBA and Regulatory Bodies in Shaping ALSPs within the Legal System

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the Legal Practitioners Remuneration Committee (LPRC) play crucial roles in shaping the legal market, particularly regarding ALSP operations. LPRO 2023, by its design, primarily regulates traditional legal practitioners but does not comprehensively address how ALSPs fit into the legal ecosystem.8

    The NBA has an obligation to define the regulatory boundaries for ALSPs, ensuring that while innovation is encouraged, it does not undermine the traditional legal profession. Possible regulatory responses include:

    1. Bridging the Regulatory Gap: The NBA could introduce specific regulations to cover ALSPs, ensuring they operate within a defined legal framework. This could include licensing requirements, ethical codes, and restrictions on certain reserved legal activities.9
    2. Collaboration Between Law Firms and ALSPs: The NBA could encourage synergy between ALSPs and law firms, rather than fostering direct competition. By permitting law firms to integrate ALSP models (such as automated legal research tools and contract lifecycle management solutions), practitioners could enhance efficiency while remaining within the LPRO 2023 framework.10
    3. Reforming Fee Structures for Greater Flexibility: The rigid minimum fees imposed by the Order may require periodic review. The NBA could consider allowing alternative fee structures, such as tiered pricing models for SMEs, startups, and social enterprises, to ensure legal services remain accessible while sustaining law firm profitability.11
    4. Addressing Ethical Concerns and Consumer Protection: Given the rise of unregulated online legal services, the NBA must establish consumer protection policies to prevent unauthorized practice of law (UPL) and data privacy breaches in tech-driven legal services.12
    5. Promoting Technology-Driven Legal Services within the Traditional Bar: The NBA can train and support law firms in adopting legal tech solutions rather than allowing ALSPs to dominate the market. By incorporating document automation, e-discovery tools, and AI-based research, traditional law firms can compete effectively without violating the LPRO 2023 pricing model.13

    Conclusion

    The Legal Practitioners Remuneration Order 2023 presents both opportunities and challenges for Nigeria’s legal industry. While its intent is to promote fair remuneration and standardise fees, its economic impact could inadvertently drive clients towards ALSPs and alternative legal solutions. Traditional law firms, particularly smaller firms and solo practitioners, may struggle to retain clients in a market where cost efficiency and flexible pricing are increasingly prioritised.

    The NBA and regulatory bodies must therefore strike a balance between protecting traditional legal practice and embracing the innovations brought by ALSPs. Through strategic regulatory reforms, collaboration with ALSPs, and modernising fee structures, Nigeria’s legal profession can evolve without losing its competitive edge. The future of legal practice in Nigeria will depend on how well regulators and practitioners navigate this complex intersection between standardisation, innovation, and market competitiveness.

    Author: Adeola Osifeko LLB, LLM, BL,ACIS,ABR

    Endnotes

    1. Legal Practitioners Remuneration Order 2023, s 1.
    2. ibid.
    3. 2023 LPRO, s 8.
    4. Nkemakonam Umeadi-Onyedika, ‘The Rise of Alternative Legal Service Providers: Threat or Opportunity’. BusinessDay Newspaper, 13 March 2025 Page 21.
    5. ibid.
    6. 2023 LPRO, Schedule 2.
    7. 2023 LPRO, s 10.
    8. 2023 LPRO, s 14.
    9. ibid.
    10. ibid.
    11. ibid.
    12. ibid.
    13. ibid.

    Developing an Efficient IP Portfolio Strategy for Startups and SMEs: Beyond Legal Compliance.

    aeolawpractice

    Introduction

    Intellectual Property (IP) is a significant asset for startups and small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), not only for legal protection but also as a tool for commercial growth and competitive advantage. This is why SMEs should focus on an effective IP portfolio strategy, structured towards managing and leveraging intellectual property (IP) assets for commercial and strategic advantage. It goes beyond mere registration to actively protect, monetize, and integrate IP into business growth plans.

    While many businesses focus on fulfilling registration requirements, an effective IP portfolio strategy should align with broader business goals, including market expansion, fundraising, and brand positioning. This article explores how startups and SMEs can leverage their IP assets beyond mere legal compliance to drive commercial success.

    Understanding the Business Value of IP

    A well-developed IP portfolio strengthens a company’s market position, attracts investors, and increases valuation. Patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets provide legal protection while also making commercial avenues available to the business in form of licensing, franchise, merchandising and assignment of IP i.e transferring ownership of IP assets to another entity for a lump sum or structured payments. For example, trademarks enhance brand recognition, and strengthens market positioning, patents secure technological innovations, and trade secrets protect proprietary business processes. Businesses that effectively manage their IP tend to experience greater investment interest and financial growth. Startups and SMEs that strategically develop their IP portfolios can establish a competitive edge within their industries and create long-term business sustainability.

    Aligning IP Strategy with Business Objectives.

    An IP strategy should be integrated into a company’s business development plan. Startups and SMEs need to identify the core aspects of their business that require IP protection and select the appropriate rights accordingly. For instance, a technology startup specializing in artificial intelligence may prioritize patent protection and software copyright, whereas a fashion brand may focus more on trademark and industrial design registration. Investors often view a strong IP portfolio as an indicator of business stability and innovation potential. By ensuring that IP management aligns with broader commercial objectives, startups can enhance their financial and operational prospects.

    Prioritizing Key IP Assets

    Given the financial limitations of many startups, prioritizing the most valuable IP assets is essential. Conducting an IP audit allows businesses to assess which assets provide a competitive advantage. Companies should categorize their IP as: core IP, which is directly linked to primary products or services; supporting IP, which contributes to brand visibility and credibility; and monetizable IP, which can generate revenue through licensing, franchise and distribution agreements. The Nigerian Startup Act 2022[i] emphasizes the importance of IP identification and protection, offering regulatory support to help startups register and commercialize their intellectual assets. The Act also includes incentives such as tax relief and funding to encourage startups to actively safeguard their IP.

    Leveraging IP for Competitive Advantage.

    Some of West Africa’s leading companies have demonstrated how intellectual property can be leveraged to create lasting competitive advantages. One notable example is Dangote Group, which has secured trademarks across multiple markets, reinforcing brand trust and preventing unauthorized use of its name in sectors such as cement, salt, and consumer goods. This strategic use of IP protection has allowed Dangote to dominate industries while maintaining a strong corporate identity.

    In the technology sector, Flutterwave, a Nigerian fintech unicorn, has actively protected its proprietary payment technology through patents and trademarks, ensuring its brand remains distinctive in the growing African digital payments ecosystem. By securing its innovations and licensing its solutions to partners, Flutterwave has scaled its operations across multiple African countries while preventing competitors from exploiting its technology.

    Another example is MTN Group, one of Africa’s largest telecommunications firms, which has strategically used trademarks and copyrights to protect its digital services and content. By securing exclusive rights over its mobile financial service platform, MTN MoMo, the company has established a trusted digital payments brand, preventing market dilution and unauthorized replication of its service offerings.

    These examples illustrate how effective IP management goes beyond legal registration. By licensing proprietary technologies, forging strategic partnerships, and protecting brand identity, companies can reinforce their market presence and increase profitability. For startups and SMEs, following the lead of established firms in leveraging IP can significantly enhance business sustainability and long-term success.

    Cost-Effective IP Management Strategies.

    Since many startups operate within budget constraints, managing IP efficiently is crucial. Businesses can reduce costs by using provisional patent applications, which secure an early filing date before committing to the full cost of a patent. Regional trademark and patent registrations may be prioritized based on market relevance, rather than pursuing global coverage. Several renowned technology startups have successfully adopted hybrid models to balance proprietary rights with open-source accessibility.

    For example, Dropbox has taken a hybrid approach with projects like Lepton, a streaming image compression format. They maintained proprietary rights over the compression technique, which provided significant business value, while open-sourcing the project to engage the community and encourage broader adoption. This strategy allowed Dropbox to benefit from community-supported development and code review while protecting aspects of the software that are unique to their business or provide a competitive advantage.[ii]

    Another example is the Advanced Technology Research Council (ATRC) in Abu Dhabi, which developed and released a series of large language models named Falcon for free. This open-source approach bolstered the UAE’s credibility in the AI field and allowed global developers to download, modify, and integrate these models, fostering widespread adoption and collaboration. [iii]

    These cost-conscious approaches allow startups to safeguard core innovations while fostering industry collaboration, market penetration, and increased adoption. By striking a balance between proprietary protection and selective openness, businesses can optimize their IP assets while allocating resources strategically.

    Enforcing and Protecting IP Assets

    Securing IP rights is only part of the equation; enforcement is equally important. Startups should actively monitor for potential infringements by using an IP lawyer to carry out watch services and deploy digital tracking tools. Additionally, establishing clear IP ownership agreements with employees and contractors helps prevent disputes and unauthorized disclosures. In the event of infringement, businesses can explore alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to address conflicts in a cost-effective manner. The Nigerian Copyright Act 2022 provides legal frameworks for startups to enforce copyright protection, offering provisions for seeking damages and injunctions against unauthorized use.[iv] By utilizing these mechanisms, startups can protect their creative assets and deter exploitation.

    IP as a Fundraising and Investment Tool

    For startups seeking investment, a strong IP portfolio can significantly enhance credibility and valuation. Some investors may frequently assess the extent to which a business has protected its intellectual assets before committing financial resources. Highlighting registered patents and trademarks in investment pitches can strengthen a startup’s appeal, in addition to demonstrating how IP protection mitigates competitive risks. Some businesses also explore IP-backed financing, using their intangible assets as collateral for securing funding. Effectively leveraging IP in fundraising efforts increases a company’s chances of securing long-term financial support.

    Conclusion

    An efficient IP portfolio strategy is more than a legal necessity; it is a fundamental driver of business growth. Startups and SMEs must integrate IP management into their overall strategy, identifying and prioritizing key assets while leveraging their IP for competitive advantage. Protecting and enforcing IP rights ensures that businesses retain control over their innovations while enhancing their appeal to investors and commercial partners. By taking a proactive approach, startups can transform their intellectual assets into powerful economic tools that sustain long-term success.

    Endnotes

    [i] 2022 Nigeria Startup Act, s 31.

    [ii]  Gideon Myle, ‘Balancing Open Source and Proprietary IP’:Dropbox Tech Blog, December 2017 <https://dropbox.tech/infrastructure/balancing-open-source-and-proprietary-ip-they-can-co-exist?>  accessed 9 March 2025

    [iii] Harry Booth, ‘Time100 AI 2024’: Time Magazine, September 2024 < https://time.com/7012755/faisal-al-bannai/> Accessed 9 March 2025

    [iv] 2022 Copyright Act, s 52.

    Cybersecurity and Its Importance to Startups and SMEs in Nigeria.

    aeolawpractice

    In an era where digital innovation drives economic growth, cybersecurity has become a crucial concern for startups and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Nigeria. As businesses increasingly rely on digital platforms to enhance productivity, engage customers, and expand market reach, they are also exposed to cyber threats which could undermine their operations. Given the increasing sophistication of cybercriminals, startups and SMEs must proactively secure their digital assets to prevent financial losses, reputational damage, and legal liabilities.

    The Growing Cyber Threat to Startups and SMEs.

    Cyberattacks are not exclusive to large corporations; SMEs and startups are often primary targets due to their relatively weaker security frameworks. Common threats include phishing attacks, ransomware, business email compromise (BEC), and data breaches. Unlike multinational corporations with dedicated cybersecurity teams, many startups and SMEs lack the financial and technical resources to combat these threats effectively.

    The consequences of cyber threats can be devastating. A data breach could expose sensitive customer information, leading to regulatory penalties and loss of trust. Ransomware attacks could cripple business operations, causing financial distress. Additionally, intellectual property theft could compromise a startup’s competitive advantage when cybercriminals perpetrate cybersquatting activities. These risks highlight the urgent need for robust cybersecurity measures tailored to the needs of Nigerian SMEs and startups.

    Extant Cybersecurity Legislations and Their Respective Roles.

    1. Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Amendment Act, 2024

    The Cybercrimes (Amended) Act, introduces new measures to strengthen cybersecurity and ensure businesses operate safely in the digital space. Key provisions include:

    • Cybersecurity Levy: A 0.5% levy on electronic transactions to fund national cybersecurity initiatives.
    • Mandatory Reporting of Cyber Threats: Businesses must report cyberattacks within 72 hours to mitigate cyber compromises.
    • NIN Requirement for Electronic Transactions: Customers must provide their National Identification Number (NIN) for verification in electronic financial transactions.
    • Sectoral Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs): Industry-specific CERTs will assist businesses in responding to cyber threats effectively.
    • Data Protection Compliance: Businesses must retain and secure customer data in line with the Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA).

    2. Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023

    The NDPA was enacted to regulate data protection and privacy in Nigeria. It requires businesses to:

    • Obtain customer consent before collecting personal data.
    • Implement security measures to prevent data breaches.
    • Register with the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) if they process large volumes of personal data.
    • Comply with stringent data processing requirements to avoid hefty penalties.

    3. Digital Rights and Freedom Act, 2019

    This Act protects the digital rights of individuals and businesses in Nigeria. It ensures:

    • Freedom of expression and privacy online.
    • Protection against unauthorized surveillance and data breaches.
    • A legal framework for businesses to challenge cyber-related violations.

    4. Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Cybersecurity Guidelines for Financial Institutions

    Since many startups and SMEs rely on digital payments, compliance with CBN’s cybersecurity guidelines is essential. These guidelines mandate:

    • The implementation of multi-factor authentication for online transactions.
    • Regular cybersecurity risk assessments for financial service providers.
    • Fraud monitoring and incident reporting mechanisms.

    Implications for Startups and SMEs

    While these laws impose compliance obligations, they also present opportunities for startups and SMEs to enhance their cybersecurity strategies. Businesses can leverage these frameworks to:

    • Build Consumer Trust: Compliance with cybersecurity and data protection laws reassures customers that their information are safe.
    • Avoid Legal Liabilities: Adhering to regulations protects businesses from fines and reputational damage.
    • Enhance Cybersecurity Readiness: Engaging with CERTs and implementing best practices reduces cyber risks.

    Call to Action for the Federal Government

    To further support startups and SMEs, the Federal Government should:

    • Provide Financial Incentives by implementing policies geared towards tax reliefs and grants to help SMEs use funds that would have been remitted for compliance purposes towards implementing cybersecurity measures.
    • Strengthen Public Awareness by providing avenues through training and workshops to educate businesses on compliance.
    • Foster Public-Private Partnerships through collaborations between government agencies and private cybersecurity firms to provide SMEs with affordable security solutions.

    Conclusion

    Cybersecurity is no longer a luxury but a necessity for Nigerian startups and SMEs. With increasing cyber threats and regulatory requirements, businesses must adopt proactive security measures to safeguard their operations whilst leveraging extant legislations which essentially maintain compliance and protect sensitive information.

    However, the government must also play its part by formulating and implementing policies that support cybersecurity resilience among SMEs to create a safer digital landscape for entrepreneurs to thrive. Only through collective effort can startups and SMEs navigate the complexities of cybersecurity and drive sustainable business growth in the digital economy.

    Image is AI Generated