Tag: copyright

Collecting Societies and Copyright Administration in Nigeria: Roles, Rights, and Regulations.

aeolawpractice

Introduction

In a knowledge-based economy, the monetisation of creative expression is crucial to the development of the cultural and creative industries. Copyright law protects the rights of authors and creators, while collective management organisations (CMOs), also known as collecting societies, play an indispensable role in ensuring that these rights are effectively administered and enforced. In Nigeria, the regulatory framework governing collecting societies have evolved, with the enactment of the Copyright Act 2022 (“the Act”) introducing significant reforms. This article examines the administrative roles of collecting societies in Nigeria, highlights relevant provisions of the Act, and evaluates the operational implications of these provisions on copyright administration and enforcement.

1. Concept and Importance of Collecting Societies

Collecting societies are bodies authorised to administer certain rights on behalf of copyright holders. These rights typically include the right of public performance, communication to the public, and reproduction of works. The rationale behind their existence lies in the impracticability of individual authors managing their rights across a vast and decentralised usage base. Collective Management Organisations (CMO) consolidate these rights, issue licences to users (such as broadcasters, event organisers, and online platforms), collect royalties, and distribute them to rights owners.

By centralising the management of economic rights, collecting societies are ideally meant to reduce transaction costs, enhance transparency, and facilitate compliance, thereby supporting the viability of the creative industries.

2. Legal Basis for Collecting Societies under the Copyright Act 2022

Part X, particularly section 88 of the Act, governs the establishment, operation, and oversight of collecting societies in Nigeria. The Act refers to these entities as Collective Management Organisations (CMOs) and subjects them to regulatory approval and monitoring by the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC).

A CMO is defined under the Act as an organisation representing copyright owners, with the principal objective of negotiating and granting licences, collecting royalties, and distributing royalties in respect of copyright works.

Under section 88(1), a CMO must be incorporated under Nigerian law and licensed by the NCC to operate in any category of copyright works or related rights. The licensing requirement ensures that only competent and accountable organisations represent the interests of rights holders.

Furthermore, the NCC shall prescribe the conditions for the grant, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a CMO’s licence, ensuring continued oversight. This provision aligns with the public interest function of the NCC in protecting both creators and users of copyright contents.

Currently, the Musical Copyright Society of Nigeria (MCSN) for musical works, the Reproduction Rights Society of Nigeria, (REPRONIG) for literary works. and Audio-Visual Rights Society of Nigeria (AVRSN) are the only Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC)-approved CMOs. Reinforcing its regulatory mandate, the NCC announced a landmark Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between MCSN and the Deejays Association of Nigeria (DJAN) on 16 March 2023 via its website, aimed at strengthening the music copyright ecosystem.

This partnership reflects the NCC’s vision for CMOs to adopt modern business models and technological solutions for transparent and efficient royalty administration. It is a strategic response to the challenges of poor rights management in Nigeria’s rapidly evolving digital creative ecosystem. By streamlining licensing and distribution processes through collaboration, MCSN and DJAN are setting a precedent for compliance, innovation, and fair compensation in the creative industry

3. Key Administrative Functions of Collecting Societies

The administrative roles of collecting societies can be categorised into the following key areas:

a. Licensing and Royalty Collection

CMOs issue licences to users of copyright works within their designated repertoire. These licences may be general (covering multiple uses) or specific. Once issued, the CMO monitors compliance and collects royalties payable under the licence. The Act reinforces this function by authorising CMOs to act on behalf of rights holders across various formats and media.

b. Royalty Distribution

One of the most critical administrative duties of CMOs is to distribute collected royalties to their members equitably. The Act requires transparency and accountability in distribution. According to international best practices, distribution rules must be clearly defined, fair, and reflect actual usage as far as possible.

c. Monitoring and Enforcement

CMOs assist in monitoring the use of protected works and initiating action against unauthorised usage. Although enforcement actions primarily rest with the rights holder or the NCC, CMOs are instrumental in detecting infringements and supporting legal actions, especially in cases of public performance without licensing.

d. Dispute Resolution Facilitation

The Act provides for a Dispute Resolution Panel in section 90, which may handle disputes involving collecting societies. While this Panel is established under the NCC, CMOs often serve as parties to disputes concerning licensing terms, royalty sharing, or refusal to grant licences.

4. Regulation and Oversight by the Nigerian Copyright Commission

The NCC plays a supervisory role over collecting societies, which is vital for ensuring that CMOs operate in a manner consistent with the rights of their members and obligations to the public. The functions and powers of the NCC under section 78(2)(d)&(e) by implication include:

(i). Promoting effective copyright administration;

(ii). Granting or revoking licences of CMOs;

(iii). Issuing guidelines on royalties and tariff structures.

By conferring such oversight powers, the Act guards against the monopolistic tendencies or administrative inefficiencies that may arise in the operations of CMOs.

5. Transparency and Governance Obligations of Collecting Societies

Effective governance is central to the functioning of CMOs. The Act emphasises the need for internal democracy and accountability. Although it does not exhaustively codify all aspects of CMO governance, the NCC retains the power to issue regulations concerning membership criteria, voting rights, and dispute resolution mechanisms within CMOs.

This enables the NCC to enforce ethical standards and ensure that members are not disenfranchised or subjected to arbitrary administrative decisions.

Moreover, CMOs must operate with adequate internal controls and sound financial management systems. Audited accounts, open membership registers, and public tariff information are tools for enhancing member confidence and external trust, which are urgent issues the NCC should look into by formulating the required Regulation that will influence these activities.

6. Implications for Rights Holders and Users

6.1 Implications for Rights Holders

1. Improved Enforcement of Rights via a Central Body

In Nigeria, the existence of licensed collective management organisations (CMOs) as earlier mentioned, reduces the burden on individual authors to monitor and enforce their rights independently, which would otherwise be nearly impossible at scale.

Comparative Example: United Kingdom (PRS for Music)

The Performing Right Society (PRS) in the UK provides a successful model of centralised enforcement. It licenses music usage across broadcasting, live events, and digital platforms, and it works with global CMOs to ensure cross-border royalty collections. Notably, PRS successfully negotiated licensing arrangements with major tech platforms like YouTube and Spotify, ensuring that artists receive revenue from digital use.

By contrast, many Nigerian rights holders still suffer due to fragmented enforcement, especially where competing CMOs issue conflicting claims or lack robust international reciprocal agreements. A more unified structure, supported by NCC regulation, can significantly enhance enforcement outcomes similar to PRS’s model.

2. Greater Earning Potential Through Increased Royalty Collection

A key advantage of a well-functioning CMO is its ability to optimise royalty collection and distribution. By pooling rights and negotiating with users at scale, CMOs can secure better terms and collect more revenue than individual authors could on their own.

Comparative Example: France (Société des Auteurs, Compositeurs et Éditeurs de Musique – SACEM)

France’s SACEM provides a strong template of effective royalty collection and detailed reporting. In 2023, SACEM collected an unprecedented €1.487 billion in royalties, distributing €1.23 billion to its members. Their use of digital tools like fingerprinting and AI-based monitoring enables precise tracking of usage, including across streaming and digital media.

In Nigeria, many rights holders complain of low or irregular royalty payments, partly due to weak data tracking and reporting. The Act should address this issue through regulatory provisions that will ensure practical enforcement and technological adoption. A modernised system, learning from SACEM, could unlock substantial earnings for Nigerian creators.

3. Risk of Marginalisation if CMO Governance is Opaque or Unrepresentative

One of the recurring concerns about CMOs in Nigeria is the lack of transparent governance and perceived elite capture—where a small group of insiders disproportionately benefit from the organisation’s resources. Without equitable representation, many grassroots creators feel disenfranchised.

Comparative Example: South Africa (SAMRO Controversies)

South Africa’s Southern African Music Rights Organisation (SAMRO) has faced repeated criticism over opaque governance and alleged misappropriation of royalties. In 2018, reports surfaced of board-level mismanagement and questionable distributions, sparking public outcry and regulatory inquiry. These controversies led to internal reforms and demands for more democratic structures and clearer accounting.

To truly protect rights holders from marginalisation, additional safeguards could be introduced via NCC guidelines, including:

(i) Mandated annual general meetings with voting rights for members;

(ii) Real-time publication of usage and payment data;

(iii) Creation of ombudsman units for handling member complaints;

(iv) That licensed CMOs submit annual reports and audited financial statements to enhance transparency — though not mandated by Section 88, such a requirement could be formalised through NCC-issued regulations under Section 88(6)(c).

The above international case studies illustrate that the structure and governance of collecting societies have profound implications for rights holders. When transparent, technologically adept, and properly regulated—as seen in the UK and France—CMOs serve as a powerful vehicle for income and influence. But when governance is weak or exclusionary—as in some South African experiences—rights holders, especially from marginalised backgrounds, may lose both voice and revenue.

Nigeria’s Copyright Act 2022 takes steps in the right direction by formalising licensing, empowering the NCC and preventing overlaps in the administrative functions of CMOs. Notably, section 88(9)(c) provides that a CMO may license works of non-members, provided there is not more than one CMO approved to operate in the particular category of works concerned. This aims to prevent duplication, reduce conflicts, and enhance efficiency in rights administration. However, full realisation of the law’s promise will depend on rigorous enforcement, stakeholder capacity-building, and an unwavering commitment to fairness and inclusion.”

6.2 Implications for Users of Copyright Works

1. Simplified Licensing, Particularly Where Multiple Rights Are Aggregated

Collective Management Organisations (CMOs) can make it easier for copyright users—such as broadcasters, event organisers, streaming platforms, and educational institutions—to access works legally without negotiating with each rights holder individually.

Example: United Kingdom – PRS for Music and PPL

In the UK, the PRS for Music (for songwriters, composers, and publishers) and Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) (for recording rights holders) offer joint licensing schemes through PPL PRS Ltd, a joint venture launched in 2018. Users such as restaurants or radio stations can obtain a single licence covering both the musical work and the sound recording—simplifying the process and reducing administrative burden.

This approach addresses the challenge of aggregation, where different rights (e.g., performance rights, mechanical rights, neighbouring rights) are held by different parties.

In Nigeria, users have historically faced confusion or conflict when multiple CMOs issue licences for the same categories of work. By virtue of sections 78(2)(d)(e), 78(3), 90, of the Act, the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) is empowered to regulate licensing terms and encourages efficiency and clarity in rights administration and provide a platform in exercising its powers of enforcement and compliance. Recently the NCC in collaboration with WIPO established WIPO/NCC Mediation for Entertainment Disputes (and is currently working towards intensifying performing rights protection) following the Federal high Court’s 2024 Ruling of Justice Osiagor in Musical Copyright Society of Nigeria v Multichoice Nigeria Limited, where it ordered NCC to set up a Conflict and Dispute Resolution Panel for the parties.

In order for Nigeria to make progress, consideration should be given in encouraging joint licensing schemes or mandating CMOs to publish searchable licence databases, so users can easily verify the scope of coverage.

2. Risk of Overcharging or Double Payment Where Multiple CMOs Exist

The presence of multiple CMOs with overlapping mandates creates the potential for double-dipping or inconsistent licence fees—especially when there’s insufficient transparency or coordination.

Example: United States – ASCAP and BMI

In the U.S., American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music, Inc (BMI), both manage performing rights for musical works. However, unlike Nigeria’s current regime, their operations are governed by consent decrees administered by the U.S. Department of Justice, which impose strict rules on licence fee negotiations, non-discriminatory pricing, and dispute resolution through the Rate Court.

These safeguards prevent users from being overcharged or forced into conflicting payment demands. Still, even in the U.S., disputes arise. For example, digital streaming platforms like Pandora and Spotify have sued for fairer royalty rates, arguing that CMOs were leveraging their monopolistic control to demand unreasonable fees.

The Copyright Act 2022 does not yet contain equivalent provisions such as compulsory guidelines for rate setting or fee caps.

A forward-looking Nigerian solution would include:

  • Publicly available standard licensing tariffs;
  • NCC oversight of any exclusive representation agreements;
  • Mandated disclosures from CMOs on what works are covered under their repertoire.

3. Availability of Recourse Through the Dispute Resolution Panel Under the Act

Disputes between users and CMOs—whether over tariff fairness, licence scope, or infringement claims—need efficient resolution mechanisms. In the past, Nigerian users had to rely on expensive litigation, with no intermediate administrative pathway for relief.

Example: Canada – Copyright Board of Canada

In Canada, the Copyright Board plays a quasi-judicial role in setting and approving tariffs proposed by CMOs. It resolves disputes between CMOs and users, ensuring rates are fair, equitable, and reflective of market realities. The Board’s decisions are legally binding and publicly accessible, creating transparency and predictability.

Example: India – The Evolution of Dispute Resolution Panels on Copyrights Administration from Copyright Board to Intellectual Property Appellate Board and Now Competent Courts.

The Copyright Board of India, a quasi-judicial body set up in 1958, was responsible for resolving disputes on copyright licences, royalties, and statutory licensing. In 2017, its functions were transferred to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which had been established in 2003 to hear appeals on trademarks, patents, and geographical indications. However, following legislative reforms in 2021, the IPAB was abolished, and its jurisdiction was reassigned to the High Courts and Commercial Courts, in line with efforts to streamline India’s intellectual property adjudication system. India has now established a mechanism for resolving royalty disputes between users and CMOs using High and Commercial Courts. In the 2023 decision of Entertainment Network India Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd, the Delhi High Court clarified the regulatory boundaries for Collective Management Organisations (CMOs), emphasizing that a CMO like PPL must transparently disclose its royalty collection and distribution mechanisms, and cannot arbitrarily fix tariffs without consultation or oversight. The judgment reinforced that CMOs must comply with fair and non-discriminatory licensing practices, aligning with Section 33A of the Indian The Copyright Act, 1957, (Act No. 14 of 1957, amended up to Act No. 18 of 2023). This ruling strengthens the regulatory framework’s objective of balancing CMO powers with the need to protect users from monopolistic or exploitative practices.

In Nigeria, the Copyright Act 2022 introduces the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under section 90, which offers a practical non-judicial mechanism. This panel is expected to handle matters such as:

(1) Disputes over royalty tariffs and payment terms;

(2) Claims of unauthorised or unfair licensing by CMOs;

(3) Allegations of discrimination in licence terms.

To strengthen this, the NCC may consider issuing detailed practice directions for the CDRP, ensuring the process is:

(i) Accessible (low-cost and user-friendly);

(ii) Time-bound (clear timelines for resolution);

(iii) Expert-led (with IP-savvy panellists).

6.3 Balancing Interests Through Smart Regulation

The Nigerian regulatory framework must strike a balance: CMOs must be empowered to enforce rights and collect royalties, but users must also be protected from unfair licence terms, double payment, and non-transparent practices.

Comparative experiences from common law jurisdictions illustrate three key lessons:

  1. Joint or umbrella licensing schemes (e.g., UK) reduce administrative burdens and confusion for users;
  2. Regulatory oversight and consent mechanisms (e.g., U.S. and Canada) are vital to prevent pricing abuse;
  3. Dedicated dispute resolution platforms (e.g., Canada, India, and now Nigeria) are essential to resolve conflicts efficiently and protect market trust.

While the Act lays important groundwork, the implementation—especially through NCC oversight and the CDRP—will determine its real-world success for copyright users.

7. Challenges in the Nigerian Context.

Despite the legislative framework, several operational challenges continue to affect the effectiveness of collecting societies in Nigeria:

a. Weak Data Infrastructure

Accurate royalty distribution depends on data about usage of works. Many Nigerian CMOs still rely on manual or outdated systems, resulting in inefficiencies and revenue leakages.

b. Lack of Awareness

Many rights holders, who, though situated in urban communities are unaware of their rights to register with CMOs or claim royalties or aren’t even managed by record labels, are unaware of their rights to register with CMOs. This undermines the reach of the system.

c. Trust Deficit

Allegations of misappropriation, lack of transparency, and elite capture within some CMOs have led to skepticism about the integrity of collective management. Stronger enforcement of accountability provisions under the Act is essential.

8. International and Regional Standards.

The regulation of CMOs in Nigeria now reflects global best practices promoted by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and regional bodies like the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO). Nigeria’s compliance with these standards enhances its creative industries’ global competitiveness.

For example, the WIPO Collection Management Guidelines advocate for member participation, timely royalty distribution, and dispute resolution frameworks—all of which are provided in Nigeria’s Copyright Act 2022.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Copyright Act 2022 has modernised the legal framework for the operation of collecting societies in Nigeria, with clear emphases on licensing, monitoring, royalty and distribution. However, operational effectiveness depends on proactive enforcement by the Nigerian Copyright Commission, compliance reporting and internal reforms within CMOs.

To enhance the functionality of collecting societies:

  • The NCC should publish clear regulatory guidelines on CMO governance;
  • Digital monitoring systems should be implemented to track usage of works;
  • Capacity building for CMO administrators should be prioritised.

Ultimately, the success of collecting societies in Nigeria will depend on their ability to balance the interests of creators, users, and the broader public while upholding transparency, professionalism, and innovation.

References

  1. Nigerian Copyright Act 2023.
  2. SACEM Annual Report 2023
  3. World Intellectual Property Organization, Guidelines for Collecting Societies, WIPO, Geneva (2022), Collective Management of Copyrights & Other Related Rights Third Edition. Accessed on 4 May 2025 https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-855-22-en-collective-management-of-copyright-and-related-rights.pdf
  4. ARIPO Harare Strategic Plan 2022 – 2026 (You can request for the eCopy from me)
  5. Entertainment Network (India) Limited v Phonographic Performance Limited & Ors [2023] DHC 9642 (Del HC, 20 December 2023)
  6. Nigerian Copyright Commission, Copyright (Collective Management Organizations) Regulations 2007 (S.I. 37 of 2007)
  7. MCSN, DJAN Sign MOU; NCC Canvasses Efficient CMO Operation to Boost Creative Industry. Accessed on 5 May 2025 <https://copyright.gov.ng/mcsn-djan-sign-mou-ncc-canvasses-efficient-cmo-operation-to-boost-creative-industry/>

Written by Adeola Osifeko LLB,BL,LLM, ACIS ABR. Partner, Corporate Commercial Practice. She can be reached on adeola@aeolawpractice.com

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.