Tag: technology

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.