The Business Of Creativity: Legal Risks In Nigeria's Creator Economy

Introduction

Nigeria's creator economy has moved from informal hustle to an investable industry. The 2025 Nigerian Creator Economy Report (NCER), the first government-backed assessment of the sector, valued it at $31.2 million, with the music industry alone paying artists roughly ₦58 billion in royalties in 2024, and the fashion sector growing into a $4.7 billion contributor to GDP.¹ Industry forecasters expect the broader African creator economy to multiply several times over by the end of the decade.² These skyrocketing numbers represent a combination of advertising contracts, licensing deals, royalty streams, and cross-border collaborations that now run through the hands of musicians, skit-makers, fashion designers, podcasters, and gamers.

This growth has outpaced the legal sophistication of many participants. What began as casual content creation, a phone, a ring light, and an Instagram account, has become a professionalised industry with brand deals, management agreements, and multi-platform monetisation. Yet many creators and the businesses that work with them still operate without clear contracts, ownership terms, or compliance frameworks. As deals scale and disputes inevitably follow, proactive legal risk management is no longer optional. It is the difference between a sustainable creative business and one vulnerable to costly litigation, lost revenue, or reputational damage.

Copyright Ownership in the Creator Economy

The Copyright Act 2022 is the foundational statute governing ownership of creative works in Nigeria, including digital content, music, audio-visual works, and literary works.³ Section 28(1) of the Act establishes the general rule which states that copyright vests initially in the author, except as otherwise provided in an agreement.⁴ This single provision is the source of many disputes in the creator economy, because the "author" and the "commissioning party" are frequently different people with different commercial expectations.

Two further rules under Section 28 shape ownership dynamics. Where a piece of work is made in the course of employment under a contract of service, the employer is treated as the first owner unless a written or other agreement provides otherwise; this applies equally to independent contractors engaged under similar arrangements.⁵ Where the work is created under the direction or control of government or a government agency, ownership vests automatically in that body.⁶ Beyond these, commissioned works, such as a brand hiring a photographer, videographer, or designer, deserve particular caution. In the absence of an assignment, the commissioning party typically holds no more than a non-exclusive licence to use the work for the purpose for which it was commissioned, while the creator retains underlying ownership.⁷ Brands and agencies that assume a "work-for-hire" arrangement automatically transfers full ownership of Intellectual property, are frequently mistaken. Written agreements specifying ownership, scope of use, and assignment terms are essential, and not optional safeguards.

Influencer Agreements and Brand Collaborations

Brand collaborations are a recurring source of ownership disputes precisely because the parties rarely document who owns the final content. A brand may assume that paying for a sponsored post entitles it to repurpose that content indefinitely across its own channels, while the creator assumes the engagement was a one-off licence. The distinction between licensing and assignment is therefore central. A licence permits use of the work for specified purposes, durations, or territories, while the creator retains ownership. An assignment transfers ownership itself, permanently and usually irrevocably, under Section 30 of the Act, which requires assignments to be in writing and signed by the assignor.⁸ Brands seeking long-term or exclusive use of content should insist on properly documented assignments, or broad, clearly scoped licences, and not merely keep silent.

Revenue-sharing structures, whether flat fees, performance-based bonuses, affiliate commissions, or hybrid models, must be defined with utmost precision: payment triggers, usage rights, exclusivity periods, and content approval rights should all be addressed contractually. Ambiguous terms around "exclusivity" or "usage" are a frequent cause of disputes when a creator works with a competing brand.

Moral rights add another layer to these issues. Section 14 of the Act preserves the author's right to be identified as the creator of a work and to object to derogatory treatment or false attribution of it.⁹ These rights generally cannot be waived by simple contractual silence and persist independently of any assignment of economic rights, meaning a brand that significantly alters or misattributes commissioned content may face a moral rights claim even where it lawfully owns the underlying copyright.

Digital Copyright Protection Under the Copyright Act 2022

Recognising that most creator economy output lives in the online space, the Act introduces robust digital protections. Sections 50 to 52 prohibit the circumvention of Technological Protection Measures (TPMs), defined as measures that, in their ordinary operation, control access to or restrict acts in respect of protected works, and prohibit dealing in ways designed to defeat them.¹⁰ Section 51 separately criminalises the falsification, alteration, or removal of Rights Management Information (RMI), the embedded data identifying a work's author, owner, and terms of use.¹¹ These provisions matter for creators who rely on watermarks, metadata, or paywalls to protect monetised content from unauthorised redistribution.

Where infringement occurs, Section 36 read with Section 37 entitles a copyright owner to institute civil proceedings for damages, injunctions, and accounts of profits, while Section 38 permits orders for inspection and seizure of infringing material.¹² These remedies, combined with the criminal sanctions under Part V of the Act, give creators meaningful recourse against pirated content, unauthorised reposting, and commercial exploitation of their work without consent.

Platform Liability and Safe Harbour Protection

Part VII of the Act, covering online content, introduces a “takedown notice” regime modelled on international approaches to intermediary liability. Section 54 sets out the notice-to-take-down procedure, allowing a rights owner to notify a service provider of allegedly infringing content hosted on its platform.¹³ Section 55 obliges the service provider to expeditiously remove or disable access to that content upon receipt of a compliant notice, failing which it risks losing safe harbour protection.¹⁴

This framework gives platforms hosting content from social media networks to streaming services, a structured path to limit liability: they must act on valid notices, refrain from knowingly hosting infringing material, and, under Section 56, implement a policy for suspending repeat infringers.¹⁵ For creators, the practical implication is that takedown requests must be properly formulated and addressed to the correct entity, while platforms operating in Nigeria should ensure designated agents and internal escalation processes are in place to preserve their safe harbour status.

AI, Deepfakes, and Emerging Risks

Generative AI has introduced ownership and liability questions the Copyright Act 2022 does not address explicitly, since the Act's authorship framework presumes a human author. Content generated substantially by AI tools, without identifiable human creative input, sits in a grey zone regarding copyrightability and ownership, a gap creators and brands using AI-assisted production should treat with caution when claiming exclusive rights.

Voice cloning and digital likeness exploitation present a more immediate commercial risk. Unauthorised use of a creator's voice or image to generate synthetic content, including deepfakes for endorsements or political content, implicates both the developing law on personality and image rights and the broader provisions on moral rights and false attribution under Section 14.¹⁶ Where such content involves processing of biometric or voice data, the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (NDPA) becomes directly relevant. Section 30 of the Act classifies biometric data, including data processed for unique identification, as sensitive personal data requiring a heightened lawful basis, and an explicit consent, before processing.¹⁷ Section 24 requires that processing be lawful, fair, and transparent, while Section 26 sets a high bar for valid consent, specific, informed, freely given, and never inferred from silence.¹⁸ Brands and AI developers using creator likenesses, voice samples, or biometric data for training or generation must secure explicit, documented consent and conduct data privacy impact assessments under Section 28 where high-risk processing is involved.¹⁹

The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2025 (NAIS), published by the Federal Ministry of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy in September 2025, sets a framework spanning five (5) years for ethical and inclusive AI adoption, and expressly builds on the NDPA as foundational legislation for AI governance.²⁰ While the NAIS is a policy instrument rather than binding law, it signals the direction of forthcoming AI regulation, including likely guidance on consent, data provenance, and content authenticity, that creative businesses should monitor closely.

Regulatory Compliance

The Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) is the primary regulator that administers and enforces the Copyright Act 2022, with powers extending to registration of copyright societies, anti-piracy enforcement, and the regulation of Collective Management Organisations (CMOs).²¹ On 28 January 2025, the NCC issued the Copyright (Collective Management Organisations) Regulations 2025, repealing the 2007 Regulations and significantly overhauling the licensing and royalty distribution framework for CMOs operating in music, literary, and audio-visual sectors.²² The 2025 Regulations require CMOs to obtain NCC approval for an initial term of five (5) years, that is renewable every three (3) years, and to submit detailed statements of royalties collected and distributed as a condition of renewal, which strengthens transparency and accountability toward rights owners.²³

For creators and businesses, this means royalty collection through CMOs such as those licensing music and other related materials, should actively monitor distribution statements rather than assume passive compliance of CMOs. Lawyers in advising media, entertainment, or brand clients should build NCC registration checks and CMO licensing diligence into standard contract review processes, particularly before launching campaigns involving licensed music or third-party content.

Practical Recommendations

Creators and brands operating in this creator economy should treat legal readiness as core business infrastructure rather than an afterthought. A periodic IP audit, cataloguing owned works, registered marks, licensing arrangements, and outstanding assignments, helps identify gaps before they become disputes. Every commissioned work, or brand collaboration should be governed by a written agreement specifying ownership, licence scope, exclusivity, and moral rights treatment; verbal understandings are not a substitute.

Comprehensive creator contracts should also anticipate AI use such as clauses addressing whether AI tools may be used in content production, or how voice and likeness data may be processed. Most importantly, consent mechanisms for biometric data should be standard, not exceptional. Businesses deploying AI tools that touch creator data should implement basic AI governance protocols.

Conclusion

Nigeria's creator economy is positioned for substantial growth, underpinned by a digitally fluent population, and increasing international attention to Nigerian music, film, and fashion. However, scale magnifies legal exposure where ownership disputes, platform takedowns, AI misuse, and regulatory non-compliance carry real commercial cost.

Legal readiness, clear contracts, sound IP management, and proactive data governance, is therefore not a constraint on creativity but a competitive advantage, distinguishing creators and businesses built to last from those exposed to avoidable risk.

Footnotes

^{1 TechCabal, 'At $31.2M Today, Nigeria's Creator Economy Could Be Worth Billions by 2030' (25 September 2025), reporting findings of the Nigeria Creator Economy Report 2025.}

^{https://techcabal.com/2025/09/25/at-31-2m-today-nigerias-creator-economy-could-be-worth-billions-by-2030/ accessed 18 June 2026.}

^{2 Coherent Market Insights, 'Africa Creator Economy Market Size Opportunities 2025–2032' (2025).}

^{https://www.coherentmi.com/industry-reports/africa-creator-economy-market accessed 18 June 2026.}

^{3 Copyright Act 2022, Long Title.}

^{4 Copyright Act 2022, s 28(1).}

^{5 Copyright Act 2022, s 28(1)–(2).}

^{6 Copyright Act 2022, s 28(2).}

^{7 Copyright Act 2022, s 28(3).}

^{8 Copyright Act 2022, s 30.}

^{9 Copyright Act 2022, s 14.}

^{10 Copyright Act 2022, ss 50–52.}

^{11 Copyright Act 2022, s 51.}

^{12 Copyright Act 2022, ss 36–38.}

^{13 Copyright Act 2022, s 54.}

^{14 Copyright Act 2022, s 55.}

^{15 Copyright Act 2022, s 56.}

^{16 Copyright Act 2022, s 14.}

^{17 Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, s 30.}

^{18 Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, ss 24, 26.}

^{19 Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, s 28.}

^{20 National Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2025 (Federal Ministry of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy, September 2025).}

^{21 Copyright Act 2022, s 88.}

^{22 Copyright (Collective Management Organisations) Regulations 2025 (S.I. No. 17 of 2025), made pursuant to the Copyright Act 2022, s 88, repealing the Copyright (Collective Management Organisation) Regulations 2007.}

^{23 Copyright (Collective Management Organisations) Regulations 2025 (S.I. No. 17 of 2025).}

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.