- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- within Intellectual Property, Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring and International Law topic(s)
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
Introduction
Photography has long been celebrated as a powerful medium for preserving memories. Beyond capturing fleeting moments, photographs serve as historical records, shape public opinion, and communicate stories that transcend words. Each image reflects the photographer's unique vision through choices of lighting, composition, and framing transforming personal interpretation into a compelling visual narrative. In this sense, a photograph is not merely a mechanical reproduction, but a creative work born of human authorship. The intellectual effort invested in capturing and editing an image underscores its originality, thereby securing protection under copyright law.
However, disputes often arise at the intersection of copyright and image rights, particularly because these rights do not always reside in the same person and only a little nuance exists between them. Celebrities, for instance, have on many occasions challenged photographers or institutions for unauthorized use of their likeness, in a bid to protect their image rights. Conversely, photographers and photo agencies have pursued legal action against celebrities for copyright infringement when those same images, bearing the celebrities' likeness are reproduced or exploited without permission. Such disputes highlight the delicate balance between copyrighted photographs and the image rights ensued in the photographs.
This article will dissect the extant position of the Nigerian law on the existence and enforceability of image rights exclusive of any copyright in an image and recommendations on the way forward.
Protection of Photographs under Nigerian Law
Photographs enjoy legal protection under the Nigerian law, as artistic works. Specifically, Nigerian Copyright Act, 2022 (the "NCA"), is the parent law for copyright protection in Nigeria. Basically, the NCA sets out six categories of works eligible for copyright, to wit: literary works, musical works, artistic works, audio visual works, sound recordings and broadcasts.1
Under the NCA, artistic works include paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs, maps, architectural designs, applied art, and other visual arts. These works are safeguarded as long as they involve original creative expression fixed in a tangible medium, regardless of their aesthetic quality, as long as sufficient effort was invested in their creation.
Notably, literary, musical and artistic work (including photographs) are not eligible for copyright except (i) some effort has been expended on making the works, to give the works an original character, and (ii) the works have been fixed in any medium of expression known or later to be developed, from which the work can be perceived, reproduced or otherwise communicated either directly or with the aid of any machine or device.2
Hence, the human efforts expended in the making of a photograph and the fixation of a photograph in a light sensitive film for physical photographs or digital or magnetic records for digital photographs, makes a photograph eligible for copyright protection under the NCA, irrespective of the quality of the photograph or the purpose for which the photograph was taken.3
Protection of Image Rights under Nigerian Law
The protection of image rights holds significant importance, affording individuals the authority to govern the utilization of their likeness. This right serves as a barrier against unauthorized exploitation or commercial gain derived from the portrayal of an individual's identity without their explicit consent.4 Image rights have been described as the expression of a personality in the public domain.5 They refer to the use, appropriation and/or exploitation of a person's image. They incorporate the right to use a person's personality while preventing other parties from exploiting or using such image or likeness without permission. The concept also encompasses the commercialization of such rights.6
The essence of image rights lies in its commercialization which underlines the value such individuals have amassed on their personality. It is therefore understandable that individuals and celebrities will explore every legal opportunity to protect their image rights.7
It is vital to clarify that image rights as against its literal connotation, is widely conceived to include not just the physical image but the following personal attributes; like voice, signature, likeness, appearance, silhouette, feature, face, expressions (verbal or facial), gestures, mannerisms, any other distinctive characteristics or personal attribute of a personage, any photograph, illustration, image, picture, moving image or electronic or other representation ('picture') of the personnage and of no other person (except to the extent that the other person is not identified or singled out or in connection with the use of the picture).
In Nigeria, there are few recorded instances where celebrities attempted to exercise the protection of their image rights. For instance, Richard Mofe Damijo, an "A" list actor once initiated an action against Jumia, an e-commerce outlet for using his image on its Instagram page without his authorization. There is currently no available information about the progress of the suit, it is believed to have been discontinued.8
Notably, Nigeria compared to other advanced legal systems lacks comprehensive legislation or case laws on image rights, making it more challenging for individuals to protect their image rights. However, some related laws like the Nigerian Constitution, data protection laws, and the Trademarks Act9 (especially for other aspects of image rights that are not photographs, like silhouette and illustration) can be relied upon to protect image rights. The tort of passing off, provided that the elements of the tort are proved, can also be relied upon.
For instance, the Nigerian Constitution, as the supreme law, establishes the foundation for protecting individual rights, including the right to privacy. Section 37 expressly guarantees the privacy of citizens in their homes, communications, and personal data. This protection extends to a person's image, which is regarded as private and distinctive, giving individuals the constitutional right to control how their likeness is used in public or by third parties. The Court of Appeal in Incorporated Trustees of Digital Rights Lawyers Initiatives v. National Identification Management Commission10 affirmed that privacy encompasses data protection, covering personal information such as photographs, thereby reinforcing the basis of image rights in Nigeria. A similar position was held in Bi-Courtney Aviation Services Ltd v. Kelani11.
The principal data protection law in Nigeria is the Nigerian Data Protection Act of 2023 (the "NDPA"). Section 65(1) of the NDPA defines personal data to mean, any information relating to an individual who can be identified or is identifiable, directly or indirectly, by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, psychological, cultural, social or economic identity of that individual. Further to this definition, an image of a person being an identifier specific to the physical, physiological, genetic identity of such person amounts to personal data which is protected by the provisions of the NDPA.
Under the NDPA, personal data can only be collected and processed in accordance with the guiding principles outlined in the act, which require that personal data be processed in a fair, transparent and lawful manner, for specific, and legitimate purposes.12 Hence, an individual may decide to protect his image rights by resorting to the data protection laws.
Further, a registered trademark can serve as a powerful tool for protecting image rights by allowing individuals to secure distinctive aspects of their identity that are not photographs, such as their name, likeness, or signature—as trademarks. This grants them exclusive commercial control over their persona and prevents unauthorized exploitation. Globally, celebrities like David and Victoria Beckham have trademarked their names, while in Nigeria, notable figures such as Omotola Jalade-Ekeinde ("Omotola"), Erica Nlewedim ("Star Girl"), and Ayo Balogun, popularly known as Wizkid ("Star Boy"), have similarly safeguarded their public identities through trademark registration.13
In Banire V. NTA - Star TV Network Limited14 ("Banire's Case"), the court stated that an individual may protect his image rights where the image is used without his authority through tort of passing off. However, for a plaintiff to rely on the tort of passing off, such plaintiff must prove that (i) the image has acquired sufficient goodwill that can be used in consideration for money; (ii) the third party has misrepresented to the public by using the image; and (iii) the misrepresentation caused or has the tendency of causing damages to the goodwill of the individual.
Judicial Attitudes Towards Image Rights in Nigeria
Banire's case stands as the leading judicial authority on the concept of image rights in Nigeria. Any meaningful discussion of image rights within Nigerian jurisprudence would be incomplete without examining the Court of Appeal's decision in Banire's Case.
As a background, the Appellant in Banire's Case, Oluwadamilola Banire, initiated an action on 24 February 2014 against NTA-Star TV Network Limited ("Respondent"), alleging that the unauthorized use of her photographs on billboards in Akure and Abeokuta violated her image and intellectual property rights. She argued that the Respondent had deployed her likeness for promotional purposes without consent, while the Respondent contended that the images had been supplied to the Respondent by Virtual Media Network Limited (VMN) under a channel licence agreement.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal emphasized that image rights must be considered in relation to copyright in photographs. It clarified that under Nigerian law, the governing framework for protection of rights in images is the Copyright Act (specifically the 1958 Act). Section 10 of the Act provides that copyright in a photograph vest in its author unless a written agreement states otherwise. On this basis, the Court held that VMN, as the author, retained copyright over the disputed photographs. In the words of Mohammed Baba Idris, J.C.A. (delivering the leading judgment), the court stated as follows:
"I am not in total agreement with the trial judge's ratio here although I also agree that Section 10 of the Copyright Act applies to this case. It was the act of the Appellant allowing Virtual Media Network to use the images that gave the ownership of the copyright. It is the act of Virtual Media Network being the ones who took the photographs that makes it the author of the photographs. By taking the photographs, they automatically have rights except there is an agreement otherwise. What is evident from the above provision is that the person who is a muse or the person in the photograph is not in fact the author and therefore he/she does not own copyright in the photograph. Rather it is the person who took the photograph that is the author. The Appellant by her own evidence has stated that she had a photo session with Virtual Media Network the owners of Orisun Tv and as such since Virtual Media Network took the photographs then they have authorship and as a result they have copyright of the photograph not the Appellant"
Summarily, the court agreed with the trial court's decision in favour of the Respondent, reasoning that VMN held ownership and authorship of the images used by the Respondent under the channel license agreement. The court limited the scope of image rightsto issues of copyright only, despite submissions of the Appellant that the Appellant claims borders on the usage of the Appellant's images without consent (i.e. tort of passing off and image rights) and not copyright. To be sure, the court held:
"As I have stated above, image rights and tort of passing off are new rights that have been established through case laws even in the United Kingdom where the tort has been successfully advanced. In Nigeria however our law does not make provision for image rights neither are there many cases on the tort of passing off as it relates to image rights. Intellectual property as it relates to photographs are protected by the Copyright Act..."
However, in an interesting turn of events, the Supreme Court in Ubom v. Globacom (Nig) Ltd (2024) LPELR - 79933 (SC) (the "Globacom Case") overturned the earlier restrictive interpretation in Banire's Case that somewhat dismissed the existence of image rights in Nigeria. In the Globacom Case, the Supreme Court drew a fine line between (i) claims for unauthorized commercial use of an individual's image or images rights, and (ii) protection of images under copyright actions. Hence, the Supreme Court recognized the existence of image rights in Nigeria.
In the Globacom case, the Appellant, who came second in the '2010 GLO Naija Sings Competition' without being given any prize by the Respondent, discovered that her photograph was being used nationwide on billboards to promote the 2011 edition of the competition without her consent. She sued in the High Court of Rivers State seeking declarations of the (a) illegal use of her images without her consent, (b) ₦500 million in damages, and (c) an injunction against further use of her images. The Respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court of Rivers State, following which the High Court of Rivers State struck out the suit and held that the matter fell under the Copyright Act as an infringement of performer's rights, placing it within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. The Appellant filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the High Court of Rivers State. Consequently, she appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that based on the Appellant's pleadings at the trial court, her claims were not founded in copyright, rather in the unauthorized commercial exploitation of her image and likeness. The Court noted that her grievance arose from Globacom's use of her photographs on billboards to promote its competition for economic gain without her consent, not from any assertion of authorship or ownership of copyright in the photographs. Although photographs may qualify as artistic works under the Copyright Act 2022, the appellant neither claimed to be the photographer nor the copyright holder. The Court therefore emphasized that the lower courts had erred by conflating copyright protection with the distinct right of an individual to control the commercial use of their identity. The Appellant's pleadings clearly demonstrated that the complaint concerned the appropriation of her "face, charm, personality, charisma, and talent" for Globacom's financial benefit, affirming that image rights are autonomous and operate independently of copyright claims.
It is important to note that, while Banire's Case laid the foundational framework for judicial engagement with image rights in Nigeria, it approached the concept through the narrow lens of copyright ownership in photographs, effectively subordinating personal image claims to authorship under the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court's decision in Globacom Case, however, represents a significant doctrinal advance. By decisively distinguishing unauthorized commercial exploitation of an individual's image from copyright infringement, the Court clarified that image rights are not contingent on ownership of copyright in a photograph. This shift corrects the earlier conflation evident in Banire's Case and affirms the autonomy of image rights as a protectable legal interest grounded in personal identity and consent. Collectively, the trajectory from Banire's Case to Globacom Case reflects a maturation of Nigerian jurisprudence on image rights moving from a restrictive, copyright-centric analysis towards a more principled recognition of an individual's right to control the commercial use of their likeness. This distinction affirms that image rights are grounded in consent, personality, and commercial autonomy, not authorship.
Way Forward
Ultimately, the decision in Globacom marks an important step toward a more coherent and rightsconscious framework for protecting individual identity in Nigeria. This is a testament that legal reforms on image rights have become essential in Nigeria. Therefore, legislators at both state and federal tiers should enact comprehensive and coherent laws granting individuals control over the commercial use of their image, likeness, or persona, with special provisions for high-profile figures to prevent false endorsements and to extend posthumous protection for up to 70 years. The proposed legislation should be clear and specific on the scope and extent of image rights. We say so, because a critical examination of both Banire and Globacom Cases would reveal that the discussions on image rights is narrowed down in the cases to photographs, while image rights are globally considered to encompass even signatures, silhouette, and names amongst others. Hence, the need to have a more detailed judicial pronouncement on the scope and elements for protection of image rights.
The legislation should balance personal rights with freedom of expression by allowing exceptions for newsworthy or public interest uses. Regulatory bodies like Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria should also enforce safeguards against misleading advertising, while public education initiatives can raise awareness among citizens, celebrities, and corporations.
Collectively, these measures would establish a modern framework that empowers individuals to control their likeness while supporting growth in Nigeria's entertainment and business industries.
Footnotes
1 Section 2(1) of the NCA
2 Section 2 (2) NCA
3 Section 2(2)(b) of the NCA
4 Prince-Alex Iwu (2015) The Legal Regime for Enforcement of Image Rights: A Nigerian Question. Available at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/legal-regime-enforcement-image-rights-nigerian-question-iwu/ (Accessed on November 25, 2025).
5 What are Image Rights?, Intellectual Property Office of the Bailiwick of Guernsey Website Publication. Available at https://ipo.guernseyregistry.com/article/103037/What-are-Image-Rights . (Accessed on November 25, 2025).
6 Idara Etiebet, The Legal Regime for Image Rights Protection under Nigerian Law. Available at https://www.mondaq.com/nigeria/trademark/1200696/the-legal-regime-for-image-rights-protection-under-nigerian-law . (Accessed on November 25, 2025).
7 Supra Note 5
8 Kolapo Olapoju, ' The True Story behind RMD's Legal Dispute with Jumia', The Cable, July 27, 2016. (Available at https://www.thecable.ng/the-true-story-behind-rmds-legal-dispute-with-jumia. (Accessed on November 25, 2025).
9 Trademarks Act. 1965 No. 29. L.N. 60 of. 1967 10 (2021) LPELR-55623(CA) 11 (2021) LPELR-56365 (CA)
12 Gina Loko-Idoko, Protection of Image Rights under the Nigerian Data Protection Act. Available at https://www.dentonsacaslaw.com/en/insights/articles/2024/may/31/protection-of-image-rights-under-the-nigerian-dataprotection-act . (Accessed on November 27, 2025).
13 Steve Austin Nwabueze and Theodora Olumekor, Beyond the runway: understanding the scope of image rights protection under Nigerian law. Available at https://www.ibanet.org/image-rights-protection-nigerian-law?utm_source=chatgpt.com (Accessed on November 27, 2025).
14 (2021) LPELR-52824(CA)
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.
