Copyright in Nigeria Is Automatic, Yet Registration Is Key
There is a paradox at the heart of copyright in Nigeria: on one hand, protection arises automatically the moment a work is created; on the other hand, enforcing that right often requires extensive proof. A creator may have a legally valid copyright, yet without a clear and documented paper trail, the courts may not recognise or uphold their claim.
This is the uncomfortable space in which Nigerian copyright law exists today. On one hand, the law clearly provides for automatic protection upon creation. On the other hand, the reality of enforcement is inextricably tied to evidence. The Copyright Act 2022 attempts to resolve this doctrinal debate definitively by stipulating that eligibility for copyright “shall not require any formality.”¹ On paper, this language appears decisive and absolute. Yet, the courtroom is not a philosophy seminar. Courts are less interested in abstract doctrines than in concrete proof that a claimant is entitled to assert rights.
In practical terms, the question rarely revolves around whether copyright can exist without registration. The critical question is whether a claimant can persuade the court, with credible and admissible evidence, that they are the rightful owner of an identifiable work that has in fact been infringed. This distinction between the existence of rights and the ability to prove those rights is what makes registration strategically significant, even though it is not legally compulsory.
Does Copyright Arise Automatically in Nigeria Under the Copyright Act 2022?
The answer is unequivocally yes. Section 4 of the Copyright Act 2022 provides that copyright protection is granted automatically and “shall not require any formality.”² This means that, from the moment a qualifying work is created and fixed in a tangible or recognisable form, copyright exists. There is no requirement to file a form, receive a certificate, or obtain any administrative approval before protection attaches.
This approach is consistent with Nigeria’s international obligations under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which prohibits formalities as a condition for the enjoyment of copyright.³ Article 5(2) of the Convention makes it clear that the enjoyment and exercise of copyright shall not be subject to any formality. This policy ensures that creators are not disadvantaged by administrative procedures, which could otherwise create unnecessary barriers to protection.
Thus, whether a creator writes a manuscript, records a song, designs a logo, shoots a film, or develops software, copyright does not begin at registration; it begins at creation, once the statutory conditions for subsistence are met.⁴ In other words, the moment a work is produced in a tangible or fixed form, the law recognises the creator as the copyright owner.
Why “Automatic Protection” Does Not Translate Into “Automatic Enforcement”
The difficulty arises at the stage of enforcement. Courts do not enforce slogans; they enforce claims. And claims require proof.
In actual disputes, defendants rarely accept a claimant’s assertion of authorship or ownership. They may challenge:
Whether the claimant actually created the work;
Whether the work is original or sufficiently distinct;
Whether any rights were validly assigned or transferred;
Whether the claimant has locus standi to sue;
Whether the work in question is even identifiable as a protected work.
This evidentiary burden is decisive. Many copyright claims fail not because protection does not exist, but because the claimant cannot satisfy the court’s procedural and evidential expectations. Automatic protection answers the question of existence but does not answer the question of proof.
The Oche Controversy
The Federal High Court’s decision in Paul Allen Oche v Nigerian Breweries Plc & Ors illustrates this point sharply.⁵ In that case, the claimant’s action was struck out because the court found that the proof of ownership and entitlement to sue was deficient.⁶
The ruling caused anxiety within creative communities, because superficially it appeared to suggest that registration might be a prerequisite to enforcing copyright. However, a deeper reading reveals that the court’s concern was evidentiary. The issue was not the absence of registration per se, but the claimant’s inability to present compelling proof of authorship and legal standing.
Subsequent commentary reinforced this interpretation. Analysts emphasised that the Oche case demonstrates the consequences of weak evidentiary posture rather than a departure from the principle that copyright arises automatically without formalities.⁷ The subtle but crucial lesson is that automatic protection does not exempt a creator from rigorous scrutiny in court.
Appellate Clarification: Copyright Subsists by Operation of Law
Appellate courts have provided further clarity. In Tv Xtra Production Limited & Anor V. National Universities Commission & Zain Nigeria, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that copyright subsists automatically once the statutory requirements of originality and fixation are satisfied.⁸ The court explicitly treated copyright as arising by operation of law, not by bureaucratic endorsement.
Similarly, in West African Book Publishers Ltd v Access Bank Plc & Anor, the Court of Appeal highlighted that copyright arises from compliance with statutory conditions rather than any administrative filing.⁹ Together, these authorities reinforce the doctrinal position: registration is not legally required to create copyright. However, they also confirm that the evidentiary burden remains significant in litigation.
Judicial Insistence on Proof
The Court has repeatedly emphasised that proof of ownership and infringement is central to any copyright action. In Ifeanyi Okoye & Anor v Prompter Quality Services Ltd & Anor, the court undertook a detailed examination of authorship, originality, and alleged copying before determining liability.¹⁰ The pattern is consistent: courts do not presume entitlement merely because a work exists. Enforcement depends on the ability to present credible evidence of ownership.
Registration does not confer copyright. Its value lies in strengthening a claimant’s evidentiary foundation.
Why Registration Still Matters in Practice
Registration acts as a risk-reduction mechanism, much like insurance. Creators may hope never to need it, but when disputes arise, a formal record can dramatically alter outcomes.
Proof of Authorship: Registration simplifies establishing ownership. Rather than reconstructing the creative process through drafts, metadata, emails, or witness testimony, a claimant can rely on an official record.
Procedural Security: The procedural collapse in Oche’s case demonstrates how quickly a claim can unravel if the evidentiary foundation is weak.¹¹ Registration mitigates this risk.
Resolving Competing Claims: In collaborative or commercial environments, disputes may arise over co-authorship, licensing, or assignments. A registered record provides a reliable timeline.
Transactional Credibility: Investors, licensees, or collaborators conducting due diligence prefer clarity. Registration reduces transactional friction and enhances confidence.
Signal of Enforcement Readiness: Potential infringers are less likely to dismiss a claim if a creator demonstrates that documentation and readiness to enforce rights are robust.
Even the Nigerian Copyright Commission recognises the value of registration for evidentiary and administrative purposes, even while confirming that copyright protection is automatic.¹²
Conclusion
The Copyright Act 2022 is clear: copyright arises automatically without any formalities.¹³ International obligations under the Berne Convention reinforce this principle, and appellate authority confirms it.¹⁴
Yet litigation experience, particularly illustrated by the Oche’s case, shows that proof, not doctrinal theory, ultimately determines outcomes. Registration does not create copyright; it strengthens enforceability. It does not activate protection; it fortifies evidence. For creators producing work with commercial value, long-term relevance, or litigation risk, registration is an act of strategic foresight.
References
Copyright Act 2022 (Nigeria), s 4, Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 134, Vol. 109 (17 March 2023). Available at: https://placng.org/i/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Copyright-Act-2022.pdf
Ibid.
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 1886, as revised at Paris, 24 July 1971, Article 5(2).
Ibid.
Paul Allen Oche v Nigerian Breweries Plc & Ors, Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/145/2019, ruling delivered on 25th June 2020., Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division (unreported)
Ibid.
S. P. A. Ajibade, “Is Registration of Copyright a Requirement for Proving Infringement? A Critical Analysis of the Ruling of the Federal High Court in Paul Allen Oche v Nigerian Breweries Plc & Ors” (2021).
Tv Xtra Production Limited & Anor V. National Universities Commission & Zain Nigeria FHC/ABJ/CS/680/2008
West African Book Publishers Ltd v Access Bank Plc & Anor (2021) 4 CLRN 98
Ifeanyi Okoye & Anor v Prompter Quality Services Ltd & Anor (1996) F.H..C.R. 814
Ibid.
Nigerian Copyright Commission, Guidelines on Copyright Notification and Registration, available at: https://copyright.gov.ng
Ibid.
Ibid.
