The Critical Role of Contracts in Protecting Copyright: Lessons from Iyere v. Bendel Feed and Flour Mill Ltd. 2023 & Omojola v. Unique Filmworks 2022

As creative professionals in the entertainment industry, it’s easy to think that once you’ve registered your copyright, you’re fully protected. However, recent cases like Iyere v. Bendel Feed and Flour Mill Ltd. (2023) and Omojola v. Unique Filmworks (2022) reveal that copyright registration is only one layer of protection. Without clear contractual agreements, even the strongest copyright claims can unravel in court, leaving creators vulnerable. In Iyere v. Bendel Feed and Flour Mill Ltd. (2023), the court ruled in favor of the claimant, who alleged that their creative work had been used without proper licensing. The ruling emphasized that even where copyright is registered, co-ownership disputes can arise if proper contracts and co-author agreements are not established beforehand. Now let's consider the case more closely. The claimant, Mr. Iyere, alleged that the defendant used his original creative work—an advertising jingle—without proper licensing. Mr. Iyere had created the jingle for a promotional campaign, which was initially agreed upon verbally. However, no formal contract was ever executed between the parties. When the jingle gained popularity and the defendant continued to use it in subsequent campaigns, Mr. Iyere sought legal redress, claiming copyright infringement and demanding compensation for the unauthorized use of his work.

During the proceeding, the Claimant argued that under the Copyright Act, Mr. Iyere had the exclusive right to control the use of his creative work, including the right to license it for commercial purposes. Counsel emphasized that copyright protection subsists in the jingle, regardless of whether it had been formally licensed. The continuous use of the jingle by the defendant without a licensing agreement amounted to copyright infringement. However, the defense argued that the absence of a formal contract nullified the claimant’s rights to assert copyright infringement. They contended that the verbal agreement implied that the work was a “work for hire,” giving the defendant ownership over the jingle. The court ruled in favor of the claimant, holding that copyright exists upon creation of an original work and does not require a written contract to be enforceable. However, the court emphasized the importance of having clear, written agreements in place to avoid disputes over ownership and usage rights. The judge reasoned that the lack of a formal licensing agreement did not absolve the defendant from liability, as the jingle clearly belonged to the claimant. The court’s decision underscored that even when copyright is registered, disputes over ownership can still arise if the contractual terms regarding co-authorship and licensing are unclear. Creators should not rely solely on copyright registration as a defense; they must also ensure that contracts clearly define who owns the intellectual property and under what conditions it can be used.

Similarly, in Omojola v. Unique Filmworks (2022), Mr. Omojola was a screenwriter who collaborated with Unique Filmworks on a feature film. The initial agreement between the parties was informal, with Mr. Omojola being promised “credit” as a co-writer, but the terms of copyright ownership were never explicitly discussed. After the film’s release, Unique Filmworks registered the copyright solely in its name, excluding Mr. Omojola from ownership rights. Omojola sued, claiming that the film’s script was a product of joint authorship and that he was entitled to co-ownership of the copyright. the court reiterated that copyright claims are not foolproof if co-ownership disputes are not adequately addressed in the initial agreements between collaborating parties. Claimant’s Counsel argued that under the Copyright Act, joint authorship exists where two or more persons collaborate on a work and their contributions are inseparable. Counsel contended that Mr. Omojola’s substantial input in writing the film’s script made him a joint author and, therefore, a co-owner of the copyright. They argued that the failure to acknowledge his contribution and exclude him from the copyright registration was a breach of his rights. The Defendant’s Counsel maintained that no formal contract existed between the parties that established joint ownership. They further argued that the work was commissioned by Unique Filmworks, and as the commissioning party, they had exclusive rights to register the copyright.

The court held in favor of the claimant, finding that the absence of a written contract did not negate the fact that the script was a work of joint authorship. The judge ruled that both parties had contributed to the creation of the film’s script in a way that made their contributions inseparable. As such, both were entitled to co-ownership of the copyright. The court further emphasized that joint authorship arises automatically when two or more people collaborate on a creative work, but the rights of each author must be formalized in a contract to prevent disputes like this. The ruling was a stark reminder that co-authorship disputes can undermine copyright claims when creators fail to define their rights and responsibilities at the outset of a project.

The entertainment industry has seen a surge in collaborative projects—whether it’s musicians featuring on each other’s tracks, filmmakers co-directing, or visual artists teaming up on multimedia installations. With this increase in collaboration, the legal landscape is shifting toward a heightened emphasis on formal agreements that clearly define each party’s rights and obligations. Both Iyere v. Bendel Feed and Flour Mill Ltd. and Omojola v. Unique Filmworks are emblematic of a broader legal trend: the courts are recognizing the complexities of joint authorship and co-ownership in creative industries. However, they are also cautioning that relying solely on copyright registration without clearly defined contracts is a recipe for disputes.

Recent amendments to Nigeria’s Copyright Act, such as the 2022 revisions, reflect this shift. For instance, Section 108 of the Act defines joint authorship as “the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contributions of the authors are merged into an inseparable or interdependent part of a whole.” This legal definition directly impacts artists, writers, filmmakers, and other creatives, reminding them that IP ownership is not automatic—it’s earned through careful legal planning.

Practical Lessons for Artists and Entertainers

If there’s one takeaway from these cases, it’s that contracts are not optional—they’re essential. Here are a few critical steps you should take to protect your creative work:

1. Always Formalize Agreements: Whether it’s a verbal promise or a casual collaboration, make sure that every project has a written contract in place. This document should outline who owns the intellectual property and how it can be used.
2. Define Joint Authorship Clearly: If you’re working on a project with others, clarify whether the work is a product of joint authorship. If it is, explicitly state how the copyright will be divided and what each party’s responsibilities are.
3. Don’t Rely Solely on Copyright Registration: While registering your copyright is important, it’s not a shield against disputes. Legal ownership should always be supported by comprehensive contracts that outline usage rights, revenue sharing, and credit attribution.
4. Involve a Lawyer Early: Many creators delay involving a lawyer until a dispute arises. However, getting legal advice early can save you from potential pitfalls and ensure that your intellectual property rights are protected from the beginning.