Copyright Authorship in Musical Works: An Analysis of The Judgment in Michael Oluwole V. Osinachi Egbu

Contributor: Okosa Marycynthia Chinwendu

Introduction

Copyright law protects original intellectual expression by granting authors and other right holders legally enforceable interests in eligible works. Under the Copyright Act 2022, literary, musical and artistic works qualify for copyright where the statutory requirements of originality and fixation are satisfied.^[1] In the music industry, however, identifying the author can become difficult where songwriters, producers, instrumentalists, sound engineers and performers contribute at different stages of a recording.

That difficulty arose in Michael Oluwole (Maye) v Osinachi Joseph Egbu (Sinach), a Federal High Court dispute concerning the internationally successful song “Way Maker”.^[2] The plaintiff, a music producer and recording engineer, claimed that his work on the song entitled him to recognition as a co-author and co-owner, a share of licensing income, and relief for alleged infringement of performers’ rights. The defendant maintained that the song had already been written and performed before the plaintiff became involved and that his role was limited to paid production services.

The dispute required the Court to distinguish between participation in the production of a recording and authorship of the underlying musical work. That distinction is fundamental because Nigerian copyright law treats a musical work, a sound recording and a performance as separate protected subject matters, each capable of attracting different rights and different ownership consequences.

This article examines the judgment against the statutory framework governing musical works, joint authorship, ownership and performers’ rights. It argues that the decision properly rejects the proposition that technical involvement in music production automatically confers authorship, while also underscoring that a producer or instrumentalist may acquire a copyright interest where the person can prove an original creative contribution that forms part of the protected musical work.

Factual Background And Genesis Of The Dispute

The dispute arose from competing claims concerning the authorship and ownership of “Way Maker”. The plaintiff alleged that he participated in the recording, mixing and mastering of the song and also created or performed instrumental accompaniments, including piano, strings and synthesiser elements. He contended that these contributions were incorporated into the commercially released recording without an agreement assigning his alleged rights or providing him with a share of the income generated from the work.^[3]

On that basis, the plaintiff sought, among other reliefs, declarations that he was an author and co-owner of the musical work, an equitable share of licensing and assignment income, an account of royalties, recognition of his performer’s rights and ₦5 billion in general damages.

The defendant denied that the plaintiff contributed to the composition’s authorship. Her case was that “Way Maker” had already been composed, arranged and performed before the plaintiff was engaged to work on the recording for commercial release. She maintained that his role was essentially technical, consisting of mixing and mastering services for which he had been paid.^[4]

The principal copyright question was therefore not whether the plaintiff had participated in the production process. His participation was not, by itself, determinative. The material question was whether he proved a contribution of original copyrightable expression sufficient to make him an author or joint author of the musical work.

Statutory Framework For Copyright Authorship Under The Copyright Act 2022

The Copyright Act 2022 expressly recognises musical works and sound recordings as separate categories of works eligible for copyright. A musical work must satisfy the statutory requirements that effort has been expended to give it an original character and that it has been fixed in a medium from which it can be perceived, reproduced or otherwise communicated.^[5] Although “Way Maker” was created before the commencement of the 2022 Act, section 107(6) provides that the Act applies to works made before its commencement as it applies to works made afterwards.^[6]

Section 108 defines a “musical work” as a musical composition, irrespective of musical quality. At the same time, a “sound recording” is the fixation of a sequence of sounds capable of being perceived aurally and reproduced. The Act also defines the author of a sound recording as the person who made the arrangements for making the sound recording.^[7] These definitions make clear that copyright in the underlying composition is conceptually distinct from copyright in the recorded fixation of that composition.

Copyright in a musical work includes the exclusive rights to reproduce, publish, perform, distribute, communicate and adapt the work, among other controlled acts.^[8] The author also enjoys moral rights, including the right to claim authorship and to have that authorship indicated in connection with specified uses of the work.^[9] Identifying the author therefore affects both economic control and personal attribution.

The Act contemplates joint authorship but does not equate collaboration with mere participation. A “work of joint authorship” is one produced through the collaboration of two or more authors whose contributions are merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of the whole.^[10] Accordingly, a person claiming joint authorship must first establish that the contribution relied upon is itself an authorship contribution rather than a purely technical, administrative or facilitative service.

First ownership generally follows authorship. Section 28(1) provides that, except as otherwise provided in an agreement, copyright initially vests in the author. The Supreme Court had similarly recognised the general first-ownership principle under the previous copyright legislation in Musical Copyright Society of Nigeria Ltd/Gte v Compact Disc Technology Ltd & Ors.^[11] The 2022 Act also recognises co-ownership where persons share a joint interest in the whole or part of a copyright.^[12]

Musical Works, Sound Recordings and Performers’ Rights

The distinction between the underlying composition and the sound recording is especially important in collaborative music production. A person may contribute to the making of a recording without thereby becoming an author of the musical composition. Conversely, a contributor who creates an original melody, harmony, arrangement or other protectable musical expression may have a stronger claim to authorship than a contributor whose work is confined to technical recording or post-production.

Performer’s rights are also analytically separate from copyright authorship. The Copyright Act grants performers exclusive rights in relation to the fixation, reproduction, distribution, communication and other exploitation of their performances, subject to the Act’s conditions and exceptions.^[13] A contributor may therefore fail to establish co-authorship of a musical work yet still possess performer’s rights if the statutory requirements are proved. The two inquiries should not be collapsed into one.

This separation of rights matters in the “Way Maker” dispute because the plaintiff framed his case around both copyright ownership and performer’s rights. The Court ultimately dismissed the claims, but the statutory structure remains important for future disputes: authorship of a composition, ownership of a sound recording, and rights in a musical performance are distinct legal questions.

Decision Of The Federal High Court

In Michael Oluwole (Maye) v Osinachi Joseph Egbu (Sinach), the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa held that the plaintiff failed to establish a legal basis for co-authorship or co-ownership of “Way Maker”.^[14]

The chronology of creation was central to the Court’s conclusion. The Court accepted the defendant’s evidence that the song had been created and performed before the plaintiff became involved in the project. It treated his subsequent engagement as work on an existing musical composition for the purpose of developing the commercially released recording.^[15]

The Court also distinguished original creative authorship from technical production services. It rejected the proposition that recording, mixing, mastering or other production activity automatically makes the service provider an author of the underlying musical work. The plaintiff was required to prove that the contribution on which he relied constituted original expressive material that formed part of the composition itself.^[16]

Having found that the plaintiff did not establish such authorship, the Court rejected his claims to co-ownership, licensing income and the consequential reliefs sought. The reported judgment also records the dismissal of the plaintiff’s performer’s-rights claim.^[17]

Creative Contribution Or Technical Service? A Critical Analysis Of The Judgment

The Court’s central distinction is doctrinally sound. Copyright authorship should not arise merely because a person participated in the production process. Modern music production may involve many contributors whose services are indispensable to the final recording, but indispensability is not the statutory test for authorship. The relevant inquiry is whether the claimant created original expression protected as part of the musical work.

At the same time, the distinction between “creative” and “technical” contributions should not be applied mechanically. Music producers and instrumentalists may make genuinely compositional contributions. An original arrangement, instrumental line or other musical element may satisfy the originality and fixation requirements, depending on the evidence and the nature of the contribution. The Act itself recognises arrangements and adaptations of pre-existing works within the broader concept of protected works, subject to the applicable originality requirements.^[18]

Accordingly, the description attached to a contributor should not decide the question. A person does not become an author merely because they are called a producer, nor is authorship excluded merely because the contributor is described as a sound engineer or session musician. The Court must examine what the person actually created, whether that contribution possesses the required originality, whether it was fixed, and whether it became part of the musical work through the collaborative process contemplated by the Act.

On the reported facts of “Way Maker”, the chronology materially weakened the plaintiff’s case. The Court found that the composition existed before his involvement and that his engagement related principally to preparing the recording for commercial release. In those circumstances, proof of recording, mixing and mastering services could not, without evidence of a separate original contribution to the composition, establish joint authorship.

The judgment is therefore most persuasive when understood as an evidential and classificatory decision rather than as a categorical rule that producers can never be authors. Its significance lies in requiring a claimant to identify and prove the particular copyrightable expression said to have been created, instead of relying on general participation in production.

Implications For Nigeria’s Music Industry

The judgment has practical importance for artists, producers, instrumentalists, engineers, record labels and music publishers. Collaborative recording sessions frequently involve informal working arrangements in which the parties focus on completing the music and postpone questions of authorship, ownership, royalties and publishing shares. That informality creates substantial litigation risk when a work later becomes commercially successful.

Parties should therefore document their respective creative and technical roles early. Where a contributor is intended to receive an authorship or ownership interest, the agreement should identify the relevant contribution and the agreed share. Where the arrangement involves an assignment of copyright or an exclusive licence, section 30(3) of the Copyright Act requires the transaction to be in writing; a non-exclusive licence may be written, oral or inferred from conduct.^[19]

Documentation is particularly important where a producer contributes an arrangement or instrumental element that may cross the line from production service into protectable musical expression. Split sheets, production agreements and session documentation can record whether a contribution is commissioned as a service, recognised as co-authorship, licensed, assigned or separately remunerated. These instruments do not create authorship where the underlying creative contribution does not exist, but they can prevent later uncertainty about ownership and exploitation rights.

The judgment also encourages courts and industry participants to separate the rights involved in a modern recording. The author of the musical work, the owner of the sound recording and the performer may be different persons. Clear classification of those rights is essential to accurate royalty allocation and to avoiding the assumption that participation in one layer of the production automatically creates rights in another.

Conclusion

The judgment in Michael Oluwole (Maye) v Osinachi Joseph Egbu (Sinach) provides useful guidance on copyright authorship in Nigerian musical works. It confirms that participation in producing a recording does not, by itself, confer authorship or co-ownership of the underlying composition. A claimant must identify and prove an original creative contribution capable of attracting copyright protection.

The decision should not, however, be read as excluding producers, instrumentalists or other studio contributors from authorship as a class. Where a contributor creates original musical expression that becomes an inseparable or interdependent part of a jointly created work, the statutory requirements for joint authorship may be satisfied. The decisive issue is the substance of the contribution, not the professional label attached to the contributor.

For Nigeria’s increasingly collaborative music industry, the wider lesson is both legal and practical. Copyright authorship, sound-recording ownership and performers’ rights should be distinguished carefully, while the parties’ respective interests should be documented before commercial exploitation begins. Clear agreements cannot substitute for legally recognisable authorship, but they can significantly reduce disputes over who created, owns and may exploit the rights embodied in a musical production.

Reference:

1. Copyright Act 2022, ss 2(1)-(2), 107(6)-(7). ↑
2. Michael Oluwole (Maye) v Osinachi Joseph Egbu (Sinach), Suit No FHC/L/CS/402/2024 (Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, 24 July 2026) (unreported). ↑
3. Michael Oluwole (Maye) v Osinachi Joseph Egbu (Sinach) (n 1). ↑
4. ↑
5. ↑
6. ↑
7. Ibid s 108. ↑
8. Ibid s 9(1). ↑
9. Ibid s 14(1)(a). ↑
10. ↑
11. Musical Copyright Society of Nigeria Ltd/Gte v Compact Disc Technology Ltd & Ors (2018) LPELR-46353(SC); Copyright Act 2022, s 28(1). ↑
12. Copyright Act 2022, ss 30(5)-(7), 108. ↑
13. Ibid ss 63, 66, 71-72. ↑
14. ↑
15. Ibid. ↑
16. ↑
17. ↑
18. Copyright Act 2022, ss 2(2), 108. ↑
19. Ibid s 30(3)-(4). ↑