Contributor: Okosa Chinwendu Marycynthia.
Introduction
Recently, the intersection of personal identity and intellectual property (IP) has gained unprecedented attention in Nigeria’s legal landscape. At the centre of this emerging discourse is the question of image rights, which is the ability of an individual to control the commercial use of their likeness in the absence of explicit statutory protection.[2] Although Nigerian law does not currently address image rights as an independent intellectual property category, the judiciary has increasingly been called upon to fill this gap through judicial interpretation and application of existing doctrines. A critical moment in this evolution is the Supreme Court’s decision in Ubom v. Globacom (Nig.) Ltd,[3] where the apex court confronted whether the unauthorized use of a person’s photograph for corporate advertising constituted a copyright issue or an independent claim grounded in contract and personality rights.
This article will discuss the emerging legal recognition and status of image rights in Nigeria, focusing on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ubom v. Globacom (Nig.) Ltd. It will examine the facts of the case, where the appellant’s image was used on national billboards without her consent, and how the Supreme Court distinguished claims for unauthorized commercial use of a person’s likeness from traditional copyright disputes. Finally, it will highlight how the judgment reflects a growing judicial acknowledgment that individuals have legal interests in controlling the commercial exploitation of their images, even though Nigerian law has no express statutory regime on image rights.
Image Rights vs. Intellectual Property Rights
It is imperative to discuss the concepts of image rights and IP rights so as to have a broader understanding of the decision of the court in Udom’s case. Image rights, often also referred to as rights of publicity, concern an individual’s ability to control the commercial exploitation of their persona, including name, likeness, voice, and other identifying characteristics, without another’s permission.[4] This concept focuses on a person’s personal identity rather than a creative work. In Nigeria, there is yet no comprehensive legislation on image rights, but they are increasingly recognized through case law, privacy principles, and related legal doctrines. These rights prevent unauthorized commercial use of a person’s image or persona for third-party benefit.[5]
By contrast, IP rights like copyright are legal protections granted to creators of original works such as photographs, artistic works, or literary pieces.[6] In Nigeria, the Copyright Act automatically vests copyright in a photograph with its photographer (or creator), who then controls its reproduction, publication, and distribution. This IP right attaches to the creative work rather than the person depicted within the work.[7]
The distinction matters because ownership of a copyrighted photograph does not automatically permit unrestricted commercial use of the subject’s image; the subject’s image right remains a separate interest. The Supreme Court’s decision in Ubom’s case illustrates this distinction: although the photographer (or copyright owner) holds the copyright, the subject retains the right to control the commercial use of her likeness, necessitating consent for such use.
Facts of the Case
Ubom, a budding artist (Appellant), took part in Globacom’s (the Respondent) GLO Naija Sings musical talent competition in 2010. Despite placing second in the competition, she did not get any material or monetary rewards, which surprised her. A few months later, the appellant was shocked to see that Globacom was promoting the 2011 competition by widely exploiting her image on billboards throughout Nigeria without her permission or authorization. Feeling aggrieved by this unlawful commercial exploitation of her image, the appellant brought an action in the Rivers State High Court, requesting an injunction to prevent future unlawful use as well as a declaration that the use of her image was unlawful and repugnant. She also sought substantial general damages.
Citing Sections 15(1)(a) and 26(1) of the Copyright Act Cap. C. 28 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004, the respondent responded that the appellant’s claim concerned copyright problems. As a result, they argued that the Rivers State High Court lacked the authority to hear the lawsuit because the Federal High Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the subject. The respondent’s jurisdictional argument was affirmed by the trial court and also the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appellant’s action on the grounds that it was a copyright issue.
The Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court emphasized that the core of Ubom’s case was the unauthorized commercial exploitation of her image and persona for advertising and the attendant economic advantage enjoyed by Globacom, all without her consent. It held that while it is true that photographs qualify as artistic works capable of attracting protection under Sections 2 and 108 of the Copyright Act 2022, this litigation did not rest on any allegation that the appellant was the author, owner, or exclusive proprietor of the copyright in the photograph itself. The court further held that she never contended that she took the picture or held exclusive reproduction rights as a copyright holder. Rather, her grievance arose from the use of her likeness, her identity, face, charisma and public appeal, in a promotional campaign that she characterised as an implied contractual obligation or an improper appropriation of her personal attributes for commercial return.
In emphasizing this distinction, the Court observed that the lower courts had incorrectly merged the issue of copyright ownership with the separate right of an individual to regulate the commercial use of their image. Copyright in a photograph ordinarily belongs to the photographer, not the subject, unless there is an express agreement to the contrary. The appellant’s pleadings, however, focused squarely on the misuse of her likeness for the respondent’s financial benefit, and not a breach of statutory copyright. Because the claim did not establish the appellant’s title to copyright, it could not properly be classified as a copyright infringement falling within the Federal High Court’s exclusive jurisdiction.
Juxtaposing Ubom v. Globacom with Banire v. NTA-Star TV Network Ltd[8]
A useful comparison in Nigerian jurisprudence arises when Udom’s case is contrasted with the earlier Banire v. NTA-Star TV Network Ltd.[9]
In this case, the Court of Appeal confronted a dispute arising from the use of the appellant’s photographs on outdoor billboards without her express authorization, which she claimed violated her image and intellectual property rights. The court held that, under Sections 10 and 51 of the Copyright Act, copyright in photographs vests in the photographer, in that case, Virtual Media Network Limited, rather than the subject depicted in the images, absent an agreement to the contrary, and dismissed the appeal on that basis.
By contrast, the Supreme Court in Ubom’s case recognized that the appellant’s grievance did not pertain to copyright ownership but rather to the unauthorized commercial exploitation of her likeness for advertising purposes. Consequently, the Court clarified that her claim did not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court for copyright matters and instead engaged distinct legal interests in image control and consent.
Thus, the cases illustrate a developing tension in Nigerian law between copyright ownership of images and individual control over commercial use of personal likeness.
Judicial Recognition of Image Rights in Nigeria
The Supreme Court’s judgement in Ubom’s case reflects a growing judicial acknowledgement that individuals possess legally protectable interests in controlling how their images are commercially exploited, even though Nigeria lacks an express statutory regime on image rights. In Banire v. NTA-Star TV Network Ltd, the Court of Appeal had earlier upheld that copyright in a photograph belongs to the photographer and declined to recognise an independent image right under Nigerian law, emphasising traditional copyright principles. However, Ubom’s case portrays a remarkable shift to the effect that the Supreme Court clarified that a claim based on unauthorized commercial use of likeness is not simply a copyright dispute and may be actionable under contract or tort, reinforcing that consent to use an individual’s image for economic benefit is central to modern image rights discourse.[10] This doctrinal progression highlights the courts’ willingness to protect personal identity interests alongside established intellectual property frameworks.
Conclusion
Finally, the Supreme Court in Ubom v. Globacom affirmed that unauthorized commercial use of a person’s image is not a copyright matter but an independent claim grounded in contract and personal rights, emphasising the need for consent and protecting individual identity interests even without express statutory image-rights provisions.
Reference
- (2025) 6 NWLR (PT. 1985) 157 AT 183 ↑
- Cloete, R, ‘The Taxation of Image Rights: A Comparative Analysis’, (2012) 45(3) De Jure Law Journal, 556, <https://share.google/nsiB9PWlik7hPNh7a> accessed 27 January, 2026. ↑
- Supra. ↑
- Olubiyi, IA, et al, ‘Increasing the Commercial Value of Image Rights in Nigeria: Legal Possibilities’ (2020) 15(3), Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 193, <https://share.google/bM8YYdKaNrW61hUIJ>, accessed 27 January, 2026. ↑
- Nwabueze, SA, ‘Beyond the Runway: Understanding the Scope of Image Rights Protection under Nigerian Law’, <https://share.google/pMe0aDutSeKvSF5in>, accessed 27 January, 2026. ↑
- WIPO, ‘Copyrights’, <https://share.google/iDrNG10EWFJD5VXgJ>, accessed 27 January, 2026. ↑
- Egboh-Nwachukwu, C, et al, ‘Control vs. Ownership: Navigating the Thin Line between Image Rights and Copyright’, <https://share.google/axols48SHwsVkfyhR> accessed 27 January, 2026. ↑
- (2021) LPELR-52824 (CA) ↑
- Supra. ↑
- Egboh-Nwachukwu, C, et al, (n7). ↑
