The Ethics of Copyright in Online User-Generated Content in Nigeria

Contributor: Cyril Samuel Dandison

Introduction

User-Generated content (UGC) has evolved into a powerful tool for brands as it is a form of authentic content created by users and everyday consumers of brand products. UGC refers to any content, photos, videos, reviews, or testimonials created and shared by customers, fans, or creators rather than the brand itself.^[1]

UGC is defined based on several key characteristics including being created by a user, being shared on a public and social platform. The rise of UGC has disrupted traditional media and empowered independent creators. However, most content creators face the struggle of properly handling copyright to avoid legal issues when posting user-generated content.^[2] This article shall view the ethical implications of copyright in User-generated content.

Copyright ownership and rights in User-Generative Content Corporate ownership

The nature of UGC raises the question of who retains copyright ownership as well as the right to the creation. By virtues of the Copyright act^[3], A creator is a copyright owner once they create an original work and fix it, in a tangible form of expression.^[4]

In the aspect of UGC, where a person records a video wearing a pair of jeans, talking about the jeans and uploads it on social media, the creator of the video is the author of that video. Video creators are authors, ‘they cannot be blown away, as it were, by a side wind’.

UGC has given individual consumers the right to become creators and adopt certain rights available to copyright owners. Copyright Rights available to UGC The copyright act, 2022 provides for rights available to UGC creators

1. Freedom to decide how their work is used: Section 9(1) of the Copyright Act 2022, a creator may authorize or restrict the reproduction, publication, or performance of their work.
2. Right to duplicate and distribute products in the manner that the creator wishes: Copyright gives creators the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute their works in any format or medium. This means that no other person or organization can lawfully copy, repost, or circulate the work without permission from the creator.
3. Right to earn from their work: Another essential aspect of copyright protection is the creator’s economic right. Section 9 of the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022 gives copyright owners the exclusive right to control the commercial exploitation of their creations.
4. Right of integrity: This is also known as the moral rights of an author. Section 14 of the Copyright Act specifically provides that the right to authorship exists for the creator of a work in which copyright is in effect9. It also states that a person has the right to object to a work being falsely attributed to him as the author.

These rights ensure that creators maintain ownership, control, and reward for their intellectual property. Even within the collaborative and fast-paced environment of social media, respecting these rights is both a legal obligation and an ethical necessity for brands.

Consent and Attribution in the Copyright Protection of User-Generated Content in Nigeria

In Nigeria, the ethical framework surrounding copyright concerning online user-generated content (UGC) is progressively shaped by the convergence of legal rights, technological developments, and changing collective management approaches. At the centre of this interaction, are the twin pillars of consent and attribution, both of which are foundational not only to copyright doctrine, but also to the broader moral imperatives of fairness, autonomy, and respect for creative labour particularly in the digital sphere.

Consent and Attribution as a Cornerstone of Copyright in the Digital Age

Under the Nigerian Copyright Act, 2022, an author’s right to control the use of his or her work is unalienable, unless expressly curtailed by statute. Consent is thus a jurisprudential requirement for legal exploitation. This criterion is especially important in the digital economy, as user-generated content (UGC) spreads quickly across social media platforms, streaming services, and interactive online forums. Every act of reproduction, communication to the public, distribution, or adaptation must, unless falling under a statutory exception, be anchored on the author’s voluntary and informed consent.^[5]

The 2025 Collective Management Regulations (CMR) strengthen the requirements for transparency, disclosure, and accountability among Collective Management Organisations (CMOs). In principle, CMOs should only license works with the clear consent of the author or right holder. Yet, there is an ethical issue when it comes to user-generated content and creators who are not members. The Regulations allow CMOs to earn money from the works of non-members, as Section 88(9) of the Copyright Act permits. However, these creators do not receive any procedural protections. They are not notified, do not have guaranteed access to information, and cannot participate in the complaint or dispute-resolution process.^[6]

This disconnect reveals a deeper ethical problem. For consent to matter, it needs to be real and involve the creator directly. If a system lets creators benefit financially but leaves them out of important decisions, it can become a kind of copyright paternalism, where others control creators instead of supporting them. In user-generated content spaces, where many young and informal creators are active, not having ways for them to participate in consent takes away the autonomy that copyright law is supposed to protect.^[7]

While attribution on its end, which is protected in Nigeria as part of an author’s moral right has become even more important today; identity, visibility, and reputation are still key to a creator’s success. For creators of user-generated content, being credited can be as valuable as getting paid, since it helps them grow their audience, find new opportunities, and gain recognition. By ensuring authors have the right to be identified, Nigerian law treats attribution as a lasting and essential part of creative dignity.^[8]

However, the way UGC platforms are designed often undermines this right. Content is shared, re-posted, remixed, and changed by algorithms, which can separate it from its original creator. Ethically, not giving credit in these situations is more than just a copyright issue; it can be seen as taking someone’s identity. To address this, Nigeria should consider more than just standard copyright rules and look at digital platform solutions like required attribution tags, notice-and-stay-down systems, and clear responsibilities for platforms to help protect moral rights online.^[9]

Given these points, the Nigerian system shows a conflict between economic efficiency and fair procedures. The CMR improves governance for CMO members but does not fully protect the consent and attribution rights of UGC creators who are not members. The main ethical issue is recognition: the law should treat all creators whose works are used by CMOs as rights-holders, not just passive recipients.

In a digital environment defined by interactivity and shared creativity, protecting UGC demands a copyright system grounded in autonomy, accountability, attribution and inclusivity. Only by embedding these principles can Nigeria’s copyright governance align with global ethical standards and respond meaningfully to the lived realities of UGC creators.

Ethical Challenges in Enforcement of copyright protection in user-generated contents in Nigeria

To begin, the Copyright Act of 2022 recognizes only human authorship, barring works developed autonomously by artificial intelligence other generative technologies from copyright protection. This constraint creates not just legal ambiguity but also ethical uncertainty, especially when AI systems make derivative works based on pre-existing user-generated expressions without the author’s knowledge or consent. Nigerian creators are increasingly confronted with circumstances in which their works are digested, modified, or copied by opaque technologies, despite the fact that the law provides no clear procedure for determining consent, ownership, or culpability. The ethical quandary stems from a growing disparity between the creator’s right to own their intellectual production and technology systems that exploit such works without transparency or authorization.^[10]

The worldwide and deterritorialized character of online content production and distribution intensifies the even more. Many of the generating technologies and platforms that support or take use of UGC are not under Nigerian control. This presents challenging issues about reciprocal legal assistance, cross-border enforcement, and the applicability of Nigerian copyright laws. Enforcement becomes not only logistically difficult but also morally problematic when a Nigerian creator’s work is copied, altered, or shared on a foreign platform without permission. This is because the creator is left without any real recourse in spite of the obvious infringement of their economic and moral rights.^[11]

The opacity of AI systems and the demands of proof imposed on developers provide an equally important ethical dilemma. Since algorithmic procedures are “black boxes,” it is very challenging for authors to track down illegal use of their works or demonstrate unauthorized duplication in copied products. However, Nigerian law still places the burden of proof on the author, demanding a level of proof that is nearly impossible to fulfill in many digital circumstances. Fairness, access to justice, and the integrity of the copyright system are all seriously called into question by this, especially in cases when consent has been circumvented but cannot be shown forensically.^[12]

Another level of ethical concern is raised by the institutional and technological limitations of Nigeria’s enforcement institutions. Regulatory agencies and law enforcement organizations frequently lack the digital know-how, equipment, and resources required to regulate violation in a quickly changing online environments. As a result, there is uneven enforcement, vulnerability to misuse, and unequal protection that gives technologically advanced infringers an advantage over weaker producers. When enforcement methods are insufficient to effectively respect the author’s will, a regime based on consent-based rights loses its moral credibility.

Other factors that contribute to complexities include the various cultural factors that Nigerian folklore, collective cultural expression, and creativity are subjected to by unauthorized digital use through user-generated content and innovations enabled by artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms. The deficiency that derives from the unauthorized use, adaptation, or imitation is beyond copyright, since it also has elements related to identity, legacy, and collective dignity.^[13]

Taken together, these challenges underscore the urgent need for targeted legal and policy reform. Nigeria must clarify the status of AI-assisted and AI-generated works, strengthen transparency obligations for digital platforms, impose clearer duties relating to consent, and equip enforcement institutions with the capacity to respond effectively to digital-era infringements. Only through such reforms can the law safeguard creators’ rights, uphold the ethical centrality of consent, and preserve cultural integrity while still encouraging innovation and digital participation.

Conclusion
Conclusively, the ethical challenges surrounding the enforcement of copyright protection in user-generated content in Nigeria reflect a fundamental tension between traditional legal doctrines and the evolving realities of digital creativity. While the Copyright Act vests authors with exclusive rights grounded in autonomy and consent, the complex dynamics of online content creation, platform-based dissemination, and AI-driven reuse have weakened the practical expression of those rights. Nigerian creators now operate in an environment where their works may be appropriated, reproduced, or transformed without permission, yet the legal and institutional structures designed to uphold their consent struggle to keep pace with technological change.

Addressing these challenges requires Nigeria to take deliberate and forward-looking steps in reform. Clearer guidance on AI-related use of copyrighted works, stronger transparency obligations for digital platforms, enhanced technological capacity for enforcement agencies, and renewed emphasis on moral rights and consent are essential. Only through such reforms can Nigeria build a copyright regime that is not merely legal in its form, but ethical in its operation—one that genuinely safeguards creators, respects cultural heritage, and fosters innovation in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Reference

1. Wilson Claire, ‘User-generated content (UGC): Everything you need to know’, Emplifi (7 November, 2024) Available @ User-generated content (UGC): Everything you need to know accessed 23^rd October 2025. ↑

2. Ibid ↑

3. Copyright Act 2022, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN). ↑

4. Ojieh A. and Ogidan A., ‘Content Creators: Rights under the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022’, Redeemer’s University Nigeria, Journal of Jurisprudence & International Law 2024 [4](1) ↑

5. S. Peter, “Challenges of Copy-Right Enforcement in the Digital Age” (Your Law Article; 2024) https://www.yourlawarticle.com/post/challenges-of-copyright-enforcement-in-the-digital-age accessed 27th October, 2025 ↑

6. A. Usman “Nigeria’s 2025 Collective Management Regulations: A Comprehensive Analysis” (21^st Street Legal Practitioners; 2025)

   Available @ https://21streetlp.com/nigerias-2025-collective-management-regulations-acomprehensive-analysis/ accessed 24^th October 2025 ↑

7. Available @ https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://socialtargeter.com/blogs/the-ethics-of-ugc-navigating-copyright-and-consent-in-user-generated-content&ved=2ahUKEwjUqI78wMSQAxX5T0EAHfpAFJoQFnoECBkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1Zyw3veS-w4fwNvkv_wGmh accessed 25^th October ↑

8. Ibid ↑

9. Ibid ↑

10. Copyright Law and The Emergence of Artificial Intelligence: Emerging Legal Issues and Challenges, Harlem. https://www.harlemsolicitors.com/2025/01/30/copyright-law-and-the-emergence-of-artificial-intelligence-emerging-legal-issues-and-challenges/ accessed 24^th October 2025 ↑

11. Ibid ↑

12. E.E. Adaka & Dr. I. A Oluwabiyi, Lessons for Nigeria: Determining Authorship and Inventorship of Artificial Intelligence Generated Works. file:///C:/Users/MY%20LAPTOP/Downloads/01-eloghene-e.-adaka–dr.-ifeoluwa-a.-olubiyi%20(3).pdf accessed 24^th October 2025 ↑

13. Ibid ↑