Authored By: Tobechukwu Uzo-Nwokorie
Babcock University
ABSTRACT
The recognition and protection of image rights is still an unsettled area of Nigerian law. In the landmark case of Ubom v. GlobalCom (Nig.) Ltd, the Supreme Court clarified that although copyright in a photograph belongs to the photographer, the individual depicted retains a distinct interest in controlling the commercial use of their likeness. This decision highlights the need for Nigerian courts to balance the competing rights of photographers and subjects. While Nigeria currently lacks specific legislation on image rights, several existing legal frameworks provide avenues for protection, including the Nigerian Constitution, the tort of passing-off, the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018. By drawing from comparative jurisprudence, particularly from English law and persuasive authorities such as the European Court of Human Rights, this paper argues that Nigerian courts can and should protect individuals, especially public figures, against the unauthorized commercial exploitation of their images. These existing legal frameworks provide a foundation for the judicial recognition of image rights in Nigeria, pending the enactment of a comprehensive legislation that provides for image rights in Nigeria.
Keywords: Image rights, Commercial use, Copyright, Right, Privacy.
INTRODUCTION
In Ubom v. GlobalCom (Nig.) Ltd, the Supreme Court held that lower courts erred in treating the appellant’s claim over her image as a copyright issue. The Court clarified that while photographers own copyright in images, individuals retain a separate right to control the commercial use of their likeness; what can be termed image rights.
Currently, there is no law that expressly recognizes and provides for image rights in Nigeria.1 This article reviews the Supreme Court’s decision in Ubom v. GlobalCom and highlights the urgent need to protect image rights under already existing Nigerian legal frameworks, pending comprehensive legislative reform.
CASE SUMMARY: UBOM V. GLOBALCOM (NIG.) LTD
Sometime in 2010, the Appellant emerged as first runner-up in Globacom’s “GLO Naija Sings” competition but received no prize. Later, she discovered that Globacom had used her photographs on billboards nationwide to promote the 2011 edition of the competition without her consent, leading her to claim reputational harm and lost business opportunities. She sued at the Rivers State High Court, seeking a declaration of illegality, ₦500 million in damages, and an injunction.2
Globacom objected, arguing the matter was about performer’s rights under copyright law, which only the Federal High Court could hear. The High Court and Court of Appeal upheld this argument.3
On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts, holding that the Appellant’s case was not about copyright ownership but about the unauthorized commercial exploitation of her image and likeness. The Court ruled that the claim was grounded in contract and personal/image rights, placing it within the jurisdiction of the State High Court. The case was therefore restored for trial on its merits.4
This decision is significant because it distinguishes between copyright in a photograph and an individual’s right to control the commercial use of their image, opening the door for Nigerian courts to recognize image rights even in the absence of express statutory provisions.
CURRENT LEGAL POSITION ON IMAGE RIGHTS IN NIGERIA
As previously stated, there is no legislation that expressly provides for image rights in Nigeria.5In fact, Nigerian courts have held, in various cases, that image rights do not exist under the Nigerian law. In Banire v. NTA Star TV6, the court, after considering sections 10 and 51 of the Nigerian Copyright Act, 2004, stated thus, “What is evident from the above provision is that the person who is a muse or the person in the photograph is not in fact the author and therefore he/she does not own copyright in the photograph. Rather it is the person who took the photograph that is the author”.7
The absence of an express legal provision for and recognition of image rights in Nigeria, has left many individuals unprotected and strictly speaking, unentitled to any legal remedy in instances of their images being used without their consent. There have been cases of people, especially public figures, suing or threatening to sue organisations, for the use of their image without their consent. Such cases include Nigerian actor, Richard Mofe Damijo’s (popularly known as RMD) legal action against Jumia, a Nigerian online store, for the unauthorized use of his picture on their Instagram page, alongside hashtags used to promote JumiaFashion8; and Nigerian comedian, Mr. Emmanuel Ejekwu’s (popularly known as Oga Sabinus) intention to sue food company, UAC Nigeria Plc, for the use of a caricature of his image for promotion of their popular product, Gala.9 However, there is no record of any such cases being successful.
WHY IMAGE RIGHTS SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AND PROTECTED BY NIGERIAN COURTS UNDER EXISTING LAWS
While photographers rightly hold copyright in their works due to the effort and skill involved, this should not override the subject’s interest in controlling the use of their own image. Just as tort laws like nuisance and defamation balance conflicting rights, Nigerian courts should balance photographers’ copyright with individuals’ right to control the use of their likeness, especially for commercial purposes. Although no law expressly grants image rights, the courts should recognize and protect them because a person’s face is inherently an extension of their privacy.
LEGAL AVENUES FOR PROTECTING IMAGE RIGHTS
In the absence of any law expressly providing for image rights in Nigeria, a few existing laws can be applied by the courts. The first is section 37 of the Constitution, which guarantees and protects the privacy of citizens. Although ‘privacy’ is not defined under Nigerian law, persuasive authorities help in clarifying its scope. In Giorgi Nikolaishvili v. Georgia10, the European Court of Human Rights, interpreting Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), held that private life includes the right to one’s image, and that publishing a photograph without consent constitutes interference.11 Also, the Report of the Committee on Privacy and Related Matters 1990 defines ‘privacy’ as ‘The right of the individual to be protected against intrusion into his personal life or affairs, or those of his family, by direct physical means or by publication of information’.12 The use of a person’s picture for commercial purposes is an intrusion, as it implies an association with the brand being promoted.
Another avenue is the tort of passing-off, which prevents misrepresentation that one’s goods or services are connected with another by enforcing the latter’s rights to protect his identifiers from being used by the former.13 A person’s face, particularly that of a public figure, can function as such an identifier. In Irvine v. Talksport Ltd14, unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s image to promote a radio station was held to amount to false endorsement under passing-off, provided there is significant reputation and likelihood of misrepresentation. Likewise, in Rihanna Fenty v. Arcadia Group Brands15, the court held that selling t-shirts with Rihanna’s image constituted passing-off, as consumers were likely to believe she had endorsed them. However, passing-off generally favors public figures, since it requires proof of goodwill.
The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018, prohibits the use of marketing practices which are likely to mislead, deceive or cause misrepresentation to consumers, about goods and services.16 The use of a person’s image for commercial purposes creates a likelihood of consumers being misled into thinking that such person is associated with the goods or services being promoted.
Finally, the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023, also provides a legal framework for the protection of image rights by requiring that data processing be carried out either with the consent of the data subject or in circumstances permitted under section 25(1)(b) of the Act.17 The Act also provides that even if it was necessary for the pursuance of legitimate interests (which includes commercial purposes), data processing will not be considered lawful if it breached a fundamental right, freedoms or interest of the data subject, or where the data subject could not have had a reasonable expectation that the data will be processed in that manner. The concept of ‘data processing’ under the Act extends to the use of a person’s image, as the Act defines ‘processing’ to include use, dissemination, or disclosure, and defines ‘personal data’ as any information about an identifiable individual.18 Such information includes a person’s face or picture, thereby bringing image rights within the protective scope of the NDPA.
Also, the NDPA provides that a data subject has the right to object to the processing of his personal data, including where the data is being processed for direct marketing purposes.19 It also recognizes the right of a data subject to withdraw consent even after he formerly gave consent.20 Upon violation of any of the rights of a data subject, the data subject is entitled to lodge a complaint with the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) which is empowered to investigate and, where the violation is established, issue compliance orders against the offending data controller or processor, and impose administrative sanctions as provided under the Act.21
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ubom v. GlobalCom marks progress in recognizing image rights in Nigeria, even without explicit statutory backing. While photographers hold copyright, individuals still have an interest in how their likeness is used commercially. However, the lack of clear legislation limits remedies for victims of misuse. To bridge this gap, Nigerian courts should creatively apply existing laws, such as constitutional privacy rights, passing-off, consumer protection rules, and the Nigeria Data Protection Act, to protect image rights. Doing so would prevent reputational and economic harm while aligning Nigeria with global standards. Ultimately, legislative reform is urgently needed to expressly codify image rights, ensuring clarity and effective remedies.
REFERENCE(S):
Agbakoba-Onyejianya B and Adeboye M, ‘Review: Ubom v. GlobalCom (Nig.) Ltd (2025) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1985) 157 @ 183’ (Olisa Agbakoba Legal, 15 July 2025) <https://oal.law/review-ubom-v-globalcom-nig-ltd-2025-6-nwlr-pt-1985-157-183/> accessed 29 August 2025
Atoyebi OM, ‘The Concept of Passing-Off Actions in Nigeria’ (Omaplex, 17 July 2024) <https://omaplex.com.ng/the-concept-of-passing-off-actions-in-nigeria/> accessed 30 August 2025
Chima B, ‘Ubom v Globacom (Nig) Ltd (2025): Exploring the Venue, Grounds for Action, and Potential Causes of Action’ (LinkedIn, 21 May 2025) <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ubom-v-globacom-nig-ltd-2025-exploring-venue grounds-action-chima-a5apf> accessed 29 August 2025
Iwu PA, ‘Photo Privacy and Media/Image Rights in Nigeria’ The Barcode (Lagos, 1 April 2017) <http://barcode.stillwaterslaw.com/1.1/2017/04/01/photo-privacy-and-mediaimage rights-in-nigeria/> accessed 30 August 2025
Nwabueze S and Olumekor T, ‘Beyond the Runway: Understanding the Scope of Image Rights Protection under Nigerian Law’ (International Bar Association, 18 August 2021) <https://www.ibanet.org/image-rights-protection-nigerian-law> accessed 29 August 2025
Odugbemi G, ‘Oga Sabinus vs. Friesland Foods & UAC of Nigeria Plc: A Legal Opinion on the Alleged Intellectual Property Misuse’ (Social Science Research Network, 3 June 2022) <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4124929> accessed 30 August 2025
Olapoju K, ‘The True Story Behind RMD’s Legal Dispute with Jumia’ The Cable (Lagos, 27 July 2016) https://www.thecable.ng/the-true-story-behind-rmds-legal-dispute-with jumia/> accessed 30 August 2025
Tomlinson H, ‘Paul Weller, Article 8 and the Recognition of “Image Rights”’ (Inform Blog, 30 April 2014) <https://inforrm.org/2014/04/30/weller-article-8-and-the-recognition-of image-rights-hugh-tomlinson-qc> accessed 30 August 2025
Tunde & Adisa Legal Practitioners, ‘Image Rights Vs Ownership of Copyright in a Photograph under the Copyright Act – The Case Of Banire v. Nta Star Tv (Ca/a/345/2017)’ (Tunde & Adisa Legal, 15 February 2024) <https://tundeadisa.com/media_insights/image-rights-vs ownership/> accessed 30 August 2025
1Steve Nwabueze and Theodora Olumekor, ‘Beyond the Runway: Understanding the Scope of Image Rights Protection under Nigerian Law’ (International Bar Association, 18 August 2021) <https://www.ibanet.org/image rights-protection-nigerian-law> accessed 29 August 2025.
2 Branham Chima, ‘Ubom v Globacom (Nig) Ltd (2025): Exploring the Venue, Grounds for Action, and Potential Causes of Action’ (LinkedIn, 21 May 2025) <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ubom-v-globacom-nig-ltd-2025- exploring-venue-grounds-action-chima-a5apf> accessed 29 August 2025.
3Ibid.
4 Beverley Agbakoba-Onyejianya and Mayowa Adeboye, ‘Review: Ubom v. GlobalCom (Nig.) Ltd (2025) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1985) 157 @ 183’ (Olisa Agbakoba Legal, 15 July 2025) <https://oal.law/review-ubom-v-globalcom-nig-ltd-2025-6- nwlr-pt-1985-157-183/> accessed 29 August 2025.
5Steve Nwabueze and Theodora Olumekor, ‘Beyond the Runway: Understanding the Scope of Image Rights Protection under Nigerian Law’ (International Bar Association, 18 August 2021) <https://www.ibanet.org/image rights-protection-nigerian-law> accessed 29 August 2025.
6(Ca/a/345/2017).
7 Tunde & Adisa Legal Practitioners, ‘Image Rights Vs Ownership of Copyright in a Photograph under the Copyright Act – The Case Of Banire v. Nta Star Tv (Ca/a/345/2017)’ (Tunde & Adisa Legal, 15 February 2024) <https://tundeadisa.com/media_insights/image-rights-vs-ownership/> accessed 30 August 2025.
8 Kolapo Olapoju, ‘The True Story Behind RMD’s Legal Dispute with Jumia’ The Cable (Lagos, 27 July 2016) https://www.thecable.ng/the-true-story-behind-rmds-legal-dispute-with-jumia/> accessed 30 August 2025.
9 Gbenga Odugbemi, ‘Oga Sabinus vs. Friesland Foods & UAC of Nigeria Plc: A Legal Opinion on the Alleged Intellectual Property Misuse’ (Social Science Research Network, 3 June 2022) <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4124929> accessed 30 August 2025.
10 (37048/04, 13 January 2009).
11 Hugh Tomlinson, ‘Paul Weller, Article 8 and the Recognition of “Image Rights”’ (Inform Blog, 30 April 2014) <https://inforrm.org/2014/04/30/weller-article-8-and-the-recognition-of-image-rights-hugh-tomlinson-qc> accessed 30 August 2025.
12 Prince-Alex Iwu, ‘Photo Privacy and Media/Image Rights in Nigeria’ The Barcode (Lagos, 1 April 2017) <http://barcode.stillwaterslaw.com/1.1/2017/04/01/photo-privacy-and-mediaimage-rights-in-nigeria/> accessed 30 August 2025.
13 Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi, ‘The Concept of Passing-Off Actions in Nigeria’ (Omaplex, 17 July 2024) <https://omaplex.com.ng/the-concept-of-passing-off-actions-in-nigeria/> accessed 30 August 2025. 14 [2003] EWCA Civ 423.
15 [2015] EMLR 12.
16 Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA), 2018, ss 123 and 125.
17 Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023, s 25.
18 Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023, s 65.
19 Ibid, s 36.
20 Ibid, s 25.
21 Ibid, ss 46-59.
