UBOM V. GLOBACOM (NIG.) LTD. (2025) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1985) 157: LEGAL AND COMMERCIAL INSIGHTS

FACTS
The appellant participated in the respondent’s GLO Naija Sings competition sometime in 2010 and emerged overall 2nd place winner. She did not receive any prize, monetary or otherwise, for her efforts. Surprisingly, several months after the competition it was brought to her attention that her photograph was being used by the respondent in its billboards across the country to promote the following 2011 edition of the competition. The use of her photographs in that manner without her consent was the basis for her claim before the High Court of Rivers State where she sued the respondent and sought the following reliefs vide her amended statement of claim:

i. A declaration that the use of the claimant’s pictures by the defendant on the several billboards in major cities of Nigeria for advertisement and for its own economic benefits without her consent or authority is illegal and reprehensible.

ii. The sum of N500,000,000.00 (Five hundred million Naira) being general damages for the illegal or unauthorised use by the defendant of the claimant’s pictures in their billboards to advertise its products and services for its own economic and commercial benefits.

iii. An order of the court restraining the defendant from further usage of the claimant’s pictures for advertisement without the authorization of the claimant in writing.”


Pursuant to an application filed by the respondent challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit, the trial court held that the claims fell within the purview of sections 15(1)(a) and26(1)(d) of the Copyright Act Cap. C28 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 as the act complained of constituted an infringement of her right as a performer within the meaning of section 26 of the Act, for which she had exclusive control and thus within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. The court then struck out the suit. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal and the appeal
was dismissed.

In determining the appeal, the Supreme Court considered the provisions of sections 1(1), (2), (3), (4); 15(1)(a); 16(1) and 51(1)(d) of the Copyright Act which state as follows:

“1(1) Subject to this section, the following shall be eligible for copyright -

(a) Literary works;

(b) Musical works;

(c) Artistic works;

(d)Cinematographic films;

(e) Sound recordings; and

(f) Broadcasts

(2) A literary, musical or artistic work shall not be eligible for copyright unless -

(a) Sufficient effort has been expended on making the work to give it an original character;

(b) The work has been fixed in any definite medium of expression now known or later to be developed from which it can be perceived reproduced or otherwise communicated either directly or with the aid of any machine or device.

(3) An artistic work shall not be eligible for copyright if at the time when the work is made it is intended by the author to be used as a model or pattern to be multiplied by any industrial process.

(4) A work shall not be ineligible for copyright by reason only that the making of the work or doing of any act in relation to the work involved an infringement of copyright in some other work.”

“15(1) Copyright is infringed by any person who, without the license or authorization of the owner or the copyright -
does or causes any other person to do an act the(a)doing of which is controlled by copyright.”

“16(1) Subject to this Act, infringement of copyright shall be actionable at the suit of the owner, assignee or an exclusive licensee of the copyright, as the case maybe, in the Federal High Court exercising jurisdiction in the place where the infringement occurred; and in any action for such an infringement;, all such relief by way of damages, injunction, accounts or otherwise shall be available to the plaintiff as is available in any corresponding proceedings in respect of infringement of other proprietary rights.”

“51(1) “artistic works” [referred to in section 1(c)] includes:

(d) Photographs not comprised in a cinematograph film.

‘’Cinematograph film” includes the first fixation of a sequence of visual linages capable of being shown as a moving picture and of being the subject of reproduction/ and includes the recording of a soundtrack associated with the cinematograph film.


PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS
The decision of the Supreme Court in Ubom v. Globacom (Nig.) Ltd. (2025) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1985) 157 presents a critical opportunity to examine how Nigerian jurisprudence currently conceptualizes and regulates the complex intersections between intellectual property law, personality rights, commercial exploitation, and jurisdictional competence of the courts. This case is particularly significant in that it touches on the practical realities faced by participants in the entertainment industry and the commercial tendencies of corporate brands to extract economic value from the identity, image, and performances of these individuals, often without formal legal safeguards in place. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria invites serious reflection not only on the judicial interpretation of existing statutory frameworks, particularly the Copyright Act, but also on the systemic gaps in the protection of individual rights, especially where those rights fall outside the rigid confines of copyright ownership. It equally draws attention to the increasing commercialization of individual identity in the digital age and the potential for misuse when corporate actors deploy personal images for promotional or branding purposes in the absence of consent.

In this case, the core legal questions before the Supreme Court of Nigeria were:

i. Whether the appellant’s claim was properly categorized as a copyright infringement claim under the Copyright Act?

ii.Whether the State High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the action?

iii.Whether the unauthorized use of an individual’s image for commercial advertisement amounts to a breach of privacy, personality rights, or falls within the copyright regime?

LEGAL INSIGHTS AND OPINION
The Supreme Court, in deciding the matter, was faced with the fundamental question of whether the claim was essentially one of copyright infringement, thereby falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, or whether it was a claim rooted in tort specifically, the violation of personality rights or unauthorized commercial appropriation of image which would fall within the jurisdiction of the State High Court. In resolving this issue, the Supreme Court closely examined the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act, particularly sections 1(1), 15(1)(a), 16(1), and 51(1)(d). Section 1(1) provides that artistic works, including photographs, are eligible for copyright protection. Section 15(1)(a) states that copyright is infringed when a protected work is used without authorization. Section 16(1) establishes that actions for infringement of copyright must be brought before the Federal High Court. Furthermore, section 51(1)(d) clarifies that photographs are indeed categorized as artistic works.

Guided by these statutory provisions, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the gravamen of the appellant’s complaint was the unauthorized use of a photograph, which is a protected artistic work under copyright law. The Court reasoned that whether or not the appellant was the subject of the photograph did not detract from the fact that the legal rights in the image, including the right to authorize or prohibit its use, belong to the copyright holder of the photograph and not necessarily to the person depicted in it, unless that person also happens to be the copyright owner. Since the appellant did not claim authorship or ownership of the photograph, her proper remedy if any would have been to sue under copyright law, but only if she could establish an assignment or some other legal basis for copyright ownership. As such, the appeal is hereby allowed, the Court held that the State High Court before which the matter was filed has the jurisdiction to hear the matter and not the Federal High Court, as the matter is not one predicated on copyright but contract. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/PH/385/2014 delivered on the 5th day of June, 2015 is therefore hereby set aside.

From a strictly legalistic standpoint, the decision is sound and consistent with the established principles of statutory interpretation and jurisdiction. Nigerian law, under section 251(1)(f) of the Constitution, unequivocally vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal High Court for all matters relating to copyright and other intellectual property rights. The courts are bound by this constitutional demarcation, and it is irrelevant that the claim was couched in terms of moral outrage or breach of dignity. Once the act complained of is covered by the Copyright Act, the law mandates that the Federal High Court alone can adjudicate.

However, beyond the legal correctness of the judgment lies a deeper question about the adequacy of the Nigerian legal system in protecting the personal dignity, identity, and commercial interests of individuals whose likenesses are exploited without consent. This case illustrates a glaring lacuna in Nigerian law. There is, at present, no clearly articulated statutory or common law framework recognizing and protecting image rights or personality rights as independent and enforceable legal interests. In other jurisdictions, especially in the United States, individuals enjoy what is termed the “right of publicity,” which allows them to control and profit from the commercial use of their name, image, likeness, and other aspects of their identity. In South Africa, similar protections exist under the broader concept of dignity (dignitas), where the unauthorized use of a person’s image can constitute a civil wrong. The absence of such recognition in Nigerian law means that individuals who do not own the copyright in their image but are depicted in photographs or videos used commercially may have no effective legal remedy.

This decision, therefore, should serve as a wake-up call to both the legal profession and owners of artistic work.

Hence, there is an urgent need for legislative reform to introduce a coherent and enforceable regime of personality rights that would allow individuals to maintain control over the commercial use of their identities, such a framework should exist parallel to copyright law, so that a person can bring a claim for unauthorized commercial use of their likeness even when they are not the copyright owner of the medium (e.g., the photograph or video) in which they appear.

COMMERCIAL INSIGHTS AND OPINION
Commercially, the implications of this case are far-reaching. For corporate entities, particularly those in the media, entertainment, telecommunications, and advertising sectors, the decision highlights the legal risks of using individual images without proper legal authorization. It should now be a matter of standard practice for companies to obtain express written consent typically in the form of image release agreements before deploying any person’s image in advertising or promotional material. The reputational and financial damage that may arise from litigation, even were ultimately unsuccessful, could be significant. In today’s brand-conscious environment, allegations of image exploitation without consent can cause immense public backlash, regardless of legal liability.

For individuals, particularly performers, artists, and participants in media-related events, the case underscores the importance of negotiating and understanding the terms of participation in any public platform. Individuals must insist on clarity regarding how their image or performance may be used, and must seek legal advice before signing any waiver or release. It also serves as a cautionary tale about the limitations of relying on common sense or moral entitlement in asserting legal rights. Without formal rights or recognized legal status, courts are bound to apply the law as it exists, no matter how compelling the facts may be.

CONCLUSION
While the Supreme Court’s decision in Ubom v. Globacom (Nig.) Ltd. is doctrinally correct and procedurally unassailable, it reveals a systemic deficiency in the protection of individual image rights in Nigeria. It illustrates how current legal frameworks are ill-equipped to deal with the modern realities of identity exploitation in a hyper-visual and digitalized world. There is a pressing need for legal reform to create a structured regime of image and personality rights that operate outside the narrow confines of copyright law. In the meantime, individuals and corporations alike must be guided by best practices, informed consent protocols, and proactive legal compliance to avoid falling foul of these increasingly complex legal and ethical standards.

RECOMMENDATIONS
First, organizations that engage individuals in talent shows, promotional events, or public competitions must ensure that clear and comprehensive agreements are executed at the outset. These agreements should explicitly state whether the individual’s image, likeness, or performance can be used for commercial or advertising purposes, and if so, under what conditions. This would prevent disputes over unauthorized usage and safeguard both the individual’s rights and the organization’s interests.

Secondly, companies that utilize images or likenesses of individuals for marketing or promotional purposes should establish internal protocols to verify proper authorization before publication. Ethical advertising demands that all materials be reviewed to confirm that requisite consents are obtained, especially where the use confers commercial gain to the company. Failure to do so exposes the organization to reputational damage and costly legal action.

Lastly, there is a pressing need for more robust legal and regulatory protection for performers, contestants, and participants in public competitions. Industry regulators and relevant bodies should develop and enforce standards that mandate fair treatment, prize fulfillment, and consent-driven publicity. This ensures that participants are not exploited and that organizations uphold professional and legal standards in their engagements.

NIGERIAN CASES REFERRED TO IN THE JUDGMENT
7-UP Bottling Co. Ltd v. Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd (2001)13 NWLR (Pt. 730) 468
Abegunde v. O.S.H.A. (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1461) 314
Adeye v. Adesanya (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 708) 1
Agi v. PDP (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1595) 386
Ahmed v. Reg. Trustees, Arch. of Kaduna (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt.1665) 300
Aiguokhian v. State (2004) 7 NWLR (Pt. 873) 565
Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1310) 137
Alliance Int’l Ltd v. S.K. Int’l Ltd. (2022) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1851) 471
Ayinde v. State (2019) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1687) 410
Ayorinde v. Kuforiji (2022) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1843) 43
Bankole v. Pelu (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt. 211) 23
Barbus & Co. (Nig.) Ltd v. Udeji (2018) 11 NWLR (Pt.1630) 298
Bayol v. Ahemba (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 623) 381
Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1238) 512
Dantata v. Mohammed (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 664) 176
Duru v. F.R.N. (2018) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1632) 20
Fidelity Bank v. The M.T. Tabora (2018) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1632)135
FRN v. Umeh (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1670) 40
Ila Enterprises Ltd v. Ali & co. (Nig.) Ltd (2022) 18 NWLR(Pt. 1862) 501
Kopek Construction Ltd v. Ekisola (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1182) 618
Kure v. COP (2020) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1729) 296
Lokoyi v. Olojo (1983) 8 SC, 61
Ogbu v. State (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 259) 255
Ogbuayinya v. Okuda (1976) 6 - 9 SC 32
Ogologo v. Uche (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 226
Ohaegbu v. Regd Trustees Capuchin Friars Minor Nigeria (2022) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1839) 435
Okarika v. Samuel (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1352) 19
Okechukwu v. Onuorah (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 597
Okewu v. FRN (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1305) 327
Okochi v. Animkwoi (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 851) 1
Olojo v. Gov. Benue State (2022) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1816) 1
Roe Ltd. v. UNN (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1616) 420
Shelim v. Gobang (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 435
Shipcare Nigeria Limited v. Owners of the “M/V Fortunato (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1246) 205
UBA Plc v. Triedent Consulting Ltd (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt.1903) 95

NIGERIAN STATUTES REFERRED TO IN THE JUDGMENT:
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) Ss. 251, (f), 272
Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, Cap. 28
Copyright Act, (2022), Cap. C28, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, Ss. 2, 15(i)(a), 16(i), 26(i)(d), 27, 28, 29, 51(i)(d), 108