- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- within Intellectual Property, Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences and Real Estate and Construction topic(s)
The 12th Africa Magic Viewers’ Choice Awards, held last Sunday in Lagos, once again celebrated the vibrancy, creativity, and continued growth of Africa’s film and television industry. While the red carpet reflected culture, innovation, and artistic excellence, the event also exposed deeper intellectual property (IP) tensions increasingly shaping Africa’s evolving creative economy.
Beyond the glamour, the AMVCAs highlighted a significant shift: creativity is no longer viewed merely as cultural expression, but as a commercially valuable and legally protectable asset. As Africa’s film, music, fashion, and media industries continue to mature, disputes surrounding originality, attribution, ownership, and control of creative works are becoming more frequent and legally sophisticated particularly in an era driven by digital platforms, global distribution, AI-assisted creation, and viral social media dissemination.
Historically, creatives across entertainment and fashion have operated within industries where intellectual property protection remains commercially and institutionally underdeveloped. Unlike physical assets, creative works are uniquely vulnerable to duplication, modification, redistribution, and commercial exploitation. The rise of artificial intelligence, fast-fashion production models, and digital content circulation has only intensified these vulnerabilities, while legal enforcement mechanisms across many African jurisdictions continue to evolve.
Among the most prominent controversies emerging from the AMVCAs was the dispute involving Almée Couture and Nana Akua Addo concerning a cathedral-inspired couture gown. What initially appeared to be a disagreement over fashion quickly evolved into a broader public debate surrounding copyright ownership, AI-assisted creativity, authorship, and the legal boundaries of “inspiration” within the fashion industry.
According to public accounts, Nana Akua Addo allegedly approached Almée Couture with a concept for the dress, while the fashion house maintained that it independently developed the final artistic interpretation through substantial creative effort, technical craftsmanship, and couture execution. Following the breakdown of the commercial relationship and the reported refund of monies paid, Almée asserted that ownership of the sketches and developed creative interpretation remained vested in the fashion house. Nana Akua Addo, however, publicly disputed the allegations and released screenshots purportedly showing that the original creative direction and AI-generated mood boards originated from her.
At the centre of the dispute were three distinct creative works: the AI-generated concept image, Almée Couture’s digital illustration, and the final physical gown executed by another designer. The controversy ultimately raises a foundational copyright question. Copyright law protects original expression fixed in material form not ideas, inspiration, or concepts in the abstract. Section 3(a) of the Nigerian Copyright Act, 2022 explicitly states:
“The following shall not be eligible for copyright (a) ideas, procedures, processes, formats, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, discoveries or mere data…”
Similarly, Section 2(2) of the Nigerian Copyright Act, 2022 provides:
“…literary, musical or artistic work shall not be eligible for copyright unless
(a) some effort has been expended on making the work, to give it an original character; and
(b) the work has been fixed in any medium of expression known or later to be developed, from which it can be perceived, reproduced or otherwise communicated…”
Consequently, where a work substantially reproduces pre-existing expression without sufficient transformative originality, the legitimacy of any subsequent copyright claim may become legally uncertain. This aligns with the principle in Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991) 499 U.S. 340, where the U.S. Supreme Court rejected “sweat of the brow,” holding that originality requires minimal creativity beyond mere effort.
In Uzokwe v. Dansy Industries Nigeria Ltd & Anor (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt. 752) 528, the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that industrial design disputes require side-by-side comparison of works, focusing on the peculiar arrangement and combination of lines and colours. The Court further emphasised that the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove novelty, and that registration creates only a rebuttable presumption of originality.
Under the Nigerian Copyright Act, copyright protection generally requires sufficient human intellectual effort. Although artificial intelligence itself cannot own copyright, works involving AI assistance may still attract protection where there is meaningful human transformation, interpretation, restructuring, or creative development. Human originality therefore remains the central legal threshold.
The difficulty for Almée Couture is whether its sketch demonstrates sufficient independent creative transformation from the AI-generated source image. If the sketch is ultimately viewed as a substantial reproduction of the original AI output rather than an independently original work, the resulting copyright claim may be significantly weakened. In essence, exclusive rights cannot easily be enforced over expression that may itself fail to satisfy the threshold for protection.
The controversy also revives important legal questions surrounding copyright assignment and ownership transfer. Section 30(3) of the Nigerian Copyright Act, 2022 mandates:
“No assignment of copyright and no exclusive licence to do an act the doing of which is controlled by copyright shall have effect unless it is in writing.”
Accordingly, even where a commercial relationship collapses or funds are refunded, ownership of creative materials produced during the course of the engagement may still remain with the original creator absent a valid written transfer.
Similar concerns surfaced following allegations by fashion illustrator Hayden Williams that an AMVCA outfit worn by Toni Tones reproduced one of his custom illustrations originally created for Teyana Taylor without proper attribution. Separate accusations also emerged involving Laura Ikeji and designs allegedly inspired by works originally created by Rexhep Nuhiji. These incidents collectively reignited conversations surrounding artistic ownership, attribution, and the increasingly blurred line between inspiration and unauthorised reproduction within the fashion industry.
Beyond fashion, the AMVCAs also reopened debate concerning the institutional identity of the awards themselves. Despite operating as the “Africa Magic Viewers’ Choice Awards,” several of the platform’s most prestigious categories are increasingly determined by juries and industry panels rather than direct audience voting. While this shift reflects Nollywood’s growing pursuit of technical excellence, production quality, and international legitimacy, it also introduces tension between commercial popularity and institutional prestige.
A more sustainable structure may ultimately require clearer separation between jury-driven technical categories and genuinely audience-controlled popularity categories. Such an approach would preserve institutional credibility while maintaining the audience participation that originally distinguished the platform.
Ultimately, the AMVCA controversies serve as a timely case study in the future of African intellectual property law, a future in which creativity is no longer merely expressive, but increasingly legal, commercial, and globally contested. The challenge for the industry moving forward will be balancing meaningful protection for genuine originality against the risk of overextending intellectual property claims in ways that may ultimately inhibit creativity itself.
Also Read: When Stories Go To The Screen: Intellectual Property And Contractual Considerations For Creatives
References
Aifuwa Edosomwa Protecting intellectual property rights in Nigeria: A review of the activities of the Nigerian Copyright Commission
Nigeria Copyright Act 2022.
https://culturecustodian.com/who-owns-what-understanding-ip-rights-in-the-wake-of-the-amvca-drama/
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g0d3d5zn4o
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
Nkem Itanyi, ‘Why Piracy is Always Good; Why Piracy is Always Bad: Reimagining Piracy Law and Governance in Nollywood’ (2025) 15(3) Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property 303
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
