Understanding Copyright Ownership in Film and Music
A completed film is not one single copyright.
It is made up of different creative works such as the script, performances, music, sound recordings, and the final edited film. Each of these can have a different legal owner.
Music used in a film usually has two separate copyrights.
The musical composition and the sound recording. Paying for music or receiving permission to use it does not automatically mean ownership has changed. In most cases, it is only a licence that limits how, where, and for how long the music can be used.
This is where Content ID becomes important.
Platforms like YouTube automatically use Content ID to identify and enforce music rights. They do not ask who made the film. They ask who registered the music. If someone else registered it, monetisation can be redirected, frozen, or disputed until ownership is clarified.
Most copyright disputes are not caused by theft, but by unclear agreements and incomplete rights documentation.
Clear contracts matter.
A completed film is not one single copyright.
It is made up of different creative works such as the script, performances, music, sound recordings, and the final edited film. Each of these can have a different legal owner.
Music used in a film usually has two separate copyrights.
The musical composition and the sound recording. Paying for music or receiving permission to use it does not automatically mean ownership has changed. In most cases, it is only a licence that limits how, where, and for how long the music can be used.
This is where Content ID becomes important.
Platforms like YouTube automatically use Content ID to identify and enforce music rights. They do not ask who made the film. They ask who registered the music. If someone else registered it, monetisation can be redirected, frozen, or disputed until ownership is clarified.
Most copyright disputes are not caused by theft, but by unclear agreements and incomplete rights documentation.
Clear contracts matter.
Annual returns are not a formality.
They are a statutory obligation.
Every registered entity in Nigeria, whether a business name, company, incorporated trustee (under which NGOs, clubs, and religious bodies fall), or partnership, is required under CAMA to file annual returns with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).
This obligation applies whether the entity is active or inactive, whether profit was made or not, and whether operations paused or continued.
Non-activity is not an exemption.
Annual returns keep your entity visible on the CAC register, preserve its good standing, and ensure public records reflect reality. Where they are ignored, penalties may apply, and the entity may be flagged as non-compliant or struck off the register, often without immediate warning.
Most compliance problems do not start with major violations.
They start with small filings that were postponed, misunderstood, or overlooked.
They are a statutory obligation.
Every registered entity in Nigeria, whether a business name, company, incorporated trustee (under which NGOs, clubs, and religious bodies fall), or partnership, is required under CAMA to file annual returns with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).
This obligation applies whether the entity is active or inactive, whether profit was made or not, and whether operations paused or continued.
Non-activity is not an exemption.
Annual returns keep your entity visible on the CAC register, preserve its good standing, and ensure public records reflect reality. Where they are ignored, penalties may apply, and the entity may be flagged as non-compliant or struck off the register, often without immediate warning.
Most compliance problems do not start with major violations.
They start with small filings that were postponed, misunderstood, or overlooked.
https://youtu.be/8l7VNbdcL28?si=HYtFPUDFcGg0x-xV
This was recorded three years ago, but it is still relevant to this discussion. Many people assume that only marriages conducted at Ikoyi, Abuja, or other Federal registries are valid for international use.
That assumption is not entirely correct.
When I was preparing to get married, I made enquiries at Somolu, Lagos, to be sure the registry was properly licensed. The marriage certificate issued to me was the same as the one issued to my sister, who got married at the Ikoyi Registry.
So, if you can avoid the stress, please do.
This was recorded three years ago, but it is still relevant to this discussion. Many people assume that only marriages conducted at Ikoyi, Abuja, or other Federal registries are valid for international use.
That assumption is not entirely correct.
When I was preparing to get married, I made enquiries at Somolu, Lagos, to be sure the registry was properly licensed. The marriage certificate issued to me was the same as the one issued to my sister, who got married at the Ikoyi Registry.
So, if you can avoid the stress, please do.
YouTube
For Legal Wedding: Local Government Vs. Federal Registry
A very short video airing a law educational talk by Adeola Kolawole of Aviel Avenante Law Practice (AALAWSNG).
She seeks to help viewers realize the institutional requirements for legally conducted weddings so that intending couples can make informed decisions…
She seeks to help viewers realize the institutional requirements for legally conducted weddings so that intending couples can make informed decisions…
When Two Companies Share the Same Owners — Can a Bank Treat Them as One?
In FCMB PLC v. Slanik Engineering Ltd & Anor (2024), the Court of Appeal reaffirmed a core principle of company law: corporate personality.
Two companies, owned and managed by the same family, maintained separate accounts with FCMB.
One company obtained an unsecured overdraft of ₦2.1 million. It defaulted.
The bank transferred ₦2,134,273.77 from the other company’s account to settle that debt, arguing that because the same individuals were behind both companies, they should be treated as one economic entity.
The affected company sued.
The key question was simple:
Can common ownership collapse corporate separation?
The Court of Appeal said no.
Once incorporated under CAMA, a company becomes a separate legal person. It is distinct from its shareholders, directors, and related companies.
Ownership overlap does not merge companies.
The court emphasised:
A shareholder or director is not liable for corporate debt unless they personally guarantee it.
The corporate veil will only be lifted where there is fraud, illegality, or abuse of structure.
Failure to repay a loan is not fraud.
The bank’s right of set-off applied only to accounts belonging to the same legal person. These were two separate companies. The transfer was unlawful.
Why does this matter?
Many Nigerian businesses operate multiple companies within the same family or group structure.
This case confirms that the law respects corporate boundaries.
Each company:
Owns its assets
Owes its debts
Signs its contracts
Bears its risks
In FCMB PLC v. Slanik Engineering Ltd & Anor (2024), the Court of Appeal reaffirmed a core principle of company law: corporate personality.
Two companies, owned and managed by the same family, maintained separate accounts with FCMB.
One company obtained an unsecured overdraft of ₦2.1 million. It defaulted.
The bank transferred ₦2,134,273.77 from the other company’s account to settle that debt, arguing that because the same individuals were behind both companies, they should be treated as one economic entity.
The affected company sued.
The key question was simple:
Can common ownership collapse corporate separation?
The Court of Appeal said no.
Once incorporated under CAMA, a company becomes a separate legal person. It is distinct from its shareholders, directors, and related companies.
Ownership overlap does not merge companies.
The court emphasised:
A shareholder or director is not liable for corporate debt unless they personally guarantee it.
The corporate veil will only be lifted where there is fraud, illegality, or abuse of structure.
Failure to repay a loan is not fraud.
The bank’s right of set-off applied only to accounts belonging to the same legal person. These were two separate companies. The transfer was unlawful.
Why does this matter?
Many Nigerian businesses operate multiple companies within the same family or group structure.
This case confirms that the law respects corporate boundaries.
Each company:
Owns its assets
Owes its debts
Signs its contracts
Bears its risks
Foreign companies: If your business earns Nigeria-source income, Nigerian tax obligations follow.
Permanent establishment, WHT, VAT — and potential double taxation.
Structure your entry, contracts, and documentation early.
Permanent establishment, WHT, VAT — and potential double taxation.
Structure your entry, contracts, and documentation early.
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Most Nigerians believe divorce is as simple as “signing papers” but that process does not exist in our legal system.
Divorce in Nigeria is a court case, and only a Decree Absolute issued by a judge can end a statutory marriage.
Before a court grants it, the petitioner must prove that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.
Divorce in Nigeria is a court case, and only a Decree Absolute issued by a judge can end a statutory marriage.
Before a court grants it, the petitioner must prove that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.
Under CAMA 2020, directors owe strict fiduciary duties to the company.
Section 313 prohibits directors from accepting bribes, commissions, gifts, or profit shares connected to company transactions.
Self dealing is a breach of duty, even where the company appears to benefit.
If violated, the transaction can be challenged.
The benefit can be recovered.
Both the director and the third party may face liability.
Transparency is not optional.
Board disclosure and proper minute recording are essential.
Strong governance protects corporate credibility.
09019011976
Section 313 prohibits directors from accepting bribes, commissions, gifts, or profit shares connected to company transactions.
Self dealing is a breach of duty, even where the company appears to benefit.
If violated, the transaction can be challenged.
The benefit can be recovered.
Both the director and the third party may face liability.
Transparency is not optional.
Board disclosure and proper minute recording are essential.
Strong governance protects corporate credibility.
09019011976
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Thinking of adding “Ltd” to your business name?
Pause.
Many entrepreneurs believe it’s just an upgrade. It isn’t.
It is fresh incorporation. A new entity. A new registration. A new tax record.
And your old business name remains active unless you formally cease it.
Watch this before you make the move.
Pause.
Many entrepreneurs believe it’s just an upgrade. It isn’t.
It is fresh incorporation. A new entity. A new registration. A new tax record.
And your old business name remains active unless you formally cease it.
Watch this before you make the move.
Disputes can be resolved in different ways.
Litigation takes place in court under the authority of the judicial system. Arbitration, on the other hand, is a private dispute resolution process where parties appoint a neutral decision-maker whose award is enforceable through the courts.
Both are important legal mechanisms for resolving disputes and enforcing rights.
However, in many situations, disputes do not need to escalate immediately to arbitration or litigation.
Many commercial agreements provide for step-by-step dispute resolution, beginning with negotiation and sometimes mediation before moving to formal proceedings.
These early stages allow parties to clarify issues, preserve relationships, and explore practical solutions before engaging in more formal and resource-intensive processes.
When circumstances permit, amicable resolution can often save time, cost, and valuable business relationships.
Sometimes, the first step toward resolving a dispute is simply a conversation.
Litigation takes place in court under the authority of the judicial system. Arbitration, on the other hand, is a private dispute resolution process where parties appoint a neutral decision-maker whose award is enforceable through the courts.
Both are important legal mechanisms for resolving disputes and enforcing rights.
However, in many situations, disputes do not need to escalate immediately to arbitration or litigation.
Many commercial agreements provide for step-by-step dispute resolution, beginning with negotiation and sometimes mediation before moving to formal proceedings.
These early stages allow parties to clarify issues, preserve relationships, and explore practical solutions before engaging in more formal and resource-intensive processes.
When circumstances permit, amicable resolution can often save time, cost, and valuable business relationships.
Sometimes, the first step toward resolving a dispute is simply a conversation.
Why Most Deeds of Assignment are Legally Defective…
Jurisdiction in Bank–Customer Disputes under the 1999 Constitution
Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation v Okem Enterprises Ltd & Anor
(2004) LPELR-1999(SC)
Brief Facts
Okem Enterprises Ltd maintained accounts and obtained substantial credit facilities from Allied Bank of Nigeria Plc.
After the Central Bank revoked Allied Bank’s licence, the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) was appointed liquidator of the bank.
Acting in that capacity, NDIC commenced proceedings to recover the outstanding debt.
Following legislative changes which replaced the Failed Banks Tribunal with the Federal High Court, the matter was transferred to the Federal High Court.
The respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, arguing that disputes between an individual customer and his bank fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the State High Court under the proviso to Section 251(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution.
The Federal High Court dismissed the objection.
However, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision and held that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction.
NDIC appealed to the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that Section 251(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution confers jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in banking matters, but the proviso removes the exclusive nature of that jurisdiction in disputes between an individual customer and his bank.
Accordingly:
• The proviso does not remove jurisdiction from the Federal High Court.
• It merely removes exclusivity, allowing State High Courts to also exercise jurisdiction.
The result is concurrent jurisdiction between the Federal High Court and State High Courts in disputes between an individual customer and his bank.
The Court also emphasised that a proviso qualifies or limits the main provision; it does not destroy it entirely.
Legal Significance
This decision settled a long-standing controversy in Nigerian jurisdictional law.
It confirms that bank–customer disputes involving individual customers may be filed in either the Federal High Court or the State High Court.
The case therefore establishes the principle that:
The proviso to Section 251(1)(d) removes exclusivity — not jurisdiction itself.
Key Principle
Where a dispute arises between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between them, both the Federal High Court and the State High Court have concurrent jurisdiction.
Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation v Okem Enterprises Ltd & Anor
(2004) LPELR-1999(SC)
Brief Facts
Okem Enterprises Ltd maintained accounts and obtained substantial credit facilities from Allied Bank of Nigeria Plc.
After the Central Bank revoked Allied Bank’s licence, the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) was appointed liquidator of the bank.
Acting in that capacity, NDIC commenced proceedings to recover the outstanding debt.
Following legislative changes which replaced the Failed Banks Tribunal with the Federal High Court, the matter was transferred to the Federal High Court.
The respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, arguing that disputes between an individual customer and his bank fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the State High Court under the proviso to Section 251(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution.
The Federal High Court dismissed the objection.
However, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision and held that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction.
NDIC appealed to the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that Section 251(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution confers jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in banking matters, but the proviso removes the exclusive nature of that jurisdiction in disputes between an individual customer and his bank.
Accordingly:
• The proviso does not remove jurisdiction from the Federal High Court.
• It merely removes exclusivity, allowing State High Courts to also exercise jurisdiction.
The result is concurrent jurisdiction between the Federal High Court and State High Courts in disputes between an individual customer and his bank.
The Court also emphasised that a proviso qualifies or limits the main provision; it does not destroy it entirely.
Legal Significance
This decision settled a long-standing controversy in Nigerian jurisdictional law.
It confirms that bank–customer disputes involving individual customers may be filed in either the Federal High Court or the State High Court.
The case therefore establishes the principle that:
The proviso to Section 251(1)(d) removes exclusivity — not jurisdiction itself.
Key Principle
Where a dispute arises between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between them, both the Federal High Court and the State High Court have concurrent jurisdiction.