Representation Matters: The Silent Power Struggle in Nigerian Music

Over the years, Nigeria has made deliberate efforts to reform its entertainment and creative economy. One of the most significant steps has been the amendment of the Copyright Act, aimed at strengthening protections for copyright owners and introducing mechanisms to safeguard creators’ economic interests.

However, while the policy framework now exists, effective enforcement remains elusive. This disconnect has become increasingly visible in the ongoing controversy surrounding the copyright levy provided for under Section 89 of the Copyright Act 2022. To properly understand the dispute, it is essential to first examine the rationale behind the levy and how it is intended to benefit rights holders.

Rationale Behind the Levy

Copyright in any work consists of a bundle of exclusive rights, each of which may be exploited independently. This is why different rights in a single work can be assigned to different individuals or entities.

The Act recognises various exclusive rights, one of which is the right to reproduce a work. This right allows an author to reproduce their work exclusively or to authorise others to do so. Any reproduction carried out without the author’s consent constitutes copyright infringement.

With the rise of technology, monitoring reproduction and distribution has become increasingly difficult. Private individuals can easily download music, copy files onto hard drives, flash drives, or CDs, and reproduce works without authorisation. Because such private usage is difficult to track, rights holders often lose out on the economic value of their works.

Benefit of the Levy

To address this challenge, the Copyright Act provides for a copyright levy on materials that are capable of being used to infringe copyright.

The levy functions as a compensatory mechanism a way to ensure fairness by compensating rights holders for widespread, untraceable private copying. Without this mechanism, creators would continue to suffer significant economic losses arising from the unauthorised use of their works.

How the Levy Is Disbursed

Section 89(3) of the Copyright Act provides that the levy shall be paid to the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC). The Commission is then empowered to disburse the funds to:

• approved Collective Management Organisations (CMOs), or
• other representatives of rights holders,
  in accordance with regulations made by the Commission.
• This distinction is central to the current controversy.

The Controversy: Who Gets Paid?

The Nigerian Copyright Commission has decided to disburse the copyright levy to MCSN (Musical Copyright Society of Nigeria), on the basis that MCSN is recognised as the only approved Collective Management Organisation for music in Nigeria.

This decision has raised serious legal and industry-wide concerns.

The First Big Questions

1. Does MCSN represent all rights holders in the music industry?

According to the objectives contained in its Memorandum and Articles of Association (MEMART), MCSN represents:

• musical works, and
• the rights of its members only.

This means MCSN does not represent songwriters or composers who are not its members or with whom it does not have a subsisting agreement.

2. Does MCSN have authority over sound recordings?

Sound recordings are a distinct category of copyright, separate from musical works. An organisation’s authority is limited to the objectives stated in its constitutive documents.

As such, MCSN does not have authority to collect levies in respect of sound recordings.

By contrast, RELPI (Record Label Proprietors Initiative Limited/GTE) — a coalition representing major record labels in Nigeria — has obtained clear mandates from its members to represent and protect their sound recording rights, including collection on their behalf.

Implications of NCC Recognising MCSN as the Sole Representative

The decision to treat MCSN as the sole representative of artists has several implications:

1. Bundling distinct rights
   Musical works and sound recordings are separate rights that can be managed by different organisations. For example, in the UK:

• PRS represents musical works (songwriters, composers, publishers)
• PPL represents sound recordings (record labels and performers)

2. Inconsistency with the Act
   Section 89 expressly provides that levies may be disbursed to CMOs or other representatives of rights holders.
3. Erosion of artist autonomy
   Artists and rights holders lose the freedom to choose who represents them.
4. Questions of justice and fairness
   Centralising control raises concerns about equity and lawful representation.

RELPI’s Position

RELPI, as a body representing major record labels in Nigeria, has clearly stated the following concerns:

1. No CMO currently represents their sound recording interests in Nigeria
2. Funds attributable to sound recordings should not be routed through any organisation without their members’ mandate
3. There is no clarity on how levy funds would be split
4. There is uncertainty regarding oversight and audit mechanisms

MCSN’s Public Statement

MCSN has released a public statement which did not directly address the concerns raised by RELPI and other stakeholders. Instead, the statement focused on:

1. The amount received from the Commission (₦1,205,956,580.20)
2. Political commendations for the current administration under the “Renewed Hope” agenda
3. Divergent interpretations of the Act’s definition of sound recordings
4. Claims that RELPI serves international record label interests (UPMG, WMG, SME)
5. An assertion that collective management is the only viable means for copyright administration contrary to the Act

Conclusion

This debate is not about rejecting the copyright levy or denying its potential benefits. It is about who is represented, how funds are distributed, and whether the process aligns with the law. While assurances have been given that creators will benefit, there remains little clarity on the framework for disbursement, especially for rights holders outside MCSN’s membership and for sound recording rights.

Without transparency, defined mandates, and inclusive representation, the levy risks becoming another missed opportunity rather than a tool for fairness. For Nigeria’s music industry to truly benefit, enforcement must be lawful, accountable, and respectful of the diverse rights and representatives that make up the creative ecosystem.