Introduction
The profitability of Nigeria’s entertainment industry from Nollywood blockbusters to globally streamed Afrobeats is increasingly under threat. Digital platforms have unlocked borderless distribution, but they have also created boundless opportunities for copyright theft and piracy. Films are routinely ripped and circulated through unsecured streaming sites, Telegram channels, and social media platforms, costing rights holders millions of dollars and discouraging future investment.
The Nigerian Copyright Act 2022 (the “Act”) represents the industry’s first modern legal weapon in this digital war. Of particular significance is Part VII, which introduces robust “takedown” provisions designed to rapidly protect and enforce intellectual property rights online. These measures provide entertainment businesses with a practical pathway to mitigate financial losses by compelling swift removal of infringing content.
Equally important are the strict obligations placed on Online Service Providers (OSPs). The Act requires platforms to respond decisively to takedown requests, thereby shifting part of the burden of enforcement onto the digital intermediaries that host or transmit pirated material. This framework signals a new era of accountability, where OSPs can no longer remain passive in the face of rampant piracy.
Yet, despite its promise, the Act is not a silver bullet. Determined digital pirates continue to exploit loopholes, technological anonymity, and cross-border jurisdictions that complicate enforcement. While the takedown mechanism is a powerful tool, its effectiveness depends on consistent application, industry awareness, and international cooperation.
Ultimately, the Act marks a turning point: moving Nigeria’s copyright regime from academic theory into practical defense. For entertainment businesses, leveraging these provisions is not optional it is essential to safeguarding profitability, sustaining investor confidence, and ensuring that Nigeria’s creative economy thrives in the digital age.
Overview of the Copyright Act on Takedown Provisions
The Act, under Part VII, empowers copyright owners to bypass lengthy litigation by sending formal notices of infringement directly to the relevant OSP.
This notice demands the OSP to either take down or disable access to any infringing content whether it is hosted directly on their network (e.g., a file-sharing site) or merely linked through their tools (e.g., a search engine or directory). This provision can be likened to a digital equivalent of an injunction, executed in hours instead of months .
For a right holder or record label to successfully initiate this rapid response, following stringent criteria for a take down notice must be met:
A. It must be in writing.
B. It should be signed, either physically or electronically, by a person authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner . This could be the agent or legal practitioner acting on behalf of the creator.
C. The work claimed to have been infringed should be identified .
D. The infringing material or activity should be identified in such a way as to enable the service provider to locate the material .
E. The contact information of the complaining party should be provided.
F. The complaining party should make a statement that they believe, in good faith, that the use of the material is not authorized by the copyright owner, his agent or the law.
Legal Obligations of Online Service Providers
OSPs are tasked upon receipt of a takedown notice to notify the subscriber who posted the alleged copyright-infringing content and proceed to expeditiously remove the content from its system or network . An OSP that complies with this provision would not be liable for copyright infringement either directly or under the principle of secondary liability.
Notably, the Act allows for content to be restored when the OSP receives a counter notice from the subscriber, and promptly forwards it to the copyright owner, but does not receive a response within seven days from the copyright owner indicating lack of authorisation to the user for the content.
Perhaps, one of the most commendable provisions of the Act on ensuring that the infringement is curtailed is that an OSP is bestowed with the legal responsibility to ensure that content already taken down do not find their way back to the service provider’s network. This is commendable as it prevents the recurring need for a copyright owner to keep writing and submitting Notices to an OSP on the same content.
On the question of the implications of non-performance of the legal obligations placed on OSPs under these takedown sections, the Act places strict liability on an OSP for failure to comply with takedown notices and for failure to restore content taken down in the instances permissible. The Act holds the OSP liable for such failure as a breach of statutory duty and for infringement of the content which is the subject matter of the notice under section 54 to the same extent as the person responsible for placing the content on the system or network .
Furthermore, the Act relieves OSPs from monetary liability for:
a. copyright infringement due to user-directed storage of material on their system or network
b. copyright infringement for referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or activity, using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link
However, certain conditions must be met for this exemption to subsist. Under the Act, it must be shown that the OSP lacks knowledge of the infringement, does not profit from it, promptly responds to infringement notifications, and complies with the account suspension procedure for repeat infringers as per Section 54 of the Act. The Act also exempts and OSP from monetary liability for:
a. copyright infringement due to user-directed storage of material on their system or network
b. copyright infringement for referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or activity, using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link
However, an OSP that does not fall within these exempted categories but nonetheless qualifies as an OSP under Section 108 of the Act , will incur strict liability for infringement where it fails to comply with a valid takedown notice.
Effectiveness and Challenges of Take Down Procedures in the Entertainment Sector
For the entertainment sector, speed is revenue. The primary benefit of the Act is that takedown procedures are faster and significantly less costly than full-scale litigation. This provides an accessible and immediate enforcement pathway for studios and individual creators to stop the financial leak the moment piracy is detected. The rapid response capability minimizes the distribution window for pirates, directly protecting box office returns and streaming subscription value.
Despite the Act’s power, rights holders face significant obstacles:
1. Repeat Infringement: Digital pirates are relentless. A Nollywood film taken down from one obscure site often resurfaces on a clone or an entirely different platform moments later. The sheer volume of re-uploads overwhelms automated takedown systems and human oversight.
2. Anonymity and Accountability: Many OSPs utilize automated systems and the infringers operate under aliases. While the content is removed, the anonymity makes it nearly impossible to trace, verify, or hold the primary offenders accountable, meaning the root cause of the theft remains unpunished.
3. Ambiguity of “Good Faith” Errors: The Act penalizes a party who intentionally misrepresents an infringement claim . However, the law provides no statutory remedy for legitimate users or OSPs when an unintentional mistake leads to the wrongful takedown of legal content. This gap creates uncertainty and can stifle fair use, exposing the rights holder only if the bad faith intent is proven, a high legal bar.
The way forward and our Recommendations
1. Regulatory and Policy Refinements
a. Issue Detailed Implementing Regulations: The Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) must promptly issue detailed regulations to standardize procedures for takedown notices, counter-notices, and appeals, providing legal certainty. Clear procedures for referring disputes under Section 55(4) are also needed.
b. Modernise the OSP Definition: The Copyright Act’s definition of OSPs must be modernised to explicitly include operators of platforms like encrypted messaging apps and decentralized storage networks to hold new piracy hubs strictly accountable.
c. Create Specialized IP Enforcement Mechanisms: Establish specialized IP tribunals or small claims procedures dedicated to copyright disputes to provide faster, more cost-effective avenues for creators to seek damages and injunctions.
2. Operational Obligations (OSPs’ Role)
a. Define Clear Accountability Measures: The NCC must define exact operational obligations for OSPs, including mandatory requirements for robust record-keeping of notices, clear notice verification protocols, designating and advertising a dedicated contact point and publishing annual transparency reports on takedown requests.
b. Mandate Anti-Repeat Infringer Technology: OSPs must be required to adopt and leverage automated filtering systems to prevent the re-upload of content that was subject to a valid takedown notice. Stricter penalties should follow the failure to implement effective technology.
3. Proactive Measures (Entertainers & Copyright Holders’ Role)
a. Strategic Content Registration & Prior Notification: While copyright is automatic, rights holders should pursue formal prior notification with the NCC to establish a clear, time-stamped public record. This lends weight to enforcement claims and accelerates the OSP’s validation process.
b. Invest in Proactive Monitoring Technology: Entertainment houses must invest in anti-piracy monitoring software to continuously scan for digital fingerprints across pirate channels. This is essential for rapid detection and minimizing damage by allowing notices to be filed within hours of a leak.
c. Required Verified Claims and Industry Collaboration: Rights holders should be required to submit verified claims or sworn statements attesting to the good faith nature of the infringement report. Stronger collaboration is needed between rights owners, foreign agencies, and platforms to share intelligence and develop joint industry standards for cross-border infringement.
Conclusion
The Nigerian Copyright Act 2022 is a commendable legislative step, providing the entertainment industry with necessary digital enforcement tools. The takedown provisions are designed to be a rapid, cost-effective counter-piracy measure. However, turning this legal potential into effective commercial protection requires more than just a well-drafted law. It requires industry-wide vigilance, strong regulatory refinement, and commitment from the NCC and OSPs to close the legal loopholes that digital pirates currently exploit. The future of Nigerian entertainment depends on our ability to effectively wield this legal weapon and stop the leak for good.
Christian Anuiukwu is the Sector Head in the Technology, Entertainment, Media & Sports (TEMS) Sector at Stren & Blan Partners, Omonefe Irabor-Benson is a Senior Associate while Rebecca Sojinu and Stanley Umezuruike are Associates in the same sector.
Stren & Blan Partners is a full-service commercial Law Firm that provides legal services to diverse local and international Clientele. The Business Counsel is a weekly column by Stren & Blan Partners that provides thought leadership insight on business and legal matters.
Connect with Stren & Blan Partners:
Website: www.strenandblan.com
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/strenandblan
Twitter: twitter.com/Strenandblan
Instagram: instagram.com/strenandblan
