Background: On the 9th of February 2026, the Federal High Court issued a Mareva injunction order restraining the Musical Copyright Society of Nigeria (MCSN) from distributing the copyright levy funds attributable to sound recordings, which it received from the NCC earlier in the year. This order was issued upon an interlocutory application to the Court by ReLPI to preserve the subject matter of the suit pending its determination. Prior to that, by a letter dated January 21, 2026, and directed to the Director-General of the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC), ReLPI queried the decision of the NCC to disburse the portion of the copyright levy dedicated to right holders of sound recordings through MCSN. In the said letter, ReLPI asserted the following points:
- That no Collective Management Organisation currently represents the interests of its members with regard to their sound recordings in Nigeria.
- That funds designated for sound recordings should not be disbursed through any CMO that does not have its members’ mandate.
- That the portion of the copyright levy relating to sound recordings should be paid through ReLPI, as the industry body expressly mandated by its members to represent and protect their interests.
- That the implementation of the Copyright Levy Order should be in line with the Nigerian Law, including the opt-out provisions in Section 88 (9)(d) of the Copyright Act, 2022.
This statement by ReLPI has been endorsed by The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), through a letter dated 22 January 2026 and signed by its Regional Director for Sub-Saharan Africa, Angela Ndambuki. In its letter, the IFPI warned the NCC that if the levy is not disbursed in a manner perceived to be judicious, equitable and transparent, it could lead to “irreversible prejudice” against affected rights holders.
The purpose of this Article is to examine relevant statutory provisions as they relate to the private copying levy/copyright levy, the role of the relevant parties/bodies and possible resolution to this brewing feud.
Private Copying Levy or Copyright Levy (The Levy)
The Copyright Act, 2022 (The Act) bestows on an Author of a work certain exclusive rights in relation to such work. The chief of these rights is the author’s right to exclusively reproduce such work. This means that any act of reproduction of a work by any other person without the authorisation of the author and outside the scope of “Fair Use” or “Fair Dealing” amounts to Copyright infringement, and the author is entitled to seek legal and equitable remedies in court against the infringer.
Over the years, as technology advanced and innovations multiplied, various tools have been created to make everyday tasks easier for people globally. This includes items used for the storage and sharing of data, like Cassette tapes, Compact Discs, Computers, mobile phones, etc. For creators, this means that their works can easily be copied by potentially millions of people all around the world, which raises questions about the practicality of creators enforcing their copyright against every individual infringer. To answer these questions, many countries adopted and implemented the Private Copying Levy system as a way to compensate creators for the expected revenues lost due to the proliferation of devices that aid the copying of their works. In 1965, the German Federal Court of Justice (Der Bundesgerichtshof) provided the legal basis for the Private Copying Levy. On one hand, it established private copying as an exception to copyright infringement, and on the other hand, it recognised that right holders are entitled to a “fair compensation” for revenues lost due to private copying. Member states of the European Union (EU) have also been charged with establishing private copying as an exception to copyright infringement in their national laws on the condition that the right holder shall receive “fair compensation” through a system of levies for harm suffered.
In Nigeria, the Copyright Act provides that “There shall be paid a levy on any material used or capable of being used to infringe copyright in a work”. The implementation of the Private Copying levy in Nigeria is further laid out by the Copyright (Levy on Materials) Order, 2012 (the Order). The Order stipulates that the levy is to be paid on materials like cassette tapes, DVDs, USB flash drives, mp3 players, mobile phones and any other material provided in the schedule to the Order at the point of entry for imported materials or at the point of manufacture for materials manufactured in Nigeria, and the importer or manufacturer bears the responsibility of paying the levy, respectively.
The Order also provides for the following exemptions from the payment of the levy:
- Materials manufactured in Nigeria for export purposes;
- Approved institutions representing persons with disabilities; or
- Any other materials which the Minister may exempt by a notice published in the Official Gazette of the Federal Government from time to time.
The Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC)
The Nigerian Copyright Commission (“NCC” or “the Commission”) is a statutory creation by virtue of section 77 of the Act. It has been tasked with, inter alia:
- To be responsible for all matters relating to copyright, including administration, regulation and enforcement in Nigeria;
- Regulating and implementing measures to promote the protection of copyright;
- Regulating the conduct of collective management of rights; and
- To exercise any other functions, powers and duties as may be incidental or necessary for the attainment of the object of the Act.
In furtherance of its functions under the Act, the NCC has been vested with the responsibility of distributing the proceeds of the copyright levy in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright (Levy on Materials) Order, 2012. The Order stipulates that 60% percent of the levy is to be distributed equally among approved Collective Management Organisations (CMOs). There are currently three (3) CMOs approved by the NCC for different categories of copyright in Nigeria. They are:
- Audio-Visual Rights Society of Nigeria (AVRS);
- Musical Copyright Society of Nigeria (MCSN); and
- Reproduction Rights Organisation of Nigeria (REPRONIG).
It is the slice of the 60% of the levy allocated to the music and sound recording industry that is at the center of the row between the NCC, MCSN and ReLPI. The NCC has disbursed the first tranche of the copyright levy, which is in the region of N1, 200,000,000.00 to MCSN, despite ReLPI’s initial objection to MCSN’s ability to adequately remit this money to deserving rights holders.
ReLPI
The Record Label Proprietors Initiative Limited/GTE (ReLPI) is a non-profit organisation registered as a company limited by Guarantee. It is a trade association for Nigerian record companies, with its membership consisting of some of the biggest players in the Nigerian sound recording industry and globally. With the likes of Mavin Records, Warner Music Group, Sony Music, Universal Music, Chocolate City, Gamma Music, and others making up the core of its membership. ReLPI’s website states as one of its core objectives “To further the interests of, and act as the collective voice for the Nigerian recording industry on issues of policy and engagement with commercial music users, regulators, government, trade associations, etc.”
It is for the advancement of the above objective that ReLPI has taken steps to object to the MCSN being used as a payment medium for the proceeds of the levy to rights holders in the category of musical and sound recording works.
Commentary and Recommendations
The Act defines a Collective Management Organisation (CMO) as “an organisation representing copyright owners, which has as its principal objectives the negotiating and granting of licences, collecting and distributing of royalties in respect of copyright works”. In essence, CMOs exist to provide a vital link between creators and users of copyrighted works, ensuring that creators receive fair compensation for the use of their works. By virtue of section 89(3) of the Act, the Commission is granted the power to disburse the levy funds to approved CMOs or other representatives of right owners, in accordance with the Collective Management Regulations, 2025 (The Regulations).
It would appear that the Act intends for right holders to retain the right to give their mandates with respect to the management of their copyright to other representatives outside the approved CMOs. The regulations in providing for the scope of mandate granted to the CMOs state that “Where a right owner authorises a CMO to manage his rights, he shall give a written consent for each right, category of rights or type of works and any other subject matter that he authorises the CMO to manage.”. The Regulation further provides that a right owner shall be free to grant his rights to more than one CMO, provided that there is no grant of the same rights within the same territory to more than one CMO. In addition, the Regulations also granted rights holders the right to withdraw their membership of any CMO or any rights assigned to the CMO upon giving a written notice of their intention to do so. Section 88(9)(d) provides an opt-out option for rights owners who do not wish for any CMO to manage their rights. By all indications, Members of ReLPI have exercised this opt-out right.
In light of the above, it is reasonable to deduce that a CMO’s authority to operate is typically conveyed by mandates from Rights Owners or other agreements with them. Interestingly, the Act forbids any person from performing the duties of a CMO without being approved by the NCC.This raises the question whether the MCSN is permitted to receive and distribute the levy on behalf of rights owners who have not granted them a representation mandate, even though it is the only approved CMO for the category of musical and sound recording works? If the answer is in the affirmative, then what purpose do the provisions of the Act and Regulations on the right owners’ mandate serve?
The regulations also provide that a CMO’s distribution policy shall be as approved by its members and shall distribute such royalties in a manner that reflects the actual usage of works covered by its repertoire. This is usually provided in the CMO’s Memorandum and Articles of Association. InGreen Light Music Publishing Ltd & Ors v. COSON, the plaintiffs submitted a question before the court on whether the “General Distribution” method of distribution implemented by COSON is inconsistent with its Memorandum and Articles of Association and the provisions of Regulation 16 (1) & (2) of the Copyright (Collective Management Organizations) Regulations, 2007. The court answered in favour of the plaintiffs and granted an order prohibiting COSON from distributing royalties in the “General Distribution” manner. This means that if the levy is to be distributed through MCSN, non-members will have to settle for the distribution policy agreed by members of MCSN, whether they deem it satisfactory or not.
This presents a significant gap in the legal and structural framework of the Collective management administration in Nigeria, and there is a need for either legislative or judicial clarifications to fill this gap. The NCC, as the regulatory authority responsible for enforcing the Copyright Act and the Collective Management Regulations, also needs to step up to ensure that any money disbursed to the MCSN on behalf of rights owners is distributed in a manner consistent with statutory provisions, particularly the provisions dealing with the Governance of CMOs, Split and Holding accounts, accounting and auditing. This will go a long way to eliminate any doubts that have been cast over the ability of MCSN to distribute the levy in a judicious, equitable and transparent manner and ensure that rights holders who are not members of MCSN are not disentitled from receiving their deserved share of the levy.
We believe it is also important that the NCC reconsiders its stance on having a singular CMO for each category of copyright. The Nigerian creative industry has seen rapid growth in the last decade and is predicted to grow further in the coming years, especially the music and sound recording industry. Hence, there is a demand for the NCC to look towards adopting a multiple CMO system. This will also help to introduce a competitive dimension to Copyright administration as it curbs the monopoly that a singular CMO per rights category offers. The Act itself does not exactly abolish a multiple CMO system; it rather creates room for the approval of more entities as CMOs in any category of Copyright if the Commission deems it necessary. Section 88(3) of the Copyright Act provides that:
“The Commission shall not approve another CMO in respect of any category of copyright works, if it is satisfied that an existing approved CMO adequately protects the interests of copyright owners in that categories [sic] of works.”
It can be contended that the MCSN alone cannot adequately protect the interests of all right owners in what is arguably Africa’s largest musical and sound recording industry. ReLPI alone as a sound recording trade association, houses a significant portion of owners of sound recording rights in Nigeria, none of whom have mandated MCSN to manage their copyright.
Strictly speaking, Nigeria could do worse than follow in the example of countries like the USA and UK, where multiple CMO systems have been successfully implemented. In the US, Performance Rights Organisations (PROs) like ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are simultaneously licensed to protect the rights of songwriters, composers and music publishers who are their members. Organisations with similar objectives to MCSN can be approved as CMOs for musical and Sound recording works, provided they meet the conditions as stipulated under the Act and the Regulations.
Conclusion
This scuffle on the mode of disbursement of the Copyright levy makes it apparent that there is a need for all stakeholders in the Nigerian entertainment industry to play their respective roles to ensure that Copyright Administration is at a global standard. The mismanagement of creators’ royalties or other compensation for their work defeats the purpose of protection intended by IP laws. Therefore, there should be concerted efforts from all stakeholders to efficiently discharge their duties and functions as stipulated by law. These efforts must be supplemented by collective dialogue on policy issues, lobbying for legislative reforms or seeking judicial interpretations of relevant laws. Hopefully, the matter currently before the Court will bring a degree of clarity on the position of the law when concluded, as this will be required to ensure accountability and transparency on the part of stakeholders to avoid “irreversible prejudice” against rights holders.
Author:
Chiemerie Dennis Nnamani
(Associate)
