Masters, Copyright, and Control: A Legal Perspective on Music Ownership in Nigeria

1. INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the Nigerian music industry has transformed into one of Africa’s most dynamic creative sectors, producing globally celebrated artists and generating significant economic value. Yet, beneath the glamour of chart-topping hits lies a critical and often misunderstood issue, the ownership and control of masters. For many Nigerian musicians, especially emerging talents, the concept of “masters” and their legal implications remain shrouded in contractual complexity and industry jargon. This lack of clarity often results in unfavorable agreements that strip artists of the rights and revenues their work could generate for decades. Masters- the original recordings from which all copies, streams, and licenses are derived, represent not only the creative essence of a song but also its primary source of long-term income. Whoever owns the masters controls the commercial life of the recording, from its inclusion in films, adverts, and streaming platforms to remixes and re-releases. In the Nigerian context, where the legal literacy of many artists is limited and industry structures are still evolving, the ownership of masters can determine whether an artist builds lasting wealth or becomes trapped in dependency on record labels.

This discussion cannot be divorced from Nigeria’s copyright framework, particularly the Copyright Act 2022, which governs intellectual property rights in musical works and sound recordings. The law offers creators default ownership of their works but also provides mechanisms for transferring or licensing rights. Unfortunately, without proper negotiation or legal advice, artists often sign away their masters through broad assignment clauses embedded in recording contracts. Such agreements frequently favour labels or producers, leaving artists with little more than an advance payment and residual fame. The issue of control goes beyond legal title, it encompasses decision-making power over distribution, licensing, and usage. In practice, control over masters can influence an artist’s brand trajectory, creative freedom, and legacy. This article seeks to unpack the intertwined concepts of masters, copyright, and control from a Nigerian legal perspective, examining how the law operates in theory and how it plays out in the realities of the music business. It will also explore strategies and legal tools that can empower Nigerian artists to negotiate better deals, retain more control, and safeguard the enduring value of their music.

2. UNDERSTANDING KEY CONCEPTS

2.1 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Intellectual property (IP) is a category of property that includes intangible creations of the human intellect. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, it is the creation of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce. It covers various forms of creative and industrial output. Copyright protects original works of authorship such as books, music, films, software, and artistic creations by granting the creator control over reproduction, distribution, and adaptation. Trademarks safeguard distinctive brand identifiers, including names, logos, slogans, or symbols, ensuring products and services are recognizable in the marketplace while preserving consumer trust. Patents grant inventors exclusive rights over their inventions for a fixed period, enabling them to control manufacture, use, and sale in exchange for public disclosure. Industrial designs protect the unique aesthetic or visual aspects of a product, such as its shape, pattern, or ornamentation, which enhance its appeal. Lastly, trade secrets secure confidential business information with commercial value, maintaining a competitive advantage through secrecy. Together, these categories form the backbone of IP law. My focus in this article will be on copyright. 

2.2 COPYRIGHT IN MUSIC

As stated above, this protects original works of authorship such as books, music, films, software, and artistic creations by granting the creator control over reproduction, distribution, and adaptation.  Copyright does not safeguard mere ideas; rather, it protects the unique expression of those ideas once fixed in a tangible form. While concepts alone are not covered, the specific way they are written, recorded, drawn, or otherwise embodied is what the law recognizes and shields from unauthorized use.

Generally, copyright matters fall within the realm of intellectual property, which encompasses literary, musical, and artistic creations. These creations are collectively referred to as “works.” According to Section 108 of the Copyrights Act 2022, “work” includes translations, adaptations, new versions or arrangements of pre-existing works, and anthologies or collection of works which by reason of the selection and arrangement of their content, present an original character.Futhermore under copyright law, a wide range of creative expressions enjoy legal protection. These include literary works, such as books, articles, and written compositions; musical works, encompassing both lyrics and melodies; and artistic works, which cover paintings, drawings, sculptures, and other forms of visual art. Audiovisual works, including films, documentaries, and multimedia productions, are also protected, as are sound recordings, which safeguard the fixation of sounds in any medium. Finally, broadcasts whether transmitted via radio, television, or digital platforms equally fall within the ambit of copyright protection. Notably, Under the Act, the copyright for literary, musical, or artistic works excluding photographs endures for 70 years following the end of the year in which the author passes away.

 In today’s creative economy, ideas are more than just expressions, they are valuable assets. Nigerian copyright law recognizes this by granting authors, composers, and creators of literary and musical works an automatic legal monopoly over how their creations are used, shared, and monetized. Under the Copyright Act, 2022, these rights arise without any registration or procedural formality, ensuring that the moment a work is fixed in a tangible form, its creator enjoys full legal protection.

2.3 MASTERS

Master recordings often called masters are the original audio recordings of a performance, including all post-recording mixes and production edits. They serve as the source from which every analog and digital copy is made. The term applies solely to the recorded performance of a song and does not extend to the underlying musical composition. Owning your master recordings puts you in full control of your music and allows you to maximize the revenue it generates. With ownership, you can earn mechanical royalties from each copy distributed, as well as performance royalties from radio play, streaming, and other public performances, maintain complete creative authority over your recordings, enabling you to make changes, remixes, or updates without seeking permission from a record label.  Beyond creative control, master ownership opens the door to lucrative licensing opportunities. One can authorize the use of your music in films, TV shows, commercials, games, and other media, expanding your reach while boosting income. It also gives you the freedom to release your music on your own schedule, bypassing industry gatekeepers and responding quickly to trends. This independence not only keeps your music relevant but also positions an artist ahead of the competition in a fast-moving industry.

2.4 CONTROL IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY

In the music industry, control generally refers to the legal and practical power to decide how music is used, distributed, and monetized. Creatively, it involves the authority to shape how a song or recording sounds, determine its release timing, and decide on any modifications such as edits, remixes, or re-recordings. Legally, it stems from owning the copyrights whether in the composition or the master recording which grants the right to authorize or deny the use of the music. Commercially, control enables the rights holder to set licensing terms, negotiate deals, and approve the placement of their music in films, advertisements, games, or streaming platforms. Ultimately, control is about preserving both artistic vision and financial leverage in an industry where ownership can dictate long-term success. Also, Record labels, publishers, and streaming platforms also exert significant control through their roles in production, distribution, and promotion. Note; pursuant to Section 30 of the Copyright Act, and for the purposes of Chapter 4 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, copyright is classified as movable property and may be transferred by assignment, testamentary disposition, or operation of law.

3. LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING COPYRIGHT/MASTERS IN NIGERIA: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH THE FRAMEWORK IN THE UK & USA. 

3.1 COPYRIGHTS ACT, 2022

The history of copyright law in Nigeria traces back to the colonial era, when British copyright laws were applied in the country through the UK Copyright Act 1911, extended to its colonies, including Nigeria. Under this regime, copyright protection mirrored British provisions, with limited recognition for indigenous creative works. After independence in 1960, Nigeria retained the UK copyright framework until it enacted its first indigenous Copyright Act in 1970. This marked a significant step toward aligning copyright protection with Nigeria’s socio-cultural realities and creative industries.  The Copyright Act of 1988 later replaced the 1970 law, modernizing provisions to accommodate new forms of expression and technological changes. This Act was amended several times, notably in 1992, 1999, and 2004, to strengthen enforcement, address piracy, and expand the scope of protected works.  Most recently, Nigeria enacted the Copyright Act 2022, which repealed the 1988 law. This new legislation aligns with international treaties like the Berne Convention and WIPO Copyright Treaty, expands protection to digital works, modernizes enforcement mechanisms, and clarifies rights in areas like broadcasting, licensing, and digital distribution. 

The Nigerian Copyright Act clearly sets out the circumstances under which copyright protection is conferred and the parties in whom such rights vest. Section 6 provides that copyright shall subsist in a variety of works when certain conditions are met. These include:

• Literary, musical, artistic works or audiovisual creations that are first published in Nigeria.

• Sound recordings made in Nigeria, provided they are not already subject to copyright under Section 2 of the Act.

• Broadcasts transmitted from Nigeria, or from a broadcasting organization whose headquarters is located in Nigeria.

 Regarding ownership of copyright, Section 28(1) states that, except as otherwise provided by agreement, copyright initially vests in the author of the work. However, Section 28(2) clarifies that where a work is created under a contract for services or in the course of employment by the government, its ministries, departments, agencies, or prescribed international/inter-governmental organizations, the copyright in such a work shall vest in the employing body. Furthermore, Section 28(3)  provides special rules for commissioned works created for private or domestic purposes, such as photographs, portraits, drawings, or audiovisual productions. In such cases, the commissioning party is deemed to have a non-exclusive licence to use the work for non-commercial purposes and has the right to prevent its publication, exhibition, broadcasting, communication, distribution, or public availability. Section 29 addresses collective works, stipulating that copyright shall vest in the person who initiated or directed the creation of the work. Nevertheless, authors of individual contributions to the collective work retain the right to exploit their own works independently. Also, Section 37 of the Copyright Act 2022 empowers a copyright owner, assignee, or exclusive licensee to sue for infringement in the court with jurisdiction where the infringement occurred, with possible remedies including damages, injunctions, and accounts of profits. Where rights of action are concurrent, both parties must be joined unless the court grants leave otherwise. If the defendant had no knowledge or reasonable grounds to suspect copyright subsistence, damages are unavailable, though profits may still be claimed. The court may award additional damages in cases of flagrant infringement or where benefits accrued to the defendant, but it cannot order the demolition or halt the completion of a building. Disputes may be resolved through arbitration or other agreed means, with “action” including counterclaims.

 The Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) is established under Section 78(1) as the regulatory and enforcement authority for copyright matters. The Commission is a corporate body with perpetual succession and the capacity to acquire property, sue, and be sued. Its core functions include:

• Administering, regulating, and enforcing copyright in Nigeria.

• Monitoring and advising the government on Nigeria’s position in bilateral and multilateral copyright agreements.

• Investigating infringement cases and resolving disputes not otherwise reserved for another forum.

• Public education on copyright issues.

• Maintaining a register and database of copyright works and providing public access to such information.

In addition, Section 78(2) empowers the Commission to prosecute offences under the Act, levy service fees, regulate collective rights management, and implement measures to promote copyright protection. Anti-piracy measures are reinforced in Section 49(1), which authorises the Commission, with ministerial consent, to prescribe any design, label, mark, impression, or device to be used in connection with works in which copyright subsists. Section 49(2) makes it an offence to sell, rent, hire, or offer for sale or hire any work in breach of such prescriptions, with penalties including a fine of at least ₦500,000, imprisonment for at least three years, or both.

Collectively, these provisions establish a coherent legal architecture for recognising and protecting creative works in Nigeria, defining ownership and authorship, regulating administration and enforcement, and embedding anti-piracy safeguards that uphold the economic and moral rights of creators.

3.2 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE COPYRIGHTS ACT,2022 WITH THE COPYRIGHTS LAW OF THE UK AND USA JURISDICTION

In an age where creative works transcend borders at the click of a button, copyright law has become a critical pillar in safeguarding intellectual property across jurisdictions. Nigeria’s Copyright Act, 2022 represents a bold legislative overhaul, aligning its protections with global best practices while addressing local enforcement challenges. By comparing its provisions with the copyright regimes of the United Kingdom and the United States two jurisdictions with rich, influential legal traditions; this analysis explores not only the points of convergence and divergence, but also the practical implications for creators, musicians, and policymakers navigating an increasingly interconnected creative economy.

While the law guiding copyright in the United Kingdom is primarily governed by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), as amended over time to incorporate developments such as the Digital Economy Act 2010, copyright law in the United States is chiefly regulated under Title 17 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), alongside related legislation like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (DMCA).

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) remains the cornerstone of UK copyright law. It safeguards a broad spectrum of creative expressions including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, films, sound recordings, broadcasts, and typographical arrangements automatically upon fixation, without any formal filing requirement. Similarly, Nigeria’s 2022 Copyright Act extends protection to literary, musical, artistic, audiovisual works, sound recordings, and broadcasts as eligible subject matter under Section 2(1) . Regarding moral rights, the UK notably includes explicit protections under CDPA sections 77–79, granting authors the right to be identified, to object to derogatory treatment, and to prevent false attribution meaning all rights that remain with the author and may persist posthumously while Nigeria, while not mirroring these provisions verbatim, has also strengthened moral rights. The 2022 Act enables authors to hold moral rights such as attribution and mandates their expiry alongside copyright, showing a corresponding acknowledgment of the author’s creative rights. Furthermore, CDPA’s approach to technological protection measures (TPMs) is more generic, with some provisions in related regulations (e.g., 2003 Regulations). Moral rights waivers and TPM circumvention prohibitions exist but are less comprehensive. While Nigeria’s 2022 Act incorporates a contractual override clause - Section 20(3), nullifying contractual terms that defeat statutory exceptions, and explicitly preserves exceptions against TPMs (Section 50(7)), a modern and forward-looking safeguard.

The United States and Nigeria  also share core copyright principles grounded in international norms, including subject matter protection, automatic vesting, moral rights, statutory remedies, equitable doctrines, and regulatory oversight. First, both systems safeguard a wide array of works as copyrightable. In the U.S., Title 17 of the U.S. Code explicitly protects "original works of authorship" fixed in a tangible medium, encompassing literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pictorial, sculptural, audiovisual works, sound recordings, derivative works, compilations, and architectural works. Second, both countries grant copyright automatically upon creation or fixation. U.S. copyright attaches when the work is "fixed in a tangible medium" and does not require formal registration, though registration is necessary before suing for infringement, Also, both jurisdictions provide robust remedies for infringement. The U.S. provides the exclusive rights holder with remedies such as injunctions, actual and statutory damages, destruction of infringing copies, and attorney’s fees - See (Title 17, Chapters 5). Nigeria likewise offers damages, injunctions, account of profits, and enhanced damages for flagrant infringement. 

In conclusion, while the Nigerian Copyright Act shares significant conceptual and structural affinities with both the United Kingdom and United States copyright frameworks particularly in its recognition of moral rights, automatic vesting of copyright, and statutory remedies it also reflects unique adaptations to Nigeria’s socio-economic and enforcement realities. The UK’s harmonisation with EU-derived provisions and the U.S.’s highly codified statutory system offer instructive benchmarks, particularly in the areas of fair use/fair dealing flexibility, registration incentives, and technological protection measures. By selectively integrating best practices from these jurisdictions, Nigeria can enhance its copyright regime, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and better position its creative industries in the global digital economy.

3.3. Assignment and Licensing

In Nigeria, the Copyright Act 2022 delineates between assigning ownership of masters and licensing their use mechanisms that carry distinct legal and practical consequences. Under Section 30 of the Act, copyright including the master recording is treated as movable property that may be transferred through assignment, testamentary disposition, or by operation of law. A full assignment, which fully transfers ownership of rights in the master, is only legally effective if contained in a written document, signed by the assignor. This requirement embodies the principle of legal certainty and prevents disputes over interpretation or oral agreements. By contrast, a non-exclusive license which allows certain uses without transferring ownership may be granted orally, in writing, or by conduct, per Section 30(4). This flexibility allows artists and rights holders to authorize limited uses while retaining control and ownership of their recordings. From a legal standpoint, assignment vests full control including the ability to exploit, sell, or revert the master accordingly. A license, especially a non-exclusive one, allows use but maintains the assignor’s legal title and minimizes rights dilution.

Subsequently, The Nigerian Copyright Act expressly recognizes the role of Collective Management Organizations (CMOs) entities established to represent copyright owners and to manage their rights collectively. These organizations have as their principal objectives the negotiation and granting of licenses, as well as the collection and distribution of royalties for the use of protected works.

 For a CMO to operate within Nigeria, the Act prescribes two cumulative conditions:

1. Substantial Representation – Under Section 88(2), a CMO must represent a substantial number of copyright owners in at least one category of works protected under the Act.

2. Regulatory Approval – As stipulated in Section 88(4), such an organization must obtain registration from the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) before commencing operations.

In addition to managing the works of its members, Section 88(19) authorizes CMOs to issue licenses for the works of non-members, provided specific statutory conditions are met. This provision ensures the availability of lawful licensing channels even for rights holders who have not joined a CMO, thereby broadening the scope of copyright protection and compliance. Importantly, Section 88(5) prohibits the NCC from approving another CMO in the same category of works if an existing organization is deemed to be adequately protecting and representing the relevant rights holders. This regulatory safeguard serves to prevent functional overlap, reduce administrative burdens, and preserve a coherent licensing framework.

 In practical terms, the CMO system in Nigeria reflects global best practices in collective rights administration, aligning with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)’s guidance on effective rights management. By concentrating licensing and royalty collection within accredited entities, the Act enhances transparency, facilitates enforcement, and provides a structured avenue for both local and international users to obtain permissions.

4. INDUSTRY PRACTICES AND CHALLENGES

INTRODUCTION

In Nigeria, many artists lose control over their music at the point of signing recording contracts. These agreements are usually prepared by record labels, which often have far greater bargaining power than the artists. One of the most common clauses in such contracts is the transfer of ownership of the master recordings to the label. This means that the label, not the artist, controls how the music is used and earns most of the income from it. Another key issue is the advance payment system. While an advance may look like free money, it is actually a loan that the label expects to recover from the artist’s future earnings. Until the label has fully recovered this money through what is known as “recoupment” the artist will not receive any royalty payments. Recoupment clauses can be especially harmful when they are vague or when they include extra costs, such as marketing or travel expenses, without clear limits. This can delay or even prevent an artist from earning from their own work. Without proper legal advice, many artists, especially newcomers, sign these contracts without understanding the long-term consequences, giving up both ownership and future income from their music.

4.1 TYPICAL RECORDING CONTRACTS

Most Nigerian contracts transfer master ownership to the label, even if the artist funded the production, because the label fronted recording and marketing costs. Recording contracts are legally binding agreements that govern the relationship between artists and record labels. While they often provide opportunities for funding, promotion, and distribution, they can also create long-term constraints on the artist’s ownership, earnings, and creative control. Below are some of the most significant clauses typically found in such agreements;

1. Master Ownership Clause

This provision determines who owns the final recorded version of a song - the “master.” In most recording contracts, especially where the label has financed production, marketing, and distribution, the label retains 100% ownership. Owning the masters means controlling how a song is used, licensed, or monetized. Even after the artist leaves the label, the label can continue earning from those works for decades. If an artist’s most commercially successful song is owned by the label, the label enjoys long-term financial benefit, often with little obligation to share beyond royalties.

2. Recoupment Clause

This outlines how the label recovers the money it has invested in the artist. Advances given to artists are not free; they are recoupable, meaning the label will deduct expenses (production, marketing, travel, etc.) from the artist’s future income. Until these costs are fully repaid, the artist will not receive royalties. This matters because an artist can be popular yet financially strained if all earnings are absorbed by recoupment. Labels may also recoup from multiple revenue streams, including live shows, endorsements, and merchandise sales.

3. Reversion Clause

This clause specifies when ownership of the master recordings will revert to the artist—often 5 to 15 years after release. Without it, the label may hold the masters indefinitely. Without reversion, artists lose the opportunity to control or benefit from their catalog after the contract ends. A well-known example is Wizkid’s early contract with EME, which left his masters with the label. Other clauses in a recording contract may include Exit clause, Termination clause, survival clause, etc. In essence, these clauses reveal how recording contracts can serve both as a launchpad and a potential trap. Artists who fail to scrutinise them risk signing away ownership, creative control, and long-term income. Skilled negotiationpreferably with legal counsel can ensure a fairer balance between opportunity and protection.

4.2 COMMON PITFALLS

Despite the perceived glamour of signing a record deal, many Nigerian artists especially newcomers fall into traps that can have lifelong consequences on their financial independence and artistic freedom. Three recurrent pitfalls stand out: signing away rights without legal advice, lack of negotiation power, and ambiguity in contract terms.

• 1. Signing Away Rights Without Legal Advice; A frequent mistake is entering into legally binding agreements without independent legal counsel. Labels often draft contracts to protect their commercial interests, not the artist’s. Without the input of an entertainment lawyer, artists may fail to notice clauses that permanently transfer ownership of masters, grant broad image rights, or impose restrictive territorial and temporal limitations.

• 2. Lack of Negotiation Power; The music industry is highly asymmetrical: established labels hold significant bargaining power due to their financial capacity, distribution channels, and promotional reach. Upcoming artists, eager for exposure, often accept unfavorable terms just to “get in the game.” The result is contracts that impose long durations, low royalty rates, and strict recoupment clauses without reasonable caps. In developing markets like Nigeria, these inequalities are sharper because independent revenue streams are underdeveloped and most artists rely solely on label advances for survival.

• 3. Ambiguity in Contract Terms; Vague drafting is another dangerous pitfall. Clauses with undefined industry terms  leave too much room for interpretation, usually in favour of the label. Ambiguity in exit clauses, reversion rights, and recoupment calculations often leads to disputes, delayed payments, and in some cases, complete loss of control over the artist’s work. In Nigeria, courts interpret contractual ambiguity against the drafter, but litigation is slow and costly. Preventing ambiguity at the drafting stage is therefore crucial. Artists should insist on detailed definitions, clear timelines, and measurable obligations.

4.3 CASE SAMPLES

Disputes over master recordings and unfair contracts are common in Nigeria’s music industry, often leaving artists without control over their own works. Cases involving Wizkid, Kizz Daniel, and Runtown reveal how copyright ownership battles, opaque royalty terms, and power imbalances between labels and artists continue to shape the industry’s legal challenges.

• Chocolate City vs. Brymo

In 2013, artist Brymo parted ways with Chocolate City, leading to a high-profile legal battle. Chocolate City secured a court injunction preventing Brymo from releasing music or engaging in musical ventures, citing his existing contract. Although the restraint was later lifted, the case exemplifies how dominant labels control artist output and careers via restrictive contractual power

•  Shallipopi and Dapper Music Controversy

In 2024, Nigerian artist Shallipopi publicly accused Dapper Music of retaining perpetual rights over his master recordings. The dispute garnered national attention and underscored how artists may be subject to lifetime control over their creations unless contracts are well-negotiated.

• Runtown vs. Eric Many Entertainment – Ownership and Royalty Conflicts

After their contract ended, Runtown faced multiple lawsuits from his former label Eric Many Entertainment. The label claimed he breached the agreement by performing without authorization and using his stage name independently. The label filed injunctions to prevent him from performing or releasing music. Runtown responded by declaring himself independent, accusing the label of unpaid royalties and unreasonable restrictions. The court eventually lifted performance blocks and acknowledged his autonomy post-contract.

• Wizkid and Empire Mates Entertainment (E.M.E)

Wizkid, born Ayodeji Balogun, was signed to Empire Mates Entertainment (E.M.E) in 2009 by Banky W, who openly expressed strong belief in his talent. Following the success of his debut hit “Holla at Your Boy” (2010) and subsequent albums Superstar (2011) and Ayo (2014), Wizkid emerged as one of Nigeria’s leading artists. However, tensions arose over his contractual terms, under which he reportedly received only 25% of earnings, with the remainder split between E.M.E’s owners, Banky W and Tunde Demuren, and his manager. Despite his central role in the label’s success, negotiations for a revised sharing formula yielded limited improvement. Dissatisfied, Wizkid ultimately exited E.M.E and established his own imprint, Starboy Entertainment.

5. Retaining or Regaining Control

In an industry where artists routinely relinquish their creative assets, alternative contract models can help preserve important rights.

5.1 360 Deals

Unlike traditional or distribution deals—where artists keep ownership of their masters and grant labels limited rights over distribution .a 360 deal grants a label a share of multiple revenue streams (e.g., touring, merchandise, endorsements) in exchange for comprehensive support such as marketing, touring logistics, and branding. While this model offers expanded support and funding, it comes at the cost of long-term royalties and creative autonomy. A 360 deal can significantly undermine an artist’s creative and financial independence, as it allows the record label to take a percentage of earnings from multiple revenue streams, including touring, merchandising, endorsements, and even acting roles, rather than limiting their share to music sales alone. This broad revenue sharing often continues beyond the album cycle, meaning the label may keep earning from ventures in which it plays little or no role. Such agreements can also foster overreliance on the label for approvals, bookings, and marketing, which can stall an artist’s momentum if the relationship breaks down. Additionally, the label’s commercial interests may outweigh the artist’s creative vision, pushing them toward safer, profit-driven projects that limit artistic growth. Exiting a 360 deal can also be costly and legally complex, making it difficult for artists to regain control over their brand and income streams once they have signed.

5.2 Alternative Ownership Models: Short-Term Licensing and Joint Ownership

In the evolving landscape of the music industry, alternative ownership models stand out as artist-friendly structures that balance creative control with commercial support. Instead of ceding complete ownership of their masters a common outcome in traditional record deals, artists can now explore mechanisms like short-term licensing and joint ownership to safeguard long-term interests.

A sustainable alternative to permanent assignment of master rights is to adopt ownership models that preserve the artist’s long-term stake in their creative works. One such model is short-term licensing, where masters are licensed to the label for a fixed term—often linked to a specific album cycle or marketing period—after which ownership automatically reverts to the artist. At the end of this term, ownership automatically returns to the artist. This model enables artists to benefit from a label’s promotional and distribution capabilities while ensuring the ability to capitalize independently on future revenue. A similar concept known as a “time reversion clause "is highlighted in the U.S. music industry, notably within songwriter-publisher arrangements, where rights revert to the creator if not actively exploited within a set timeframe

Similarly, Joint Ownership, on the other hand, allows both the artist and label to share master ownership. This arrangement gives the artist a meaningful stake in long-term exploitation through sync placements, reissues, and digital streams while still benefiting from the label’s infrastructure and investment. These models reflect a growing industry trend toward fairness. The U.K. music creators' community has voiced support for "rights reversion" as a way to recalibrate power imbalances, arguing that creators deserve control once initial investments are recouped.  By adopting short-term licensing or joint ownership structures, artists position themselves to preserve long-term control and financial benefit while engaging with the label’s resources. These models offer a balanced approach that mitigates exploitation and supports both creative and commercial objectives.

6. Recommendations

Safeguarding artist rights in Nigeria’s music industry demands a multi-tiered approach, blending legal empowerment, industry education, policy reform, and institutional support. This framework not only addresses immediate challenges but also lays the foundation for a more equitable and sustainable creative economy.

•  Legal Due Diligence Before Contract Signing

Before committing to any recording, publishing, or licensing agreement, artists should seek professional legal review. While legal consultation may appear costly in the short term, it can prevent decades of lost income and control. A lawyer experienced in entertainment law can identify exploitative clauses, negotiate fairer terms, and ensure that ownership of masters, publishing rights, and licensing conditions align with the artist’s long-term goals. In an industry where contracts often favor labels, legal literacy is an artist’s first line of defense.

•  Building Industry Knowledge Among Artists

Education is a powerful tool for empowerment. Musicians must actively pursue training programs, attend workshops, and engage in peer-to-peer learning networks to understand contract structures—from 360 deals to distribution agreements. With increased knowledge of revenue splits, licensing models, and ownership frameworks, artists are better equipped to negotiate favorable deals and sustain profitable careers. Initiatives like music law clinics, online resources, and label transparency forums can accelerate this learning process.

• Encouraging Policy Reforms to Protect Creators

Beyond individual awareness, systemic change is essential. Policymakers and industry regulators should introduce protective measures such as standardized contract templates, binding disclosure requirements for all deal terms, sunset clauses that limit contract duration, and minimum reversion periods that ensure rights eventually return to the creator. These reforms would establish baseline protections for all artists, reducing the risk of exploitation particularly for emerging talent without significant bargaining power.

• Strengthening the Role of Professional Bodies and Unions

Collective bodies such as musicians’ unions, entertainment guilds, and rights management organizations can serve as vital advocates for artist welfare. Through collective bargaining, these institutions can push for industry-wide adoption of fair contracts, provide legal assistance to members, and mediate disputes. Additionally, they can offer support systems like standard royalty tracking, contract databases, and legal aid funds, ensuring that artists have a united front against unfair business practices.

CONCLUSION

The Nigerian music industry is full of talent and potential, but structural imbalances still hold many artists back. Disputes over master ownership, unfair 360 deals, and poorly negotiated contracts are common, showing just how urgent reforms are. Change will require a mix of personal responsibility, industry education, policy updates, and collective action. Artists need to make legal checks a priority before signing any contract, no matter how exciting the offer seems. Building industry knowledge—through mentorship, workshops, and networking will help them negotiate better and protect their rights. At the same time, policies like standardized contracts and fair reversion timelines can safeguard careers in the long run. Stronger artist unions and professional bodies can also give creators a united voice against exploitative practices.

In the end, the industry’s future rests on finding the right balance between commercial success and creative freedom. Protecting ownership, ensuring fair terms, and fostering transparency will allow Nigerian music to not just entertain, but also create lasting legacies. Empowered artists aren’t just protecting themselves they’re building a stronger, fairer, and more globally competitive industry.

WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT)