About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Finance Intangible Assets Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

Nigeria

NG010-j

Back

2024 WIPO IP Judges Forum Informal Case Summary – Federal High Court of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial Division [2007]: Peter Obe v Grapevine Communication Ltd., Case No. FHC/L/CS/1247/97

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2024 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

 

Session 5: Copyright Exceptions and Limitations

 

Federal High Court of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial Division [2007]: Peter Obe v Grapevine Communication Ltd., Case No. FHC/L/CS/1247/97

 

Date of judgment: June 27, 2007

Issuing authority: Federal High Court of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial Division

Level of the issuing authority: First Instance

Type of procedure: Judicial (Civil)

Subject matter: Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights)

Plaintiff: Peter Obe

Defendant: Grapevine Communication Limited

Keywords: Fair dealing, Copyright exceptions

 

Basic facts: Mr. Peter Obe (Plaintiff), a professional photographer, captured a series of photographs during the Nigerian Civil War, which were later published in his book titled “Nigeria: A Decade of Crises in Pictures.” Grapevine Communication Limited (Defendant)’s Chief Executive obtained a copy of this book directly from the Plaintiff and subsequently requested permission to use one of the photographs in the inaugural edition of the Defendant's newsmagazine. The Plaintiff expressly refused this request. Despite the refusal, the Defendant proceeded to publish the photograph in its magazine without the Plaintiff's consent.

 

In response, the Plaintiff sought a legal declaration before the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial Division affirming that he held the copyright to the photograph in question and that the Defendant’s unauthorized use of the photograph constituted copyright infringement.

 

The Defendant argued that the photograph was obtained from the Daily Times of Nigeria, a newspaper house, which had lent the photograph to the Defendant for use in the magazine as part of a customary lending practice. The Defendant denied using the Plaintiff's book for its publication and raised the defense of fair dealing. The Defendant further asserted that they provided sufficient acknowledgment by crediting the Daily Times of Nigeria, thereby justifying their use under the fair dealing exception outlined in Section 5(1) of the Copyright Act of 1988.

 

Held: The High Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, stating that the Defendant had infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright. The Court held that the Defendant’s acknowledgment of the Daily Times of Nigeria, rather than the Plaintiff, who was the original author of the photograph, was insufficient. Additionally, the Defendant failed to acknowledge the title of the Plaintiff's work, “Nigeria: A Decade of Crises in Pictures.” Consequently, the defense of fair dealing was deemed inapplicable.

 

Section 5 of the Copyright Act recognizes the defense of fair dealing for purposes such as research, criticism, private review, or the reporting of current events, provided that the title of the work and its authorship are properly acknowledged. This defense, however, does not apply when the work is incidentally included in a broadcast.

 

Relevant holdings in relation to Copyright: The High Court reinforced that proper acknowledgment of the author and the title of the work is crucial in claiming the defense of fair dealing. The Defendant’s failure to meet these requirements resulted in the Court’s finding of copyright infringement.

                                                                                      

Relevant legislation:

·         Copyright Act 1988 (Nigeria)

·         United Kingdom Copyright Act 1956