“A picture of a person mirrors his own image, which is personal to him. It is a clone of an individual. For a business concern to take a picture of somebody, for pecuniary interest, without his consent or authorisation, constitutes a serious erosion of the right of privacy of that citizen."
– Hon, Justice Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JSC) [1]
In today’s digital age, the line separating personal identity from commercial use has grown increasingly faint. Creators, businesses, and brands eager to gain attention and appeal to the public now produce a wide range of visual and promotional materials. Yet, in this constant race for visibility and with the evolving state of Nigerian law on image rights, the fundamental rights to privacy and human dignity are too often treated as secondary. The simple but essential rule of consent is, in many cases, ignored or conveniently overlooked.
As this practice becomes more pervasive and as the concept of property rights continues to evolve, creators now possess the legal authority to commercialise and exploit their works. However, a single image can now travel across the world within seconds, carrying with it the risk of infringing on another’s fundamental rights. Nigerian courts are beginning to address this delicate tension between publicity and privacy with growing clarity and conviction, recognising that the harm extends beyond mere unauthorised use to encompass reputational damage rooted in cultural and religious values.
The recent decision of the Federal High Court in Ndidi-Amaka Odogwu v. Quilox Restaurant and Bar Limited [2] stands as a strong reaffirmation of the constitutional protection accorded to image subjects. The Court decisively held that the use of an individual’s photograph for commercial promotion without authorisation amounts to a violation of the person’s rights to privacy and dignity. Significantly, the court also considered how such an unauthorised association with commercial establishments can contradict an individual's religious identity and cultural standing.
While creators retain legitimate rights over their creative works, the judgment clarifies that such rights must yield when they encroach upon the fundamental rights of others. Beyond awarding compensation to the injured party, the decision reflects a culminating jurisprudence that an individual’s image is more than mere likeness; It is an expression of one’s identity and a form of property that deserves substantial legal protection. [3]
[1] Bi-Courtney Aviation Services Ltd v. Kelani (2021) LPELR-56365(CA) at Page 29
[2] FHC/L/CS/482/17 (Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors represented the Claimant)
[3] Edison v. Edison Polyform Mfg Co., 73 NJ Esq 136
--
Read the full publication at Punuka
