This issue remains very much on the table. Creatives have always been vulnerable because of the fragile nature of their brainchild — intellectual property (IP). Unfortunately, this vulnerability has become even more harrowing with the fast-pace growth of digital technology and the consequential rise of a fast-fashion culture, one in which legal protection, enforcement, and, more importantly, public understanding — particularly in developing countries — are gasping for air in a losing race to catch up. It is this dilemma, and the widening gap surrounding it, that the just-concluded Africa Magic Viewers’ Choice Awards has stirred up once again.
In the aftermath of the awards, a number of accusations of copyright infringement have surfaced. The contretemps between Almée Couture and Nana Akua Addo is particularly significant. And, of course, these accusations have invited counterclaims, all of which have triggered an avalanche of public opinion. Much of that discourse points to one thing: the urgent need to revisit what IP ownership really means, particularly within the creative and fashion industries.
The issue between the Parisian fashion house, Almée Couture, and the Ghanaian fashion icon, Nana Akua Addo, arose when Almée took to their Instagram page on May 11, 2026, to accuse Nana of using their proprietary sketches and design direction — a cathedral-inspired architectural gown — without authorization. According to the fashion house, Nana had approached them in 2025 with the concept, which they claimed only “served as a starting point.” By way of “extensive creative work and countless hours of handwork,” they went on to make significant additions to the extent of “developing the final artistic vision, original sketch, silhouette, structural detailing, couture direction, and overall execution of the design through extensive creative work, craftsmanship, and countless hours of handwork from our team.” Unfortunately, the deal came apart, but with the mutual agreement that “Almée Couture would retain full ownership and exclusive rights to the developed design sketches, and couture interpretation created by our house.” They alleged that this agreement was breached by Nana, who ceded this final design to another designer who executed it.
Rebutting the accusation, Nana Akua Addo dismissed the claims, sharing screenshots of private Instagram chats to argue that the creative direction and original AI mood board were her own intellectual property. According to her, “the entire concept and creative direction came from her,” and on that basis, ownership rights to the design reside with her. There are several (special) issues, but we’ll pick up the issue from the ownership of the subject matter itself; who indeed owns it?
As is often the case with intellectual property (IP) and IP law, there is an important distinction between a concept or idea and the creative expression of that idea. While ideas themselves are generally not protectable under copyright law, the specific expression or tangible manifestation of those ideas — sketches, illustrations, scripts, compositions, or designs — can enjoy legal protection. Section 2 of the Nigerian Copyright Act, 2022, buttresses this. This is because the law is primarily concerned with the protection of original, creative labour once it has been fixed in a material form. It does not offer protection for abstract thoughts that exist only in the mind, or inspiration.
Returning to the issue at hand, from the interactions between both parties, the fashion house indeed went on to translate the idea into sketches with proportions. On this basis, Almée can claim ownership of the final expression of the design, while Nana’s concept or idea is not protectable under IP. It then counts as a copyright infringement if indeed Nana supplied these expressions (designs) to Abbasswoman, who is the Nigerian designer in question.
To be clear, Almée expressed their wish not to transfer or cede their ownership rights, even in the aftermath of the failure of the contract. For the sake of knowledge, even in situations where there was no express agreement as to ownership rights, and no implicit conduct suggests the designer wishes to transfer ownership, the presumption of the law still holds — that the creator of a work owns it by default. By creator, one means the person who went through the labour or toils of giving expression to an idea or inspiration.
In the torrent of public opinions slushing around, some have tried to extend the impact of the ‘refund’ and the contractual failure. In this erroneous interpretation, those who hold this view assume that the refund extinguishes every obligation and right connected to the contract, including rights relating to intellectual property. But a refund ordinarily only reverses the financial aspect of an agreement and returns parties, as much as possible, to their pre-payment positions. Terminating a contract of this nature would end the obligation to perform but it does not invalidate ownership rights over creative work that has already been produced in the course of that relationship. In effect, Almée’s claim to the IP rights post-refund is valid.
In the same vein, many also misunderstand IP ownership in commissioned fashion work. Many immediately hold the assumption that ‘since I paid for it, I should own it.’ However, commissioning a design does not automatically transfer IP rights. Going by rules of copyrights (including Nigeria’s Copyright Act, 2022), the creator retains IP unless there’s an explicit assignment.
The use of AI in this controversy also raises important questions about ownership and authorship. The AI-generated reference image reportedly sent by Nana Akua Addo to the French fashion house was a variation of similar AI-generated fantasy-fashion image which has circulated in the public domain for some time. Traditionally (and even under Nigeria’s jurisprudence), works generated by AI are uncertain and do not grant exclusive economic rights to the ‘generator’ since AI lacks legal personality. As a result, purely AI-generated images, particularly those produced with minimal human creative contribution, may struggle to enjoy full copyright protection. Nana would struggle to lay claims to ownership rights because her AI-generated mood board would more likely be treated as a non-protectable reference or idea rather than exclusive intellectual property — except she can prove the extent of her independent human input, the same way Almée may be able to prove theirs.
The trend, especially in the light of the latest AMVCA, has revealed a culture of chronic disregard for creatives and their economic rights. Fashion illustrator, Hayden Williams also publicly suffered similar infringement. In a public post, he pointed out that the gown worn by Toni Tones was an exact replica of his custom illustration drawn for Teyana Taylor. After this, the styling team rushed to attribute the inspiration to Hayden in their captions. However, subsequent edits and posts by the actress left out the instructor’s name.
Beneath the mass of accusations, counterclaims, and uninformed opinions, the African creative industry across fashion, film, and media have shown a penchant for exploiting others with little regard to IP rights, ownership, or mere attribution. Ever more so often, “inspiration” is adopted as a pretext for appropriation.
It is important for all and sundry, especially those dealing in any way with the larger creative ecosystem to understand the significance of copyright and IP protection and also duly respect it. In a previous article, we rightly informed that “IP rights are legal provisions designed to protect the creations of individuals, including artists, musicians, writers, and innovators. These rights give creators control over how their work is used, preventing unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or exploitation.” IP laws protect creatives from suffering economic haemorrhage by ensuring that the commercial value of their labour, originality, and artistic expression cannot be freely exploited by others without permission, compensation, or proper attribution. This is a coverage that protects everyone in equal measure. What African creatives must begin to do — as we have urged — is to recognise the potential of IP for “economic empowerment” and as an “insurance that all members of the industry can benefit fairly from their work.”
0 Comments
Add your own hot takes