What creators should know, and what to do next
What’s happening — and why creators should care
Nigeria’s private-copying levy (sometimes called a “copyright levy”) is designed to compensate rightsholders for private copying that’s difficult to license track-by-track. Recent reporting shows an active dispute about who has authority to receive and distribute parts of the levy, and what documentation proves that authority (the “mandate”). (BusinessDay)
For creators, the headline isn’t the courtroom drama — it’s the cashflow reality: when levy distributions eventually move, payments typically follow clean rights data. If your works, splits, and identifiers are messy (or your representation is unclear), your share can be delayed, parked as “unmatched,” or paid to the wrong place.
Private-copying levy in plain English
Think of a private-copying levy as a compensation pot created by law. It’s usually applied to devices or media capable of copying (the exact list and method depends on the country’s rules). The logic is simple: private copying happens at scale, so the levy aims to pay rightsholders without requiring individual licences for every private copy. (BusinessDay)
Who collects vs who distributes (and why people argue)
Even where the law is clear, two roles often get blurred:
- Collection / oversight: the regulator or an approved body collects the levy and sets/monitors the framework.
- Distribution: one or more collecting societies/CMOs distribute to members based on mandates and documented repertoires.
The dispute described in the January 2026 coverage centres on which bodies should be used as the distribution route for particular rightsholder classes (for example, musical works vs sound recordings) and what the law allows. (BusinessDay, Nigeria, 28 Jan 2026)
Creator takeaway: distribution systems can only pay what they can match. If your songs and recordings are not correctly registered (or your representation is unclear), your allocation may be delayed, held as “unmatched,” or end up in a dispute queue — even if the overall levy pot exists.
What “mandate” actually means
A mandate is not a press statement — it’s authority in writing. And because the outcome of this dispute may change the practical distribution route, creators should avoid assuming any single organisation will be the payer until mandates and approvals are unequivocally settled.
In plain terms, a mandate answers:
- Who are you authorising to collect/distribute for you?
- Which rights (publishing/composition, sound recording, performer rights, etc.)?
- Which territories and term?
Without a clear mandate, a distributor/CMO can’t safely pay you — and that’s where money gets stuck, disputed, or redirected. This is exactly why “mandate” sits at the centre of the current Nigerian debate in public reporting. (Pulse Nigeria)
What to do next — a creator-ready checklist (keep it tight)
You don’t control the policy outcome, but you can control your readiness. Do these before any levy distribution window opens:
- Split sheets on every song
Put writer shares in writing (dated, signed, stored). If there’s a publisher, confirm the publishing split and who can sign. - Register your works (composition/publishing)
Confirm your songs are registered through your chosen pathway (publisher/admin and/or relevant society) and that registrations are accepted — not “pending forever.” - Register your recordings (master/performer where relevant)
If you own masters (as an indie label/producer), ensure recordings are properly registered. If you’re a performer, ensure your performer role is captured where applicable. - Make your identifiers match your metadata
ISRC for each recording version (original, remix, radio edit). ISWC for the underlying work once assigned. IPI/CAE (writer/rightsholder ID) if you have one.
Don’t let “no codes yet” stop you: consistent titles, legal names, writer names, and roles across every platform and form are what prevent unmatched money. - Build a one-page “representation map”
For each right, list who represents you, where, and for how long. If you can’t explain it in 60 seconds, it’s probably not clear enough. - Fix your payout identity
Align legal name, ID docs, banking details, email/phone across registrations. Tiny mismatches are big payout blockers.
A3 regulatory context — why this matters beyond Nigeria
Private-copying levies sit where law + regulation + collective management collide. Across African markets, the same pattern repeats: if mandates and data governance are weak, distributions become political — and creators end up unpaid. Nigeria’s dispute is a live example of why rights systems need auditable rules, defined beneficiary classes, and clean rightsholder data before money moves. (BusinessDay)
Where Downtown Music Publishing Africa fits (and where we don’t)
Downtown Music Publishing Africa helps creators tighten the fundamentals — splits, registrations, and identifier hygiene — so money is less likely to be left as “unmatched” when collective systems (including levy-style distributions) begin paying out.
Sources
- BusinessDay (Nigeria, 28 Jan 2026): “Nigerian music industry risks billions in lost royalties amid copyright levy dispute”
- Pulse Nigeria (Nigeria, 26 Jan 2026): “Record Labels Oppose NCC Plan to Pay Royalties to MCSN”
- WIPO: Collective management of copyright and related rights
- WIPO Lex: Nigeria — Copyright Act, 2022 (Act No. 8 of 2022) entry
- PLAC (PDF): Copyright Act 2022 (Nigeria) PDF
