THE LAW BEHIND THE MUSIC: UNDERSTANDING MUSIC RIGHTS AND COPYRIGHTS IN FILM PRODUCTION
Music has always played a powerful role in storytelling. In film and television, the right song can transform an ordinary scene into a cultural moment. A familiar melody can evoke nostalgia, signal identity, or give emotional weight to a storyline in ways dialogue alone cannot achieve. Yet behind every song that finds its way into a film lies a complex network of legal rights. For producers who fail to understand these rights, what begins as a creative choice can quickly become a legal and financial nightmare.
One of the most common misconceptions in audiovisual production is the belief that a song is a single piece of property that can be licensed from one person. In reality, a song is a layered legal creation made up of multiple rights, and these rights are often controlled by different people or entities.
To use music in a film, a web series, a documentary, or even a promotional video, a producer must carefully navigate these layers. This is especially important in Nigeria’s fast-growing film and digital content industries, where music and visual storytelling increasingly intersect.
At the foundation of music rights are two separate copyrights that exist in almost every commercially released song. The first is the copyright in the musical composition. This refers to the underlying melody and lyrics of the song in its abstract form. If someone sits with a guitar and sings “African Queen” by 2Baba without playing the original recording, they are performing the composition. That composition was created by a songwriter and is often administered by a music publisher. It is a literary and musical work protected by copyright law from the moment it is fixed in a tangible form.
The second copyright exists in the sound recording, often called the “master.” This is the specific recorded performance of the composition. That is, the actual version that the audience recognises. For example, there is a difference between the composition of “Ojuelegba” and the particular recording performed and released by Wizkid. Another artist could sing the same composition, creating a new recording, but the original recorded track remains a distinct copyright. This recording is usually owned or controlled by a record label or, in some cases, by the artist or producer who financed the recording.
Understanding the difference between these two copyrights is crucial because using a song in a film usually requires permission from both sides.
The permission granted by the owner of the composition to use the song with moving images is known as a synchronisation licence. The name comes from the act of “synchronising” music with visual content. When a filmmaker places “Essence” by Wizkid featuring Tems under a montage scene in a Lagos-based romance film, the melody and lyrics are being timed to images. That act of pairing music with visuals is what the synchronization licence authorizes.
Separate from this is the master use licence, which comes from the owner of the sound recording. This licence allows the filmmaker to use that specific recorded version of the song. If a producer wants the exact studio track that made the song famous, that is, the vocals, instrumentation, and production that audiences know, then a master use licence is required. Without it, the producer cannot legally insert that recording into the film. Even if the producer has a synchronisation licence for the composition, using the original recording without master permission would still amount to infringement.
These two licences work together, but they are not interchangeable. A filmmaker could theoretically obtain a synchronization licence for the composition of “Ye” by Burna Boy and then record a new version of the song with different musicians. In that case, the master use licence for Burna Boy’s original recording would not be needed because a new recording is being created. However, most producers want the familiarity and commercial appeal of the hit version, which means both licences must be secured. Missing either one leaves a legal gap that can expose the production to claims.
Beyond these core rights, the law recognises additional layers that come into play once the film is distributed. When a film is shown in cinemas, broadcast on television, or streamed on platforms, the music in it is considered to be publicly performed. Performance rights are typically administered by collective management organisations. In Nigeria, bodies such as COSON have historically played this role, licensing the public performance of music on behalf of rights holders.
While film producers may not always deal directly with these organisations, broadcasters and streaming platforms often require confirmation that performance rights are properly covered before they accept or distribute a film. Failure to address this can delay releases or create disputes between distributors and rights societies.
Mechanical rights form another part of the legal landscape. Traditionally, these rights concerned the reproduction of musical works on physical media such as CDs or DVDs. In the digital age, they extend to the reproduction of music on servers and digital storage systems used by streaming services. Although synchronisation deals often touch on these rights, the scope of reproduction permitted must be clear, especially if the film’s soundtrack will be separately exploited or if clips containing the music will be widely shared online. A producer who assumes that a sync licence automatically covers all forms of reproduction may later discover that additional permissions are required.
The role of performers also deserves attention. Musicians, dancers and vocalists, amongst others, who contributed to a recording may have what are known as neighbouring or performers’ rights. These rights recognise the creative contribution of those who bring a composition to life in the studio. In many commercial settings, record labels obtain contractual control over these rights, but this is not always the case, particularly with older recordings or independent productions. If performers’ rights have not been properly addressed, a performer could object to certain exploitations of the recording, adding another layer of risk.
Moral rights introduce yet another dimension, one that is not primarily about money but about reputation and artistic integrity. In many legal systems, authors and composers retain the right to object to uses of their work that are derogatory or prejudicial to their honour. Imagine a politically sensitive thriller using a beloved gospel song in a scene that appears to mock religious practice. Even if economic rights were licensed, the songwriter might argue that the use harms their reputation. These issues are highly context-specific but can lead to serious disputes if not considered at the licensing stage.
The type of licence granted also has significant commercial implications. An exclusive licence gives one producer the sole right to use a song in a particular context, such as films distributed in West Africa for a set period. This can add prestige and uniqueness to a project. However, exclusivity is only as strong as the authority of the person granting it. If a publisher grants exclusivity without the consent of all co-writers, the licence may be challenged, and the producer may find that the promised exclusivity cannot be enforced.
A non-exclusive licence, on the other hand, allows the rights holder to license the same song to multiple users. This is more common and usually less expensive. The downside is that the same track could appear in another Nollywood film, a commercial, or even controversial content shortly after your release. For producers who build marketing around a particular song, this lack of exclusivity can dilute the impact of the music.
When these rights are not properly cleared, the consequences can be severe. Rights holders can seek court orders preventing the release or continued distribution of a film. For a cinema-bound Nigerian production that has already invested heavily in marketing and distribution, an injunction at the eve of release can be financially devastating. Damages claims may follow, and music copyright disputes often involve substantial sums because popular songs are valuable assets. Digital platforms may remove the film or mute the audio in disputed scenes, disrupting storytelling and reducing revenue. In the worst cases, producers are forced to re-edit films to remove unlicensed tracks, a process that is both expensive and creatively painful.
In summary, all of these underscore a simple but often overlooked truth: music licensing is not a side issue in film production; it is a core element of risk management. In a vibrant, creative environment like Nigeria’s, where filmmakers frequently draw on popular music to connect with audiences, understanding the rudiments of music rights is essential. A song is never just a soundtrack choice. It is a bundle of legal interests, creative contributions, and commercial expectations that must be respected.
When properly cleared, music enriches a film and deepens its cultural resonance. When handled carelessly, it can overshadow the story with legal conflict. For producers, directors, and content creators, the lesson is clear. Before the music swells and the scene comes alive, the paperwork must be just as carefully orchestrated as the score.
Franklyn C. Chukwunenye, Esq.,
Associate, Technology, Media & Telecommunication (TMT)