A content creator turned 40, hired a photographer, and posted the pictures. Weeks later, Ogechi Ukonu – known online as Caramel Plug – opened Instagram and found her own photograph looking back at her with someone else’s face on it. Same pose, same dress, same setting. Different head. Actress Anita Joseph had used AI to swap her face onto the image, posted it on 6 July with a caption about womanhood, and worked the comments as though she were the woman in the frame. What followed was a very Nigerian internet week: an apology, a retraction of the apology, a “yeyebrity behaviour” intervention from Angela Okorie, and a thousand memes. But underneath the noise sits a question the Nigerian creative industry has spent years avoiding – who actually owns a photograph under Nigeria’s Copyright Act, and can you sue when AI is used to take it? Under the Copyright Act 2022, the answer will surprise almost everyone involved, including Caramel Plug herself.
Did Anita Joseph Steal Caramel Plug’s Image? What Nigerian Copyright Law Says
This question, though widely discussed, may misinterpret the legal implications. Here is a surprising truth: Caramel Plug may not legally own the rights to that photograph.
According to Section 28 of Nigeria’s Copyright Act 2022, copyright in a photograph is held by the photographer – essentially, the person behind the lens – unless a written agreement states otherwise. So unless Caramel had an arrangement with the photographer, the photographer retains the copyright to her birthday photos. This is why the photographer’s decision to share behind-the-scenes footage from the shoot was significant; it established the photograph’s provenance and clarified who truly holds the strongest claim in this dispute.
Does the Subject of a Photo Have Any Rights in Nigeria?
Far from it. Caramel possesses several rights related to the photograph, even if they are not what many may expect.
- The Right to Restrain: Under Section 28(3), anyone who commissions a photograph for private use – like a birthday shoot, holds a non-exclusive licence to use that image non-commercially and can restrain its public publication. If Caramel commissioned the shoot, she has the right to act against its unauthorised public circulation.
- Her Image is Personal Data: The Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, along with Section 37 of the Constitution, recognises a person’s face and likeness as personal data. Using these without consent, especially in a manner that misrepresents identity, provides grounds for legal action. Nigerian courts have previously ruled in favour of individuals in similar situations, including against international tech platforms, signalling a shift toward respecting personal image rights.
- The Photographer’s Moral Rights: Section 14 of the Copyright Act 2022 grants authors three moral rights that exist independently of ownership. These include the right of attribution (to be recognised as the creator), the right of integrity (to object to distortion or modification), and the right against false attribution.
Within this scenario, a photograph was altered to remove its original subject, published publicly, and the publisher interacted with audiences as though she were the image’s subject. This constitutes distortion, modification, and false attribution – all occurring in a single post. Whether that is prejudicial to the photographer’s honour or reputation is precisely the live question a court would ask.
Can You Sue AI?
You cannot sue AI, much like you cannot sue a tool like a hammer. The legal landscape is evolving, particularly illustrated by cases like Thaler v. Vidal, where the US Federal Circuit ruled that AI cannot be named as an inventor on a patent, as inventors must be natural persons. Similarly, in Thaler v. Perlmutter, the D.C. Circuit affirmed that AI cannot be held accountable in this regard. If you cannot sue the AI, who do you sue? The person who published it.
The ‘AI Boy’ Defence: Why Blaming Your Creative Team Won’t Protect You
Anita Joseph’s explanation was that the image came from someone working on an AI project, without her knowledge. She later redirected blame to the tech studio involved. But let’s take this account at face value – assume every word is true. Even then, the defence crumbles because of one fundamental principle: publication is its own act.
No matter who generated the image, Anita chose to share it. She wrote the caption and engaged in comments in a way that implied she was the subject of the photograph. Each of these actions reflects a distinct decision made by a person with a significant audience and a commercial interest in what she posts.
Consider this analogy: if a designer hands you a flyer featuring a stolen image, and you print ten thousand copies, saying “the designer made it” will not shield you from liability. While it may give you a claim against the designer, it does not absolve you of responsibility to the person whose work was infringed.
Every brand, agency, and public figure in Nigeria must grasp this reality as the “AI Boy” defence is poised to become a popular excuse across the country. Relying on AI technologies does not shield you from accountability; it adds another layer of liability – one from your creative team to you, and yours to the original creator whose rights were violated. Both can coexist. In this case, the tool does not carry the blame – the person who presses “publish” does.
Does AI Editing Cancel Copyright? What Counts as Human Authorship
This is the most pertinent question arising from the situation and one that has sparked conversation among those who have pondered the implications for more than five minutes. Nearly every photographer in Lagos uses software with AI features, from Lightroom and Photoshop to Canva and Premiere Pro. If AI played any role in editing Caramel’s photograph, can she genuinely assert ownership? Has AI undermined her claim to the image?
The straightforward answer is no, and understanding this distinction is crucial. The law does not concern itself with whether AI was involved; it focuses instead on whether a human exercised meaningful creative control over the work’s expressive elements, such as selection, arrangement, and substantive choices that differentiate the piece.
A photographer directing the lighting, posing the subject, framing the shot, and shaping the final image is demonstrating this level of creative control. This principle is longstanding, tracing back to the landmark case Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (1884), where a photograph of Oscar Wilde was granted copyright precisely because it resulted from human intellectual effort – despite the fact that a camera captured the image. The camera did not author the photograph; the photographer did. An AI retouching tool can therefore be compared to the camera, lens, and lighting rig, an instrument wielded by an author.
When AI-Generated Work Loses Copyright Protection
What does lose legal protection is an entirely AI-generated work, lacking any significant human creative input. This was the crux of the Thaler case. There, the applicant himself asserted that the image had been generated autonomously by his AI system, with no creative contribution from any human — and on that basis, the U.S. Copyright Office refused registration, holding that copyright requires human authorship.
- Protected: Assisted by AI.
- Not Protected: Authored by AI.
The Irony: Nobody Owns the Face-Swapped Image
Anita Joseph’s face-swapped image — created by AI using another person’s photograph — might just be a work for which no one holds enforceable copyright. It is an unauthorised derivative of a protected photograph, produced largely by a machine. This means that as the internet gleefully creates memes, inserting their faces or brand logos into Caramel’s pose, Anita has little ground to stand on. She cannot stop the proliferation of these variations; she lacks rights to the work she published.
However, the original photographer could still retain some rights. All derivatives trace back to a protected photograph, moral rights under section 14(3) cannot be signed away during the author’s lifetime — so even a photographer who assigned the copyright would keep the right to object to this kind of distortion.
What Nollywood, Creators and Brands Should Learn From This
The hype surrounding viral comedy may fade within a week, but the exposure lasts much longer. Every actor, creator, influencer, photographer, studio, and brand in Nigeria now navigates an evolving landscape where an individual’s face can be lifted, altered, and republished in mere seconds – often at no cost – by anyone with minimal technical skills. Unfortunately, the law has struggled to keep pace with these rapid advancements, but it’s beginning to catch up. The legal cases that will define this decade are emerging right now on platforms like Instagram, often generated by individuals who have never encountered a contract.
Here are three essential actions to take before you find yourself in a situation that could be detrimental to your reputation or brand, rather than merely watching someone else experience it:
- If you are commissioning a photoshoot, make sure to reach a written agreement outlining who owns the images and what each party is permitted to do with them. Section 28 of the law provides a default position, which may not align with your intentions. Contracts exist to help you define and shape those defaults to your advantage.
- Your likeness is more than just a visual representation; it has legal standing. It is not just a “vibe” or a “public good.” Your personal data is protected by law and the Constitution, with an increasing number of Nigerian court rulings imposing significant financial consequences for its misuse.
- Regardless of whether your creative team generates content using AI, the responsibility for what gets published falls on you. When you share something online, that publication is traced back to you, and any repercussions could impact your brand or career.
Conclusion:
The next case may not involve a birthday photo and a playful caption. It may be a face on a product endorsement no one authorised, a voice in an advertisement that was never recorded, or a likeness used in a campaign without consent. Unfortunately, the person affected may lack the audience necessary to bring attention to the issue.
The tools have arrived before the rules; this pattern is all too familiar. The pivotal question remains: will Nigeria’s creative industry take proactive steps to protect itself through robust paperwork, or will it continue to uncover its rights amid public disputes?
At OAL, our Intellectual Property and Data Protection teams advise creators, production companies, agencies and brands on image rights, content ownership, AI-related liability, and the contracts that prevent disputes like this one from ever reaching your timeline.
Disclaimer: This article is general legal commentary based on publicly reported facts and is not legal advice. It does not allege wrongdoing by, or make any legal finding against, any person named or referenced, and no lawyer–client relationship is created by reading it. The individuals mentioned have not been contacted, and nothing here should be taken as a statement of their legal position. For advice on your specific situation, please consult OAL directly.
