The recent decision of the Federal High Court in Reiz Continental Hotel Limited v. Audiovisual Rights Society of Nigeria (AVRS)^[1] is a defining moment for copyright enforcement  of audio-visual content in Nigeria.In Reiz v. AVRS, the hotel sought a declaration against the AVRS asserting that  it could not be compelled to pay copyright fees for audiovisual content accessed through subscription-based broadcasting. The court however has affirmed that businesses such as hotels must obtain licences for the public use of films, movies, and other audiovisual works even when accessed through TV subscriptions. The decision enforces the provisions of the Nigerian Copyright Act and resets how the hospitality industry and other commercial users must now approach copyright use going forward. However, it also exposes certain gaps that must be addressed if audiovisual works are to achieve full protection.

The Position Before Reiz V. AVRS

The AVRS currently stands as the sole Collective Management Organization (CMO) for Audiovisual Works (Movies, Videos & Films) in the country. The organization is authorised under Section 88 of the Copyright Act 2022^[2] as a CMO to manage and enforce the rights of film and audiovisual copyright owners. AVRS monitors the use of audiovisual content to detect unlicensed usage and when necessary, it can take legal action against infringers to protect members’ rights as it did in the Reiz Continental case.

Under the older Copyright Act, and before the enactment of the Copyright Act 2022, the obligations of commercial users were less clear, which made enforcement difficult. The legal position on whether businesses in the hospitality industry, like hotels, clubs, etc., needed a licence to broadcast audiovisual content in public areas was often contested. Before this recent ruling, audiovisual copyright owners in Nigeria saw their works being used for entertainment in hotels, lounges, and other commercial spaces without authorisation or compensation. For instance,  if a hotel plays a movie on the TV in its lobby for guests entertainment, the logic of these establishments was that since they already pay for subscription TV to popular Nigerian satellite or cable TV providers like MultiChoice and Startimes, why pay additional for a copyright licence?

Enforcement attempts by collecting societies like AVRS were challenged mainly because the former legal framework did not provide sufficient clarity for the CMO and audiovisual rights holders. In many cases, copyright owners works generated value for businesses while they received nothing in return.

The Clarifications Made By The Decision In Reiz v. AVRS

Reiz V. AVRS clarifies relevant sections of the Copyright Act 2022 and puts an end to the ambiguity.

First,  the case reaffirms Section 11  of the Act which expressly provides that the consent of the owner of an audiovisual work must be obtained before it is reproduced, broadcast, or distributed to the public for commercial purposes. The Act also extends the nature of broadcast to include making an audiovisual work available to the public by wire or wireless means, in such a way that it is accessible to members of the public from a place and at a time independently chosen by them. Section 11 establishes a right to remuneration for the broadcasting of sound recordings and audiovisual works which means that copyright owners are entitled to receive payment when their works are commercially used.

The court’s interpretation of public performance in Reiz v. AVRS reinforces that showing movies in multiple hotel rooms or public areas is a public performance requiring a licence. It also affirms AVRS’s right to enforce these provisions in accordance with Section 88 of the act, preventing commercial users from exploiting creative works without compensating their owners.

Section 26 also grants copyright owners in audiovisual works the exclusive right to control reproduction, distribution, public performance, communication to the public, and broadcasting. The Reiz v. AVRS decision restates that these rights remain intact even after a broadcaster has licensed the content.   This means that even if a TV broadcaster has paid for the right to transmit a film, a business showing that film to its customers is exercising a separate right of public performance which still belongs to the copyright owner in question.

What Reiz V. AVRS Means for Users of Audiovisual Works in the Hospitality Industry

This judgment reinforces the previously disputed sections spelled out under the Copyright Act 2022. Perhaps the most important clarification is that any business that publicly exhibits copyrighted works for the benefit of its customers and for commercial gain must first obtain a proper licence from AVRS. Hotels, lounges, and event centres who wish to publicly show audiovisual works must now engage with CMOs like AVRS to understand their obligations before exhibiting such works.

Reiz v. AVRS  is a turning point in how users should value audiovisual works and what constitutes public performance. It ensures that those who create the content that businesses in the hospitality and entertainment experience exploit are not left out of benefiting from their work. For AVRS and other CMOs, this judgment is legal backing to strengthen enforcement. It also places a responsibility on them to educate stakeholders on their licensing needs.

However, one striking loophole in the aftermath of Reiz v. AVRS is the role of Subscription-TV providers in this licensing chain and the potential for confusion to arise if CMOs are dealing directly with businesses and this is left unchecked. The decision squarely placed the burden on the hotel as the “public performer” but was silent on whether subscription-TV companies could negotiate blanket licences with CMOs to cover their commercial subscribers. Given the sheer number of hotels, lounges, bars, and similar establishments in Nigeria, the current approach where CMOs like AVRS negotiates and enforces licences directly with each business is resource-intensive and  impractical.

A more feasible approach would be a  blanket licence at the broadcaster level that simplifies compliance. A single agreement between the TV provider and the CMO could extend to all the subscribing businesses. This approach is common in jurisdictions like the United States, where  TV Subscription companies typically license only the right to transmit content to private homes. Public performance rights are handled separately, often through blanket licences issued by performance rights organisations like ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC for music, and occasionally film licensing agencies like MPLC for movies.^[3] Businesses would therefore still obtain these public performance licences directly, unless their broadcaster has specifically negotiated commercial-use rights with the CMO. As that conversation is yet to happen in Nigeria, hospitality businesses and other public venues will have to remain responsible for dealing with CMOs.

^[1] Business Day News, “ Court upholds AVRS’s legal rights to license Audiovisual Works in hotelshttps://businessday.ng/news/article/court-upholds-avrss-legal-rights-to-license-audiovisual-works-in-hotels/#:~:text=The%20court%2C%20presided%20over%20by,accessed%20through%20subscription%2Dbased%20broadcasting.

^[2] Copyright Act 2022

^[3] ASCAP Music Licensing, https://www.ascap.com/help/ascap-licensing, How does the MPLC Blanket License for TV and movies work in practice? https://us.mplc.com/faq/how-does-the-mplc-blanket-license-for-tv-and-movies-work-in-practice/