Introduction
Nowadays, one can rarely watch a Nollywood movie without seeing the magnificent Lekki-Ikoyi Link Bridge in Lagos, Nigeria. It is a modern marvel that has captured the imagination of many. Its sleek design, awesome lighting, and iconic aesthetic make it not just a vital piece of infrastructure but also a frequent subject of photographs, videos, and artistic renderings. As such, it should not come as a surprise that there has already been a high-profile copyright lawsuit (with a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and all) concerning the bridge. In that suit, Eagle Eye Production Limited accused Samsung Electronics West Africa Limited and Ringier Media Nigeria Limited of copyright infringement, alleging unauthorized use of its aerial night view video of the bridge in a Galaxy Note 8 advertisement. Nonetheless, the case highlights the contentious legal terrain surrounding creative representations of iconic structures.
But this post is not about the Samsung case, rather it explores a more nuanced question: Can the Ikoyi Link Bridge itself be regarded as a work protected under Nigerian copyright law? If so, what would this mean for its depiction and utilization in creative and commercial endeavors?
Copyright Protection for Architectural Works in Nigeria Under the Nigerian Copyright Act, 2022, artistic works are afforded copyright protection, granting their creators the exclusive right to reproduce, publish, broadcast, or adapt the work. Section 10(3) specifically includes “works of architecture” and extends protection to the erection of buildings that reproduce a substantial part of the original design.
Interestingly, the Act defines a “building” broadly in Section 108 to include “any fixed structure or a part of a building or fixed structure.” This expansive definition suggests that a bridge, as a fixed structure, could fall within the ambit of a protected architectural work if its design qualifies as sufficiently original and artistic. However, Section 10(2) of the Act limits protection for “three-dimensional works of artistic craftsmanship” by excluding their functional aspects. So, is the Ikoyi Bridge primarily a functional structure, or does its artistic design elevate it to the realm of copyrightable art?
The U.S. Perspective
The United States provides an illuminating contrast. Architectural works were not explicitly protected under U.S. copyright law until the passage of the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA) in 1990. Even under this law, certain structures, including bridges, are explicitly excluded from protection as “architectural works” because they are not considered “humanly habitable” buildings (see here).
While the U.S. protects architectural designs under two categories—pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works (e.g., blueprints) and architectural works (e.g., buildings)—it does not allow copyright holders to prevent public photography of structures visible from public spaces. This limitation balances the rights of creators with the public’s ability to document and share representations of public works.
…And Back to the Bridge
Unlike in the U.S., Nigerian law does not explicitly exclude bridges from copyright protection. This opens the door for the Ikoyi Bridge’s design to be protected if it demonstrates originality and artistic craftsmanship beyond its utilitarian function. The bridge’s distinctive pylon design and innovative use of lighting could arguably qualify it as a work of artistic craftsmanship.
That said, questions remain about the implications for public and commercial photography. Could a photographer or advertiser use images of the Ikoyi Bridge without infringing on the copyright of the architect? The case law is generally silent on this issue, but one can make a few deductions in light of the law.
Over the bridge…to the Practical and Legal Implications
If the Ikoyi Bridge is deemed a copyrighted work, several consequences follow:
1. Commercial Use: Businesses using images or depictions of the bridge for advertisements may require permission from the copyright holder of the bridge. However, these businesses might also own copyright in their specific depictions, creating a dual layer of rights.
2. Public Access: Public and non-commercial photography might remain permissible (but the boundaries are unclear under Nigerian law).
3. Reconstruction and Adaptation: Section 10(3) grants architects exclusive rights over the erection of buildings reproducing their designs. This might prevent unauthorized replicas of the bridge’s design elsewhere.
Thus, I would argue that using photographs of the Ikoyi Bridge for commercial purposes without the architect’s permission could potentially infringe on their copyright, similar to how using photographs of a sculpture without the sculptor’s permission would be infringing (subject to the defence of fair use/dealing).
Conclusion
The Ikoyi Bridge’s iconic status exemplifies the intersection of infrastructure, art, and intellectual property. While Nigerian copyright law offers broad protection for architectural works, ambiguities remain. Comparing Nigeria’s framework with the U.S. reveals different approaches to balancing artistic rights with public interests. As Nigeria continues to develop its creative and legal landscapes, the Ikoyi Bridge serves as an interesting case study. Its unique design invites reflection on the role of copyright in protecting not just art but also the functional masterpieces that define our cities.
Authored by: Mr. Seun Lari-Williams
Founding Partner, Nigeria, The IP Press
Leave a Reply