A fragmented landscape: Bridging the copyright gap in Africa

Copyright protection in African jurisdictions remains decentralised, which is good for national sovereignty but ultimately harms the education, culture and economic development of the region, argues Isabella Becaro Soares de Pinho of Inventa.

Ideas, by themselves, are not protected. This principle may seem counterintuitive, especially when intellectual property is often described as the protection of creativity.

In reality, copyright does not safeguard abstract ideas, but rather their concrete expression. An idea only becomes protectable once it is embodied in a tangible form, such as a book, film, computer program, piece of music or artistic work—but not the idea itself.

This distinction is fundamental to understand the scope and limits of copyright protection. It is not the concept imagined in the author’s mind that is protected, but the specific way in which that concept is expressed.

Unlike most industrial property rights, copyright arises automatically upon creation and does not depend on registration. Nevertheless, registration or deposit mechanisms may be useful as evidence of authorship and date of creation in the event of disputes or enforcement proceedings.

Protection generally covers original intellectual creations in the literary, artistic and scientific fields. These include written works, oral works, musical and dramatic works, choreographic and audiovisual works, works of fine art, architecture, photography, applied art, technical drawings and maps.

It may also extend to derivative works, such as translations and adaptations, as well as compilations and databases where the selection or arrangement reflects intellectual creativity. In many jurisdictions, traditional cultural expressions and folklore are also increasingly recognised within this framework.

This article examines how copyright protection operates in African jurisdictions, with particular attention to countries associated with the regional systems of OAPI (the African Intellectual Property Organization) and ARIPO (the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization).

While these organisations are primarily known for their role in industrial property protection, their approaches to copyright reveal a more fragmented and decentralised landscape.

Against this background, the following analysis examines the regulatory framework, the level of harmonisation, and the practical impact of copyright protection on local communities, as well as the main challenges faced in its implementation and enforcement.

OAPI members, copyright, and the limits of regional harmonisation

The African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) is composed primarily of French-speaking countries and currently includes 17 member states: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and Togo.

For industrial property matters, such as patents, trademarks and designs, OAPI operates a fully centralised system. Member states do not maintain national offices, and protection is obtained exclusively through the regional registration procedure. Copyright, however, follows a different logic.

The Bangui Agreement, which constitutes the main legislative framework of OAPI, does not establish a regional registration system for copyright. Instead, it refers to international instruments such as the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention providing general principles and leaving implementation largely to national legislation.

As a result, copyright protection remains essentially territorial and governed on a country-by-country basis. Works are protected automatically from the moment of creation, regardless of their merit or intended use, and no formal registration is required. Some national institutions, such as BURIDA in Ivory Coast, offer deposit or recordation services to facilitate proof of authorship and enforcement, but these are evidentiary rather than constitutive.

The Bangui framework nonetheless provides guidance regarding eligible works, including those created by nationals or residents of member states, works first published in a member state, and architectural works located within the territory.

Despite this common foundation, harmonisation remains limited. Significant divergences persist among member states. For example, certain jurisdictions expressly protect software programs, while others do not clearly recognise them as protected works, such as Ivory Coast or Congo.

Differences also arise regarding the post-mortem exercise of moral rights and with respect to duration. The Bangui Agreement generally provides protection for the life of the author plus 50 years. However, some countries, such as Ivory Coast, grant longer terms, extending protection to 70 years after the death of the author. These discrepancies illustrate the coexistence of regional guidance with strong national autonomy.

While this flexibility promotes sovereignty, it may also create legal uncertainty and increase transaction costs for creators and businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions.

Copyright in ARIPO: a system in the making

The African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), which currently comprises 22 member states, similarly seeks to promote cooperation, harmonisation and development of IP systems across the region.

As with OAPI, ARIPO’s mechanisms are more developed for industrial property than for copyright. Copyright protection remains largely governed by national legislation.

A significant development is the Kampala Protocol on Voluntary Registration of Copyright and Related Rights, adopted in 2021. The Protocol introduces the possibility of a voluntary regional registration system intended to facilitate proof of ownership and enforcement. However, it has not yet entered into force, as the required number of ratifications has not been reached.

Until its implementation, ARIPO member states continue to rely on their domestic laws, which results in varying standards of protection, duration and enforcement. Consequently, the region still faces challenges in achieving meaningful harmonisation.

Why protection on paper is not enough

Despite the existence of national laws that often comply with, and in some cases exceed, international standards, practical enforcement remains one of the main obstacles to effective copyright protection in many African jurisdictions. Challenges include limited institutional capacity, lack of specialised courts, high litigation costs and widespread informal markets.

In addition, the exploitation of works, particularly through digital platforms, exposes the limitations of purely territorial systems. Copyright protection generally arises automatically and does not depend on registration, yet enforcement remains difficult due to widespread piracy and unauthorised digital distribution.

The absence of harmonised procedures increases legal uncertainty and may discourage foreign investment and licensing arrangements.

Furthermore, many creators are not fully aware of their rights or lack access to organisations capable of negotiating fair remuneration. They may also be uncertain about how to initiate protection or enforcement procedures, which makes proving authorship and the “date of creation” for copyright purposes even more difficult.

As a result, the gap between legal protection on paper and effective protection in practice remains significant.

Incentives, access and knowledge dissemination

When properly implemented, copyright protection can function not only as a legal safeguard but also as a development tool.

By ensuring that authors, educators and publishers are remunerated for their work, copyright creates incentives for the production of textbooks, academic materials and cultural content tailored to local realities. This is particularly relevant in regions where access to locally produced educational resources remains limited.

At the same time, the system must be balanced with appropriate limitations and exceptions, particularly for teaching, research and libraries. Education is a fundamental right, and excessive costs for books and learning materials may significantly hinder access to knowledge.

Flexibilities permitted under international agreements allow countries to promote access to knowledge without undermining creators’ rights. However, many jurisdictions have not yet fully explored these mechanisms.

A calibrated approach, combining incentives for authors and access, may therefore play a crucial role in strengthening education systems, creative industries and African authors.

The other side of copyright: the economic and creative potential

The audiovisual and cultural sectors offer clear examples of the economic potential of copyright. Film, music, fashion, design and digital content industries generate employment, attract investment and contribute significantly to globalisation and cross-continental trade, as well as to cultural exchange.

Legal recognition and effective protection of these works provide creators with bargaining power, enable licensing and distribution agreements, and encourage international collaboration. In practice, several audiovisual works have been voluntarily recorded with national authorities, including both international productions and local films.

Registrations range from global blockbusters such as Avengers: Endgame, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever and The Lion King, to African productions such as Tsotsi and Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom.

This demonstrates that deposit mechanisms are used not only as formalities, but as strategic tools for enforcement and commercial exploitation.

By fostering professionalisation and legal certainty, copyright protection supports the growth of sustainable creative ecosystems rather than informal or precarious markets.

Conclusion

Ultimately, copyright plays a central role in education, culture and economic development. It protects not only books, films and artistic works, but also the livelihoods of the individuals and communities behind them.

In the African context, regional organisations such as OAPI and ARIPO have made important progress in coordinating IP systems. Nevertheless, copyright remains predominantly national, and greater harmonisation, stronger enforcement and increased awareness are still needed.

A balanced framework—one that protects creators while ensuring access to knowledge—can contribute meaningfully to cultural diversity, innovation and long-term growth across the continent.

Isabella Becaro Soares de Pinho is an IP legal consultant at Inventa, and can be contacted at ibecaropinho@inventa.com.