Articles

Introduction

The business world is expanding rapidly, with the fashion industry leading the way. Artists and media personalities in the creative space are increasingly required to attend industry-related events to maintain their social relevance. It is impressive that these individuals often showcase the original work of various fashion designers. In legal terms, the original work of a fashion designer is referred to as their “Intellectual Property,” indicating that the designs worn by these media personalities are protected by law, preserving certain rights for the original creators.

The Controversy

A recent controversy erupted at the African Magic Viewer Choice Awards (AMVCA) involving a Nigerian fashion designer known as Ezinneolivia_styling and a Ghanaian actress, Nana Akuaado. The designer argued that she deserved more recognition for assembling the actress’ dress for the event. She criticized the actress for tagging her alongside another designer who had initially conceptualized the outfit. To support her claim, the designer posted screenshots of her chat with the actress and a receipt showing the payment deposited into her bank account. Conversely, the actress revealed that her $3,000 three-dimensional outfit was originally created by Ghanaian fashion designer Yoli Koomson.

Yoli Koomson had conceptualized the dress in Ghana and sourced the material from China. She began assembling the design but realized that the complexity of the 3D elements made it impractical to transport the dress in a suitcase without ruining it. She communicated this issue to her client, Nana Akuaado, but was unable to travel to Lagos in time to complete the job. Consequently, the actress engaged the services of the Nigerian fashion designer to finalize the assembly of her outfit.

The Nigerian designer did an excellent job completing the dress, which received significant acclaim at the AMVCA for being one of the best outfits. It is important to note that Nana Akuaado offered the Nigerian designer two options for her services: either social media acknowledgment (tagging the designer’s official social media handle) or financial remuneration. The Nigerian designer chose the monetary compensation and was paid 400,000 naira. After the event, the Ghanaian actress posted the design on social media, tagging all contributors. The Nigerian designer, however, felt she did not receive enough recognition and expressed her dissatisfaction on Instagram.

The core issue here is determining who holds the intellectual property rights to the design. Intellectual property, which includes innovations, designs, and artistic creations, is intangible property resulting from mental labor. Creators have rights and protections allowing them to own these intangible assets in the form of copyright, trademark, patent, or trade secret. Understanding the specific type of intellectual property that applies to the dress design is crucial to resolving the legal question at hand.

Protecting unique fashion designs, trademarks, and brand identities is not only a legal requirement but also an essential commercial strategy in today’s design and innovation landscape. A 3D design requires creativity to achieve a distinctive look that can be transformed into wearable clothing; it is not merely fabric that can be put on easily. A critical examination of the outfit indicates that it falls under “Industrial Design.” According to Section 12 of the Patent & Industrial Design Act 1971, industrial design includes any combination of lines, colors, or three-dimensional forms intended to be used as a model or pattern to be multiplied by an industrial process, not solely for a technical result.

Given that the Nigerian fashion designer was compensated for her services, she effectively provided styling services, disqualifying her from claiming any creative rights to the design. Furthermore, Section 14(4) of the Patent & Industrial Design Act stipulates that if an industrial design is created during the execution of a contract, ownership of the design vests in the person who commissioned the work. Therefore, even if the Nigerian designer attempts to claim ownership, the intellectual property rights would belong to the Ghanaian actress who commissioned the final assembly of the design. The Nigerian designer received fair remuneration for her work, as outlined by the law, which precludes her from claiming additional rights to the design.

It is clear that Yoli Koomson, the Ghanaian fashion designer, is the original creator of the design, conceptualizing and initiating its creation. As such, she holds the intellectual property rights, preventing others from claiming, making, or selling the design. The Nigerian designer, having been hired to complete the dress, cannot legitimately claim credit for the original design.

Conclusion

The dispute between Nigerian fashion designer Ezinne Olivia styling and Ghanaian actress Nana Akuaado highlights the complexities of intellectual property ownership in the fashion industry. Resolving such disputes often requires a thorough understanding of legal frameworks and contractual agreements. While collaboration and creative exchange are vital to the industry’s vibrancy, clarity and transparency in acknowledging ownership and rights are essential for fostering trust and fair practice among all stakeholders. To navigate the dynamic landscape of the fashion world, stakeholders must uphold the principles of intellectual property rights to ensure a thriving ecosystem that values and protects creative innovation.l who gives legal advice misrepresents themselves as a legal practitioner or attorney. They should refrain from such actions until they are licensed to act in that capacity.