Kenya’s Music Copyright Disputes Put Brand Campaign Contracts Under Scrutiny

Two separate Kenyan copyright disputes involving music used in smartphone campaigns are turning the paperwork behind digital advertising into a public business issue. One concerns rapper Nyashinski, a producer’s publishing interest in the song Wach Wach and a Tecno endorsement agreement. The other concerns content creator Foi Wambui, musician Mutoriah’s song Beta and an Oppo promotional video. Neither case has produced a final ruling that determines the underlying copyright liability.

The recent decisions are procedural but commercially important. In the Nyashinski matter, the High Court dismissed an appeal that had sought to prevent disclosure of the Tecno contract and related financial records, allowing the lower court to examine those documents. In the Wambui matter, a magistrate rejected the creator’s attempt to be removed from the suit, meaning questions about her role, the brand’s role and the agency’s role will be determined as the case proceeds.

Together, the disputes expose a recurring weakness in Africa’s expanding creator economy. A campaign can involve a brand, advertising or influencer agency, artist, producer, content creator and social platform. Each party may assume somebody else secured the music rights. When the content goes live and generates commercial value, that assumption can become an expensive dispute about ownership, permission, revenue and responsibility.

The rulings do not decide infringement

Care is essential because a court order to disclose evidence is not a judgment that copyright was infringed. The Nyashinski dispute concerns the relationship between rights in a sound recording, rights in the underlying composition and the commercial terms of a brand endorsement. Reporting on the case says Nyashinski owns the master rights in Wach Wach, while publishing rights are divided between him and Nigerian producer Sam Are Eliapenda. The producer argues that his publishing share gives him a claim connected to the commercial use of the song.

Nyashinski’s position, as reported, is that the Tecno agreement was an endorsement arrangement covering his image, appearances and promotional association, and that his company had authority connected to the use of the recording. The newly available contract and financial records may help the court distinguish the value of the endorsement from any value attributable to music use. The disclosure ruling opens evidence; it does not settle the competing legal arguments.

The Wambui dispute raises a different issue. Mutoriah alleges that Beta was paired with a promotional video for the Oppo Reno 12 5G without his authorisation. Wambui has argued that the campaign operated through brand approval and that responsibility for clearing rights lay elsewhere. Oppo has reportedly disputed responsibility for the music selection, while an influencer-marketing agency was also involved in campaign contracting and delivery.

By keeping Wambui in the case, the court has not found her liable. It has determined that her involvement cannot be resolved simply by removing her before the substantive questions are tried. That is an important distinction for artists, brands and readers. The eventual outcome will depend on evidence about who selected the song, what each contract required, who approved the final video and whether any valid permission covered the commercial use.

A song contains more than one commercial right

Campaign teams often refer to music as if ownership were a single switch. In reality, one track can contain separate interests. The composition includes the music and lyrics. The master is the particular recorded performance. Performers and producers may have related rights. Pairing music with moving images for an advertisement commonly requires synchronisation permission, while broadcasting, public communication and digital distribution can engage additional rights depending on the use.

Kenya’s Copyright Act gives copyright owners exclusive control over acts including reproduction, distribution, communication to the public, making available and broadcasting, subject to statutory exceptions and limitations. The facts of a campaign matter: ordinary personal listening is not the same as attaching a song to paid promotional content, and access to a track on a platform does not by itself establish permission for advertising.

Ownership can also be divided. An artist may control the master recording while sharing the publishing rights with a songwriter or producer. A creator may receive audio inside an editing tool or social-media library without knowing whether that licence extends to paid brand advertising, boosted posts, television use or reuse by the brand. A campaign therefore needs a rights map, not simply a file labelled approved.

That map should identify the work, recording, owners, requested territories, platforms, campaign period and forms of promotion. It should specify whether paid media, reposting, editing, archival use and derivative cuts are included. It should also record who obtains each licence and who bears the cost. Where ownership is split, permission from one participant may not clear every relevant right.

The creator-brand contract is now operational infrastructure

Influencer marketing can look informal to audiences, but a sponsored video is a commercial production. The contract behind it should operate like production infrastructure. It needs a clear approval chain, warranties about supplied materials, documentation of licences and a process for replacing disputed content before publication. Vague language telling a creator to follow applicable law does little when the brand, agency and creator each participate in selecting and approving the final edit.

The fastest way to reduce risk is to assign responsibility explicitly. If the creator chooses music, the contract can require proof of commercial clearance before delivery. If the brand or agency supplies the track, it can warrant that the specified use is licensed. If the brand approves a creator-selected track, the parties should state whether approval includes legal clearance or only creative acceptance. Those details prevent a later argument in which every participant says approval meant something different.

Indemnity clauses are not a substitute for clearance. They decide who may pay after a problem; they do not protect the musician whose work was used or prevent a campaign from being withdrawn. A better process includes a rights checklist before publication and stores licences, split sheets, approvals and invoices with the campaign record. This is especially important when a post is later boosted as paid advertising or reused across multiple markets.

Agencies occupy a critical middle position. They often recruit creators, communicate brand requirements, receive drafts and arrange payment. That visibility makes them well placed to enforce clearance standards. It also means their contracts should not leave ownership and licensing outside the workflow. A professional agency can add value by maintaining a library of pre-cleared music, working with rights organisations and educating clients about the difference between platform audio and advertising permission.

The economic stakes extend beyond two campaigns

Kenya has one of East Africa’s most active advertising, music and technology markets. As brands shift spending toward creators, songs become part of campaigns that can reach large audiences quickly. Strong copyright practice is not hostile to that growth. It makes creative assets easier to trade because buyers know what they are acquiring and rights holders know how they will be paid.

Unclear licensing has the opposite effect. Musicians may see major campaigns use their work without a transparent agreement. Creators may accept projects without understanding that they could be named in litigation. Brands may face takedowns, reputational damage and costs long after the promotional window closes. Smaller agencies can be exposed to liabilities that exceed their fees. These risks make the sector less investable and encourage defensive behaviour.

The disputes also show why revenue must be separated carefully. An endorsement fee can compensate an artist for image rights, appearances and social reach. A music licence can compensate owners for a song’s use. Production fees pay for making content. Treating one payment as if it automatically covers every right invites disagreement, particularly when collaborators have different ownership shares.

Transparency is useful, but commercial confidentiality still matters. Courts can require relevant evidence while managing sensitive information through appropriate procedures. Companies and artists should not assume that a confidentiality clause will prevent disclosure when a contract becomes central to litigation. The practical lesson is to write agreements that can withstand scrutiny, with payment categories and rights grants stated clearly enough for a court to understand.

Kenya’s wider intellectual-property reform adds urgency

The cases arrive while Kenya is considering broader intellectual-property reforms. The Ministry of Investments, Trade and Industry has discussed an intellectual-property bill intended to strengthen regulation and consolidate institutions, while also addressing emerging concerns such as artificial intelligence and plagiarism. Institutional reform may improve coordination, but legislation alone cannot fix weak commercial practice inside a campaign.

Industry bodies, collective management organisations, platforms and agencies can develop standard clauses and short-form clearance tools suited to creator advertising. Musicians need accessible ways to state ownership and quote licence terms. Creators need training that treats intellectual property as part of business management, not an abstract legal topic. Brands need procurement teams that recognise music as an input with a cost and an owner.

The courts will decide the two disputes on their particular facts. Until then, it would be wrong to assign liability from procedural rulings. The broader lesson is already visible: a creator economy cannot scale sustainably on assumptions about who cleared the soundtrack. Kenya’s artists, influencers, agencies and advertisers need contracts that identify the rights, the responsible party and the permitted use before a campaign reaches the public.