For African artistes from Nigeria to South Africa, the central question in a brand deal is not the fee. It is what the brand may still do with their identity after the payment has been made.
From the outside, a brand deal can look simple. An artiste appears in a campaign, wears the clothes, holds the product, posts the photographs and receives payment. The campaign goes live, the partnership generates attention and, eventually, the contract ends. A brand’s connection to an artiste does not always end when the deal does.
The photographs may remain online. The campaign video may continue circulating. The artiste’s name may stay associated with the product in the minds of consumers. A catchphrase used during the campaign may continue appearing in promotional materials. In some cases, a brand may retain contractual rights to use materials featuring the artiste after the commercial relationship has ended.
Why the question is growing for African artistes#
As Africa’s music industry grows, fashion houses, FMCG (fast-moving consumer goods) companies, alcohol brands, beauty companies and technology businesses are competing for access to artistes who bring more than celebrity visibility to a campaign. They bring audiences, cultural relevance, aesthetics and identities that may have taken years to build.
When a brand pays for access to that identity, the artiste needs to understand exactly what is being borrowed. Taylor Swift provides a global benchmark, not because African artistes need to replicate the scale of her trademark strategy, but because her career demonstrates how broad an artiste’s commercial identity can become. Her intellectual property portfolio extends beyond her name to phrases associated with her music, album titles, tour names and other identifiers that have become commercially connected to her career.
The lesson is not that every phrase an artiste says should be trademarked. It is that an artiste’s commercial universe can be much larger than the photograph attached to an endorsement contract.
That reality already exists in African music.
- Wizkid’s Starboy has grown beyond a nickname into an important part of the commercial identity surrounding his career.
- Burna Boy’s African Giant persona communicates a particular cultural positioning that has become part of how audiences and commercial partners understand him.
- Cassper Nyovest’s #FillUp developed into a recognisable event and commercial concept built around his stadium performances.
These are not necessarily just words. Over time, they can become part of the commercial value an artiste has created. This matters because a brand collaboration may involve much more than an artiste’s face. A fashion company might want to associate itself with an artiste’s aesthetic. An FMCG brand may want access to the cultural relevance surrounding their persona. A campaign may use the artiste’s stage name, signature language or recognisable identity to create the impression that the product belongs within the world the artiste has built.
What has actually been licensed?#
So, when an artiste signs a deal allowing a brand to use their identity, what exactly has been licensed? That question should be answered before the campaign goes live, not after the relationship has changed. A licence is simply permission to use something under agreed conditions. In the context of a brand deal, an artiste may give a company permission to use particular parts of their commercial identity for promotional purposes. The problem is that those permissions can be much broader than artistes realise if the contract does not clearly define what is being licensed.
A contract that gives a brand the right to use an artiste’s image, for example, may sound simple enough. But does image mean only photographs taken for the campaign? Does it include video footage? The artiste’s name? Their stage alias? Their voice? Their catchphrase? Existing photographs from another period of their career? The difference matters.
Territory and duration: the Rema example#
Imagine Rema signing a fashion partnership for a campaign shot specifically for the Nigerian market. The photographs become successful, and the brand later wants to use them in stores across Ghana, Kenya and South Africa. It also wants to continue using the campaign online after the original partnership has ended. Whether the brand can do any of this depends on the rights it received in the first place.
This is where the scope of the licence becomes important. Scope simply means the boundaries of the permission the artiste has given. A carefully drafted agreement should make it clear what assets the brand can use and what it cannot.
If the brand is licensing photographs, the contract should be clear about that. If it is also licensing the artiste’s name or stage alias, that should be clear too. If the campaign intends to use a signature phrase associated with the artiste, the agreement should not leave that to assumption. This is particularly important because some of the most commercially valuable parts of an artiste’s identity may not be visible in a photograph.
Catchphrases as separate assets#
Cassper Nyovest’s #FillUp is an example. The phrase became associated with a particular experience and commercial world built around his concerts. Its value did not depend on a photograph of Cassper’s face. It came from the recognition audiences had developed around the phrase itself.
Now imagine a brand signing an artiste for an endorsement deal and building an entire campaign around a phrase that fans strongly associate with that artiste. The brand may have permission to use the artiste’s photograph, but was it also permitted to use the phrase as a central part of its advert?
