Nigerian artists generated more than N60 billion in Nigerian naira from Spotify in 2025 after their music was streamed 30.3 billion times, underscoring the rising value of the country’s music catalogue. As streaming revenue and catalogue valuations climb, disputes over who owns recordings, collects royalties and recovers investment are becoming consequential business battles.
Recent disputes involving Runtown and Eric Many Limited, Shallipopi, Seyi Vibez and T.I Blaze, and Dapper Music show how disagreements over contracts can become costly fights over intellectual property. The core issue is that a successful song is an asset, but its value depends on who owns the rights, who controls the revenue, and whether financial records can prove what each party is owed.
“Artists can now build audiences around the world without depending entirely on traditional labels, and streaming has made it easier to track things like streams and revenue,” said Chukwudi Chimezie, an entertainment and intellectual property lawyer. “That gives artists more information about their business and, in some cases, more leverage when dealing with labels.”
Where streaming revenue goes#
A stream does not translate directly into money in an artist’s pocket. Revenue can pass through several parties depending on the agreements governing the recording and composition.
- digital platforms
- distributors
- labels
- publishers
- collection agencies
- other rights holders
The distinction between master and publishing rights is particularly important. The master is the sound recording, while publishing relates to the underlying composition and songwriting. Different parties can own or control each right, meaning a song can generate substantial revenue while several parties have competing or separate claims to it.
The economics become more complicated when a label has provided an advance or financed an artist’s recording, marketing, promotion, accommodation, travel and other expenses. Under a recoupable deal, specified costs can be recovered from future revenue before an artist receives certain royalties. The commercial question is therefore not simply how much a song has earned, but which costs are recoupable, from whose share and under what terms.
Damilola Adeniyi, a Nigerian music business professional, said many emerging artists sign agreements without fully understanding royalties, splitsheets and recoupment. “Most of these artists coming into the industry are desperate and rush to sign deals with labels without consulting the help of a music lawyer,” he said. He said artists with greater commercial leverage are often able to retain more rights, while those with less bargaining power may accept long-term arrangements involving catalogue ownership or control.
Contract disputes and court rulings#
The long-running dispute between singer Douglas Jack Agu, known as Runtown, and Eric Many Limited demonstrates how contractual obligations can survive long after an artist wants to move on. In an order dated July 16, 2026, the High Court of Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory held that Runtown remained bound by a recording agreement signed with Eric Many in 2016 because it had not been lawfully terminated.
The court found breaches involving his management arrangements, collaborations and trademark applications. It ordered him to deliver master recordings for one album and pay Eric Many N266.69 million, representing the outstanding balance of the label’s investment and expenses that remained unrecouped. It also awarded N50 million in general damages and N3 million in legal costs, with 10 percent annual post-judgment interest.
The case illustrates why termination clauses, recording obligations, recoupment and ownership provisions matter years after an agreement is signed. “Walking away is not termination,” Chimezie said, stressing the importance of following contractual termination provisions.
The recent dispute involving Shallipopi, Seyi Vibez and T.I Blaze has brought similar questions into public view. The artists raised allegations concerning contracts, royalties, catalogue licensing and financial accounting involving Dapper Music. Dapper has denied the allegations and called for contracts and financial records to be independently examined.
The allegations do not by themselves establish wrongdoing. But the dispute highlights a wider commercial problem: when an artist and label disagree over money, both sides need reliable records showing how revenue was generated, what was deducted and what remains payable. That requires more than a contract. It requires accurate metadata, royalty statements, audit rights and clearly defined reporting obligations.
Dapper’s scale illustrates why those systems matter. The company has surpassed one billion streams and holds a significant share of Nigeria’s streaming market, driven substantially by artists including Seyi Vibez and Shallipopi.
Catalogue ownership as a financial asset#
As catalogues become more valuable, disagreements over their ownership and revenue histories can also affect their ability to attract investors or buyers. The growing interest in African music catalogues is turning songs into increasingly sophisticated financial assets.
Investors and specialist rights companies can acquire or manage catalogues for their future royalty streams. But valuation requires more than knowing how many times a song has been streamed. A potential buyer needs to establish who owns the masters and publishing rights, whether rights have previously been assigned or licensed, whether there are outstanding contractual claims and whether historical revenue can be independently verified.
That makes contractual clarity a financial issue, not merely a legal one. A catalogue with clean ownership, reliable royalty records and predictable cash flows is easier to value, license or finance than one tied up in unresolved contractual claims.
