GERARD NARTEY v. MULTIMEDIA GROUP LTD
January 29, 2026
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- BAFFOUR, J.A (PRESIDING)
- BARIMA OPPONG, J.A
- F.G. ADANU, J.A
Areas of Law
- Intellectual Property Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Media Law
- Tort Law
January 29, 2026
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal reviewed a dispute between a professional Ghanaian photographer and the media company behind MyJoyOnline over the unauthorized republication of 16 watermarked images from the photographers social media following the Bakatue festival. The High Court had dismissed the photographers claim, finding the publication fell within permitted use under sections 19(1)(e) and 22 of Act 690. On appeal, Justice F.G. Adanu (for the majority) held that the trial court erred by relying on untested witness statements and exhibits, conflating the acknowledgment rule under section 19(1)(b) with the news reporting exception in section 19(1)(e), and by undervaluing implicit fairness constraints. The Court emphasized copyrights strict liability nature and found using all 16 images unjustified. It set aside the High Courts judgment and remitted the matter for assessment of damages, awarding costs to the Appellant.
1.0 General Overview
This appeal emanates from the decision of the High Court dated 29/07/2024. It examines the extent to which commercial media companies in Ghana can resort to the use of the professional images of photographers on social media platforms citing 'permitted use' as a defence under the Copyright Act, 2005 (Act 690).
My Lords, given the facts presented in this appeal and the question for our determination, I respectfully commence my opinion with the statement from a book written by Lionel Bentley and Brad Sherman, Intellectual Property Law. (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2018) 246-249:
Where fair dealing is invoked by profit-seeking entities, courts scrutinise the claim with particular care, mindful of the risk of uncompensated commercial exploitation.
The statement above found expression in the UK case of Ashdown v. Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] 4 AII ER 666 where the Court of Appeal reiterated that public interest and context matter, but still applied fair dealing (permissible use in Ghanaian context) strictly.
2.0 Facts:
2.1 Plaintiff/Appellant's Case( the "Appellant")
The Appellant, a Ghanaian professional photographer travelled to the Central Region of Ghana to witness the Bakatue festival in Elmina on 9/07/2022 and took several photographs including photographs of individuals with the intent to sell them to prospective clients in the future. On 10/07/2022, he posted sixteen (16) of the images on his social media accounts, including Twitter and Facebook after editing and watermarking them with his name to engage the public and attract interested clients. On the same day, the Defendant/Respondent ( the “Respondent”), a media company registered under the laws of Ghana and the owner of ‘MyJoyOnline’ published the sixteen (16) images the Appellant posted on his social media accounts in an article titled “Check photos from Elmina’s Bakatue Festival” without the prior permission of the Appellant. Upon discovering the unauthorised use of the images, the Appellant notified the Respondent of the infringement and in response, the Respondent removed all traces of the infringing images from the internet. The Appellant turned to the Court for remedy and on 19/10/2022, he instituted an action against the Respondent in the Commercial Division of the High Court, Accra. The Appellant averred that the Respondent’s action constituted an admission of wrongdoing, and an infringement of sections 41 and 42 of the Copyr