In today’s world, your face isn’t just your face. It’s your brand, your business, and your bread and butter. So when Ecobank Ghana dropped an anti-fraud ad featuring a dead ringer for Sarkodie, Ghana’s rap kingpin didn’t just get mad – he got litigious.
This isn’t just another celebrity tantrum. What’s unfolding in Accra’s Commercial Court could set the rulebook for how Ghana handles the multi-million dollar question: When does using someone’s lookalike cross from clever marketing into legal no-man’s land?
The ad itself was slick enough – a Sarkodie carbon copy warning customers that “appearances can be deceiving.” Ironic, considering Sarkodie’s team claims the ad was deceiving everyone into thinking he endorsed Ecobank while he’s actually the face of their rival, First Bank. The legal papers allege image rights violation and reputational damage, and frankly, they’ve got a point. But does Ghanaian law see it that way?
Here’s where it gets juicy. Ghana’s legal arsenal has some interesting weapons for this fight. The Copyright Act (2005) protects photographic images, while the Trademarks Act (2004) could slap down any attempt to falsely imply endorsement. But the real game-changer might be Ghana’s common law tradition, where UK precedents like Irvine v Talksport (2002) could come into play. In that case, a British court told Talksport to pay up when they photoshopped F1 star Eddie Irvine into a fake endorsement.
The judge’s logic? If you deliberately mislead people into thinking there’s a business relationship when there isn’t, that’s passing off – plain and simple.
Across the pond, America’s courts have been even more aggressive. The legendary Midler v Ford (1988) case saw Bette Midler win big when Ford hired a soundalike to mimic her voice. The court ruled it didn’t matter that they didn’t use her actual voice – the intent to capitalize on her identity was enough.
Then there’s White v Samsung (1992), where Vanna White sued over a robot dressed like her from Wheel of Fortune. Samsung lost because the court said her “identity” included more than just her face – it was her whole persona.
Now, here’s Ecobank’s potential defense: parody. In the US, Hilton v Hallmark (2010) let a greeting card company off the hook for using a Paris Hilton lookalike because it was deemed humorous parody. But here’s the rub – Ecobank’s ad wasn’t a joke. It was a corporate campaign from a major financial institution. That’s a far cry from a cheeky birthday card or an advert put out there by my now defunct satire website, ScrewLife.Com.
Hilton v Hallmark (2010) highlights a key tension or instrument in lookalike litigation: while blatant attempts to profit from another’s identity are penalized, creative or editorial uses may escape liability if they serve a broader expressive purpose such as satire.
What makes Sarkodie’s case particularly spicy is the competitor angle. With him being First Bank’s ambassador, any confusion doesn’t just violate his rights – it potentially messes with actual business relationships. That’s the kind of thing that makes judges reach for their gavels.
Ghana’s courts haven’t had many of these cases yet, but that’s what makes this so important. Will they follow the UK’s lead on passing off? Lean toward US-style right of publicity? Or craft something uniquely Ghanaian? One thing’s certain – every brand and celebrity in the country will be watching closely. Because in today’s attention economy, your likeness isn’t just who you are – it’s what you’re worth. And as Sarkodie’s proving, some things just aren’t up for grabs.
Ecobank might have thought they were just running a clever ad. But in doing so, they’ve unwittingly become the test case for Ghana’s approach to image rights in the digital age. The outcome won’t just affect Sarkodie’s bank balance – it could redefine the rules of engagement for every brand and public figure in the country. Now that’s what I call a precedent worth watching.
As a lawyer, I would be shocked if Ecobank litigates this to the end. If I were their lawyer, I would advise that they settle this case as it highly likely they would be asked by a court to pay out, “gargantuanly.”
—The Writer, Chris-Vincent Agyapong is the Founding Editor of GhanaCelebrities.Com. He is a Lawyer, Hedonist, Contrarian, Atheist, Thinker, Writer, Minimalist, Polygamy Evangelist, Soft Life Ambassador & A Professional Truth Sayer.
