A recent ruling in South Africa has cast a spotlight on how intellectual property laws apply in the influencer economy, specifically involving social-media personality Ntando Duma Mthombeni (Duma) and the agency Pixel Kollective (Pty) Ltd in Pixel Kollective (Pty) Ltd v Ntando Duma Mthombeni and MSL, decided on 15 September 2025.

This judgement draws a firm boundary around who holds copyright in the influencer-content space and highlights the risk of using creative work commercially without the creator’s consent. In this article I explore the legal dimensions of the case, unpack the intellectual property lessons and explain why it matters in 2025.

What happened?

Photography and content-creation agency Pixel Kollective brought a claim against Duma for unauthorised usage of a photograph. The image depicted Duma at a social event (“Breakfast Club”, 23 May 2021) and was taken by a Pixel employee (Kgomotso Mapholo). Pixel sent the photo via WhatsApp to Duma, asking her to credit “@pixelcollective” if she posted it. Subsequently, a snack brand (Simba (Pty) Ltd) used the same image in a commercial-social media campaign, without Pixel’s permission.

The legal framework in brief

Under South African law (the Copyright Act 98 of 1978), photographs qualify as “artistic works” and can benefit from copyright protection if they are original. The Act defines an “author” in relation to a photograph as “the person who is responsible for the composition of the photograph”.

Absent a contrary agreement, the photographer is the author; if the photograph is taken in the course of employment, copyright may vest with the employer. In this case the court accepted that Pixel retained ownership of the photograph.

The author (or copyright owner) holds exclusive rights to reproduce, adapt or authorise those acts. Using the work without the owner’s permission constitutes infringement under section 23(1) of the Act.

Key take-aways from the judgment

• Who is the author? The court rejected Duma’s argument that, because she controlled her pose, wardrobe and location, she should be the author. The court emphasised that “composition” refers to the photographic process (angle, focus, lighting, camera operation etc.), not the subject’s contribution. This clarifies that the photographer (or agency) is the default author of the image.

• Ownership held by the agency: Pixel’s standard terms and practices (and the fact that the photo was taken by a Pixel photographer) meant that Pixel retained copyright ownership. The court found that the assignment of rights had not passed to Duma or the brand.

• Credit ≠ licence: The fact that Duma had posted the photograph (with credit) did not equate to a licence for commercial use by the brand. Just because an image is shared or credited does not mean the copyright owner has authorised all downstream uses.

• Commercial use without permission is risky: The image was used by a brand campaign without Pixel’s consent. That use triggered liability for infringement. Even influencers with large followings cannot assume free licence to monetise third-party photographer work.

• Damages and degrees of fault: Although Pixel sought R200,000 in damages, the actual award was significantly lower, about R27,644.

This shows courts may assess actual usage, context, and the actual value of the infringement rather than simply awarding full speculative damages.

Why this matters now in 2025

In a digital-first age where influencers, brands and photographers often intersect, this case is a wake-up call. The creator economy in South Africa is thriving, yet contracts, licences and intellectual property rights sometimes lag behind the hype. The decision draws three crucial messages:

• Creatives and agencies must protect their rights: If you create or commission photography/content, ensure that rights are clearly retained or assigned in writing.

• Influencers and brands must do their homework: Before using an image commercially, check who owns the copyright, what licences are in place, and whether usage rights extend to brand campaigns.

• Legality over informality: Just because an image appears on social media, or has been credited, doesn’t mean it’s free for any use. A written licence or clear contractual chain of assignments, remains the foundation of lawful commercial use.

Final thoughts

This case between Pixel Kollective and Ntando Duma is much more than a celebrity dispute. It represents a landmark clarification of how South African copyright law applies in the influencer-social media ecosystem. For anyone involved in content creation, influencer marketing, brand campaigns or digital monetisation, the lesson is clear: “Content is currency and copyright is your contract”.

Even in “informal” settings, rights are enforceable. There’s no automatic free pass simply because the subject appears in the photo or posts it online. For creators, agencies and brands alike, this ruling marks a boundary line in the sand.