Francis Bebey's Song and the Copyright Question

By Wandji Wilfred · 7 April 2020 · 8 reader comments
Economics & WorkCameroon lens: Local Heroes & Figurescritical

The writer documents a case in which American rapper Theophilus London's song, featured in Netflix's *Ozark*, appears to draw from Cameroonian musician Francis Bebey's work—without permission or compensation to Bebey's estate. The post connects this incident to an earlier essay on the vulnerability of creative ideas in the absence of intellectual property protection.

Your ideas are only as good as yours when you take the time to protect them via copyright or a trademark.On protecting creative intellectual property
The piece

In October 2019, I published an article here titled "Do Your Ideas Really Belong To You?" In that article, I wrote this in the article.

//"The thing about the creative industry, however, is that the driving force behind the industry is ideas; the fruits of the mind, so to speak. A lot of what is a dress is first of all the idea that someone conceived in his/her mind before it became a party gown. A lot of what becomes a hit song is first of all the idea of a melody that someone conceived in their mind before hitting the notes on a piano or clicking them on Fruityloops.

Which brings me to the question; HOW MANY OF US ARE THINKING ABOUT PROTECTING THOSE IDEAS?

And that is where intellectual property comes into play. Your ideas are only as good as yours when you take the time to protect them via copyright or a trademark...

As we advance and the creativity industry grows and eventually matures it won’t be long before we start hearing that so and so person stole so-and-so beat....

But when push comes to shove and things have to take a legal turn, it becomes difficult to get any kind of compensation out of the whole brouhaha.//"

Why am I bringing this up again?

In the Netflix series "Ozark" a song by Francis Bebey, our Francis Bebey, that has been plagiarized by an American musician called Theophilus London played in an episode of the series.

As it turns out, Francis Bebey's estate was never asked permission and never compensated for the copyrights to the song. No doubt they will take some legal action and they will be duly compensated.

So... Shine your eye.

Below are the links to the original song and the plagiarised version.

Francis Bebey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY2pigFyXG0

Theophilus London: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pJwFzJs864

Again, shine your eyes

. - Wandji Wilfred

A lot of what becomes a hit song is first of all the idea of a melody that someone conceived in their mind before hitting the notes on a piano or clicking them on Fruityloops.On how music creation begins with an idea
HOW MANY OF US ARE THINKING ABOUT PROTECTING THOSE IDEAS?Challenging creatives on intellectual property awareness
Context

The piece is rooted in the early pandemic moment (April 2020), when streaming platforms had become central to cultural distribution and consumption, yet questions of rights and attribution across borders remained murky. It reflects ongoing tensions between global platforms, artist visibility, and the practical difficulty of protecting creative work, especially from the Global South.

Why it matters

Then and now, the post serves as a clear-eyed indictment of how easily cultural work can be appropriated and monetized without recourse. It names a specific instance—not as scandal-mongering, but as evidence of the structural vulnerability the writer had identified months earlier. For Cameroon's creative sector, it underscores both the visibility of local artists on global platforms and the asymmetry in power when claiming rights.

How the audience responded
The audience reaction was sparse and notably fragmented, with only one substantive engagement on the article's central copyright question. Most responses were brief exclamations of surprise or shock ("Fuck me!!!!", "Damn!!"), suggesting the topic provoked an emotional reaction without necessarily inviting deeper analysis. A single reader offered a concrete observation about the musical similarities at issue, while others deflected into curiosity about Bebey himself or sought out external sources (Twitter, the original Facebook post), indicating audience members were gathering context rather than debating the copyright claim directly. Overall, the light and largely affirmational tone suggests readers found the story striking but did not treat it as a substantive intellectual matter warranting sustained discussion.
Related in Economics & Work