Introduction:
The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming various fields, thereby bringing new dimensions to the classic legal concept of copyright. The intersection of AI and copyright has become a contentious area, raising questions about authorship and ownership of digital work. This article examines the legal implications and emerging issues surrounding copyright in the age of artificial intelligence.
Understanding Copyright in the Traditional Context.
What Is Copyright?
Copyright is a legally established right granted to a creator of literary work, music, drama, art, cinematography, and in general, all works of creative minds,1 except works retained in government agencies.2 In Nigeria, creators' rights are protected under the Nigerian Copyright Act, 2022, which grants rights of reproduction, distribution and public display to copyrighted works.3 Under the Act, a work qualifies for protection if it is original, and fixed in a tangible form of expression.4 This allows Nigerian creators to benefit from their intellectual property and safeguard their works from exploitation.
Human Authorship Requirement
Traditionally, copyright protects works created by human beings. The fact that computers can now generate creative works does not automatically grant them authorship or copyright protection.
In the European civil law tradition exemplified by France and Germany, copyright is seen as a manifestation of the creator's individuality rather than a mere commercial product. Similarly, Australia firmly associates authorship with natural persons and rejects the idea of AI as an author. Despite this, advancements in technology are challenging this traditional framework. A landmark decision by the Indian Copyright Office in 2021 has further complicated the debate. For the first time, the office acknowledged an AI tool, the RAGHAV Artificial Intelligence Painting App as a co-author of a copyright-protected artistic creation.5 This recognition suggests a potential shift towards acknowledging AI as an author in certain contexts.
In China, copyright law allows not only natural persons but also legal entities and organizations without legal personality to be recognized as authors. A legal entity can claim authorship if a work is produced within its organization, reflects its intent, and the entity assumes responsibility for it. Since legal entities, despite being non-human, can hold copyright, this raises the possibility of AI being similarly recognized as a copyright holder in the same fashion.6
The Nigerian Copyright Act, 2022, like other international laws, does not address the concept of a non-human author. Instead, it is built on the foundation of originality as a product of human intellectual work. This aligns with global precedents and practice, including the U.S. Copyright Office's stance which holds that works generated solely by AI are not copyrightable unless there is a significant human contribution in its creation.7
However, as Nigerian artists, writers, and musicians increasingly use AI programs to aid their creative processes, this traditional human-centric assumption becomes less straightforward. If a Nigerian artist creates a work of art using DALL·E or similar AI tools, can they be considered the sole owner of the resulting work? Under current law, the programmer or user who initiates the artistic creation and provides creative input is generally regarded as the rightful copyright owner.
AI As A Creator: The Rise of Machine-Generated Content
AI has become a driving force behind the evolution of the global creative industry, significantly impacting Nigeria's creative landscape. A new creative environment is emerging as artists utilize AI tools to generate beats, and digital artistic experiment with platform like DALL·E8 for their digital art projects. However, the rapid surge of AI-generated content has raised serious legal questions about authorship recognition. When AI-generated works originate from machines, what legal frameworks exist to determine ownership? This issue primarily involves three key groups:
- The Designer – The individual who oversees the AI workflow and selects the final output. Given their authority over the end result, they could potentially claim ownership.
- The AI firm – The entity that developed the proprietary algorithm. They may argue that their technology performed the 'heavy lifting', justifying their claim to the rights.
- The Data Contributors – Artists, authors, and photographers whose works were used to train the AI. They may feel that their creations have been utilized without their consent or proper acknowledgment.9
In most jurisdictions, the person who uses the AI tool is considered the owner of the generated content. However, this may change as intellectual property laws evolve to pace with AI's rapid advancement.10
In Nigeria, copyright protection under the Nigerian Copyright Act, 2022 applies exclusively to works with human authorship, as the law does not currently recognize AI-generated works for copyright compliance. Aligning with global copyright standards and practice, the U.S Copyright Office has ruled that works lacking meaningful human involvement and participation are ineligible for copyright protection.11 Despite this, AI systems are increasingly participating in creative activities in Nigeria. Tech startups in Lagos, for instance are developing AI-powered content generation platforms that Nigerian artists can employ to enhance their artistic production. However, uncertainty over the ownership rights in AI works may lead to disputes between human creators and AI developers. Such legal ambiguities could hinder innovation and reduce the potential earnings for artist leveraging AI tools.
The Legal Grey Area: Copyright Ownership of AI-Generated
Works.
The rapid rise of AI has disrupted traditional copyright frameworks, raising complex legal and ethical questions. Nigeria's copyright laws do not explicitly address ownership of AI generated works, creating legal ambiguity for authors, developers, and technology companies. Additionally, international copyright frameworks emphasize that only human contributors who exert "independent intellectual effort" should be recognized as authors.
Legal precedents reinforce this human-centric approach. In Naruto v. Slater,12 the U.S. courts ruled that a monkey could not hold copyright, as the law recognizes only human authorship. Similarly, in Thaler v. Perlmutter,13 a U.S. federal court ruled that AI-generated works lack legal authorship under existing copyright laws. In contrast, China's recent rulings suggest that AI assisted works may qualify for protection if substantial human creativity is involved.14 The European Union's approach hinges on the "intellectual creation" standard, allowing copyright where human authors make free and creative decisions.15 As AI reshapes creative industries, policymakers must address gaps in copyright law to balance innovation with fair protection for human creators.
AI generated content also challenges key copyright principles. Traditional copyright law requires originality, human authorship, and a fixed form of expression, yet AI produces dynamic, evolving content. Additionally, copyright protection typically extends for a period after the author's death, a framework incompatible with AI. The concept of moral rights designed to protect an author's personal and reputational interests also becomes unclear when the creator lacks intent or emotion.
As AI continues reshaping creative industries, these unresolved legal issues could impact innovation, ownership disputes, and the broader enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Potential Solutions and Future Developments in AI Copyright Law
As AI technology continues to evolve, Nigeria has a crucial opportunity to amend its copyright laws to balance innovation with the protection of authorial rights. Addressing current legal deficiencies require legislative reforms, public policy adjustments, and international collaboration.
Key solutions include amending the Copyright Act to explicitly define ownership rights for AI-generated works, establishing co-copyright protections for human-AI collaborations, and implementing blockchain-based digital copyright registries to enhance transparency. Capacity building through education initiatives for artists, musicians, and legal professionals can ensure proper protection of intellectual property. Additionally, Nigeria should collaborate with international bodies like the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) to align policies with global best practices and safeguard creators' rights across borders.
Conclusion
Nigeria stands at the intersection of technology and creativity, necessitating modernized copyright statutes to reflect AI's growing role in artistic production. Reforms must clarify AI assisted authorship, establish clear ownership structures, and introduce conflict resolution mechanisms. Organizations like WIPO and the Nigerian Copyright Commission will play pivotal roles in guiding these changes. By fostering dialogue among lawmakers, creatives, and tech innovators, Nigeria can position itself as a leader in AI driven copyright reform, ensuring that both human and machine generated creativity are fairly recognized and valued.
Footnotes
1. Section 2(1) of the Copyright Act, 2022.
2. Section 3(a)(b)(c) of the Copyright Act 2022.
3. Section (9-13) Copyright Act 2022.
4. Section 2(2)(b) of the Copyright Act, 2022.
5. view link last accessed 20th February, 2025.
6. IBID.
7. view link accessed February 19th,2025.
8. DALL-E-2 utilises vast amounts of data scraped from the internet to train the algorithm, which may include copyrighted material. view link
9. view link last accessed 20th February, 2025
10. IBID.
11. view link last accessed 17th February 2025.
12. No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018) view link. Accessed 13th March, 2025
13. 1:22-cv-01564, (D.D.C.) view link Accessed 13th March, 2025
14. view link last accessed 21st February, 2025.
IBID.
15. IBID.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
