Imagine a future where Artificial Intelligence (AI) generates works that rival human creativity. That future is here. Copyright law has long been the cornerstone of intellectual property protection, safeguarding the creative endeavors of human authors and innovators.
As a property right, copyright grants exclusive ownership and control over original works, incentivizing artistic and literary expression. However, the rapid emergence of AI generated works has raised fundamental questions about the nature of authorship and ownership in the digital age. The increasing sophistication of AI algorithms has enabled machines to create complex, original works that rival those produced by humans.
Yet, this newfound machine creativity has created a conundrum. Let’s illustrate this with a story.
A thought experiment on AI authorship and copyright
Maya creates an AI named Blaze, designed to analyze complex data and produce well-structured answers. John gives Blaze a prompt to write an academic paper, the AI processed vast amounts of data, identified key concepts, and crafted a comprehensive analysis. The resulting paper was coherent and well-reasoned, this resulted in its publication in a prestigious journal. As Blaze’s paper gains academic recognition, a question arose: who owns the rights to this AI-generated masterpiece? Is it Maya, the creator of the AI? Blaze itself, which tapped into the creative zeitgeist? John, who provided prompts and guidance? Or the authors whose works Blaze drew upon? Or perhaps is the work not copyrightable?
This question has significant implications for copyright law, as it challenges traditional notions of authorship, originality, and ownership. As AI generated works become increasingly prevalent, it is essential to redefine the boundaries of copyright protection and clarify the rights and responsibilities of various stakeholders.
This article aims to explore the complexities of AI-generated works and copyright law, seeking to answer the pivotal question: who the author and owner of an AI-generated work with particular focus on the Nigerian legal system.
Authorship and ownership are not the same
People often treat authorship and ownership as one idea. In copyright, however, they are distinct. The author is the creator and holds moral rights. The owner holds the economic rights, and the two may be different people.
The Copyright Act 2022 defines authors in detail. For example, the author of a photograph is the person who took it. For a sound recording or audiovisual work, it is the person who arranged its making. The Act also recognises joint authorship where contributions merge into an inseparable whole.
Ownership usually follows authorship. Under sections 28 and 29, though, copyright in a work made under a contract of service, or in government employment, vests in the employer unless an agreement says otherwise. For collective works, ownership vests in the person who initiated or directed the project.
These rules matter in litigation too. Under section 37, only the owner, an assignee or an exclusive licensee can sue for infringement, so identifying the true owner decides who has standing.
What qualifies for copyright
Section 2(2) of the Act sets the test for literary, musical and artistic works. Some effort must go into giving the work an original character, and the work must be fixed in a medium. Fixation is rarely in dispute with AI output, so the real questions are effort and originality.
Who could claim AI authorship and copyright?
The AI itself. This argument fails in Nigeria. The Act consistently refers to authorship by “a person” or a corporate entity, and an AI is neither. Since it cannot bear rights or duties, it cannot be an author. No Nigerian court has ruled on the point yet. Abroad, however, the US court in Naruto v. Slater held that a monkey could not own copyright in a selfie because it was not human.
The AI developer. Some argue developers deserve authorship because they design the system and control its inputs. Yet developers already hold copyright in the software. Granting them rights over its output as well would give them a double benefit. It would be like making a camera manufacturer the author of every photograph taken with its cameras. Similarly, the US Copyright Office does not allow AI tools or their providers to be listed as authors.
The owners of source material. AI systems draw on vast amounts of existing human work. Even so, those creators play no part in producing the new output and exercise no control over it. They therefore cannot claim authorship. They do keep copyright in their own works, however, and may have an infringement claim where an AI reproduces them without acknowledgment.
The user. In our view, this is the better position. Of all the players other than the AI, only the user expends effort in making the work, as section 2(2) requires. The prompts reflect deliberate choices that shape the result. Consequently, the AI is a tool in the user’s hands, much as a camera is for a photographer. In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, the US Supreme Court recognised photographs as protected because they embody the author’s original intellectual conception, even where tools assist.
Why this matters now
As AI-generated works spread, businesses, creators and developers need clarity on who owns what. Until Nigerian courts or legislators address the question directly, clear contracts on the use and ownership of AI output are the safest course. Our update on intellectual property law developments across Africa and our Technology, Innovation and Fintech 2025 Wrap-Up cover related themes.
For the full article, download the newsletter using the button below.
