In an era of rapid technological advancement, artificial intelligence stands at the forefront, permeating nearly every aspect of human life, profoundly impacting every sector, and reshaping our culture as it heralds a new era. From music composition to visual art, writing and even film-making, AI-powered tools now generate content that was once considered exclusive to humans, giving rise to significant legal concerns, particularly in the realm of intellectual property law. While offering new opportunities, this innovation raises concerns about the true ownership of content, particularly between human creators and artificial intelligence. For Nigerian creatives, navigating these challenges is crucial to safeguarding their intellectual property (IP), asserting their authorship, and ensuring they receive fair compensation for their work in an increasingly dynamic digital landscape.
MEANING OF COPYRIGHT
Copyright is a type of intellectual property law that gives the owner of a work the exclusive legal right to publish, reproduce or redistribute it.[1] When a person creates a unique work, they are considered the owner of that work and automatically have the right to prevent others from using, copying, or replicating it.[2]
Section 2(1) of the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022 provides that a “literary, musical, or artistic work, shall not be eligible for copyright unless sufficient effort has been expended to make the work original and the work has been fixed in any definite medium of expression now known or later to be developed, from which it can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated either directly or with the aid of any machine or device.” To qualify for copyright protection in Nigeria, a work must meet the requirements of originality and fixation.[3] This means that work must be original, reflecting the author’s intellectual creation and involve sufficient human effort to give original character.[4] Also, the work must be in a tangible medium of expression. In addition to the requirements of originality and fixation, such person must also meet the criteria for authorship within the laws of the jurisdiction.
It is important to note that, with regard to personality, the Copyright Act defines an author as outlined in the case of:
(a) Audiovisual work, to mean the person by whom the arrangements for the making of the audiovisual work were made, unless the parties to the making of the audiovisual work, provide otherwise by contract between themselves;
(b) Collective work, to mean the person responsible for the selection and arrangement of the collection
(c) A photographic work, meaning the person who took the photograph
(d) Sound recording, meaning the person by whom the arrangements for the making of the sound recording were made; and
(e) A broadcast transmitted from within any country, means the person by whom the arrangements for the making or the transmission from within that country were undertaken.[5]
Furthermore, the author must either be a citizen or person domiciled in Nigeria; a body corporate incorporated under Nigerian laws;[6] a Government or international body; or a citizen or person domiciled in a state party to an international treaty to which Nigeria is also a party.[7]
Since copyright law is designed to protect original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression, it has traditionally recognized only humans as authors. Consequently, works generated solely by AI are not eligible for copyright protection in Nigeria. This legal position reflects the fact that Nigeria’s Copyright Act was enacted before the advent of AI and does not explicitly address AI-generated content.[8] However, Since the expression of an idea and the expenditure of sufficient effort are the determining factors for originality in Nigeria, could creative works produced by AI systems without human intervention be considered original, provided that the AI system has exerted sufficient effort in creating the work? Additionally, with AI tools generating music, artwork, and texts, a big question arises: who owns the copyright to AI-generated works? Is it the developer of the AI, the user prompting the tool, or the AI itself, despite lacking legal personality?
HUMAN AUTHORSHIP AS A CORNERSTONE OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION
Nigerian copyright law, grounded in human creativity and authorship, does not recognize AI as an author. While AI can generate a wide range of content, it still lacks the legal personality and inherent human element required for copyright eligibility, rendering autonomously generated AI works ineligible for copyright protection.[9] Moreover, copyrighted works are considered a reflection of an author’s ingenuity, which raises the question of whether AI systems can express distinct characteristics in a similar way, given that the decisions they make are limited to the options programmed into them.[10]
Copyright protection also entitles an author to both economic and moral rights. The economic right gives the owner the right to exploit their work through reproduction, publication, performance, translations, adaptations, and turning it into a sound recording or film among others.[11] Under section 14 of the Copyright Act, the moral right entitles an author to claim paternity over a work which they have created and aims at preventing the authorship over such work from being attributed to anyone other than the author of such work. It also gives the author the right to object in connection to any distortion of their work, a right that cannot be transferred and also lasts forever. However, AI systems do not possess legal personality and, therefore, cannot hold economic or moral rights. As such, AI-generated works cannot benefit from the legal protections afforded to human authors under Nigerian copyright law.
CHALLENGES FOR NIGERIAN CREATIVES
- Copyright infringement risk
The use of generative AI poses a major risk to Nigerian creatives due to how these systems are trained. AI models learn from vast datasets collected from the internet, which may include copyrighted Nigerian works such as songs, poems, artworks, and videos. Unfortunately, many of these datasets are compiled by scraping content from the internet, oftentimes without the permission of the original creators or compensation. While Nigeria’s Copyright Act grants creators exclusive rights over their work, proving that an AI system has infringed on those rights is extremely difficult because AI-generated outputs are rarely exact copies and are inspired by a range of works, making it hard to trace, or prove unauthorized use. This opacity is an impediment to justice for Nigerian creatives as most generative AI models are proprietary and operate as “black boxes,” meaning their inner workings are not open to public scrutiny. Without transparency, a Nigerian creative cannot trace whether their work was included in the AI’s training data, nor can they demonstrate a clear link between their original creation and the AI-generated output.
Furthermore, many AI companies are based in jurisdictions outside of Nigeria, making legal enforcement even more complicated due to issues of international copyright law and jurisdiction. Also, the burden of proof in copyright infringement cases rest on the creator. In order to succeed in a claim, a creator has to show that the AI output is substantially similar to their original work and that the similarity is not coincidental[12]. This becomes difficult when dealing with AI systems that remix or reassemble fragments from thousands of sources, producing outputs that are technically original but arguably built on unlicensed intellectual property.[13] This lack of transparency and accountability could lead to creatives losing control over their work, face unfair competition from AI-generated content, or even suffer from reputational harm
- Territorial Limitation of Copyright Act
Copyright Act is by nature territorial, it applies within the legal jurisdiction of the Nigeria where it is enacted and, the protection it gives to creatives is also limited to Nigeria’s borders. When an infringement occurs outside the country, the Copyright Act alone cannot guarantee enforcement unless there are international treaties or bilateral agreements in place. Most generative AI systems are developed and operated by large technology companies based in foreign jurisdictions. These companies often gather vast datasets from the internet, sometimes including works created by Nigerian creatives, to train their AI models. In many cases, this scraping and usage of creative works happen without the consent of the owners of the work, and outside the jurisdiction of Nigerian. For Nigerian creatives whose work has been used without consent by a foreign AI company, seeking legal redress is extremely challenging as the creative must first determine where the AI Company is registered and whether the courts in that country will even recognize a Nigerian copyright claim. Even when the foreign jurisdiction is a member of international treaties like the Berne Convention to which Nigeria has ratified, enforcement is not automatic. The affected party must initiate a legal process in the foreign country, which requires legal expertise, financial resources, and an understanding of international copyright law, resources that most individual creatives do not possess. Furthermore, AI companies obscure the specifics of their training datasets, making it difficult for a creator to provide evidence of infringement. Without a clear record showing that their specific work was used, and without access to the company’s internal processes, the legal claim is likely to fail.[14]
- Risk of Algorithmic plagiarism
Artificial intelligence, especially those used in content creation such as writing, music composition, and visual design, rely heavily on large-scale datasets to learn how to generate human-like outputs. These datasets are often scraped from various online sources, which may not have permitted their work to be used. This raises a serious issue of algorithmic plagiarism, where content generated by AI appears original but closely resembles existing works, making it difficult to detect or prove plagiarism due to the lack of transparency from AI developers regarding the data used to train their models and the non-literal nature of the output, putting Nigerian creatives at risk of unintentional infringement or having their own works replicated by AI without consent.[15] Current copyright laws are not fully equipped to address these challenges. Nigeria requires stronger legal frameworks, greater transparency within the industry, and increased awareness among creatives regarding their rights and available protection mechanisms.
- Need for legal reform and judicial precedent
Nigerian courts are yet to issue landmark rulings that directly address critical questions such as whether AI-generated content qualifies for copyright protection, whether the use of copyrighted material for AI training constitutes infringement, and who bears liability when AI replicates protected creative expressions. This legal vacuum exposes creators to uncertainty and significant challenges, particularly in proving that their work was used to train AI systems and establishing a case in the absence of specific legislation or guiding precedents.[16] Such inconsistency undermines trust in the legal system and discourages affected creatives from seeking legal redress.[17] Many Nigerian artists, musicians, writers, and filmmakers may avoid litigation due to the lack of clear legal frameworks and judicial precedent in this evolving area. Nigeria’s legal system must evolve alongside technological advancements to protect its creative and remain relevant in the digital age. Courts need to set clear precedents, ensure fair adjudication, and uphold the rule of law in the era of artificial intelligence. Additionally, lawmakers should consider enacting AI-specific amendments to the Copyright Act clearly defining concepts such as authorship, fair use, and infringement within the context of machine learning and data usage.
Failure to address this issue in the coming years could expose Nigerian creatives to reputational risks, whereby low-quality or inappropriate AI-generated content that mimics their style or identity may distort public perception and undermine the credibility of the original creators, who lack control over the AI’s output.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The current global copyright framework is not fully equipped to handle the unique legal challenges posed by AI, while treaties like the Berne Convention provide general principles for copyright protection across countries, they do not specifically address the use of copyrighted works in AI training or the authorship of AI-generated content.[18] This legal gap allows AI developers to operate with minimal accountability, especially when creators from countries like Nigeria are affected.
To effectively safeguard the rights of Nigerian creatives in this evolving digital landscape, the following actions are recommended:
- Promote International Cooperation: Nigeria should take an active role in global discussions on AI, intellectual property, and digital rights to ensure that its interests are represented.
- Advocate for New International Agreements: Nigeria should push for the creation of new international agreements that:
- Mandate transparency in AI training datasets to ensure that the sources of data used by AI tools are disclosed.
- Require prior consent or fair compensation for the use of copyrighted works in AI training.
- Establish enforcement mechanisms that specifically support creators from developing countries, including Nigeria.
- Encourage Regional Collaboration: Nigeria, in collaboration with other African nations, should use platforms like the African Union to present a unified stance on reforming international copyright law and ensuring technology accountability on the global stage.
By pursuing these steps, Nigeria can help ensure that its creative industry thrives in the age of AI, with stronger legal protections for its creators.
CONCLUSION
As Artificial Intelligence continues to reshape the creative industry, Nigerian creatives face significant copyright challenges due to outdated laws and a lack of clear protections for AI-generated content. To address these issues, Nigeria must update its copyright laws, engage in international dialogues, and push for transparency in AI development. By doing so, the country can protect its creative community, ensure fair use of intellectual property, and foster innovation, enabling Nigerian creators to thrive in the digital age.
[1]What is Copyright? The Ultimate Guide, Licensing. https://nytlicensing.com/what-copyright-ultimate-guide/ accessed May 16, 2025
[2] M. paliwala, What is Copyright under Intellectual Property Right. https://blog.ipleaders.in/copyright-intellectual-property-rights/accessed May 14, 2025.
[3]Yemitan v Daily Times &Anor[1977-1989] 2 IPLR 141-156.
[4] ibid
[5] Section 108
[6] Section 5(a) (b)
[7] Section 7 and 8
[8] ibid
[9]P.Dave, Navigating Copyright Challenges in the Age of AI: Challenges and Consideration.https://themarketinghustle.com/marketing-strategy/navigating-copyright-in-the-age-of-ai-challenges-and-considerations/ accessed May 14, 2025.
[10] Copyright Law and The Emergence of Artificial Intelligence: Emerging Legal Issues and Challenges, Harlem. https://www.harlemsolicitors.com/2025/01/30/copyright-law-and-the-emergence-of-artificial-intelligence-emerging-legal-issues-and-challenges/ accessed May 14, 2025.
[11] Section 9-13
[12] ibid
[13] ibid
[14] E.E. Adaka & Dr. I. A Oluwabiyi, Lessons for Nigeria: Determining Authorship and Inventorship of Artificial Intelligence Generated Works. file:///C:/Users/MY%20LAPTOP/Downloads/01-eloghene-e.-adaka–dr.-ifeoluwa-a.-olubiyi%20(3).pdf accessed May 15, 2025
[15] T. Oyefeso & E. Lawrence, Copyright Infringement and Generative Artificial Intelligence: Emerging Legal Issues.https://businessday.ng/news/legal-business/article/copyright-infringement-and-generative-artificial-intelligence-emerging-legal-challenges/ accessed May 18, 2025
[16] ibid
[17] ibid
[18] ibid