Contributor: Jesutofunmi Idowu
INTRODUCTION
The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) in Nigeria has raised legal challenges, particularly in copyright law. As AI technologies become more autonomous, the existing copyright framework may not apply to AI-generated content. While AI offers opportunities for innovation and economic development, the lack of clear legal guidance may hinder investment and creative progress. This paper explores the ambiguity surrounding authorship and ownership of AI-produced works, highlighting the concerns it poses for creators, businesses, and policymakers. It highlights the need for reform and modernization of intellectual property laws, noting that overly restrictive regulations could suppress innovation. Balancing the interests of human creators, businesses, and the public is also crucial to ensure Nigeria’s copyright laws effectively support the integration of AI technologies in its digital economy.[1]
CURRENT STATE OF AI DEVELOPMENT AND USE IN NIGERIA
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a significant advancement in technology and has transformed various sectors in human dealings like healthcare, finance, and education. Although in Nigeria, AI development is still at a very early stage. In 2022, the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) initiated a consultative process to gather inputs for the formulation of the National Artificial Intelligence Policy (NAIP) [2], which signifies the Nigerian government’s formal recognition of the importance of Artificial Intelligence and its commitment to fostering a regulatory and developmental framework that supports AI innovation. Notwithstanding these governmental efforts, evaluations presented during Lagos Startup Week 2023 reveal that AI development in Nigeria remains at an early and underdeveloped stage.
The integration of AI and emerging technologies into education is crucial for the future of AI in Nigeria and its acceptability among the people. AI startups like Uniccon Group, which developed the first humanoid robot[3], exemplify the nation’s reservoir of talent and its commitment to advancing artificial intelligence. Notwithstanding, they face considerable challenges, including insufficient capital investment and suboptimal infrastructure, which collectively constrain their expansion and impede the broader advancement of AI within the jurisdiction. Issues relating to connectivity, computational capacity, and infrastructural deficiencies constitute significant barriers to the growth of AI in Nigeria.
COPYRIGHT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS ON AI IN NIGERIA
Nigeria’s intellectual property laws largely predate the emergence of artificial intelligence. While the Copyright Act 2022, the Patents and Designs Act 1970, and other IP statutes provide protection for works and inventions created by human authors, they are largely silent on AI-generated content. This gap leaves uncertainties around authorship, ownership, and liability in relation to AI-assisted works.
The following are some of the laws bordering on copyright and AI-related IP in Nigeria.
- Copyright Act, 2022: The Copyright Act 2022 is the primary legislation on copyright protection. It defines copyrightable works as “original creations of the author’s intellect,” which clearly presupposes human authorship. While the Act covers literary, artistic, musical, audiovisual, and digital works, it does not contemplate the realities of artificial intelligence. As such, AI-generated content, whether produced independently or with minimal human intervention, falls outside the ambit of statutory protection. The silence on AI-generated work, therefore, shows the urgent need for legislative reform that can address the complexities of authorship and originality in a time where human and machine creativity increasingly overlap.
- Patents and Designs Act 1970: Under Section 1(1) of the Patents and Designs Act, an “inventor” is recognized as a person who creates or develops an invention. The provision presumes a natural person as the originator of patentable inventions, thereby excluding artificial intelligence systems. While companies and other juristic persons may hold patents, such rights must derive from the inventive activity of human beings acting on their behalf. Consequently, Nigeria’s patent regime does not recognize AI as an inventor, even in cases where the creative or inventive contribution stems largely from an algorithmic process.
- Trade Marks Act: Although the Trade Marks Act does not directly regulate AI-generated works, it becomes relevant in the context of branding and commercial identifiers created or assisted by AI. AI systems can be used to generate logos, distinctive designs, or product identifiers, which may then be registered as trademarks. However, such registration must be tied to a human being or a corporate entity, since Nigerian law does not recognize AI as a juristic person capable of owning rights.
- The 1999 Constitution: The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) protects property rights under Section 44(1), and this protection extends to intellectual property. By implication, only persons, whether natural or corporate, can claim, enforce, or defend intellectual property rights under the Constitution. Artificial intelligence systems, lacking legal personality, cannot own, transfer, or enforce rights in their own name.
OWNERSHIP OF AI-GENERATED OR ASSISTED WORKS
The integration of artificial intelligence in the creative process has introduced complexities in distinguishing between human and machine authorship, complicating the determination of originality and ownership rights.
In the United States, the Copyright Office has clarified that copyright protection is for works created by human creativity only, excluding non-human entities. This aligns with case law, such as the Naruto v. Slater case, where a photograph captured by a non-human subject was deemed ineligible for copyright protection due to lack of human authorship. Thus, only works created by human authors qualify for copyright protection; AI-generated work based on human prompts is also not eligible for copyright protection, [4] as the creative process is attributed to the technology.[5]
The Copyright Act 2022 in Nigeria does not address the ownership and copyright protection of AI-generated works. The Act defines copyrightable subject matter as “original creations of the author’s intellect,” requiring human intellectual contribution. However, AI lacks human attributes and legal personality, making it unrecognized as a proprietor of copyright. This lack of regulation suggests the need for legislative reform to effectively regulate intellectual property arising from AI technologies.
The legal challenge of determining authorship and ownership of AI-generated works is complex and evolving, requiring a balance between human creativity, AI’s role, and equitable access. The discourse surrounding AI-generated intellectual property remains unresolved, highlighting the need for continued legal analysis and legislative refinement of the existing laws.
LIABILITY FOR AI-GENERATED COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
In many cases, the question of who is liable when AI systems process datasets and potentially infringe on copyrighted works is not straightforward and may involve multiple parties sharing responsibility to varying degrees. For instance, if a person writes a book and publishes same using ChatGPT and gets slammed with a copyright infringement suit, who gets the blame? Clarifying who is legally responsible for AI copyright infringement is extremely challenging, largely because, as earlier stated, multiple entities contribute to the development, deployment, and maintenance of the AI system, and because there is no specific law guiding the use of AI in Nigeria and many other countries.
However, it is very important to note that in Nigeria, AI systems do not enjoy recognition as either natural or artificial persons and as such are not juristic persons who can sue or be sued. In essence, no AI system is capable of maintaining an action in a Nigerian Court, and no action can be maintained against an AI system. Thus, even though there have been global suggestions that since AI systems have the ability to learn and make decisions on their own, they should bear liability for their own action, the idea remains theoretical in Nigeria.
LEGAL CHALLENGES AND CASES
The legal complexities surrounding AI and IP are highlighted in the following high-profile cases:
- The Case of Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents: In this case, Dr Stephen Thaler sought to have his artificial intelligence system, DABUS, recognized as the inventor on patent applications filed in various jurisdictions. While certain courts, such as an initial decision by the Federal Court of Australia, momentarily accepted the concept of AI inventorship, it later reversed this position in April 2022, affirming that only natural persons may be designated as inventors under existing law.
In the United States, Title 35 of the Patent Act provides a clear framework: Section 100(f) defines an inventor as an individual who invents or discovers a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter; Section 102 addresses the requirements of novelty and non-obviousness, applying these criteria exclusively to natural persons; and Section 115 mandates that an oath or declaration must be executed by a human inventor. Similarly, under the European Patent Convention (EPC), Article 81 requires that the inventor designated in a European patent application be a natural person. The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Rule 4.17 likewise stipulates that the named inventor must be a human being.
In Nigeria, the Patents and Designs Act of 1970, under Section 1(1), also recognizes the inventor as a “person” who creates or develops an invention, thereby implying a natural person and conferring corresponding rights to such inventors.
- The case between Getty Images v. Stability AI: In early 2023, Getty Images initiated legal proceedings against Stability AI, alleging that the company unlawfully utilized millions of copyrighted images owned by Getty without authorization to train its AI-based image generation model. The lawsuit highlights significant legal concerns surrounding the use of copyrighted materials in the training of artificial intelligence systems and underscores the potential for intellectual property infringement arising from such practices.[6]
These cases highlight the pressing necessity for the development and implementation of updated legal frameworks capable of addressing the distinct and evolving challenges that artificial intelligence presents within the realm of intellectual property law.
CONCLUSION
As artificial intelligence continues to reshape creative and technological landscapes in Nigeria and globally, existing copyright and intellectual property frameworks must evolve to address the legal uncertainties it introduces. The absence of clear legislation on AI-generated works, particularly regarding authorship, ownership, and liability, poses significant risks for creators, innovators, and businesses. While AI offers transformative potential, it simultaneously challenges traditional notions of human creativity and legal responsibility. Nigeria must act proactively by reforming its copyright and IP laws to reflect technological realities, ensuring that innovation is both encouraged and adequately protected. Collaborative efforts among lawmakers, legal practitioners, tech stakeholders, and educational institutions will be critical in shaping a balanced, inclusive, and forward-looking legal regime that fosters innovation while safeguarding the rights of creators in the AI era.
Reference
- David Ekanem; Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Protection in Nigeria, Legal Impact and Challenges. Streamsowers & Köhn, Available at https://sskohn.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Artificial_Intelligence_and_Copyright_Issues_in_Nigeria_-_2024.pdf accessed May 2025. ↑
- OECD, AI Policies in Nigeria. Available at https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/countries/Nigeria accessed May 2025. ↑
- Na’ankwat Dariem, Nigeria to unveil Africa’s First Humanoid Robot “Omeife” Voice of Nigeria (VON) (2022)
Available at https://von.gov.ng/nigeria-to-unveil-africas-first-humanoid-robot-omeife/ accessed May 2025-Omeife stands as the inaugural African humanoid, exhibiting a striking resemblance to humans and possessing proficiency in language, mobility, navigation, and behavioral intelligence through the utilization of AI and Computer Vision capabilities. This multipurpose assistance robot is intricately programmed to possess a profound understanding of African culture and behavioral norms. Notably, Omeife displays linguistic versatility by fluently speaking 8 distinct languages beyond English. This linguistic repertoire includes Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, French, Arabic, Kiswahili, Pidgin, Wazobia, and Afrikaans. The introduction of Omeife took place at the Gulf Information Technology Exhibition (GITEX) in Dubai. The unveiling was executed by Professor Isa Pantami, the Nigerian Minister of Communications and Digital Economy. Professor Pantami commended Uniccon Group for its dedicated efforts in spearheading technological innovation on the African continent, marking a significant stride in advancing the field of robotics. ↑
- ai_policy_guidance.pdf accessed May 2025. ↑
- Navigating IP Challenges In An Era Of AI Generated Content; Woye Famojuro & Uzochukwu Kpaduwa. Available at https://www.mondaq.com/nigeria/copyright/1621770/navigating-ip-challenges-in-an-era-of-ai-generated-content accessed May 2025. ↑
- Ibid. ↑
