Who Owns The COPYRIGHT of AI-Generated Works In Nigeria?

CONTRIBUTOR: EKU LILIAN

Introduction

The rapid growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has reshaped the creative landscape globally. From music and film to literature and visual arts, AI tools are increasingly being utilised to generate original outputs.^[1] These technologies are not merely assisting human creators but are increasingly capable of producing complete, complex, and seemingly original works without direct human input in the creative process. As Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools such as generative models, deep learning algorithms, and neural networks continue to evolve, they are challenging long-established legal and philosophical notions of authorship, creativity, and ownership.^[2]

A central question has emerged at the intersection of AI and intellectual property law: “Who owns the copyright in a work generated by an AI system?” Should it be the developer of the Artificial Intelligence (AI), the user who prompted it, the AI itself, or perhaps no one at all? In Nigeria, these questions are particularly urgent given the country’s growing digital economy and vibrant creative industry. The Nigerian Copyright Act 2022, which provides the legal framework for protecting literary, musical, artistic, and other creative works, still presumes a human origin behind the act of creation.

This article critically examines the ownership of AI-generated works under Nigerian law, while comparing global approaches and offering recommendations for reform.

OWNERSHIP OF COPYRIGHTS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Copyright is a legal right granted to the creator of an original work of art, allowing him/her exclusive rights for its use and distribution.^[3] The rationale behind this exclusiveness granted to the creator of a work is due to the fact that the author is an originator merged with Locke’s economic theory of possessive individualism.^[4] For grant of copyright, the work should first be in a tangible form^[5], and secondly, it should be original.^[6]

A copyright is exercised generally for literary and artistic works. Since one of the contemporary areas of AI’s applicability is creation of literary works, the study of copyright in the light of AIs, becomes relevant.^[7] In the case of Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing^[8], the court clearly differentiated between a human’s work and something artificial. The Court made its stance clear by using the words ‘something irreducible, which is one man’s alone’ which meant that there was no scope for anything that was not a product of man’s creativity.

Before now, the authorship or ownership of copyrightable works which are computer-generated was not in doubt. The popular belief is that since a computer is a manmade invention, it is deemed as a tool in the hand of a human creator, consequently authorship of the resultant work would belong to the human creator.^[9] The current impact of Al is starting to disrupt this seemingly rigid traditional presumption.^[10] This development has also raised fundamental issues as to who owns the copyright of generated by Artificial Intelligence.

There are divergent scholarly and regulatory views on the point. The current position of copyright legislations worldwide is that human authorship is an indispensable requirement for copyright protection.^[11] Most copyright jurisdictions across the world only recognise natural persons and registered corporations as authors who are entitled to appropriate both economic and moral rights over the created work.^[12]

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF AUTHORSHIP OF COPYRIGHTS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Globally, jurisdictions are increasingly grappling with the complex issue of AI authorship as artificial intelligence systems become more capable of generating original content across various creative domains. Traditional copyright laws are built on the premise of human authorship, which poses a significant challenge when the “creator” is a machine with little to no human input. Courts and lawmakers in countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia etc, have had to consider whether AI-generated works can be protected under existing legal frameworks and, if so, who should own the rights, whether it’s the developer, the user, or no one at all.

UNITED KINGDOM: In England, the Copyright, Design and Patent Act 1988 makes provision for computer-generated works.^[13] It provides that the author of a computer-generated work is the person by whom the arrangements for the creation of the work were undertaken. The Act further grants the author^[14]years protection but does not include moral rights.

NEW ZEALAND: In New Zealand, copyrights on works made by machines, belong to “whoever has undertaken the necessary provisions for the creation of the work.^[15]In other words, copyright in such work will not be conferred on the machine/Al but on the person who created the machine.

UNITED STATE: Under the United State copyright law, an author of an artificial intelligence work may have legal claims over the resulting creation if he cites the AI programme as a tool or medium used in the creative process.^[16] The case of Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v Sarony first extended copyright protection to photography.^[17] The camera used to capture the image was considered by the court as a tool which aided the “author” in creating “an original work of art.”^[18]

NIGERIA: In Nigeria, copyright is conferred only on a qualified person i.e. an individual who is a citizen of or who is domiciled in Nigeria, or rather, an incorporated entity registered under Nigerian law.^[19] Although the Nigerian Copyright Act makes no reference to computer-generated works, it can be deduced from the Act that only humans are capable of owning copyright over a work. Therefore, where a work is created by a machine in Nigeria, the copyright in that work will be conferred on the human inventor or programmer. Since the creative process of Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated works are usually initiated by a human, it suffices to say that the copyright in the work should belong to the human creator.

LIABILITIES OF COPYRIGHT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

In determining liability for copyright infringement by AI, the best solution would be to examine who had influence over the action of the algorithm resulting in the legal violation. It might be the case that the person who created the algorithm designed it in such a way that it cannot operate without infringing copyright. In that case, even if the user does not intend to infringe copyright, they are more or less forced to do so, as use of the algorithm is inseparably bound up with violation of other persons’ copyright.^[20] In that situation, it should be found that the person liable for the copyright infringement is the person who wrote the algorithm. Other than civil liability, computers are also criminally liable. For one to be criminally culpable there must be a harm caused by his action which makes him guilty.^[21]

AUTHORSHIP UNDER THE NIGERIAN COPYRIGHT ACT 2022

In Nigeria not every work is eligible for copyright. Simply put, an ostensible work of copyright must come under the list enumerated under the Copyright Act.^[22]These include literary works; musical works; artistic works; cinematograph films; sound recordings; and broadcasts.^[23] With respect to literal, musical or artistic work, sufficient efforts must have been expended by the creator to give them an original character and they must be 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. A copyright protects the author. Under the Copyrights Act, the first ownership of copyright is enjoyed by the author of the work, unless a contract of employment or apprenticeship with a publisher stipulates that it belongs to the employer.

As regards Artificial Intelligence in Nigeria and the Copyright Act, it is important to note that there are no provisions for the protection of software under the Copyright Act in Nigeria. Copyright protection arguably only extends to the original documented expression of the software. This original

expression does not extend to the functionality of the software. It is only limited to the blueprint either in an audio, written or any other form permissible by the Copyright Act as being protectable thereunder.

CONCLUSION

Although copyright laws have been moving away from originality standards that reward skill, labour and effort, perhaps we can establish an exception to that trend when it comes to the fruits of sophisticated artificial intelligence. The alternative seems contrary to the justifications for protecting creative works in the first place. Having critically analysed the protection of AI, neither

national nor international law recognises AI as a subject of law, which means that AI cannot be held personally liable for the damage it causes. The question of authorship in AI-generated works is at the frontier of copyright law. Under the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022, authorship remains human-centred, leaving AI outputs in a grey area. For Nigeria to fully harness the opportunities of AI in the creative economy, legal reforms and policy clarity are essential. Until then, the safest interpretation is that copyright subsists only where significant human creativity is involved

RECOMMENDATION

It has become imperative to amend existing IP legal regimes in order to provide for computer-generated works and Al operations, both in Nigeria and

internationally. The law needs to clearly identify the rights and liabilities, if any, attributable to the Al for its inventions. Alternatively, a computer or Al related IP legislation may be enacted to deal with the intricacies associated with authorship of Al and computer-generated works, among others.

Reference

1. David Ekanem, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Protection in Nigeria, Legal Impact and Challenges’ (2024)https://sskohn.com/wpcontent/uploads/2024/05/Artificial_Intelligence_and_Copyright_Issues_in_Nigeria_-_2024.pdf accessed 30 September 2025. ↑
2. Blake Brittain, ‘OpenAI says New York Times ‘hacked’ ChatGPT to build copyright lawsuit’, (2024)www.reuters.com accessed 30 September, 2025. ↑
3. Tripathi and Ghatak, ‘Algorithms in decision-making House of Commons

   Science and Technology Committee’ (2020) https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmsctech/351/351.pdf accessed 30 September, 2025. ↑

4. L Zimmerman, ‘It’s an Original! (?): In Pursuit of Copyright’s Elusive Essence’ (2020), 28

   COLM. J. L. & ARTS 187, 194 ↑

5. S Tripathi and C Ghatak, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law’ (2017) Vol.7, No.1, Christ

   University Law Journal p.83 ↑

6. Burrow Gilles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, (1884) 111 U.S. 53 ↑
7. Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing, (1903) 188 U.S. 239 ↑
8. (Supra) ↑
9. O Mayowa, ‘Nigeria: Who owns the Copyright in an AI Invention? (2020)

   https://www.mondaq.com/Nigeria/Intellectual-Property/881214/Who-Owns-The-Copyright-InAn-AI-Invention accessed 30 September, 2020. ↑

10. A Viswanath, ‘Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence’ (2020) http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/852186/Patent/INTELLECTUAL+PROPERTY+AND+AR

    TIFICIAL accessed 30 September, 2025. ↑

11. Ibid. ↑
12. Copyright Act 2022, section 1. ↑
13. Copyright Design and Patent Act 1988 of the United Kingdom, section 9 (3) ↑
14. Ibid, section 9 (3) ↑
15. Copyright Act 1994 New Zealand, s. 5 (2) (a) ↑
16. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v Sarony (1884) 111 U.S. 53 ↑
17. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, (supra) ↑
18. Ibid. ↑
19. Copyright Act 2022, s. 2(1) ↑
20. K Szczudlik, ‘Liability for Copyright Infringement by AI’ (2018) https://newtech.law/en/author/katarzyna-szczudlik/ accessed 30 September, 2025. ↑
21. Andrew Ashworth Principles of Criminal Law (5th ed, Oxford University Press, New York, 2006)31 ↑
22. Copyright Act, 2022, s. 1 ↑
23. Ibid. ↑