Abstract

The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI systems capable of producing literary, artistic, musical, and audiovisual outputs, has disrupted the traditional human-centric foundations of copyright law. This technological evolution raises a fundamental legal question: who owns works generated by artificial intelligence?

This article critically examines global and domestic legal responses to AI-generated works, interrogates theoretical ownership models, and evaluates the adequacy of Nigeria’s Copyright Act, 2022 in addressing AI authorship. The article argues that existing copyright frameworks, which are predicated on human creativity, are increasingly strained by autonomous machine outputs. Drawing from comparative jurisprudence and policy discussions, this article proposes a hybrid regulatory framework tailored to Nigeria’s legal and socio-economic realities.

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence; Copyright; Authorship; Nigeria; Sui Generis Rights; Intellectual Property

1. Introduction

Artificial Intelligence has transitioned from experimental technology to a mainstream creative tool. Modern generative AI models can compose music, generate paintings, produce news articles, and even develop computer code with minimal or no human intervention. The sophistication of these systems challenges the philosophical and legal assumptions upon which copyright law was historically constructed.

Copyright law traditionally recognises creativity as a uniquely human enterprise grounded in intellectual labour, skill, and judgment. However, AI technologies now produce works that are commercially valuable, culturally relevant, and often indistinguishable from human-created content. This development raises pressing questions: Can machines be authors? If not, who should own AI-generated outputs? Should such works receive copyright protection at all?

2. Doctrinal Starting Point: Originality and Human Authorship

Copyright protection is fundamentally anchored on two principles: originality and authorship. Traditionally, a work qualifies for copyright protection when it originates from the author and demonstrates a minimal degree of creative input.

Nigerian copyright jurisprudence strongly emphasises human creativity. Courts have consistently held that copyright subsists in works produced through the exercise of skill, labour, and judgment by a human author. Generative AI models, however, function by analysing vast datasets, identifying patterns, and generating outputs through algorithmic processes, thereby complicating traditional copyright frameworks.

3. Comparative Legal Responses

3.1 United States Approach

The United States maintains a strict human authorship requirement. The United States Copyright Office requires applicants to disclose the extent of AI involvement and denies protection for purely machine-generated content.

3.2 United Kingdom Approach

The United Kingdom adopts a statutory model under section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which attributes authorship of computer-generated works to the person who undertakes arrangements necessary for creation of the work.

3.3 International Policy Perspectives

Global policy discussions emphasise the need for balanced regulation that encourages innovation while preserving public access to knowledge.

4. Competing Theories of Ownership

Programmer Ownership Theory assigns ownership to developers of AI systems.

User or Prompt-Creator Theory assigns ownership to individuals generating AI outputs through prompts.

Employer or Work-for-Hire Model treats AI outputs as works created under employment arrangements.

Public Domain Approach suggests AI-generated works should remain publicly accessible.

Sui Generis Protection Model proposes a distinct legal regime tailored for AI-generated works.

5. Policy Considerations

Effective regulation of AI-generated works must balance technological innovation, protection of human creativity, prevention of excessive market concentration, promotion of public access, and administrative feasibility.

6. Nigeria’s Copyright Act, 2022: Gaps and Opportunities

The Copyright Act, 2022 modernised Nigeria’s intellectual property regime but remains silent on AI-generated works, creating interpretative uncertainty and opportunities for forward-looking reform.

7. Proposed Hybrid Model for Nigeria

Human Authorship Baseline:

Where AI is used as a creative tool and human users exercise meaningful creative control, copyright should vest in the human creator.

Statutory Attribution for Computer-Generated Works:

Nigerian law could adopt a statutory attribution model similar to the UK framework with clearer definitional standards.

Limited Sui Generis Protection:

Fully autonomous AI outputs should receive separate limited protection characterised by shorter duration, narrow rights scope, mandatory disclosure, and compulsory licensing safeguards.

8. Operationalisation Mechanisms

Registration Disclosure Requirements should include AI tools used, level of human involvement, and prompt records.

Evidentiary Standards should recognise digital audit trails and algorithm configuration records.

Contractual Regulation should allocate ownership and liability relating to AI-generated works.

9. Nigerian Case Law and Illustrative Authorities

Nigerian courts have consistently emphasised human originality and proprietary rights in intellectual property disputes, and recent copyright enforcement decisions demonstrate judicial adaptation to emerging technologies.

10. Future Regulatory Directions

Nigeria should amend copyright legislation to define AI-generated works, establish administrative AI registration guidelines, promote regional harmonisation, and encourage interdisciplinary collaboration.

11. Conclusion

Artificial Intelligence presents both opportunity and regulatory challenge for copyright law. Nigeria is positioned to adopt a balanced framework that promotes technological innovation while preserving human creativity. A hybrid legal model combining human authorship, statutory attribution, and sui generis protection provides a pragmatic solution.