Somadina Eugene-Okorie Esq
At the rapidly evolving intersection between technology and creativity, one fundamental misconception is becoming dangerously widespread, the belief that legal copyright ownership can be claimed to content, such as music, films, articles, or other expressive works generated through artificial intelligence.
This concept not only misrepresents the intent and scope of copyright law, but also opens the floodgates to legal liability, particularly due to copyright infringement and misappropriation. The question is seemingly simple.
Currently, as a patent and copyright law expert, the clear legal and philosophical answer is no.
Therefore, this article conducts a detailed investigation of the above subjects and is based on a proper understanding of statutory interpretation, international legal developments, and the functioning of AI.
Copyright: Protection of original human representation
At the heart of copyright law is the central doctrine of originality. Legal doctrines have nothing to do with mere novelty or surface level uniqueness. Rather, it seeks to protect expression, a product of human intelligence and effort. It is this personal investment in personal creative labor that qualifies for copyright protection work.
Under Section 2 of the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022, only work that meets certain conditions will be subject to copyright. These include literary works, musical compositions, art works, audiovisual works, sound recordings and broadcasts.
However, Section 2(2) explicitly makes clear that two important requirements must be met.
Original Character: In this context, some effort must be made in the work to give the original quality. Fixed: Work should be reduced to tangible or perceptible media that can be replicated or transmitted.
Without these twin standards, no musical or artistic work can be considered copyrighted under Nigerian law, regardless of its aesthetic appeal.
The Illusion of AI and Originality
Artificial intelligence, in particular generative AI, works by ingesting huge amounts of existing data, including text, music, images, videos, and codes that have been scraped from the Internet and other digital repositories. Identifies language, hearing, or visual patterns and recombine them into novel-looking content. However, the appearance is not legally material.
It does not create a machine. Rather, it derives. It does not occur. Rather, it’s synthesized.
And these notes and meanings are important. Because the output of the AI model is fundamentally non-original and is algorithmically constructed from existing human work, such content cannot meet the originality criteria of copyright law. Furthermore, these models rely on training data, which often contains copyrighted material without a license or permission, so content generated by AI is not original and can be potentially compromised.
Therefore, anyone who claims an author about such a work is not merely misunderstood the law. They probably imply intellectual property theft that will be punished before the law.
iii. Artificial and copyrighted works: Basic legal disparities
There is a legal barrier to separation between copyrighted works and what we now call “artificial works.”
Copyrighted works:
It is written by humans. Bear the original thought engraving. It reflects creative choices of expression, shapes and structure. It can be clearly attributed to a person or group with a particular intent.
In contrast, artificial works:
Generated via algorithms based on patterns of existing data. Personal creative input is said to be lack.not derived from an identifiable human author. It is derived in nature and frequently simulates the work of real artists.
This dichotomy is not theoretical. It is embedded in legal systems all over the world, including Nigeria, the US and the European Union.
Priority: Michael Smith and the first AI-generated music fraud prosecution
In a groundbreaking case highlighting the risk of confusing AI output with the original work, North Carolina’s Michael Smith was indicted by U.S. federal prosecutors in September 2024. Prosecutors say Smith used artificial intelligence to generate “hundreds of thousands of songs.” He streamed through automated bots to fraudulently collect more than $10 million in royalties since 2017.
This comes from indictments sealed by the US lawyer Damien Williams for the Southern District of New York and the FBI, who marked the first-ever criminal case of AI-backed streaming fraud. But more importantly, according to the prosecutors, Smith’s real crime was copyright fraud and infringement, rather than simply streaming artificial music. Prosecutors argued that songs generated by AI illegally utilize material derived from existing artist copyrighted content and thus constitute theft under intellectual property law.
This case sets precedents that are likely to reverberate globally. Using AI to send a clear message that generating content that mimics or remixes copyrighted work is not an innovation, but rather a violation.
New AI Creative Landscape in Nigeria: Legal Blank with Consequences
Nigeria is not immune to the appeal of AI. From AI-generated Afrobeats albums released in 2023 to synthetic narration for Nollywood scripts to recent AI-generated films, creators are increasingly inviting machines into creative processes. What’s more intrusive, however, is the fact that Nigeria currently lacks a detailed legal framework for AI-generated works, creating dangerous grey zones.
However, this legal lacuna does not immunize the creator. As explained before, Nigerian Copyright Act 2022 is more than sufficient to indict individuals suing copyright claims against AI-generated works. If such works can be shown to have been copied from existing copyright materials, liability will be attached immediately, even if the copy was made by an AI tool.
Therefore, artists, producers and studios experimenting with AI should understand that the lack of explicit AI regulations is not a license to infringe. You may not be an original infringement, but by employing and publishing your work, you are responsible for that infringement.
Copyright is not registered, it is originality
Many people mistakenly believe that by securing copyright registration, they grant ownership. However, copyright does not arise from registration. It arises from the original creation of man. For this purpose, registration is merely evidence and is used to assert and protect the rights already acquired.
As a result, even if you register songs generated by AI in a collecting society or copyright institution, ownership will not be legalized. It only creates a false veneer of legitimacy and can easily collapse with scrutiny of the law.
So, even if AI-Assisted songs are “registered” and earn revenue through streaming platforms or publishers, artists remain vulnerable to lawsuits and criminal charges when the original creator is able to identify traces of their work in AI output.
In conclusion: Human creativity cannot be automated, nor can it be protected.
Conversations about AI and intellectual property should not be driven by novelty or convenience, but not by the legal and moral foundations of creativity. Copyright exists to encourage the work of the mind and spirit. No matter how harmonious it is, one cannot assert a soulless pattern.
Therefore, artists, content creators and developers need to step on carefully. While adopting AI is not inherently wrong, claiming author or ownership to what is essentially a remix generated by a machine of human labor is not only a misreading of copyright law, but also an invitation to litigation, financial losses and public scandals.
Ultimately, the law is clear. You cannot own things you didn’t create at first.
NB: This article is for educational and information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed intellectual property attorney for individual cases.
Written by Somadina Eugene-Okorie Esq, advocate, intellectual property/business lawyer, Lekki of Lagos Nigeria
