By Somadina Eugene-Okorie
As we navigate the swiftly changing space where technology meets creativity, a significant misconception is gaining alarming traction: the idea that an individual has the right to assert legal copyright control over material such as music, films, essays, or any form of creative output, when this content is produced with the aid of artificial intelligence.
This idea not only distorts the purpose and extent of copyright law but also creates opportunities for significant legal repercussions, notably regarding copyright infringement and misappropriation.
The query may appear straightforward: Is it possible to assert copyright for content created through artificial intelligence? From the perspective of a specialist in patent and copyright laws, the response—both legally and philosophically—is clear-cut. Consequently, this piece delves deeply into the topic, supported by an analysis based on statutory interpretation, global legal advancements, and a thorough comprehension of AI operations.
The core principle at the center of copyright law revolves around originality. This legal concept does not focus merely on innovation or superficial distinctiveness but aims to safeguard creations born from intellectual and laborious efforts by individuals. It is precisely this infusion of creativity through hard work that makes a piece qualify for copyright protection. According to Section 2 of Nigeria’s Copyright Act, 2022, certain criteria must be met for a work to receive such protections. Among these are literary pieces, music scores, visual artistry, moving images, recorded sounds, as well as broadcasted content.
Nevertheless, Section 2(2) clearly states that two crucial conditions must be met: first, the work should possess an original character—which implies that some degree of effort was put into creating the work to imbue it with this originality; secondly, the concept of fixation indicates that the creation needs to be captured in a concrete or perceivable form so that it can be replicated or disseminated. Without fulfilling both of these prerequisites, neither a musical nor an artistic piece, irrespective of how aesthetically pleasing it may be, qualifies for copyright protection according to Nigerian legislation.
Artificial intelligence, specifically generative AI, functions by consuming large volumes of pre-existing information—including text, music, images, videos, and codes—that are extracted from the web and various digital sources. This technology recognizes patterns in language, sound, or visuals and rearranges these elements to produce content that seems original. However, legal matters hinge on reality, not appearances. The system doesn’t generate new creations but extracts ideas; it doesn’t come up with originals but compiles them together.
The consequences are substantial since the output produced by AI models is inherently derivative, as it is constructed through algorithms based on previously created human material. Consequently, this type of content does not satisfy the criteria for originality required under copyright laws. Additionally, these models rely heavily on training datasets that frequently contain protected works without securing proper licenses or permissions. Therefore, AI-created content lacks both originality and legal authorization, making it potentially unlawful. As a result, anyone asserting ownership rights over such creations is not only misinterpreting legislation but could also be engaging in acts of intellectual property violation—a transgression subject to legal penalties.
A clear distinction exists between copyrighted creations and so-called "artificial" productions. The former are crafted by individuals, embodying distinctive ideas and reflecting deliberate artistic decisions regarding style, composition, and architecture. They also have an evident creator or collective who intended their production. In contrast, artificial pieces emerge through computational processes analyzing previous information sets, offering no individual creativity, lacking discernible authors, and often replicating established artworks. This division isn’t merely conceptual but is firmly integrated into various global jurisdictions such as those found in Nigeria, the U.S., and Europe.
In a groundbreaking legal proceeding highlighting the risks associated with mistaking AI-generated content as original work, Michael Smith from North Carolina faced charges brought forth by U.S. federal authorities in September 2024. The indictment alleges that Smith purportedly employed artificial intelligence technology to create an extensive collection of approximately hundreds of thousands of songs. These tracks were supposedly distributed through automated bot networks, leading to fraudulent royalty payments totaling more than $10 million starting from 2017. This significant case was revealed by Damian Williams, who serves as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, alongside the Federal Bureau of Investigation—a precedent-setting lawsuit targeting AI-facilitated music streaming scams.
Moreover, Smith’s true violation, as claimed by the prosecutors, wasn’t just about broadcasting synthetic tunes; it involved committing copyright fraud and infringement. The legal team contended that the AI-created tracks improperly used elements sourced from protected works belonging to current musicians, thereby amounting to theft within the framework of intellectual property laws. This trial establishes a benchmark with global implications. It unequivocally conveys that employing AI for producing content that copies or repurposes copyrighted creations does not qualify as advancement but rather constitutes illegal use.
Nigeria has not remained untouched by the appeal of artificial intelligence. With an AI-created Afrobeat album launched in 2023, computer-generated voices in Nollywood screenplays, and recently AI-produced films, artists are progressively incorporating technology into their work processes. Yet, what’s even more concerning is that Nigeria presently doesn’t have a comprehensive regulatory structure for AI-generated content, resulting in a perilous ambiguity. Nonetheless, this lack of specific legislation does not shield creators from potential repercussions.
As previously mentioned, Nigeria’s Copyright Act 2022 provides ample grounds to pursue legal action against those asserting copyright over AI-created content. Should evidence surface indicating these creations were reproduced from pre-existing protected material, culpability comes into play—regardless of whether the duplication was carried out via an AI system. Therefore, creators, manufacturers, and production houses exploring the use of AI should recognize that the absence of explicit AI regulations does not equate to permission to violate copyrights. Even if you did not initiate the violation, presenting and disseminating the work under your name means accepting accountability for any infringements involved.
A common misconception holds that obtaining copyright registration establishes ownership. In reality, copyright originates from creative works produced by humans rather than from the act of registration itself. Registration serves primarily as proof of one’s claim and helps safeguard those claims but doesn’t generate copyright. Therefore, registering an AI-composed track with a collective management organization or similar entity won't legitimize ownership. Instead, it provides a deceptive appearance of validity that may quickly unravel during legal examination. Thus, despite having registered an AI-augmented composition and generating income via streaming services or publishing deals, artists remain at risk for litigation or prosecution should the initial authors detect elements derived from their own creations within the AI-produced material.
Discussions surrounding AI and intellectual property should focus on legal and ethical principles rather than mere innovation or ease of use. The purpose of copyright is to foster mental and spiritual efforts. One cannot assert rights over creations devoid of personal touch, regardless of their aesthetic appeal. Hence, artists, content producers, and innovators must proceed with caution. While adopting AI technologies isn’t necessarily problematic, asserting proprietorship or authorship for works primarily produced through automated processes amounts to a misunderstanding of copyright regulations—this could lead to lawsuits, monetary damages, and reputational harm. Ultimately, the legislation states unequivocally that original creation is required to establish rightful ownership.
Note: This article is intended solely for educational and informational purposes and should not be considered as legal advice. For personal situations, please seek guidance from a qualified intellectual property lawyer.
Somadina Eugene-Okorie ESQ., an advocate specializing in intellectual property and business law, is based in Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria, where she also engages in writing.
Provided by Syndigate Media Inc. ( Syndigate.info ).
Post a Comment