AI-Generated Content: Why It Fails the Test of Copyright Law

By Somadina Eugene-Okorie

As we navigate the swiftly changing landscape where technology meets creativity, an increasingly prevalent misconception poses significant risks: the notion that individuals can assert legal rights of authorship via copyright over material like music, films, articles, or various creative works produced with the aid of artificial intelligence.

This concept not only distorts the purpose and extent of copyright law but also exposes entities to increased legal risks, notably regarding copyright infringement and misappropriation. The issue appears straightforward at first glance: Is it possible to assert copyright over a collection of works created with the aid of artificial intelligence?

Currently, as an authority on patent and copyright law, the clear-cut legal and philosophical response is negative.

Accordingly, this article conducts an extensive analysis of the aforementioned topic, rooted in the interpretation of statutes, advancements in international law, and a comprehensive grasp of AI functionality.

I. Copyright: Safeguarding Unique Human Creativity

The core principle of copyright law revolves around originality. This legal concept does not focus merely on newness or superficial distinctiveness but aims to safeguard creations born from intellectual and laborious efforts by humans. It is precisely this individual exertion of creativity that makes a piece eligible for copyright protection.

According to Section 2 of the Nigerian Copyright Act, 2022, certain criteria must be met for works to qualify for copyright protection. Such works encompass literary creations, musical scores, artistic pieces, audio-visual content, sound recordings, and broadcast materials.

Nevertheless, Section 2(2) clearly states that two crucial conditions must be met:

1. Original character In this scenario, considerable effort was put into crafting the work to imbue it with an original essence.

2. Fixation The creation needs to be transformed into a concrete or observable form through which it can be replicated or conveyed.

Without meeting these two requirements, a musical or artistic creation, irrespective of how aesthetically pleasing it may be, does not qualify for copyright protection according to Nigerian law.

II. AI and the Mirage of Uniqueness

Artificial intelligence, especially 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 databases. This technology detects patterns in linguistics, audio, or visuals before rearranging these elements into material that seems original. However, looking real does not equate to being legally substantive.

The machine doesn’t generate; instead, it extracts. It doesn’t come up with new ideas; it synthesizes them.

These observations carry considerable weight. The reason being, the output generated by AI models is inherently derivative as it relies on algorithms pieced together from previously created human material. Consequently, this type of content does not satisfy the threshold for originality required under copyright legislation. Furthermore, since these models utilize training datasets which frequently incorporate protected works lacking proper authorization or licensing, AI-produced outputs can be deemed both unoriginal and possibly in violation of copyrights.

Therefore, anyone asserting ownership of these creations is not only misinterpreting the legal framework but may also be involved in potential acts of intellectual property theft—a violation that carries legal consequences.

III. Artificial Creations vs Copyrighted Materials: A Key Legal Distinction

A legal barrier exists between copyrighted material and what we currently refer to as "artificial creations."

Copyrighted works :

• Are authored by humans.

• Carry the mark of innovative thinking.

• Capture innovative decisions in style, format, and architecture.

• Can be distinctly linked to an individual or organization with a clear objective.

Artificial works , by contrast:

• Are created using algorithms that follow patterns found in existing information.

• Lack personal creative input.

• It cannot be attributed to a specific known human author.

• Are fundamentally derived from other works and often mimic the creations of genuine artists.

This duality is not merely academic; it is integrated into legal frameworks worldwide, such as those in Nigeria, the United States, and the European Union.

IV. An Example: Michael Smith and the Initial AI-Produced Music Fraud Case

In a significant legal case highlighting the risks of mistaking AI-generated content for original work, Michael Smith from North Carolina faced charges brought forth by U.S. federal prosecutors in September 2024. The indictment alleged that Smith purportedly utilized artificial intelligence to create "hundreds of thousands" of songs, subsequently streaming them through automated bots to illicitly amass more than $10 million in royalty payments starting from 2017.

According to an indictment unveiled by Damian Williams, who serves as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, along with the FBI, this marks the inaugural criminal case involving AI-aided streaming fraud. However, what prosecutors assert as Smith’s primary transgression isn’t merely broadcasting artificially generated tunes; instead, it involves allegations of copyright fraud and violation. The argument presented by the prosecution contends that these AI-produced tracks illicitly employed elements sourced from copyrighted works belonging to current musicians, thereby breaching intellectual property laws and equating to theft.

This ruling establishes a global precedent, clearly indicating that employing AI to create content which replicates or repurposes copyrighted material isn’t seen as advancement but rather as violation of copyright laws.

V. Nigeria’s Developing AI-Creative Scene: An Unregulated Space With Implications

Nigeria has not remained untouched by the appeal of artificial intelligence. With an AI-created Afrobeat album launched in 2023, along with synthetic voice-overs for Nollywood scripts and recently produced AI movies, artists are progressively incorporating technology into their work processes. Nonetheless, what’s particularly concerning is that Nigeria presently does not have a comprehensive legal structure addressing AI-generated content, leading to a perilous ambiguity.

However, this legal gap doesn’t shield creators entirely. As previously discussed, Nigeria’s Copyright Act of 2022 provides ample grounds for prosecuting those who assert copyright over AI-created works. Should evidence surface indicating these creations were derived from pre-existing copyrighted material, responsibility is promptly established—regardless of whether the reproduction was executed via an AI program.

Therefore, artists, producers, and studios exploring AI should recognize that the absence of specific AI regulations does not grant permission to violate copyright laws. Even if you did not create the initial infringement, using and releasing someone else’s work under your name makes you accountable for any resulting violations.

VI. Copyright Is Not About Registration; It’s About Originality

A common misconception is that obtaining a copyright registration establishes ownership. In reality, copyright originates from an individual’s creative work rather than from the registration process itself. Registration serves primarily as evidence for asserting and safeguarding rights that have already been established through original creation.

As a result, registering an AI-created song with a collecting society or copyright organization doesn’t legitimize ownership. Instead, it merely gives a semblance of legality that could quickly crumble when examined legally.

As such, even if an AI-assisted song is “registered” and earns revenue through streaming platforms or publishers, the artist remains vulnerable to lawsuits or criminal charges once original creators can identify traces of their work in the AI output.

In conclusion: human creativity cannot be automated, nor can its protections.

The discussion around AI and intellectual property should not be guided by novelty or ease, but rather by the legal and ethical principles underlying creation. Copyright aims to foster the efforts of both intellect and emotion. However, it cannot apply to lifeless algorithms, irrespective of their aesthetic appeal.

Artists, content creators, and developers should proceed with caution. While adopting AI technology isn’t necessarily incorrect, asserting authorship or ownership of work that primarily stems from machine-created adaptations of human effort can be seen as a misunderstanding of copyright laws. This could lead not just to legal battles, but also to financial setbacks and public controversies.

Ultimately, the legislation is unambiguous: Owning something you didn’t initially create is not permissible.

NB: This piece is intended solely for educational and informative purposes and should not be considered as legal counsel. For personal situations, please seek guidance from a qualified intellectual property lawyer.

SOMADINA EUGENE-OKORIE ESQ.

Advocate, Intellectual Property/Business Solicitor,

Writes from Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria.

Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. Syndigate.info ).