By Somadina Eugene-Okorie Esq

In the rapidly evolving intersection between technology and creativity, one fundamental misunderstanding is becoming dangerously widespread, and it is the belief that a person can claim legal copyright ownership over content, be it music, movies, articles, or any other expressive work generated through artificial intelligence.

This notion not only misrepresents the intent and scope of copyright law but also opens the floodgates to legal liability, particularly for copyright infringement and misappropriation.The question is deceptively simple: Can one claim copyright over a body of work generated using artificial intelligence?

Now, as a patent and copyright law expert, the unequivocal legal and philosophical answer is no.

This article therefore undertakes a detailed examination of above subject, and is grounded in statutory interpretation, international legal developments, and a proper understanding of how AI functions.

1. Copyright: A Protection of Original Human Expression

At the heart of copyright law lies a central tenet which is originality. The legal doctrine is not concerned with mere novelty or surface-level uniqueness; rather, it seeks to protect expressions that are the product of human intellect and effort. It is this personal investment of creative labour that qualifies a work for copyright protection.

Under Section 2 of the Nigerian Copyright Act, 2022, only works that satisfy specific conditions are eligible for copyright. These include literary works, musical compositions, artistic works, audiovisual works, sound recordings, and broadcasts.

However, Section 2(2) makes it explicitly clear that two essential requirements must be fulfilled:

1. Original character: In this context some effort must have been exerted in making the work to give it original quality;
2. Fixation: The work must be reduced into a tangible or perceptible medium from which it can be reproduced or communicated.

In the absence of these twin criteria, a musical or artistic work, regardless of its aesthetic appeal, cannot be deemed copyrightable under Nigerian law.

1. AI and the Illusion of Originality

Artificial intelligence, particularly generative AI, operates by ingesting vast amounts of existing data ranging from text, music, images, video, and code which are scraped from the internet and other digital repositories. It identifies linguistic, auditory, or visual patterns, then recombines them into content that appears novel. But appearance is not substance in law.

The machine does not create; rather it derives. It does not originate; it rather synthesizes.

And those notes, the implications are significant. Because the output of AI models is fundamentally non-original, being algorithmically assembled from pre-existing human work.Hence, such content fails to meet the originality standard of copyright law. Moreover, because these models depend on training data that often includes copyrighted materials, without obtaining licenses or permissions, AI-generated content are therefore not just unoriginal, but potentially infringing.

Thus, any person claiming authorship over such works is not just misunderstanding the law; they are possibly implicating themselves in intellectual property theft an act that is punishable before the law.

III. Artificial Works vs Copyrighted Works: A Fundamental Legal Divide

There is a legal wall of separation between copyrighted works and what we now call “artificial works.”

Copyrighted works:

• Are authored by humans.
• Bear the imprint of original thought.
• Reflect creative choices in expression, form, and structure.
• Can be clearly attributed to a person or group with identifiable intent.

Artificial works, by contrast:

• Are generated via algorithms based on patterns in pre-existing data.
• Lack personal creative input.
• Cannot be said to originate from any identifiable human author.
• Are inherently derivative and frequently simulate the work of real artists.

This dichotomy is not just theoretical; it is embedded in legal systems globally, including Nigeria, the United States, and the European Union.

1. A Precedence: Michael Smith and the First AI-Generated Music Fraud Prosecution

In a landmark case that underscores the danger of conflating AI output with original work, a North Carolina man Michael Smith was indicted in September 2024 by US federal prosecutors. According to the prosecution, Smith allegedly used artificial intelligence to generate “hundreds of thousands” of songs, which he then streamed via automated bots to fraudulently collect the sum of over $10 million in royalties since 2017.

This is according to the indictment unsealed by Damian Williams, a U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and the FBI, which marked the first ever criminal case for AI-assisted streaming fraud. But more critically, Smith’s real offense according to the prosecution, wasn’t simply streaming artificial music, it was copyright fraud and infringement. Prosecutors argued that the AI-generated songs unlawfully utilized material derived from copyrighted content of existing artists, thus constituting theft under intellectual property law.

This case sets a precedent that is likely to reverberate globally. It sends a clear message that using AI to generate content that mimics or remixes copyrighted work is not innovation, rather it is infringement.

1. Nigeria’s Emerging AI-Creative Landscape: A Legal Vacuum with Consequences

Nigeria is not immune to the allure of AI. From AI-generated Afrobeats album released in 2023 to synthetic voiceovers in Nollywood scripts, to recent AI-generated movies, creators are increasingly inviting machines into the creative process. However, more disturbing is the fact that Nigeria currently lacks a detailed legal framework on AI-generated works, creating a dangerous grey zone.

But this legal lacuna does not render creators immune. As explained earlier, Nigeria’s Copyright Act 2022 is more than sufficient to prosecute individuals who lay copyright claims to AI-generated works. If it can be shown that such works were copied from existing copyrighted materials, liability attaches immediately, even if the copying was done by an AI tool.

Thus, artists, producers, and studios experimenting with AI must understand thatthe lack of express AI regulation is not a license to infringe. You may not be the original infringer, but by adopting and publishing the work as your own, you assume responsibility for any infringement therein.

1. Copyright is Not Registration, it is Originality

Many erroneously believe that securing copyright registration grants ownership. However, copyright does not arise from registration. It arises from human original creation. To this end, registration is merely evidentiary, used to assert and protect rights already earned.

Consequently, registering an AI-generated song with a collecting society or copyright body does not legalize the ownership. It only creates a false veneer of legitimacy, which can easily collapse under scrutiny in law.

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, And Neither Can Its Protections

The conversation about AI and intellectual property must not be driven by novelty or convenience, but by the legal and moral foundations of creativity. Copyright exists to encourage the labor of the mind and the spirit. It cannot be claimed over soulless patterns, no matter how harmonious they may sound.

Artists, content creators, and developers must therefore tread carefully. Embracing AI is not inherently wrong, but claiming authorship or ownership over what is essentially a machine-generated remix of human labour is not only a misreading of copyright law, it is an invitation to litigation, financial loss, and public scandal.

In the end, the law is clear: You cannot own what you did not originally create.

NB: This article is for educational and information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For individual cases, consult a licensed intellectual property attorney.

Somadina Eugene-Okorie Esq, an Advocate, Intellectual Property/Business Solicitor, writes from Lekki, Lagos Nigeria

By Yahaya Yahaya

The 2025 Ilorin Emirate Durbar, held on the third day of Eid al-Adha (June 9, 2025), was more than just a spectacle of horses, culture, and colour. It was a public reaffirmation of who Ilorin is — a city of layered identities, rooted in faith, and grounded in the unshakable unity of its people.

This year’s theme, Unity in Diversity, wasn’t just a slogan. It reflected a living reality — that Ilorin is, and has always been, a city where different cultures, languages, and histories are not just tolerated, but embraced and interwoven. From the palace to the old city interiors, from the processions to the pavilions, the Durbar reminded everyone that Ilorin is a place where Yoruba, Fulani, Baruba, Nupe, Hausa, Kanuri and other communities have lived as one for generations — not in theory, but in practice.

The story of Ilorin stretches back over 200 years, and its evolution into an Emirate is one of the most remarkable examples of how faith and diversity can shape governance and culture. As a frontier city that blended Islamic scholarship with existing traditions, Ilorin grew into a unique urban centre — one that values its religious leadership while still preserving local customs and language.

The early 19th century saw Ilorin become a prominent Islamic Emirate under the spiritual influence of Shehu Alimi, whose legacy still shapes the moral and religious identity of the city today. But what made Ilorin distinct was its ability to absorb and unify — Nupe scholars, Baruba warriors, Kanuri settlers, Hausa traders, and indigenous families all found space within Ilorin’s expanding civic and spiritual structure. That inclusive spirit is not symbolic — it is practical. It is how the city was formed and how it has endured.

That unity has been tested. The battles of Ita Kudimo and Ita Ogunbo remain a key part of Ilorin’s collective memory — episodes where the city had to defend itself from the combined forces of the old Oyo empire and Baruba’s to the North. One of the most striking historical accounts describes an attack launched during Eid prayers — a moment when the city was supposed to be at rest. But Ilorin’s defenders rallied, repelled the invasion, and reasserted their control. These were not just military victories. They became defining moments in the city’s identity — a declaration that Ilorin will always stand together when it matters most.

Durbar, today, is not a re-enactment of those events — but it is a reminder. It reminds us that the unity we celebrate was built through sacrifice, discipline, and shared purpose. And every year, when the Emir emerges from the palace and proceeds through the old city, it is more than a ceremonial ride — it is a public recommitment to the bond between the throne and the people.

This year’s Durbar retained that sacred character. The Emir was led through streets not protected by military convoys, police barricades, or armed escorts — but by his traditional guards, holding only whips. There were no sirens. No armoured vehicles. Because in Ilorin, the people are the protection. The Emir doesn’t need to be shielded from his people — he is shielded by them. That’s not a gesture; it’s a relationship built over centuries.

Another defining feature of this year’s Durbar was the emergence of aso-ebi as a tool for community organisation. Uniform fabrics — chosen by families, streets, associations, or entire districts — were not just a fashion statement. They were a social framework. Planning for aso-ebi required weeks of conversation, coordination, and contribution. In the process, families abroad reconnected with those at home, groups met regularly, tailors got to work, and the community got busy. The result? The city didn’t just look united. It was united.

Durbar 2025 also showcased the impact of youth participation. Young people led media coverage, coordinated logistics, and documented the festival with fresh energy and modern storytelling. The festival was livestreamed and shared globally in real time, with clips and commentary flooding social media from Oja-Oba to London. Ilorin showed that it could hold on to its traditions without closing the door to innovation.

Through all of this, one thing remains true: Ilorin works not because it has one culture, but because it honours all of them. It is held together not by uniformity, but by a shared sense of meaning. While many other societies struggle with managing diversity, Ilorin simply lives it — through prayer, through leadership, and through moments like the Ilorin Durbar.

The 2025 edition was not without its logistical challenges — a festival of this scale always has some. But what it had in abundance was purpose, pride, and peace. And in a country still searching for models of cohesion, Ilorin has quietly offered one, year after year.

As the sun set over the city and the Emir returned to the palace, there was a quiet sense of satisfaction across the emirate. Another Durbar, successfully delivered. Another message, clearly sent. And the people — from Sabo Oke to Gambari, from Okelele to Pakata — all knew: this is ours.

Ilorin Durbar 2026 is already in sight. And if the story remains the same — of unity, order, and belonging — then the next chapter will be even stronger.

And in Ilorin, we don’t just look forward to it. We begin preparing now.

Yahaya Yahaya (Magayaki of Uke, Nasarawa State) writes from Ilorin