Feature/OPED
The Legal Illusion of Ownership: Why AI-Generated Content Cannot Be Protected by Copyright Law
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.
- 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:
- Original character: In this context some effort must have been exerted in making the work to give it original quality;
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 Nafisat Damisa
Introduction
The proliferation of generative AI has transformed Nigeria’s cybercrime landscape, enabling deepfake fraud, automated social engineering, and AI-enhanced phishing at scale. In early 2024, scammers using AI-generated deepfake videos impersonating a company’s CFO defrauded a Hong Kong finance worker of $25.6 million. As similar threats emerge in Nigeria’s fintech sector, this article examines whether the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 (as amended 2024) is legally adequate, or whether Nigeria’s evidentiary and accountability frameworks are too weak to support effective prosecution of AI-driven cybercrime
Current Legal Landscape
Nigeria’s primary legal framework on preventing cybercrime is the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, amended in 2024 to address cryptocurrency transactions, cyberbullying and various forms of digital misconduct. Complementary frameworks include the National Information Technology Development Agency Act 2007, the Nigerian Data Protection Act 2023, and sectoral regulations such as the CBN’s Risk-Based Cybersecurity Framework. However, the majority of these frameworks were issued far before now, and emerging risks like AI-driven threats are not really being addressed. The Act nowhere mentions “artificial intelligence,” “algorithm,” or “autonomous system.” Notably, the National Artificial Intelligence Commission (Establishment) Bill, 2025, is currently pending before the Senate. If passed, it would establish a dedicated commission to coordinate AI strategy, research, and ethical deployment. However, the Bill in its present form focuses primarily on development and innovation promotion, with limited provisions on criminal liability, evidence handling, or enforcement against AI-facilitated cybercrime, leaving the core accountability and evidentiary gaps largely unaddressed.
AI as a Double-Edged Sword
AI paradoxically enables both defence and attack. Nigerian financial institutions deploy AI for real-time fraud detection and pattern recognition. Conversely, cybercriminals exploit generative AI for deepfake creation, automated credential stuffing, and convincing phishing tailored to Nigerian English and Pidgin. The same technology that powers fraud detection systems can be weaponised to evade them. Take justice delivery as an example, the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended 2023) admits computer-generated evidence under Section 84, but remains silent on AI’s capacity to seamlessly generate or alter electronic records, creating “doctored AI-generated evidence”. These and many more issues await Nigeria’s digital space in the coming years.
The Legal Gaps
There are multiple critical gaps that undermine AI governance. For this article, three are considered. First, no framework attributes criminal liability when an autonomous AI commits an offence. The question of whether the developer, user, or owner should bear criminal responsibility for the acts of an autonomous system remains entirely unanswered under Nigerian law, leaving prosecutors without a clear legal theory of culpability.
Second, Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 governs computer-generated evidence but does not address AI-generated outputs. The Act’s definition of “computer” excludes AI’s cognitive processing capabilities, creating a statutory blind spot where evidence produced by generative or autonomous systems falls outside the existing admissibility framework.
Third, Nigeria lacks any framework for mandatory AI-generated content labelling, impeding deepfake traceability. Computer-generated evidence under Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 remains admissible if unchallenged at trial, a dangerous precedent for AI evidence, as opposing parties may lack the technical capacity to mount any challenge at all.
Comparative Jurisdictions: Rich Laws, Tangible Results
Jurisdictions with advanced AI laws demonstrate clear outcomes. The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) mandates transparency obligations, requiring synthetic content labelling and informing individuals when interacting with AI systems; non-compliance triggers significant penalties. The US Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023 is a proposed Act that will require impact assessments for high-risk AI systems in housing, credit, and employment, with FTC enforcement and a public repository. China implemented mandatory measures for the Identification of AI-generated (Synthetic) content. These rules, mandated by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and others, require explicit (visible labels) and implicit (watermarks/metadata) identification for all AI-generated text, images, audio, video, and virtual scenes to ensure transparency, traceability, and combat disinformation. These laws contribute to measurable results: forensic traceability, expedited prosecution of deepfake fraud, and clear liability chains. Nigeria has none of these.
Hope or Illusion?
Without legislative intervention, AI’s promise against cybercrime remains an illusion. Nigeria requires the following to boost its hope:
- Amendment of the Cybercrimes Act to include AI-specific offences and mandatory content provenance standards;
- Revision of Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 to address AI-generated evidence credibility, not merely admissibility;
- Investment in digital forensic capabilities is currently hampered by inadequate enforcement, weak forensic capabilities, and a lack of specialised personnel; and
- A risk-based framework drawing from EU and US models.
- Review of both secondary and tertiary education curricula to address the knowledge gap in AI and prepare the next generation for the AI-driven future.
Conclusion
AI can help curb cybercrime in Nigeria, but only if legal capacity catches up with technical capability. The Cybercrimes Act 2024 amendments were a step forward, but they did not address AI accountability, algorithmic transparency, or evidentiary credibility. The pending National Artificial Intelligence Commission Bill, 2025, signals legislative awareness, but without substantive provisions on liability, evidence, and enforcement, it cannot fill the existing gaps. The effectiveness of existing frameworks remains a question. An optimistic but cautious path exists, but until Nigeria enacts AI-specific legislation, whether through amending the Cybercrimes Act, revising the Evidence Act, or strengthening the pending Bill, weak laws will remain unable to support strong technology.
Nafisat Damisa is a Legal Research Associate in Olives and Candles – Legal Practitioners. For further information, enquiries, or clarification, please contact Nafisat via: [email protected] or [email protected]
By Isah Kamisu Madachi
As of April 30, 2026, the crude price is said to have reached $125 in the global market. The all-time high price per barrel was recorded in 2008, when it surged to $147. It is obvious that the price is heading in that direction or even towards what experts have predicted — crude reaching a new all-time high of $150 in the near future if crude passages remain closed in the Middle East, which would ultimately come with several disproportionate challenges for businesses and households.
In Nigeria, what began as a mild adjustment in the price of gasoline and other refined crude products has not stopped anywhere until it reached N1,400 per litre of petrol at filling stations. When the price was surging, experts in energy, economics, marketing, business and other relevant fields tried to come up with explanations for how Nigeria, despite housing the largest petrochemicals refinery in Africa and being one of the largest oil-exporting countries on the continent, would continue to absorb this shock.
Despite our advantages, Nigeria recorded the world’s second-highest surge in petrol prices following the escalating geopolitical tension in the Middle East. In Africa, Nigeria has the highest spike, with many sources citing it at 39.5% and above. Even non-oil-producing countries in Africa, and countries that do not refine a drop of oil, did not experience this surge. Also, African countries like South Africa at 1%, Morocco at 2.1%, and Tanzania at 2.7% experienced far smaller increases that are nowhere near Nigeria’s.
To put it in context, South Korea, Japan, and China are among the foremost dependents on the Strait of Hormuz, whose closure escalated the crude price, but none of these countries has recorded even a 20% increase in their petrol prices. Nigeria does not import its crude through the Strait of Hormuz. Yet, as an oil-exporting nation, we have suffered some of the sharpest petrol price increases in Africa.
What went wrong in Nigeria to warrant this surge is not the primary focus of this piece. What lies ahead is. As a result of the increase in petrol prices, Nigerians have been disproportionately affected. Life has become unbearably difficult, with sharp increases in transportation costs, rising food prices, and higher costs of goods and services. Even charging points that used to collect N150 for charging a phone or battery now charge N300 or more.
As it stands, the gap between the current crude price and the predicted new all-time high is about $25. This means that if the passages continue to remain closed, we are not far from another historic price peak. It is even said that reopening the passages may not immediately stabilise prices, as crude tankers would still take time to reach their destinations.
What this means for Nigeria is another sharp increase in refined petroleum product prices, which could trigger another wave of stagflation. Already struggling, Nigerians do not deserve this. They are only just adapting to the post-subsidy era, yet are being hit again by another round of global geopolitical tensions. Many are already in deep energy poverty, with businesses struggling due to unstable electricity supply.
Therefore, as crude oil prices hover above $125 per barrel and threaten to reach the predicted $150 if disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz persist, Nigeria must act decisively to shield its citizens. The Dangote Refinery exists. Nigeria refines oil. What the federal government owes Nigerians at this point is a deliberate policy decision to make that the refinery serve domestic needs first, with pricing that does not mirror whatever is happening in the global market. That is not complicated; other oil-producing countries do exactly this.
The NMDPRA has the authority to act on this. The question is whether there is a political will to act before another price wave hits and Nigerians are once again left to absorb what their counterparts elsewhere never have to.
Sub-national governments also have something to do. Commercial motorcyclists and small business owners are the people who feel every petrol price increase the hardest and the fastest. Pushing CNG and LPG adoption among this group beyond the FCT and Lagos, with genuine support, would cushion a significant part of the next shock. Expanding solar access in underserved communities would do the same. A shop owner running on solar is not at the mercy of the next diesel price spike.
These solutions are quite feasible. Nigeria has attempted versions of them before. Where we often seem to get it wrong is in execution, and Nigeria has to treat this with the same urgency and seriousness as given to elections, for the well-being of its citizens. The only thing that has never matched the problem is the seriousness of the response.
Isah Kamisu Madachi is a policy analyst and development practitioner. He writes via [email protected]
By Gbolahan Oluyemi
In 2025, the National Pension Commission (PenCom) directed all Licensed Pension Fund Operators (LPFOs) to demand a Pension Clearance Certificate (PCC) from service providers before engaging their services. This new policy typically affects various types of entities, including small and medium-scale enterprises, most of which are not usually compliance-driven. Following this directive, the PCC has become an essential compliance document for both large, medium and small-scale firms. This article provides a guide on what a PCC is, why it matters, and how it can be obtained.
What is a Pension Clearance Certificate (PCC)?
A Pension Clearance Certificate (PCC) is an official document issued by PenCom confirming that an organisation has complied with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act. It is an annual document that must be renewed every year at no cost. The yearly renewal is intended to ensure that organisations treat compliance as a continuous activity rather than a one-off act.
Why is a PCC Important?
The PCC is important because it demonstrates that an organisation is compliant with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act, especially as it relates to employee pension contributions under Section 4 (1) of the Pension Reform Act and subscription to group life insurance under Section 4 (5) of the Pension Reform Act. It is also required for certain transactions, such as government contracts and engagements with compliance-sensitive partners. In essence, a PCC assures investors, partners, and clients that your business is properly structured and compliant with regulatory requirements.
Who Needs a Pension Clearance Certificate?
Under Nigerian law, companies with three or more employees are required to participate in the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS). If your organisation employs at least three staff members and provides or intends to provide services to Licensed Pension Fund Operators (LPFOs) or other regulated entities, you are expected to obtain a PCC annually.
How Do I Obtain a PCC?
PenCom issues the PCC electronically and at no cost through its web portal: https://pcc.pencom.gov.ng/. Please note that Applicants who are just beginning compliance and remitting employees’ pensions are required to first obtain an employer code from a Pension Fund Administrator (PFA). This code is necessary to initiate the PCC application on the PenCom portal.
Upon logging into the portal, you will be required to complete your company profile by providing your date of incorporation, contact details, and website (if applicable), as well as uploading your CAC documents.
Next, you will upload an Excel schedule (using the template provided on the website) containing your employee list. After this, you will be required to upload Excel sheets detailing pension contributions. You will also need to upload your organisation’s group life insurance documentation and payment instrument.
Finally, you will review your application and submit it for further processing by PenCom. Before commencing an application, ensure you have the following:
- Certificate of Incorporation (CAC documents)
- Group Life Insurance Policy for employees
- Evidence of Pension Fund Administrator (PFA) registration for employees
- Three years’ proof of monthly pension remittances, including penalties for any defaults (where applicable). For companies less than three years old, provide proof of remittances from the date of incorporation
- A valid Tax Identification Number (TIN)
- An employee schedule showing staff details and contributions (usually in Excel format) Templates are available on the PenCom portal
Also note that for the portal to accept employee details and remittance records, employees must have completed their data capture with their respective Pension Fund Administrator and updated their records to reflect their current employer.
Conclusion
Obtaining a Pension Clearance Certificate in Nigeria may seem technical at first, but once proper processes are established, it becomes routine. The key is consistency in remittance, maintenance of accurate records and prioritisation of compliance in overall operations.
For many Nigerian businesses, the PCC is more than a regulatory requirement; it is a mark of credibility. In a competitive environment, that credibility can make all the difference.
Gbolahan Oluyemi is a Legal Practitioner and currently leads Olives and Candles – Legal Practitioners. For further information, enquiries, or clarification, please contact Gbolahan via: [email protected] or [email protected]
-
Feature/OPED6 years agoDavos was Different this year
-
Travel/Tourism10 years ago
Lagos Seals Western Lodge Hotel In Ikorodu
-
Showbiz3 years agoEstranged Lover Releases Videos of Empress Njamah Bathing
-
Banking8 years agoSort Codes of GTBank Branches in Nigeria
-
Economy3 years agoSubsidy Removal: CNG at N130 Per Litre Cheaper Than Petrol—IPMAN
-
Banking3 years agoSort Codes of UBA Branches in Nigeria
-
Banking3 years agoFirst Bank Announces Planned Downtime
-
Sports3 years agoHighest Paid Nigerian Footballer – How Much Do Nigerian Footballers Earn