Generative Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Training, Authorship and the Fair Allocation of Value in African Creative Industries Under the Nigeria Copyright Act 2022

Authors

  • Nwogboji Emmanuel Usulor Veristzon Global Research Lab Author
  • Ogah Sunday Ogbo Veristzon Global Research Lab Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.68854/f38cex04

Keywords:

generative artificial intelligence, copyright, text and data mining, authorship, remuneration, creative industries, Nigeria Copyright Act 2022, Africa

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is trained on the work of human creators and increasingly competes with it. This raises three connected copyright questions: whether training on copyrighted works infringes, whether AI outputs can be protected and how the value generated by AI should be shared. For African creative industries, notably Nigerian film and music, the questions are acute, because creators have long struggled to capture the value of their work while states also seek to build domestic AI capability. Existing scholarship tends to address training and output separately, leaves the allocation of value implicit and has given limited attention to Nigeria. This study addresses those gaps. Its objectives were to examine the three questions comparatively, to evaluate the position of the Nigeria Copyright Act 2022 and to propose reforms suited to Nigeria and other African states. The study adopted a doctrinal and normative research design with a comparative element. It analysed primary legal sources, including the Nigeria Copyright Act 2022, the Berne Convention and TRIPS Agreement, European Union, United Kingdom and Japanese legislation and leading United States decisions, together with a purposive sample of 28 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2023 and 2026, each verified against its Crossref publisher record and screened for retractions. The analysis finds that the three questions are interdependent and that answering any one in isolation produces outcomes that are unfair to creators or obstructive to innovation. Nigerian law is at once too restrictive for domestic developers, because its exceptions do not clearly cover training, and too weak against foreign extraction of Nigerian works. It also contains no mechanism for sharing AI's value with creators. The study recommends a conditional text and data mining exception tied to lawful access, a machine-readable opt-out and transparency about training data; a statutory right to equitable remuneration administered through reformed collective management organisations; retention of the human authorship requirement; supplementary protection for voice, likeness and traditional cultural expressions; and regional coordination under the African Continental Free Trade Area.

References

Addaquay, A. P. (2026). Prompting Africa, hearing the West: Generative AI music, sonic data coloniality and the future of culturally accountable musical intelligence. AI & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-03345-7

Adedeji, W. (2023). Copyright policy and the Nigerian music industry in the era of digitalisation. Journal of Legal Anthropology, 7(2), 13–41. https://doi.org/10.3167/jla.2023.070202

Al-Sharieh, S. (2025). Copyright denied for generative AI: Remarks on Thaler v Perlmutter. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, 40(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.644

Azeez, A. J., & Adeate, T. (2024). Trust norms for generative AI data gathering in the African context. Data & Policy, 6, Article e71. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2024.67

Blanke, J. M. (2026). Copyright and AI: The building blocks. American Business Law Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/ablj.70024

Bonadio, E., Frosio, G., Geiger, C., Guadamuz, A., Karapapa, S., & Stamatoudi, I. (2026). Preserving balance in the EU digital single market: How Like Company could reframe copyright and innovation in the generative AI era. The Journal of World Intellectual Property. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.70032

Dermawan, A. (2024). Text and data mining exceptions in the development of generative AI models: What the EU member states could learn from the Japanese "nonenjoyment" purposes? The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 27(1), 44–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12285

Guadamuz, A. (2025). The EU's Artificial Intelligence Act and copyright. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 28(1), 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12330

Itanyi, N. (2024). Nigeria: Artificial intelligence and its impact on Nollywood: Bridging the compensation gap. Journal of AI Law and Regulation, 1(1), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.21552/aire/2024/1/17

Karjiker, S., & Rousseau, G. (2025). Analysing computer-generated works in South African copyright law in the age of artificial intelligence. Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg, 2025(4), 727–759. https://doi.org/10.47348/TSAR/2025/i4a5

Kucharzyk, B., Laskowska-Litak, E., & Brożek, B. (2026). Are we machine or are we author? Rethinking authorship and its ties to copyright amid artificial intelligence creativity. Regulation & Governance. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70176

Liu, D. (2026). Exploring remuneration mechanisms for copyrighted works in generative AI systems. The Journal of World Intellectual Property. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.70027

Lucchi, N., Dornis, T. W., & Sierek, P. T. (2026). The three-step test in international copyright: A global framework for generative AI training. American Business Law Journal, 63(3), 265–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/ablj.70022

Mareka, S. D. (2025). AI copyright policy considerations for Botswana and South Africa: Compensation for starving artists feeding generative AI. South African Intellectual Property Law Journal, 13(2), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.47348/SAIPL/v13/i2a1

Mazzi, F. (2024). Authorship in artificial intelligence-generated works: Exploring originality in text prompts and artificial intelligence outputs through philosophical foundations of copyright and collage protection. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 27(3), 410–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12310

Odeh, M. K. (2025). Copyright in the age of artificial intelligence: Navigating access to algorithmic training materials and the three-step test for text and data mining in Nigeria. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 28(2), 428–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12342

Peukert, A. (2024). Copyright in the Artificial Intelligence Act: A primer. GRUR International, 73(6), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikae057

Peukert, C., & Windisch, M. (2025). The economics of copyright in the digital age. Journal of Economic Surveys, 39(3), 877–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12632

Salami, A. O. (2024). Artificial intelligence, digital colonialism, and the implications for Africa's future development. Data & Policy, 6, Article e67. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2024.75

Samuelson, P. (2026). Assessing the feasibility of collective licensing of in-copyright works as training data for generative AI systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 123(30), Article e2509769122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2509769122

Senftleben, M. (2023). Generative AI and author remuneration. IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 54(10), 1535–1560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01399-4

Shonubi, O. A. (2026). Who owns the output? Authorship, creative labour, and innovation capability in human-AI collaboration. AI & Innovation, 1(2), Article e70011. https://doi.org/10.1002/aiv2.70011

Singh, C. (2025). Whose work is it anyway? Artificial intelligence, copyright and authorship: A brief consideration of AI's impact on copyright. South African Intellectual Property Law Journal, 13(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.47348/SAIPL/v13/i1a1

Smith, R. (2025). Licensing of text for generative AI: Learnings from non-AI licensing practices. The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 48(4). https://doi.org/10.52214/jla.v48i4.13926

Sun, R., & Zhou, S. (2026). How much human contribution is needed for "ownership" of AI-generated content: A comparison of copyright determination for generative AI in China and the United States. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 29(2), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.70011

Takeuchi, S. S. (2025). Japan's legal framework for copyright protection of AI-generated works: A comparative law analysis exploring the possibility of Japan's adoption of the UK legislative approach. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 28(2), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12333

Thongmeensuk, S. (2024). Rethinking copyright exceptions in the era of generative AI: Balancing innovation and intellectual property protection. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 27(2), 278–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12301

Xu, Z., & Xu, Z. (2025). Tiered copyrightability for generative artificial intelligence: An empirical analysis of China and the United States judicial practices. AI Magazine, 46(3), Article e70018. https://doi.org/10.1002/aaai.70018 Cases and legislation Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), 15 April 1994, art. 13. Bartz v Anthropic PBC, No. C 24-05417 WHA (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) (order on fair use). Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Act 1971), art. 9(2). Copyright Act (Act No. 48 of 1970) (Japan), art. 30-4. Copyright Act 2022 (Nigeria).

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, c. 48 (UK), s. 9(3). Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market, arts. 3 and 4. Kadrey v Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-03417-VC (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2025) (order on summary judgment). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), art. 53(1)(c)–(d). Thaler v Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025).

Published

2026-10-27