Kenyan Author Loses Copyright Claim Over AI-Generated Works in Landmark Ruling

The Copyright Tribunal has delivered a major ruling on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in commercial works. In a recent decision, the tribunal ruled that works produced autonomously by machines cannot attract copyright protection.

The landmark case involved Cynthia Beldina Akoth, who authored a collection titled Bible Scripture Stories. She had used AI to generate content for Aryeh Movement Limited, which had contracted her services.

A dispute arose after the working relationship between the author and the company broke down. Akoth discovered that the firm had registered the stories with the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) under its own name.

She challenged this registration, arguing she had not consented to the filing. She also maintained that she had not transferred ownership of the writing, but KECOBO initially agreed with her, stripping the company of its registration certificate.

The company then appealed the regulator's decision, taking the matter to the Copyright Tribunal. This escalation forced the tribunal to address the broader legal question of whether AI-generated outputs can hold copyright.

In its final judgment, the tribunal observed that authorship under Kenyan law remains exclusively human. The Copyright Act, Cap 130 defines an author as the individual, who first creates a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.

The judicial body noted that, although AI platforms can produce content, they lack legal personality. Since a machine cannot hold rights, originality and intellectual effort cannot be attributed to software.

Therefore, authorship remains the exclusive preserve of human beings under the country's legal framework. The tribunal emphasised that literary works must possess sufficient originality arising from human effort to qualify for protection.

To determine copyrightability, the tribunal stated there must be an element of sufficient human intervention. Creators using digital assistants must demonstrate a substantial human contribution, which gives the work its original character.

Neither the company nor Akoth managed to prove such contribution in this case. The ruling establishes that, while creatives are free to use machines, human creativity must remain the driving force.

This decision has significant implications for professional service providers and engineering firms. Many organizations now use Computer Aided Design (CAD) and automated systems to compile technical drafts, reports, and manuals.

Under this precedent, purely automated technical documentation will not qualify for copyright protection in Kenya. Firms hoping to protect their intellectual property must ensure human oversight is thoroughly documented.

The ruling aligns Kenya with international jurisdictions, including the United States, where courts have consistently rejected copyright claims for works created entirely by machines.

Local businesses and independent contractors will now need to maintain meticulous records of human input. Contracts must clearly outline how human operators guide, edit, and refine automated outputs.

Industry experts suggest that, as generative systems become more sophisticated, the legal boundary between human and machine effort will continue to be tested.

For now, the tribunal has made it clear that software can only serve as a collaborative tool, and it cannot function as a registered author or co-owner of creative assets.