Time flies with great content! Renew in to keep enjoying all our premium content.
Prime
No copyright protection for AI works without human creativity
The Tribunal considered Section 22(3)(a) and (b), which provides that a literary, musical or artistic work is not eligible for copyright unless sufficient effort has been expended to give it an original character and the work has been reduced to material form.
Artificial intelligence (AI)-generated works cannot enjoy copyright protection in Kenya unless an author can demonstrate sufficient human effort and creative intervention to give them an original character, the Copyright Tribunal has said.
The Tribunal further observed that under Kenyan law, aspects of works generated by AI are not eligible for copyright protection unless an author can distinguish or demonstrate sufficient human intervention or effort giving the work an original character.
However, the Tribunal declined to determine whether the particular literary works at the centre of a dispute involving Aryeh Movement Limited and Cynthia Beldina Akoth were eligible for copyright protection, saying the issue had not been properly placed before it and no evidence had been presented to enable such a finding.
The decision, contained in a ruling dated August 24, 2026, provides one of the clearest judicial statements in Kenya on the copyright status of AI-generated material, at a time when the technology is increasingly being used in writing, illustration and other creative works.
The dispute arose after Ms Akoth complained to the Kenya Copyright Board (Kecobo) on May 16, 2025, seeking revocation of copyright registrations for literary works she claimed to have authored. She complained after Aryeh Movement Ltd presented the works to the board for registration without her consent or authority.
Kecobo subsequently asserted its authority under Section 5(g) of the Copyright Act and Regula-tion 4(7) of the Copyright Regulations, 2020. The board observed that the first owner of copyright is the author, while a publisher only holds a related right. It noted there was no publishing agreement between the parties and directed them to reach a written agreement on the percentage of copyright interests to be registered.
Aryeh Movement Ltd challenged the decision before the Tribunal, arguing that Kecobo had acted beyond its statutory mandate by attempting to determine questions of authorship and ownership.
The Tribunal agreed, holding that Kecobo did not have jurisdiction or legal authority to make the findings contained in its July 15, 2025 letter. It set aside the decision, noting that the dispute before it was essentially about the legality of Kecobo’s decision, rather than determining who ultimately owned or authored the works.
The Tribunal observed that the Copyright Act does not expressly address AI-generated works. It noted that none of the parties produced the disputed works as evidence, while Kecobo also failed to produce the works lodged with it for registration.
The Tribunal considered Section 22(3)(a) and (b), which provides that a literary, musical or artistic work is not eligible for copyright unless sufficient effort has been expended to give it an original character and the work has been reduced to material form.
It said a factual inquiry would be necessary to determine whether a particular AI-assisted work contains sufficient human effort and originality to qualify for protection.
