Ownership of AI-Generated Works Under Copyright Law: Challenges and Prospects for Uganda.

Abstract

This article argues that Uganda’s current copyright laws do not clearly address AI-generated works. Without clearer rules on authorship, both technological innovation and the protection of human creativity — especially in the arts and literature — are at risk. The article suggests a balanced approach that considers both human involvement and technological realities, designed for Uganda’s unique social and economic situation.

Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) has brought about a new era in creative production, with machines now able to generate literary, artistic, and musical works on their own. This challenges the conventional copyright principle that creativity originates from human intellect. In Uganda, the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 (as amended) is still grounded in this principle and does not address AI authorship. Without legislative reform or judicial guidance, Uganda risks either leaving AI-assisted works unprotected or inadvertently conferring disproportionate rights upon technology companies. This article argues that Uganda should create a legal framework that grants authorship to humans who make real creative contributions, while withholding protection from works produced entirely by AI. Such an approach would encourage innovation while keeping human creativity at the centre.

The Human-Centred Copyright Model

Under traditional copyright doctrine, protection attaches to original works that result from human intellectual effort. The Ugandan Act defines an author as “the person who creates the work.”¹ Elsewhere, originality requires both independent creation and the exercise of skill, labour, and judgement.² This human-centred model serves three purposes: it anchors copyright in rewarding human creativity, it limits the commodification of works by entities lacking moral or economic agency, and it provides a clear legal axis for resolving ownership disputes. Content generated by artificial intelligence, however, makes each of these goals harder to achieve.

Comparative Approaches: UK, US, and EU

A survey of other jurisdictions reveals divergent approaches to copyright in machine-generated works. In the United Kingdom, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides that for computer-generated works, “the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”³ This arrangement doctrine attributes authorship to the human who organises the creative process, even where the machine generates the substance of the work.

In the United States, human authorship is a prerequisite for copyright protection. The U.S. Copyright Office has made clear that works lacking human authorship cannot be registered. The Office recently declined to protect AI-generated images, stating that “copyright protects only the fruits of intellectual labour founded in the creative powers of the human mind.”⁴

The European Union similarly emphasises human intellectual effort as the foundation of originality. The Court of Justice of the European Union requires an author’s “own intellectual creation” as the basis for protection.⁵ Taken together, these jurisdictions reflect a common thread: machine output divorced from human creative agency may fall outside the scope of copyright protection.

Challenges in the Ugandan Context

Legislative Silence

The Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 (as amended) neither defines “work” in the context of AI output nor contemplates machine autonomy in creative production. Ugandan courts would be forced to extrapolate from existing provisions, potentially producing uncertainty and inconsistent doctrine.

Authorship and Ownership Ambiguity

Without clear rules, competing claims to AI-generated works are likely to emerge:

• AI users may claim ownership of the output they prompted;
• Developers of AI platforms may assert rights over generated content;
• Third parties may challenge whether any valid copyright exists at all.

Consider a practical example: if an AI tool produces an advertisement, does the Ugandan business that used the AI acquire copyright, or does no author legally exist? Under current law, the answer is unclear. A related question concerns the originality threshold: if originality requires skill, labour, and judgement, does AI-generated output itself constitute sufficient creative input to satisfy that standard? Some legal scholars argue that minimal human contribution should not be enough to trigger full copyright protection where the AI performs the bulk of the creative work.⁶

Impact on Uganda’s Creative Economy

Uganda’s growing creative sector — encompassing music, film, literature, and digital art — plays a critical role in youth employment and cultural expression. Without clear ownership rules, local practitioners may find themselves at a disadvantage relative to multinational AI platform owners who generate competing content at scale.

Ugandan Judicial Trends

While no Ugandan case has directly addressed AI authorship, the courts have engaged with related questions of technology and legal interpretation. In Uganda Communications Commission v Communication Solutions Ltd,⁷ the High Court recognised the need to interpret digital evidence and technology interfaces in accordance with evolving standards of use. Similarly, in National Water and Sewerage Corporation v WaterAid Uganda,⁸ the Supreme Court observed that statutory silence on new forms of technology invites purposive interpretation. Though neither case concerns copyright, both demonstrate a judicial willingness to adapt established legal principles to technological contexts — a disposition that may prove valuable in AI-related disputes.

A Proposed Hybrid Framework for Uganda

To address these challenges, Uganda should consider adopting a hybrid model built on the following elements.

Human Creative Control as the Threshold for Copyright

Copyright protection should attach only where a human exercises significant control over the generative process. Specifically, the human must meaningfully select, edit, or curate the AI’s output, and that contribution must rise above the mere use of an automated tool. This approach draws on the reasoning underlying the UK’s arrangement doctrine, but avoids the risk of conferring authorship too easily by requiring genuine creative engagement rather than simple operational use.

A Separate, Limited Protection Regime for Purely AI-Generated Works

For works produced without meaningful human creative input, Uganda could establish a separate and time-limited protection regime. Such a regime might include:

• Shorter protection terms (for example, five to ten years);
• Rights vested in the AI developer rather than end users; and
• Mandatory disclosure requirements identifying works as AI-generated.

This would create economic incentives for investment in AI tools without enabling long-term monopolies over machine-only outputs.

Legislative Reform

Parliament should amend the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act to clarify:

• The definitions of “work” and “author” in the context of AI-generated content;
• Standards for originality involving generative technologies; and
• Registration procedures capable of accommodating AI contributions.

Public consultations on these reforms should include creators, technologists, legal practitioners, and policymakers to ensure that the resulting framework reflects Uganda’s diverse stakeholder interests.

Conclusion

AI-generated works challenge the core assumptions on which copyright law is built. As it currently stands, Uganda’s Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act is ill-equipped to resolve questions of authorship, ownership, and originality in the context of autonomous generative technologies. A thoughtful hybrid framework — grounded in the principle of human creative control yet responsive to technological innovation — can preserve the incentive structures that copyright provides while fostering a vibrant and competitive creative economy. Through legislative reform, judicial interpretation, and sustained policy dialogue, Uganda can craft a balanced approach that protects human creativity without stifling technological progress.

Reference(S):

1. Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act (Cap. 224) (Uganda)
2. Peter Jaszi and Jane C. Ginsburg, Copyright Law in an Age of Artificial Intelligence (Cambridge University Press 2023)
3. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK)
4. US Copyright Office, ‘Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence’ (2023)
5. Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (Case C-5/08) [2009] ECR I-6569
6. Jane C. Ginsburg, ‘Authorship and Originality in the Age of AI’ (2024) 78 Intellectual Property Quarterly 1
7. Uganda Communications Commission v Communication Solutions Ltd [2022] UGHCCD 15
8. National Water and Sewerage Corporation v WaterAid Uganda [2021] UGSC 7

Footnote(S):

¹ Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act (Cap. 224) s. 2 (Uganda).

² Peter Jaszi and Jane C. Ginsburg, Copyright Law in an Age of Artificial Intelligence (Cambridge University Press 2023).

³ Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s. 9(3) (UK).

⁴ US Copyright Office, ‘Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence’ (2023).

⁵ Case C-5/08, Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening [2009] ECR I-6569.

⁶ Jane C. Ginsburg, ‘Authorship and Originality in the Age of AI’ (2024) 78 Intellectual Property Quarterly 1.

⁷ Uganda Communications Commission v Communication Solutions Ltd [2022] UGHCCD 15.

⁸ National Water and Sewerage Corporation v WaterAid Uganda [2021] UGSC 7.