Whose Work is it Anyway? Artificial Intelligence, Copyright and Authorship: A Brief Consideration of AI’s Impact on Copyright

Whose Work is it Anyway? Artificial Intelligence, Copyright and Authorship: A Brief Consideration of AI’s Impact on Copyright

Author Ciresh Singh

ISSN: 2521-2591
Affiliations: Associate Professor, University of South Africa
Source: South African Intellectual Property Law Journal, 2025, p. 1-24
https://doi.org/10.47348/SAIPL/v13/i1a1

Abstract

As we enter the Fifth Industrial Revolution, the exponential growth of technology has infiltrated all aspects of human life. From an intellectual property (IP) perspective, technology and artificial intelligence (AI) is now being used to produce various works, such as literary, artistic and musical items. IP has always been an umbrella term to describe products of the ‘human intellect’. It is thus debatable whether a work created with AI, as opposed to ‘human intelligence’ is subject to IP protection. In South Africa, for copyright to subsist in a work, it must be original, exist in a material form, and be ‘authored’ by the ‘qualified person’ or published in South Africa or a Berne Convention State. The question arises who is the author of a work produced from AI? Is it a human, or is it a computer program, and is such a work deserving of copyright protection? Several courts in the United States of America have considered this question and have held that works created by AI are not subject to copyright, as it lacks ‘human authorship’. Similarly, the United States Copyright Office has rejected copyright applications for works created by AI. Across the pond, the United Kingdom has taken a different view and has adopted the approach of protecting works derived from AI.
In South Africa, the position is unclear, and our courts have yet to consider the issue of whether copyright subsists in an AI-generated work. As the use of AI grows domestically and internationally, clear rules need to be established to govern this sector of IP, in particular, to what extent, if any, works produced from AI derive copyright. Accordingly, laws may need to be developed to appropriately determine the amount of human input and intellect required to qualify the user of an AI-generated product as the author of such a work, and the scope of protection for such works. The time may have arrived for IP laws, or the law in general, to be re-examined and developed to regulate, incentivise and protect future AI innovations and creations.

Copyright in the Nigerian Digital Environment and the Infringement of Musical Works on Social Media: A Case Study of YouTube

Copyright in the Nigerian Digital Environment and the Infringement of Musical Works on Social Media: A Case Study of YouTube

Authors Ifeoma Ann Oluwasemilore and Ifeoluwa Hannah Solarin

ISSN: 2521-2591
Affiliations: Associate Professor, Department of Commercial and Industrial Law, Faculty of Law, University of Lagos, Nigeria; Researcher, Faculty of Law, University of Lagos, Nigeria
Source: South African Intellectual Property Law Journal, 2025, p. 25-49
https://doi.org/10.47348/SAIPL/v13/i1a2

Abstract

This paper investigates the extent to which copyright law protects musical works in Nigeria’s online environment, with a specific focus on YouTube. Utilising a doctrinal qualitative research method, it draws data from both primary and secondary legal sources. The research pinpoints weaknesses in the Nigerian Copyright Act of 2022 concerning digital infringement of musical works. A major finding is that the Act closely mirrors the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) without adequately considering the distinctive features of Nigeria’s music industry and digital copyright challenges. The study argues for amendments to the Act’s provisions on online content to better reflect the realities of the digital landscape and the local music sector, calling for targeted legal reforms.

Governing Green Innovation at the Margins: The Role of Intellectual Property in Egypt’s Sustainable Transition

Governing Green Innovation at the Margins: The Role of Intellectual Property in Egypt’s Sustainable Transition

Author Khadiga Hassan

ISSN: 2521-2591
Affiliations: Research Associate, Access to Knowledge for Development Center (A2K4D), Onsi Sawiris School of Business, American University in Cairo (AUC), Egypt
Source: South African Intellectual Property Law Journal, 2025, p. 50-72
https://doi.org/10.47348/SAIPL/v13/i1a3

Abstract

This article examines the relationship between intellectual property (IP) and green innovation in Egypt, a nexus that remains underexplored in African IP scholarship despite its relevance for a sustainable transition. The study aimed to evaluate the extent to which the current IP system can incentivise the development and diffusion of green technologies in Egypt. Drawing on policy analysis, an expert interview and a biotechnology case study, it assesses how IP structures shape the scaling of clean technology ventures. The findings indicate that weak enforcement, institutional fragmentation and the absence of targeted green patent mechanisms limit the incentive function of IP for environmentally beneficial innovation. The analysis also shows that complementary IP tools, such as utility models and trademarks, can support technology diffusion in resource-constrained contexts. The study concludes that context-appropriate IP reform, integrated with broader innovation and financing strategies, is essential for enabling Egypt’s sustainable transition and offers lessons for other African jurisdictions.

Compulsory Patent Licensing and the South African Patents Act: Navigating the Challenges and Exploring Reform Options

Compulsory Patent Licensing and the South African Patents Act: Navigating the Challenges and Exploring Reform Options

Author JAD Peÿper

ISSN: 2521-2591
Affiliations: Director in Legal Services, University of South Africa
Source: South African Intellectual Property Law Journal, 2025, p. 73-91
https://doi.org/10.47348/SAIPL/v13/i1a4

Abstract

This article critically examines the practical failure of South Africa’s compulsory patent licensing regime to address abuses of patent rights under s 56 of the Patents Act 57 of 1978. Despite the statutory grounds for relief, compulsory licensing has remained largely inaccessible in practice, with every reported application since 1978 proving unsuccessful. The article identifies the key structural and procedural barriers that deter or defeat applicants, including excessive evidentiary burdens on ‘interested persons’, the absence of working-disclosure obligations on patentees, the treatment of essential commercial information as confidential, and the rigid requirement that all matters be heard before the Commissioner of Patents. It further shows how judicial interpretation has raised the threshold for relief by requiring proof of public harm even where the Patents Act appears to provide per se grounds of abuse, thereby weakening compulsory licensing as a corrective tool. The article ultimately proposes targeted legislative and procedural reforms aimed at restoring compulsory patent licensing as a viable mechanism for curbing patent abuse, improving transparency and evidentiary access, and aligning the patent system with its public interest function. While TRIPS flexibilities provide contextual support for domestic reform, they are not the central focus of this analysis.

Assignment of Invention Affecting Patent Validity – South Africa

Assignment of Invention Affecting Patent Validity – South Africa

Authors Dr Madelein Kleyn and Janusz Luterek

ISSN: 2521-2591
Affiliations: Patent Attorney Chief Legal and IP Officer, Omnisient RF (Pty) Ltd, South Africa and CEO Mad K IP Consulting (Pty) Ltd, Research Fellow, Anton Mostert Chair of IP, Commercial Law Department of Stellenbosch University, South Africa; Patent attorney and director, Hahn & Hahn Inc, South Africa
Source: South African Intellectual Property Law Journal, 2025, p. 92-110
https://doi.org/10.47348/SAIPL/v13/i1a5

Abstract

This article examines the assignment of inventions and the consequent validity of patent applications under South African law, focusing on entitlement to apply for a patent and compliance with s 27 of the Patents Act 57 of 1978.
There has been uncertainty under s 27 regarding whether an applicant’s entitlement based on an assignment must be perfected before filing, or whether post-filing confirmatory assignments can cure defects in entitlement at the filing date.
Using a case analysis of Regents of the University of California and Others v Eurolab (Pty) Ltd and Others, the Court of the Commissioner of Patents held that where an applicant’s right to apply derives from an assignment by the inventor(s), that assignment must exist prior to filing; the absence of such an assignment at filing led to revocation for non-compliance with s 27(1). The analysis is supplemented with brief comparative insights from jurisdictions that are more permissive about post-filing assignments, highlighting South Africa’s stricter pre-filing entitlement requirements.

Reforming TRIPS For Global Health Equity: Lessons from Covid-19 and the Failure of IP Flexibilities in Pandemic Preparedness

Reforming TRIPS For Global Health Equity: Lessons from Covid-19 and the Failure of IP Flexibilities in Pandemic Preparedness

Author Emmanuel Omondi Odera

ISSN: 2521-2591
Affiliations: Public Health Expert, Child Rights Research Center, Africa University, Zimbabwe
Source: South African Intellectual Property Law Journal, 2025, p. 111-130
https://doi.org/10.47348/SAIPL/v13/i1a6

Abstract

The Covid-19 pandemic exposed critical weaknesses in the global intellectual property (IP) regime, particularly the pre-existing flexibilities within the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), in ensuring equitable access to essential medical technologies. This study critically examines how these TRIPS flexibilities failed to facilitate timely and equitable access to Covid-19 vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in sub-Saharan Africa. Using The Gambia as a focal case, the study applies a desk-based legal and policy analysis, thematic content analysis, and comparative case study approach. Findings reveal that procedural complexity, political pressure, and limited technology transfer hindered the operationalisation of compulsory licensing (art 31) and voluntary initiatives, while gaps in trademark enforcement exacerbated the circulation of counterfeit medicines. The paper proposes targeted reforms, including integrating automaticity into TRIPS flexibilities, mandating binding technology transfer obligations in the Pandemic Accord, and strengthening regional manufacturing hubs. These interventions aim to embed equity, resilience, and global solidarity into the IP system, ensuring that intellectual property protections support, rather than undermine, public health during future emergencies.