Kenya's Copyright Tribunal has ruled that artificial intelligence cannot be recognised as an author under the country's copyright law, stating that only human creators can hold copyright. The decision came in a dispute between Cynthia Beldina Akoth, author of Bible Scripture Stories, and the Aryeh Movement, a religious organisation that commissioned her work. Akoth used AI tools to produce content for Aryeh, but when their relationship ended, she discovered Aryeh had registered the works with the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) under its own name. She filed a complaint, arguing she had not consented to the registration or transferred ownership. KECOBO revoked Aryeh's certificate, prompting Aryeh to appeal to the Copyright Tribunal.
While the case focused on registration, the Tribunal addressed a broader issue: whether AI-generated works qualify for copyright. It concluded they do not, because the Copyright Act defines an author as a person who first creates a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work. The Tribunal stated AI lacks legal personality and cannot exercise originality, creativity, or intellectual effort—key elements of copyright. "There has to be an element of sufficient human intervention to determine the extent of copyrightability of works generated by AI," the Tribunal said, adding that protection applies only where there is substantial human contribution. Neither Akoth nor Aryeh demonstrated this level of input.
The ruling does not ban the use of AI tools like ChatGPT, Claude, Grok or Gemini in creative work. However, it clarifies that AI can assist but not replace human authorship. Creators must show clear evidence of their creative role to claim copyright. The Tribunal also found KECOBO overstepped by revoking Aryeh's certificate, noting that ownership disputes are for courts, not regulators. It rejected Aryeh's claim that commissioned works automatically transfer copyright, stressing the need for a formal agreement. One contract named Aryeh as copyright holder but also credited Akoth and Pauline Mwangi for contributions, without resolving authorship. The Tribunal directed the parties to settle ownership and commercial terms between themselves.
The Tribunal acknowledges AI's role in creation but refuses to grant it authorship, reinforcing that machines cannot own rights. Human input must be proven for copyright, yet the ruling offers no method to verify or document that contribution. For Kenyan creators using AI, the decision creates uncertainty about what level of editing, structuring or prompting counts as "substantial" human effort. The lack of legislative clarity means future disputes will depend on vague standards rather than defined law.
Editorial note: AI-assisted opinion, not established fact. Full disclaimer →
