Introduction
The rapid advancement of emerging technologies has significantly altered the global innovation landscape. Technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), blockchain, machine learning, digital assets, Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), and the Internet of Things (IoT) are transforming how creative works are produced, distributed, and commercialized. These innovations have generated unprecedented opportunities for economic growth, technological development, and knowledge creation. At the same time, they have exposed significant limitations within traditional intellectual property (IP) frameworks that were developed in an era where human creators and centralized systems dominated the production and dissemination of intellectual works1.
Intellectual property rights serve as legal mechanisms designed to encourage innovation by granting creators and inventors exclusive rights over their creations for a specified period. Traditionally, these rights include copyright, patents, trademarks, industrial designs, and trade secrets. In Nigeria, the principal legal frameworks governing intellectual property are the Copyright Act 2022, the Patents and Designs Act, and the Trade Marks Act2. These laws were enacted on the assumption that intellectual creations originate from identifiable human beings whose contributions can be clearly recognized and rewarded. However, emerging technologies increasingly challenge this assumption by enabling machines to generate creative works, facilitate decentralized ownership systems, and automate innovative processes.
The challenge is particularly significant in developing economies such as Nigeria, where the government continues to pursue policies aimed at fostering a digital economy. The National Digital Economy Policy and Strategy has encouraged greater adoption of digital technologies across multiple sectors, including finance, healthcare, education, and entertainment. As a result, intellectual property law is increasingly confronted with complex questions relating to authorship, ownership, liability, enforcement, and the adequacy of existing legal protections3.
International organizations have also acknowledged the disruptive impact of these technologies. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) notes that frontier technologies are creating new categories of intellectual assets while simultaneously testing the limits of traditional legal concepts that underpin intellectual property protection4. Consequently, legal systems around the world are being compelled to reassess whether existing intellectual property frameworks remain fit for purpose in the digital age.
Against this backdrop, this paper examines the challenges posed by emerging technologies to traditional intellectual property rights, with particular emphasis on the Nigerian legal framework. It evaluates the impact of artificial intelligence, blockchain technology, and digital assets on existing intellectual property concepts while highlighting areas requiring legal reform and regulatory adaptation.
The Challenge of Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Ownership
Artificial Intelligence represents one of the most transformative technological developments of the twenty-first century. Modern AI systems are capable of performing tasks that previously required human intelligence, including language generation, image creation, software development, scientific analysis, and music composition. The emergence of generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT, Midjourney, and other machine-learning systems has intensified debates regarding the ownership and protection of intellectual property generated through artificial intelligence5.
One of the most significant challenges posed by AI relates to the concept of authorship under copyright law. Copyright protection has traditionally been premised on the notion that a work must originate from a human author who exercises skill, judgment, and creativity in its creation. Under the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022, copyright subsists in original literary, musical, artistic, audiovisual, and other protected works that result from intellectual effort6. The Act, however, does not expressly address the legal status of works generated autonomously by artificial intelligence systems.
This creates uncertainty regarding ownership. If an AI system independently generates a painting, musical composition, article, or computer program, determining the legal author becomes problematic. Several competing theories have emerged in legal scholarship. Some commentators argue that ownership should vest in the programmer who developed the AI system. Others contend that rights should belong to the user who initiated the creative process through prompts or instructions. A third perspective suggests that ownership should be vested in the company that owns and operates the AI platform7. None of these approaches has achieved universal acceptance, leaving significant legal uncertainty.
The challenge extends beyond copyright into patent law. Traditionally, patent systems recognize inventors as natural persons who contribute intellectually to the conception of an invention. Emerging AI technologies are increasingly capable of identifying solutions to complex technical problems with minimal human intervention. This development has raised questions regarding whether AI systems can qualify as inventors under existing patent regimes.
The issue gained international attention through a series of patent applications involving the AI system known as DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience). The creator of DABUS sought patent protection for inventions allegedly generated by the AI system and listed the AI as the inventor. Patent authorities and courts in several jurisdictions rejected the applications, emphasizing that existing patent laws contemplate only natural persons as inventors. In Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, the United Kingdom Supreme Court affirmed that an inventor must be a natural person within the meaning of patent legislation8. Similar outcomes were reached in the United States and European jurisdictions.
Nigeria’s patent regime presently offers little guidance on AI-generated inventions. The Patents and Designs Act does not explicitly define whether inventorship can extend beyond natural persons. As AI technologies become increasingly integrated into sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, manufacturing, and financial technology, Nigerian policymakers may face mounting pressure to clarify ownership rights relating to AI-assisted and AI-generated inventions. Without such clarification, uncertainty may discourage investment in research and development while complicating the commercialization of innovative technologies.
Another significant concern involves the use of copyrighted materials in training AI systems. Most contemporary AI models rely on extensive datasets comprising text, images, music, and audiovisual content sourced from the internet. Rights holders have increasingly questioned whether the use of copyrighted works for AI training constitutes infringement. WIPO has identified this issue as one of the most pressing intellectual property challenges associated with artificial intelligence, particularly because current copyright frameworks were not designed with machine learning technologies in mind9.
For Nigeria, the challenge lies in balancing innovation with protection. Excessive restrictions on AI development may hinder technological progress and economic competitiveness. Conversely, inadequate protection may undermine the rights of creators whose works contribute to the development of AI systems. Achieving an appropriate balance will require thoughtful legislative reform informed by international developments and local realities.
Blockchain Technology and the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
Blockchain technology has emerged as one of the most innovative technological developments of recent years. Originally developed as the underlying infrastructure for cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, blockchain has evolved into a versatile technology with applications across numerous industries. At its core, blockchain is a decentralized digital ledger that records transactions across a network of computers in a manner that is secure, transparent, and resistant to alteration10.
From an intellectual property perspective, blockchain presents both opportunities and challenges. One of its most promising applications lies in intellectual property management. Through blockchain systems, creators can establish immutable records of ownership, verify the authenticity of creative works, and automate licensing arrangements through smart contracts. These capabilities have the potential to reduce disputes concerning ownership and improve transparency in intellectual property transactions.
For example, artists can record ownership of creative works on a blockchain immediately upon creation. Such records can serve as evidence of authorship and facilitate the management of licensing agreements. Similarly, patent holders may utilize blockchain systems to document innovation processes and establish timelines relevant to patent applications. The European Union Intellectual Property Office has recognized blockchain as a potentially transformative technology capable of enhancing intellectual property administration and enforcement11.
Despite these benefits, blockchain technology also presents significant enforcement challenges. The decentralized nature of blockchain networks often makes it difficult to identify individuals responsible for intellectual property infringements. Traditional enforcement mechanisms generally rely on identifying infringers, obtaining court orders, and compelling intermediaries to remove infringing content. In decentralized environments, however, there may be no central authority capable of implementing such measures.
The rise of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) provides a useful illustration of this challenge. NFTs are unique digital tokens recorded on blockchain networks that can represent ownership interests in digital or physical assets. They have become increasingly popular within the creative industries, allowing artists, musicians, and content creators to monetize digital works in new ways. However, NFTs have also facilitated unauthorized commercialization of copyrighted materials. Numerous instances have been reported where individuals minted NFTs using artworks they did not own, thereby creating disputes regarding ownership, infringement, and enforcement12.
These challenges are particularly relevant in Nigeria, where digital asset adoption has grown rapidly despite regulatory uncertainty. Nigerian creators increasingly participate in global digital marketplaces that utilize blockchain technologies. Yet existing intellectual property legislation does not specifically address issues relating to blockchain-based ownership systems, smart contracts, or NFT-related disputes. Consequently, creators and rights holders may face difficulties enforcing their rights within decentralized digital environments.
The challenge for Nigerian policymakers lies in developing legal frameworks capable of harnessing the benefits of blockchain technology while mitigating associated risks. Such frameworks must address questions of jurisdiction, ownership verification, liability, and enforcement without undermining innovation. As blockchain applications continue to expand beyond cryptocurrency into intellectual property management, these issues are likely to become increasingly significant.
Digital Assets, Online Platforms and Copyright Infringement
The digital revolution has fundamentally transformed the creation, distribution, and consumption of intellectual property. Online platforms, streaming services, social media networks, cloud storage systems, and digital marketplaces have enabled creators to reach global audiences with unprecedented ease. While these technological developments have democratized access to creative content and expanded opportunities for innovation, they have also intensified challenges relating to copyright protection and enforcement13.
One of the most significant consequences of digitalization is the ease with which copyrighted content can be reproduced, modified, and distributed. Unlike physical goods, digital content can be copied indefinitely without any reduction in quality and shared across multiple platforms within seconds. Music, films, books, software, photographs, and audiovisual works can therefore be disseminated globally at little or no cost. This reality has undermined traditional copyright enforcement mechanisms, which were developed during an era characterized by centralized production and distribution systems14.
The challenge is particularly pronounced in Nigeria’s creative sector. The Nigerian film industry, popularly known as Nollywood, is among the largest film industries in the world by volume of production, while Nigerian music enjoys increasing international recognition. Despite these achievements, copyright infringement remains a persistent threat to the economic sustainability of the creative industries. Unauthorized reproduction, online piracy, illegal streaming, and digital file-sharing continue to deprive creators of legitimate revenue and discourage investment in creative enterprises15.
Recognizing these challenges, the Nigerian legislature enacted the Copyright Act 2022, which introduced several reforms aimed at strengthening copyright protection in the digital environment. The Act expanded the powers of the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC), introduced provisions addressing digital rights management technologies, and enhanced enforcement mechanisms against online infringement16. Nevertheless, significant practical challenges remain. Many infringing websites operate beyond Nigerian territorial jurisdiction, making enforcement difficult. In addition, technological tools such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), anonymous hosting services, and decentralized file-sharing systems often frustrate attempts to identify and prosecute infringers.
Emerging technologies have further complicated the copyright landscape. Artificial intelligence systems frequently rely on vast datasets comprising copyrighted materials for training purposes. Authors, musicians, visual artists, and publishers have increasingly raised concerns regarding the unauthorized use of their works in the development of commercial AI systems. Several ongoing legal disputes in the United States, Europe, and other jurisdictions demonstrate the uncertainty surrounding the application of traditional copyright principles to machine learning technologies17.
For Nigeria, the challenge is not merely one of enforcement but also one of legal adaptation. Existing copyright laws must evolve to address emerging issues relating to AI-generated content, data mining, digital licensing, and cross-border infringement. Failure to address these concerns may create uncertainty for creators and investors while limiting Nigeria’s ability to participate effectively in the global digital economy.
Trademark Protection in the Digital Economy
Trademarks perform an essential function within modern economies by protecting brand identities and enabling consumers to distinguish between goods and services offered by different businesses. Traditionally, trademark law focused on preventing consumer confusion in physical marketplaces. However, the emergence of digital commerce has transformed the commercial environment and created new challenges for trademark protection and enforcement18.
The rapid growth of e-commerce platforms has significantly expanded opportunities for trademark infringement. Counterfeit products can now be marketed and sold through online marketplaces with relative anonymity, often reaching consumers across multiple jurisdictions. Fraudulent websites frequently imitate legitimate brands through deceptive domain names, logos, and product descriptions, thereby exploiting consumer trust and damaging brand reputation. These practices pose serious challenges for rights holders seeking to enforce trademark rights in an increasingly borderless digital marketplace19.
Social media platforms have also become significant arenas for trademark disputes. Businesses rely heavily on social media for marketing and customer engagement, making unauthorized use of trademarks particularly harmful. Fake accounts, unauthorized endorsements, and misleading advertisements frequently incorporate protected trademarks without permission. The speed and scale at which such content can be disseminated make enforcement considerably more difficult than in traditional commercial environments.
Artificial intelligence introduces an additional layer of complexity. AI-powered branding and marketing tools can generate logos, slogans, and brand identities with minimal human input. While these technologies offer substantial commercial benefits, they also increase the risk of inadvertent infringement. An AI-generated logo may closely resemble an existing trademark, creating potential disputes regarding ownership and liability. Existing trademark frameworks offer limited guidance on how responsibility should be allocated when infringing content is generated through automated systems20.
The emergence of virtual environments, digital assets, and the metaverse presents further challenges. Companies increasingly seek trademark protection for virtual goods, digital services, and online experiences. Questions have therefore arisen regarding the extent to which traditional trademark rights apply within virtual worlds and decentralized digital environments. Although courts and regulators in several jurisdictions have begun addressing these issues, significant uncertainty remains.
In Nigeria, trademark protection is principally governed by the Trade Marks Act21. While the Act provides a framework for the registration and protection of trademarks, many of its provisions predate contemporary digital technologies. Consequently, the legislation does not specifically address issues such as virtual branding, digital assets, AI-generated commercial content, and metaverse-related infringement. As Nigeria’s digital economy continues to expand, legal reform may become necessary to ensure that trademark law remains effective in protecting brand owners while promoting innovation and competition.
Balancing Innovation and Intellectual Property Protection
One of the most significant challenges posed by emerging technologies is the need to strike an appropriate balance between protecting intellectual property rights and fostering innovation. Intellectual property systems exist primarily to encourage creativity and technological advancement by granting creators and inventors exclusive rights over their works. However, excessive protection can impede access to knowledge and stifle further innovation, while inadequate protection may discourage investment in creative and technological development22.
This tension is particularly evident within digital environments. Emerging technologies often build upon existing innovations, making access to information and technological resources essential for continued advancement. Software development, artificial intelligence research, and blockchain innovation frequently rely on pre-existing intellectual assets. Consequently, intellectual property frameworks must ensure that rights holders are rewarded for their contributions without creating unnecessary barriers to technological progress.
Copyright law provides one mechanism through which this balance is achieved. Doctrines such as fair use and fair dealing permit limited use of copyrighted works without authorization under specific circumstances, including education, research, criticism, commentary, and transformative use. These exceptions are designed to ensure that copyright protection does not impede creativity, innovation, or public access to knowledge23.
A notable example is the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Google LLC v Oracle America Inc. The dispute concerned Google’s use of portions of Oracle’s Java Application Programming Interface (API) in the development of the Android operating system. The Supreme Court held that Google’s use constituted fair use, emphasizing the transformative nature of the use and the importance of promoting innovation within the software industry24. The decision illustrates how courts may seek to balance intellectual property protection with broader technological and societal interests.
Patent law similarly incorporates mechanisms intended to promote innovation while protecting inventors. One such mechanism is compulsory licensing, which permits governments under specified circumstances to authorize the use of patented inventions without the consent of the patent holder. International agreements such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) recognize the importance of compulsory licensing in ensuring access to essential technologies and promoting public welfare25.
The challenge for policymakers lies in ensuring that intellectual property frameworks remain sufficiently flexible to accommodate technological change. Overly rigid legal rules may inhibit innovation, while excessive permissiveness may undermine incentives for creativity and investment. Achieving an appropriate balance is therefore essential to maintaining a dynamic and sustainable innovation ecosystem.
The Risks of Overly Broad or Restrictive Intellectual Property Laws
Emerging technologies have intensified debates regarding the appropriate scope of intellectual property protection. While strong intellectual property rights can encourage innovation by rewarding creators and inventors, excessively broad or restrictive protections may produce undesirable consequences for competition, access to knowledge, and technological development.
Overly broad intellectual property rights may create barriers to market entry and limit opportunities for follow-on innovation. For example, patents with excessively broad claims can prevent competitors from developing improvements or alternative technologies, thereby reducing competition and slowing technological progress. Similarly, expansive copyright protections may restrict the ability of researchers, educators, and innovators to engage with existing works in ways that generate social and economic benefits26.
The digital economy has amplified these concerns. Many emerging technologies rely on access to data, software, and digital content. Restrictive intellectual property regimes may therefore impede the development of artificial intelligence systems, machine learning applications, and other forms of technological innovation. Scholars have argued that intellectual property laws should be interpreted and applied in ways that support both innovation and access, particularly in rapidly evolving technological sectors27.
At the same time, insufficient protection presents its own risks. Weak intellectual property rights may discourage investment in research and development by reducing the economic incentives available to innovators. Creators who cannot effectively protect and monetize their works may be less willing to invest time and resources in future creative activities. Consequently, policymakers must avoid both extremes.
For Nigeria, achieving this balance is particularly important. As the country seeks to diversify its economy through innovation and technology-driven industries, intellectual property laws must simultaneously protect creators, attract investment, and facilitate access to emerging technologies. This requires a regulatory framework that is flexible, technologically neutral, and responsive to changing economic realities.
The Need for Intellectual Property Reform in Nigeria
The challenges posed by emerging technologies underscore the urgent need for continuous modernization of intellectual property laws in Nigeria. Although the enactment of the Copyright Act 2022 represents a significant step toward aligning Nigerian copyright law with contemporary technological realities, broader reforms remain necessary to address the increasingly complex issues arising from artificial intelligence, blockchain technology, digital assets, and other frontier technologies. ²⁸
One of the most pressing areas requiring reform concerns the legal status of AI-generated works and inventions. As discussed earlier, Nigerian intellectual property legislation was drafted on the assumption that intellectual creations originate from human beings. This assumption is increasingly challenged by AI systems capable of generating literary works, artistic content, software code, and technical innovations with minimal human intervention. Without legislative clarification regarding ownership, authorship, and inventorship, uncertainty will continue to undermine investment and innovation in AI-driven industries. Nigerian lawmakers may therefore need to consider whether existing concepts of authorship and inventorship should be expanded or modified to accommodate emerging technological realities. ²⁹
Reform is also necessary in relation to blockchain technology and digital assets. Current intellectual property laws provide little guidance on issues such as blockchain-based ownership verification, smart contracts, NFT-related disputes, and decentralized enforcement mechanisms. As blockchain applications continue to expand across industries, legal uncertainty may create obstacles for creators, investors, and businesses seeking to utilize these technologies. Regulatory frameworks should therefore provide clear rules governing ownership, transfer, licensing, and enforcement of intellectual property rights within decentralized digital ecosystems.
Another important consideration is the strengthening of online enforcement mechanisms. Although the Copyright Act 2022 introduced enhanced protections against digital infringement, enforcement agencies continue to face substantial challenges in addressing cross-border violations, anonymous online actors, and decentralized technologies. Effective enforcement will require greater international cooperation, technological capacity, and institutional support. Given the inherently global nature of digital technologies, Nigeria cannot effectively address these issues in isolation. Collaboration with international organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and regional intellectual property bodies will be essential.
Institutional capacity building is equally important. Judges, policymakers, legal practitioners, and regulatory agencies must develop a deeper understanding of emerging technologies and their implications for intellectual property law. Intellectual property disputes involving artificial intelligence, blockchain systems, and digital assets often involve highly technical concepts that require specialized expertise. Continuous training and professional development programs will therefore be necessary to ensure that legal institutions remain capable of effectively addressing technologically complex disputes.
Public awareness also plays a crucial role in the effectiveness of intellectual property systems. Many creators, entrepreneurs, software developers, and technology startups remain unaware of the protections available under intellectual property law. Educational initiatives can help promote compliance, encourage innovation, and reduce infringement by fostering a greater understanding of intellectual property rights and obligations. Such awareness is particularly important within Nigeria’s growing technology ecosystem, where startups and digital innovators increasingly contribute to economic development and job creation.
Ultimately, intellectual property reform should not merely seek to react to technological developments but should strive to create a flexible and adaptive legal framework capable of responding to future innovations. A modern intellectual property system must balance the interests of creators, innovators, consumers, and society while supporting economic growth and technological advancement. For Nigeria, achieving this balance will be critical to realizing the full potential of the digital economy.
Conclusion
Emerging technologies are reshaping the global intellectual property landscape in ways that were largely unimaginable when many existing intellectual property laws were enacted. Artificial intelligence, blockchain technology, digital assets, online platforms, and other technological innovations have created unprecedented opportunities for creativity, innovation, and economic development. At the same time, these technologies have exposed significant limitations within traditional intellectual property frameworks that were designed for a different technological era.
The challenges identified in this paper demonstrate that foundational concepts such as authorship, inventorship, ownership, infringement, and enforcement are increasingly difficult to apply within modern digital environments. Artificial intelligence challenges long-established assumptions regarding human creativity and inventorship. Blockchain technology introduces decentralized systems that complicate traditional enforcement mechanisms. Digital assets and online platforms facilitate both innovation and infringement on a global scale, while virtual environments continue to test the boundaries of trademark and copyright protection.
Nigeria’s existing intellectual property framework, particularly the Copyright Act 2022, the Patents and Designs Act, and the Trade Marks Act, provides important protections for creators and innovators. However, these laws were largely developed before the emergence of many of today’s most transformative technologies. As a result, they are not always equipped to address the complex legal questions arising from artificial intelligence, blockchain technology, digital assets, and other frontier innovations.
The future effectiveness of intellectual property protection in Nigeria will depend on the ability of lawmakers, regulators, courts, and stakeholders to adapt to technological change. Legislative reform, institutional strengthening, international cooperation, and increased public awareness will all be essential components of this process. Intellectual property law must evolve in a manner that protects creators and innovators while simultaneously encouraging technological development and economic growth.
By proactively addressing the challenges posed by emerging technologies, Nigeria can develop a modern intellectual property framework capable of supporting innovation, attracting investment, and fostering participation in the global digital economy. Such a framework will not only safeguard intellectual property rights but will also contribute significantly to national development and technological advancement in the twenty-first century.
1.World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Frontier Technologies and Intellectual Property https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/frontier_technologies/ accessed 18 June 2026.
2.Copyright Act 2022; Patents and Designs Act, Cap P2, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004; Trade Marks Act, Cap T13, LFN 2004.
3.Federal Ministry of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy, National Digital Economy Policy and Strategy (2020–2030) https://fmcide.gov.ng accessed 18 June 2026.
4.WIPO, Frontier Technologies and Intellectual Property (n 1).
5.Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law (Cambridge University Press 2020)
6.Copyright Act 2022, ss 2–3.
7.Ryan Abbott (n 5).
8.Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] UKSC 49.
9.WIPO, Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/artificial_intelligence/ accessed 18 June 2026.
10.European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technologies in Intellectual Property https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory accessed 18 June 2026.
11.ibid.
12.World Economic Forum, Blockchain and Digital Asset Governance Frameworks https://www.weforum.org/reports accessed 18 June 2026.
13.Jane C Ginsburg, ‘Copyright and Control Over New Technologies of Dissemination’ (2010) 101 Columbia Law Review 1613.
14.Pamela Samuelson, ‘Google Book Search and the Future of Books in Cyberspace’ (2013) 18 Communication Law and Policy 213.
15.Nigerian Copyright Commission, Annual Report https://copyright.gov.ng accessed 18 June 2026.
16.Copyright Act 2022, pts VII–VIII.
17.World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/artificial_intelligence/ accessed 18 June 2026.
18.International Trademark Association (INTA), Emerging Issues in Trademark Protection and Digital Technologies https://www.inta.org accessed 18 June 2026.
19.Ibid.
20.OECD, Artificial Intelligence, Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights https://www.oecd.org/digital/ accessed 18 June 2026.
21.Trade Marks Act, Cap T13, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
22.Jerome H Reichman and Paul F Uhlir (eds), A Guide to the International Exchange of Scientific Data: IP Issues and Considerations (National Academies Press 2015).
23.Copyright Act 2022, ss 20–28.
24.Google LLC v Oracle America Inc 593 US 1 (2021).
25.Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) arts 30–31.
26. David Mendis, ‘Copyright and the Regulation of Orphan Works: A Comparative Review of Seven Jurisdictions and a Rights Clearance Simulation’ (2017) 12 Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 609.
27.Joshua Kesan and Carol Hayes, ‘Intellectual Property Challenges in the Age of Artificial Intelligence’ (2022) SSRN https://papers.ssrn.com accessed 18 June 2026.
28. Adetutu Deborah Aina-Pelemo and Esther Chioma Ude, ‘Appraisal of Ownership Rights under the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022’ (2025) 30(6) Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 558–566.
29.Eloghene E Adaka and Ifeoluwa A Olubiyi, ‘Lessons for Nigeria: Determining Authorship and Inventorship of Artificial Intelligence Generated Works’ (2022) 2(1) Journal of Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law 15–48.
