Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a passing twenty-first century trend; it has emerged as a defining force that is fundamentally reshaping global economies, transforming industries, and reimagining how organizations operate. Far beyond automating routine tasks, AI is enabling new forms of value creation: powering advanced analytics, enhancing customer experiences, streamlining operations, and unlocking innovative business models. Companies that view AI as a core strategic driver, rather than a peripheral add-on, are positioning themselves to lead in this rapidly evolving landscape.
However, becoming an AI-first organization requires far more than adopting new technologies. It calls for a fundamental rethinking of organizational structures, decision-making processes, and workplace culture to ensure that AI is woven into the very fabric of business strategy. When implemented with clarity, purpose, and accountability, AI can deliver exponential productivity gains, accelerate innovation cycles, and support long-term, sustainable growth. Yet, this transformation must rest on solid foundations of ethical governance, transparency, and responsible use, ensuring that AI functions as a trusted partner to human ingenuity rather than a disruptive force.
The Core Foundations of an AI-First Organization
To move beyond hype and create lasting impact, organizations must build around five interdependent pillars: data, strategy, talent, culture, and governance.
1. Data
High-quality, accessible, and ethically managed data is the raw material for AI. Businesses need robust governance frameworks to ensure data integrity, security, and responsible use, while minimizing risks such as bias and privacy breaches. Well-structured data systems make it possible for AI models to generate reliable insights that can shape better decisions.
2. Strategy
AI must align with the overall vision of the business. This means identifying areas where AI can deliver the greatest impact, integrating these initiatives into long-term goals, and scaling solutions in manageable stages. Without this alignment, AI risks being reduced to isolated pilot projects with limited effect.
3. Talent
An AI-first workforce blends technical expertise with domain knowledge. This involves upskilling employees, hiring specialists, and creating cross-functional teams capable of turning strategy into execution. Middle managers in particular play a vital role in bridging leadership’s vision with operational realities.
4. Culture
A thriving AI-first culture promotes experimentation, collaboration, and continuous learning. Employees are encouraged to see AI not as a replacement, but as a tool that amplifies human potential. Such a culture fosters innovation and adaptability across the organization.
5. Governance Responsible AI deployment requires clear oversight. Establishing ethics boards, monitoring models for bias, and ensuring compliance with regulations build trust both internally and externally. Strong governance reduces risk while safeguarding long-term credibility.
Together, these pillars provide the structure needed to manage complexity and maximize the value AI brings.
Principles for Effective AI Implementation
For organizations to integrate AI successfully, they must follow guiding principles that balance innovation with responsibility:
AI should empower, not replace. Thoughtful integration ensures AI supports human judgment and enhances decision-making, rather than undermining it.
Start small, grow steadily. Pilot AI in specific areas—such as automating routine workflows or improving analytics—before scaling enterprise-wide. Incremental wins build confidence and capability.
Redefine productivity. AI enables outcome-driven work by automating repetitive tasks, reducing errors, and allowing employees to focus on higher-value activities. Success should be measured by results, not hours at a desk.
Use AI to strengthen connections. Beyond efficiency, AI can foster collaboration—whether through real-time communication, shared analytics, or feedback systems that connect teams across functions and geographies.
These principles ensure AI is applied with purpose, building systems that improve performance while preserving human oversight.
Overcoming Barriers: The African Perspective
In emerging markets, particularly in Africa, the shift to AI-first organizations carries unique urgency. While digital economies are expanding, barriers such as limited infrastructure, high internet costs, and fragmented regional integration hinder progress. For example, intra-African data exchange is often more difficult than exchanges with international partners, restricting innovation and trade.
To fully capture AI’s potential, African nations and businesses must collaborate to strengthen regional infrastructure, expand internet access, develop local data centers, and invest in digital skills. With the right policies and investments, AI could transform sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, and finance—unlocking vast economic value while narrowing the global digital divide.
Conclusion
Becoming an AI-first organization is less about technology and more about leadership, mindset, and discipline. With strong foundations, principled implementation, and proactive strategies, businesses can position themselves at the forefront of the AI-driven future.
The journey begins with small, focused steps. Align AI with outcomes, foster collaboration, and ensure governance keeps pace with innovation. For organizations ready to act, AI can serve as a catalyst for unified growth and long-term resilience.
Written by Adeola Osifeko LLB, BL, LLM, ACIS, ABR. She can be reached on 07074453571
In March, we examined whether the Legal Practitioners Remuneration Order 2023 would strengthen or strain Nigeria’s legal industry and concluded that it could be both — a potential game-changer or a troubling constraint — depending on implementation, adaptation, and innovation within the profession.
Now, another fundamental shift looms on the horizon — the commoditisation of legal services — a process powered almost entirely by artificial intelligence (AI) and digital transformation. This development raises significant ethical and regulatory questions, especially concerning the increasing involvement of non-lawyers in delivering legal services. The core issue is not whether commoditisation should occur, but how it should be effectively regulated to balance innovation and professional ethics.1.
The Reality of Commoditisation
Commoditisation, in this context, refers to the packaging of legal services as accessible products, often supported by artificial intelligence (AI). These technologies, including large language models (LLMs), are increasingly capable of performing tasks such as reviewing and redlining contracts and commercial agreements; drafting legal documents including pleadings and opinions; simulating legal reasoning using expansive databases.2 Although these tools improve efficiency and access, many are developed and deployed by non-lawyers operating outside traditional regulatory structures. Some technology firms providing “legal tech” service do not have lawyers in board and management roles, raising questions about compliance with legal ethics. Without oversight, such innovations risk violating professional standards and threatening client protection.
Legal and Ethical Challenges under the RPC 2023.
The Rules of Professional Conduct 2023 (RPC 2023) outlines clear ethical standards regarding the delivery of legal services, particularly in relation to non-lawyers:
(i) Rule 3 prohibits lawyers from aiding or abetting the unauthorized practice of law and from sharing legal fees with non-lawyers, except under specific conditions prescribed in Rule 53.3
(ii) Rule 4 prohibits intermediary agencies from intervening in the relationship between lawyer and client.
(iii) Rule 5 forbids lawyers from forming partnerships with non-lawyers for the purpose of practicing law and prohibits the operation of law firms as corporate entities.
(iv) Rule 19 mandates strict adherence to client confidentiality—standards that many unregulated tech platforms may fail to meet.
(v) Rule 74 classifies unauthorized legal practice as professional misconduct, warranting disciplinary action.
These provisions demonstrate that unauthorized legal services by non-lawyers carry serious risks, including breaches of confidentiality, inadequate legal advice, and conflict of interest (notably under Rule 17). Nonetheless, a blanket prohibition could stifle technological innovation that has the potential to enhance access to justice.
Why Collaboration Is Preferable to Prohibition4
Given the rapid global expansion of alternative legal service providers (ALSPs), as documented by Gartner, and the entry of major firms like KPMG into the legal services market with initiatives such as KPMG Law US on 27 February 2025, prohibiting non-lawyers from offering commoditised legal services appears increasingly impractical. These developments reflect a broader shift toward technology-enabled, cost-efficient legal solutions that challenge traditional delivery models. Rather than resisting this evolution, the legal profession in Nigeria must focus on regulatory integration—ensuring such innovations operate within an ethical framework. This approach aligns with Rule 1 RCP 2023 which charges lawyers with promoting justice—a mandate that includes leveraging legal technology to expand access to legal services.
Collaboration with non-lawyer providers offers tangible benefits:
(i) Market Integration: By regulating these services, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) can limit the impact of unregulated foreign platforms.
(ii) Client Protection: Oversight enables compliance with ethical obligations, such as confidentiality (Rule 19) and due diligence (Rules 61–69).
(iii) Innovation: Lawyers can take the lead in developing and supervising legal technology, consistent with the continuing professional development (CPD) goals set out in Rule 11.
Strategic Regulatory Approaches for the NBA
To manage commoditisation effectively, the NBA—empowered by its self-regulatory authority under Rule 73—can adopt the following strategies:
1. Legal Tech Licensing Framework
The NBA could establish a licensing regime, possibly through the Nigerian Bar Association Anti-Money Laundering Committee (NBAAMLC) or a dedicated Legal Tech Committee. This framework would:
(i) Require non-lawyer providers to register and operate under the supervision of licensed legal practitioners (Rules 3, 4);
(ii) Limit non-lawyers to non-contentious tasks, preserving complex legal advisory roles for qualified practitioners (Rule 16);
(iii) Enforce client confidentiality obligations (Rule 19) and compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) rules (Rules 57–60).
This approach enables controlled innovation while safeguarding ethical delivery.
2. Partnerships Between Law Firms and Tech Providers
Encouraging partnerships between law firms and tech developers, within the boundaries of Rule 5, would integrate innovation into regulated structures. This could involve:
(i) Registering NBA-approved law firms for such collaborations;
(ii) Mandating lawyer validation of legal outputs for accuracy (Rule 15);
(iii) Offering CPD credits to incentivise participation (Rule 11).
Such oversight ensures legal compliance while leveraging technological capacity.
3. Regulatory Sandbox for Legal Tech
The NBA could create a “sandbox” environment to pilot legal tech innovations under supervision, using risk-based models outlined in Rules 61–68. Features would include:
(i) Conditional testing with safeguards on data protection (Rule 19) and beneficial ownership disclosure (Rule 69);
(ii) Mandatory compliance reporting and risk assessments (Rule 66);
(iii) Transition plans for successful tools to achieve full licensing.
This would allow experimentation without compromising legal integrity.
4. Training and Certification for Non-Lawyer Providers
The NBA may also deliver training on RPC 2023 obligations to non-lawyers, certifying them as compliant under a supervised framework. Programs could cover:
(i) Legal ethics and confidentiality (Rule 19);
(ii) AML compliance (Rules 57–60);
(iii) General professional standards, qualifying as CPD under Rule 11.
Certified entities could be listed as “NBA-approved legal tech providers,” reducing misconduct risks through education.
5. Public Awareness and Enforcement
The NBA should initiate campaigns to educate clients on the dangers of using unregulated platforms. This would involve:
(i) Publishing lists distinguishing regulated and unregulated services (Rule 39);
(ii)Mandating certified providers to display NBA seals;
(iii) Investigating and disciplining unauthorized practice through the NBAAMLC (Rule 74(2)).
This approach promotes public trust and incentivises compliance by non-lawyer providers.
6. Legislative Advocacy
Finally, the NBA may advocate for amendments to the Legal Practitioners Act to provide statutory authority over legal tech. Drawing from Rule 76, these amendments could define “legal services” within the context of commoditisation; establish a legal tech regulatory agency under NBA oversight; align statutory requirements with AML/CFT obligations (Rules 57–71). This would establish a legal foundation for regulating technology-driven legal services.
Empowering Lawyers through Legal Technology
Lawyers themselves must be equipped to thrive in a digital legal environment. The RPC 2023 encourages legal professionals to engage in ongoing training (Rule 11), including modules on legal tech and AI which the NBA Section in Legal Practice is currently promoting. Law firms that embrace innovation will be better positioned to offer compliant services, reducing the influence of unregulated providers.
Future Considerations
As emerging technologies—such as neurotechnology( brain-computer interfaces) continue to evolve, the legal profession must anticipate and adapt to new challenges. The RPC 2023’s emphasis on ethical behaviour (Rule 1) and risk-based practice management (Rules 61–69) offers a dynamic foundation for responding to technological disruption.
Conclusion
The commoditisation of legal services by non-lawyers presents a dual challenge: fostering innovation while safeguarding ethical standards. Rather than enforcing outright prohibition, the RPC 2023 offers a comprehensive regulatory framework—anchored in Rules 3, 4, 5, 19, 57–73, and 74—to integrate non-lawyer providers into a regulated ecosystem.
By implementing strategies such as licensing, partnerships, sandboxes, training, and legislative reform, the NBA can uphold professional integrity while expanding access to justice. Ultimately, the future of legal services in Nigeria rests on lawyers leading this transformation, with the NBA serving as a steward of ethical innovation.
Written by Adeola Osifeko,LLB, LLM, ACIS, ABR, Principal Partner AEO Law Practice. Contact her on adeola@aeolawpractice.com.
Endnotes
The Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023 (RPC 2023), issued under the authority of the Legal Practitioners Act (Cap L11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004), offers a structured framework to manage this challenge.
Under Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023, Rule 53, provides that a lawyer may share legal fees with non-lawyers in three specific cases: (a) agreements with a lawyer’s firm, partner, or association for payments to their estate post-death; (b) compensation for completing a deceased lawyer’s unfinished legal work; and (c) including non-lawyer employees in a firm’s profit-sharing retirement plan.
Copyright law has long been the cornerstone of protection for literary creators and publishers alike. In Nigeria, the Copyright Act 2022 provides the legal framework for safeguarding the rights of authors, publishers, and rightholders. With the onset of the digital and artificial intelligence (AI) revolution, the traditional book publishing industry now faces profound transformation and accompanying legal complexities. This article seeks to demystify copyright in book publishing by exploring the nature, scope, and enforcement of copyright in Nigeria, while examining emerging global challenges shaped by digital technology and AI.
1. The Legal Nature of Copyright in Book Publishing
Copyright is the exclusive legal right granted to authors/creators over their original works of authorship. In book publishing, this includes rights over literary works such as novels, poetry, textbooks, biographies, and other forms of written expression. Section 2(1) of the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022 recognises literary works as eligible subject matter of copyright, provided they are original and fixed in a tangible medium of expression.
Once a literary work is created and fixed, the author automatically acquires exclusive rights under section 9 of the Act, which includes the right to reproduce, publish, adapt, perform, and communicate the work to the public (through wire or wireless means). These rights are essential to enabling authors and publishers control the commercial use of the literary work/content.
Copyright also provides for moral rights, consisting of the right of paternity i.e right to claim authorship over the work and the right of integrity, entailing the right to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action which will negatively affect the reputation of the author in relation to the said work.
2. Ownership, Authorship, and Publisher Rights.
Under section 48 of the Copyright Act 2022, the author of a literary work is the first owner of copyright, which implies that the author retains the initial ownership of copyright in their works, unless a specific agreement states otherwise especially in an instance where the work is created under a contract of employment.
In the publishing context, this distinction is significant. Publishers often secure rights through a license or assignment agreement with the author, which allows the publisher produce and distribute the book while retaining specific commercial benefits. This is crucial in publishing: unless the publishing contract assigns or licenses rights to a publisher, the author remains the copyright owner.
Where a book is written under employment or at the direction of a government agency, the copyright may vest in the employer instead of the author. Similarly, for collective works like anthologies or collaborative publications, the initiator may hold the collective copyright, but each contributor retains the rights to their specific portion and can use it independently.
For any copyright assignment — such as transferring publishing rights to a publisher — the law requires this to be done in writing. On the other hand, non-exclusive licences can be granted orally or implied from the author’s actions.
Importantly, authors should know that ownership of manuscript does not automatically vest copyright ownership in the author except where the manuscript is self published. Likewise, if someone inherits a manuscript through a will, they are not presumed to inherit the copyright as well — unless there is a copyright agreement providing that copyright vests in the author.
3. Case Law on Copyright and Publishing.
One notable Nigerian case that highlights the importance of written agreements in copyright ownership is the Court of Appeal’s decision of Adenuga v. Ilesanmi Press Ltd [1991], where the court addressed the legal issue of whether the appellant, author of the manuscript in issue had consented to the publication of his book by the respondent publisher and printer, based on the respondent’s assertion that the appellant’s conduct—submitting the manuscript, visiting the publisher’s premises, and signing proof pages—amounted to consent. The Court of Appeal however held these acts were insufficient to imply consent to publication, as they could equally support a mere request for printing. Additionally, the respondent’s policy distinguished between printing and publishing, with publication requiring a written agreement, which was absent in this case.
The Court of Appeal found the letter demanding royalty, which the trial judge admitted in evidence, led to a wrong decision at the court of first instance. The respondent’s claim of authority to publish the book was based on an alleged exclusive license. However, under the Copyright Act 1970, such a license must be in writing. No such document was produced, and the respondent’s reliance on implied conduct was rejected. The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court erred in finding a non-exclusive license where the defence had only pleaded an exclusive one. It set aside the lower court’s decision, found the respondent wanting for copyright infringement, and directed that the cost ordered by the trial court to be paid to the respondent publisher be refunded.
4. Licensing and Royalties in Book Publishing.
Copyright ownership does not necessarily require the author to personally publish or commercialise their book. Through licensing, an author can grant permission to a publisher to exploit some or all rights in the work for a fee or royalty. Section 30 allows copyright owners grant exclusive or non-exclusive licenses to third parties, with specific rules, including that exclusive licenses must be in writing, while non-exclusive licenses can be oral or inferred. For example a non-exclusive license can be inferred where the author grants a book seller the permission to review the literary work at a monthly bookclub organised by the book seller.
On the other hand royalty provisions are central to the financial viability of publishing agreements. However, ambiguity in royalty arrangements often leads to disputes. Contracts should clearly specify the scope of rights granted, the duration of use, territories covered, royalty rates, and audit rights. With the rise of digital publishing, new forms of licensing such as e-book and audiobook distribution have emerged, necessitating updated contractual frameworks.
In the Nigerian publishing landscape, especially in contexts involving educational access or out-of-print books, compulsory licensing remains a pivotal regulatory mechanism. Section 32 of the Copyright Act 2022 introduces a significant provision for access to education and research. It authorizes the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) to grant compulsory licences for the reproduction, translation, or distribution of a work without the consent of the rights holder in certain public interest scenarios.
For example, where a literary work such as a textbook is not available in sufficient quantities or at an affordable price, especially for educational institutions, the NCC may issue a licence to reproduce or distribute such work under specific conditions. This provision ensures a balance between the exclusive rights of copyright holders and the societal need for access to knowledge.
A critical application of this framework is seen in the digitisation of academic materials for platforms serving visually impaired persons or public libraries, where the original publisher may not have issued accessible formats. While the author or publisher still receives royalties under such a licence, their control over reproduction and distribution is effectively limited in favour of public access.
This compulsory license framework becomes even more significant in the age of AI and digital publishing, where data-hungry models may rely on vast textual corpora for training. Although the Act does not directly address AI training datasets, publishers should be aware that a regulatory evolution could one day allow similar licenses for digital uses that are deemed essential to public interest—such as AI-generated educational content or accessibility tools.
This provision aligns Nigeria’s copyright law with global efforts promoting access to knowledge, especially in education and research. Section 32 thus represents an important exception to the rights conferred under copyright, offering an administrative check to ensure that the monopolies granted by law do not hinder educational development, cultural participation, or technological innovation.
5. The Digital Transformation of Book Publishing.
The digitalisation of content has dramatically altered how books are published and consumed. Platforms like Amazon Kindle, VitalSource Bookshelf, and Selar in Nigeria have enabled self-publishing, expanded readership, and lowered entry barriers for authors. However, while technology empowers authors and publishers to reach global audiences, it also introduces serious challenges—chief among them is online piracy and unauthorized sharing of content.
To address this, the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022 provides robust statutory safeguards tailored for the digital age. Sections 54 to 56 of the Act establish a clear notice-and-takedown regime for service providers: EdTech, blogs, websites, digital and ePublishers, enabling copyright holders to act swiftly when their works are uploaded or shared online without authorisation.
5.1 Takedown Requests: What Authors and Publishers Can Do.
Under section 54(1), the owner of a copyright—such as a publisher ( in the case where the work has been assigned to the publisher) or author—may issue a formal notice of infringement to the digital platform or service provider where the content is being uploaded, such as a file-hosting service, e-library, or social media network. The purpose is to request the takedown or disabling of access to infringing material.
To be valid, the notice must be in writing (physical or digital) and include detailed information identifying the copyrighted work, the infringing content, and a sworn declaration affirming the belief that the use is unauthorised. This puts authors and rightholders in a proactive position to protect their digital assets.
5.2 Obligations of Service Providers.
Upon receiving such a notice, the service provider who in this case is a website, online or digital platform, must act promptly: notify the subscriber who posted the content, take down the infringing material, and inform the copyright owner once it has been removed.
In a balanced approach, the Act allows the accused subscriber to respond with a counter-notice if they believe the takedown was mistaken or misdirected. If the copyright owner does not respond within seven days, the service provider may reinstate the content.
Additionally, the Act imposes a duty on service providers to prevent re-uploading of infringing content through technical safeguards and to remove it again without further notice if it resurfaces.
5.3 Repeat Infringers and Account Suspension.
In cases of repeated infringement, section 56 of the Act introduces a three-strike rule. The digital or online platform must issue a warning after the first notice and suspend the subscriber’s account for at least one month after a second notification—unless the subscriber challenges the notice and refers the matter to the Nigerian Copyright Commission.
This procedure creates a structured digital enforcement mechanism while preserving the rights of both copyright owners and platform owners.
5.4 Legal Protection for Service Providers Acting in Good Faith.
To encourage compliance and cooperation, the Act shields digital, ed tech platforms from liability when they act in good faith to take down or disable access to infringing content. However, failure to act as required may result in the provider being held jointly liable with the infringing party for copyright violation.
5.5 Why This Matters in the Publishing Industry.
For authors, digital publishers, and edtech platforms, these provisions offer critical tools to safeguard their work. As more Nigerian authors distribute books via websites, learning platforms, and global marketplaces like Amazon Kindle or Genti Media, understanding the legal framework for content protection is essential.
This regime ensures that creators can protect their revenue streams, enforce their rights, and hold platforms accountable — a necessary foundation for sustainable growth in Nigeria’s evolving publishing ecosystem.
6. Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Challenges.
The rise of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has brought significant disruptions to traditional copyright paradigms. AI tools like ChatGPT, DALL·E, and Midjourney now create content that closely mimics human creativity—ranging from prose and poetry to musical sheets and more. However, their output poses a fundamental question: who owns copyright in a work largely or wholly produced by a non-human entity?
Under the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022, authorship is implicitly human-centric, and it does not recognize non-human creators. Consequently, AI-generated works—particularly those created without meaningful human intervention— has not been captured to qualify for copyright protection in Nigeria. This lack of legal clarity places an obligation on authors to disclose whether or not their work was either assisted by AI or generated by AI in order for publishers to determine the duration of the work whilst providing feedback for developers to ascertain the extent to which the AI models created, renders the desired outcome of the invention.
Globally, jurisdictions have begun confronting similar challenges. In the UK, Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides that for computer-generated works, the author is “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.” Recent scholarship, of Nikhil Mishra, and Digvijay Singh in the article, ‘AI-Generated Work and its Implications on Copyright Law in India’, emphasizes that while this human-centric approach is logical, it must evolve to ensure that only users who provide sufficiently original input—like complex prompts or editorial refinement—can claim authorship.
Meanwhile, in the United States, courts and the U.S. Copyright Office have repeatedly affirmed that only works with a human author are eligible for protection. This was reaffirmed in the Thaler v. Perlmutter decision, which denied copyright to a work solely created by an AI system. Similarly, in India, while Section 2(d)(vi) Copyright Act provides for authorship in computer-generated works, legal scholars argue that a mere user prompt is likely insufficient to satisfy the “minimum level of creativity” test for originality.
These developments illustrate a global hesitancy to accept AI as an autonomous creative agent. While some frameworks—like the UK’s—tentatively acknowledge AI-generated works, they still tether authorship to a human agent who exercises creative control.
In Nigeria, the current legal position reflects this cautious global trend. As such, authors and publishers using AI in their creative workflows must ensure that human contributions remain central and verifiable. This includes clearly defined roles in publishing contracts and documented human input in the creation process. This will however, require that the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022, clarifies the duration of works derived from human intervention on works generated from AI notwithstanding that the Act maintains a humancentric approach.
The road ahead likely involves legislative reform and possibly the additional recognition of new rights structures—such as neighboring or sui generis rights—for AI-assisted/generated works. For now, however, the principle remains clear: only humans can author copyright-protected works under Nigerian law, and AI must remain a tool, not a co-author.
7. International Frameworks and the Nigerian Context.
Nigeria is a signatory to several international treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), including the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the WIPO Copyright Treaty. These instruments obligate Nigeria to provide minimum standards of protection and facilitate international cooperation.
The UNESCO publication “The ABCs of Copyright” and WIPO Publication on digital publishing both stress the need for rights management, metadata standards, and technology tools such as Digital Rights Management (DRM) to combat piracy and enhance copyright governance in publishing.
8. Recommendations for Authors and Publishers.
In an increasingly digital and AI-driven publishing environment, authors and publishers must be proactive in protecting their rights. This includes registering their works with the Nigerian Copyright Commission, drafting detailed publishing license and/or assignment agreements with clarity on royalties, and using technological tools for content protection. Legal literacy and ongoing education, such as through copyright masterclasses and creative industry workshops, are equally critical.
Conclusion.
Copyright remains a vital asset in the book publishing industry, ensuring that creators and publishers can derive value from their intellectual efforts. While the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022 offers a comprehensive framework for protection, the evolution of digital technologies and AI presents new challenges that demand innovative responses. By embracing best practices in copyright management and engaging with legal developments, authors and publishers in Nigeria can thrive in the modern publishing landscape.
4. Nikhil Mishra, and Digvijay Singh, ‘AI-Generated Work and its Implications on Copyright Law in India’, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 30 January 2025
5. United States District Court for the District of Columbia [2023]: Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 22-CV-384-1564-BAH
6. WIPO, ‘Publishing Industry in the Digital Environment’ (WIPO Publication No 868, 2021)
The Legal Trove 