Is Nollywood ready for the AI disruptions?

Introduction

One of the main themes of question set out to analyze or answer in this piece is whether with the inevitable intervention in the legal and cinematic space of the film industry (my focus-case analysis) by Artificial intelligence, the Nigerian film industry (Nollywood) has the overall infrastructural-socio-legal capacity to adapt to this reality. I argue that with the New Nigerian copyright law in place Nollywood can adapt but there needs to be a national and legal policy initiative, which is within the forte of the Nigerian copyright commission (NCC). 

A new creative dawn

In my recent article here, I stated the benefits and advantages of the new Nigerian copyright law- its recognition and protection of digital copyright practices of creatives. Digital copyright is essentially the interconnectedness of technological interventions in the creative processes within the literary, artistic, performing, scientific and cultural productive works. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technological intervention, which has disrupted the creative spaces. In the film industry globally including Nigeria, the impact of AI interventions in the creative productive modes are apparent. AI and computer programs-software have improved not just the aesthetic feel of films but it has enabled informational, entertainment, educational and entrepreneurial objectives of creators. It has also become a legitimate legal tool for creators to protect, promote and enforce their copyright and other intellectual property rights. Counterfactually, AI has become a worrisome human intervention not only in the creative spaces but in the national security structures of countries, personal safety of people, health care sectors and social-moral Order of societies.

A parable of horrible or a realism?

The emergence of AI, particularly the various generative AI tools, which produces audio, images and literary content-ChatGPT, Bard and Dall-E have upturned the creativity spaces. There is no doubt these technologies have beneficial purposes. For example, in the healthcare industry, technological devices powered in AI have been used to diagnose complicated illnesses in remote  parts of the world who have no human medical experts and without economic access to such needed services.

However, like every new technology, AI generates fear, risk and dangers to humanity. The unknowns, lack of consistent regulatory framework and consensually accepted legal regimes have impelled the public’s anxiety about the impact of AI on all facets of life. Who will be responsible in the event of a mishap caused by an AI? That question continues to blow in the wings. Although, the legal AI movement have made cases for the legal recognition of AI as owners and authors of creative-innovative- artistic, literary, scientific and technological outcomes (inventions, devices, or works), almost all intellectual property laws particularly, patent and copyright recognize only human person(s) as owners or authors. AI as an inventive or a creative process (works) are protected by IP as either a scientific, literary (because of the software-computer programs interrelationship).

The most apprehensive features of AI for the film industries of the developing economies of the global South may be the reality and concerns of loss of jobs particular within the lower cadre of creative productions. Artists and downstream creatives like graphic artists, camera persons, make-up artists and auxiliary performers within a production crew are at certain risk of losing their gainful employment. Nollywood will feel this reality too and soon.

Nigerian copyright law may spur Nollywood’s AI reach

AI does some good in the film industry. Creatively, AI is deplored in protecting authorial and ownership rights particularly in the digital platform. For example, Google has been using AI like its Google Content ID and translation tools to enforce creators' distributive and reproductive rights through taking down infringing contents and making cinematic contents understandable outside the original language used in producing films. These AI filters have gone a long way to ameliorate cases of copyright infringement of audiovisual contents on the Internet spaces. Although there exist contrary views as to the benefits of these digital creative filters to creators, perhaps it would have been a free-ride bonanza without the help of AI.

The Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) could get ahead of the AI generative and assistive movement by using its administrative law powers under the new copyright regime to make rules and set norms on how it may support creativity around the AI generative and assistive input-output of works. Even in the Nollywood industry AI has been deplored in its creative productions. The animations and voice-over features in recent Nollywood films are all enabled by AI. What the Nollywood industry needs now is the scaling of its use of AI and its involvement in the entrepreneurial side of being investors in generative AI especially for creating cinematic works. From my research and studies as a Nollywood legal scholar, it has the ingenuity of creating and evolving within the technological disruptions. Afterall, Nollywood is a child of disruptive technology of the early 1990s.

Nigerian copyright law protects AI as a literary work from being used without the creator’s permission (except where legal exceptions like fair dealing or fair use applies), being mostly created through software coding, computer programs and algorithmic creations. Perhaps, other intellectual property (IP) laws like Patents may protect AI from infringements too. However, AI standing alone cannot own any IP rights under Nigerian law and in most parts of the world. AI impact on creativity and its jurisprudence is inevitable therefore, rail guards for managing, regulating and promoting cultural creations like Nollywood should be optimal for stakeholders in Nigeria.

Putting the rail guards

Intellectual property laws have adopted tortious, contractual and criminal regimes holding accountable parties that have engaged in offensive and illegal inventive and creative ways. In the creative platforms and spaces, IP reached out to the law of tort to hold primary and secondary infringer’s of rights contributorily liable for their actions. Parties have also been held criminally responsible for conduct contrary to IP regimes and the same template applies where contract law is applied so that infringers of IP rights do not escape responsibility. In the era of AI and IP creative nuptials perhaps a sui generis category strict liability regime may be needed in cases of high-impact infringement of IP rights.

It appears that legal liability on an AI may be difficult if not impossible to achieve. AI being a machine or non-human entity may not fully appreciate the consequences of any forms of legal, social or economic damages it would have caused to a victim or respondent. Therefore, holding the creators or owners of an AI may be the first place to lay responsibility. NCC could insert this secondary or contributory liability standard into a regulation or promote it as an amendment into the Nigerian copyright law. This is a new norm for the purposes of regulating AI in the Nigerian creative industries.

* S. Samiái Andrews © 2023. Professor Samuel Samiái Andrews is a Professor of Intellectual Property Law, and USA Ambassador’s Distinguished Scholar writes from Saudi Arabia.