Kenya has taken a significant step in defining the legal status of artificial intelligence in the creative industry, ruling that works produced entirely by AI are not eligible for copyright protection because only human beings can be recognised as authors under the law.
The landmark decision was delivered by the country’s Copyright Tribunal on July 9, 2026, following a legal dispute involving a collection of AI assisted Bible Scripture Stories. The ruling is expected to influence how writers, publishers, businesses and other content creators approach the use of generative AI in Kenya.
The Tribunal made it clear that while artificial intelligence can serve as a useful creative tool, it cannot replace human authorship. Anyone seeking copyright protection for AI assisted work must demonstrate that they made a meaningful creative contribution through original thinking, judgment and intellectual effort.
The Tribunal stressed that merely entering prompts into an AI chatbot or image generator does not automatically qualify the resulting work for copyright protection. The decision therefore raises the standard for individuals and organisations hoping to commercialise books, articles, music, artwork and other creative works generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence.
The case arose from a dispute involving Cynthia Beldina Akoth, who had been engaged by the Aryeh Movement to produce a series of Bible Scripture Stories. Akoth used AI tools during the creative process, but after the relationship between both parties deteriorated, she discovered that the organisation had registered the works with the Kenya Copyright Board under its own name.
Her challenge prompted the Tribunal to consider a broader legal question regarding ownership of copyright where artificial intelligence plays a role in producing creative content. Although the dispute itself remains unresolved, the Tribunal ruled that AI cannot be recognised as an author because it has no legal personality under Kenyan law.
The decision places Kenya alongside other countries that have adopted a similar position on artificial intelligence and copyright. Authorities in jurisdictions such as the United States have also maintained that copyright protection requires human authorship, rejecting attempts to register works created entirely through AI.
The ruling comes at a time when Kenya is reviewing its copyright legislation while also considering broader regulations on artificial intelligence. Ongoing discussions include issues surrounding AI training data, ownership of AI assisted content and responsibility for copyright infringement.
As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly common in the work of writers, journalists, designers and software developers, the Tribunal’s decision offers an early indication of the country’s legal direction. While creators remain free to use AI as part of their creative process, they must be able to demonstrate substantial human creativity if they intend to secure copyright protection for their work.
