AI-GENERATED IMAGES AND VIDEOS: WHO IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE WHEN SOMEONE'S RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED?
Artificial Intelligence has transformed digital content creation. Today, content creators can generate realistic images, animate fictional characters, reproduce visual scenes and create videos using AI-powered platforms. These materials are increasingly used for social media posts, advertisements, entertainment, educational content and commercial promotions.
While these developments present exciting creative opportunities, they also raise important legal questions.
Can a person generate an image resembling a celebrity and use it to promote a product without permission? What happens when an AI-generated image falsely depicts someone engaging in misconduct? Who is liable when an AI-generated video infringes copyright or damages a person's reputation? And, perhaps most importantly, can the AI platform that generated the image also be held responsible?
These questions require an examination of copyright, privacy, defamation, personality rights, data protection and the legal responsibility of AI developers and content creators.
1. Copyright Infringement: Can an AI-Generated Image Copy Someone Else's Work?
One of the principal legal concerns surrounding AI-generated content is copyright infringement.
Under Nigeria's Copyright Act 2022, copyright protection extends to qualifying artistic, literary, musical and audiovisual works, subject to the requirements of the Act.
Consider a content creator who generates an image using an AI platform and subsequently incorporates it into a monetised video. If the image reproduces a substantial part of an existing copyrighted photograph, illustration, animation or other protected work without authorisation or an applicable legal exception, the creator may face a copyright infringement claim.
The fact that an image was generated by AI does not automatically make it free from copyright restrictions.
For instance, a creator who uploads a copyrighted illustration into an AI tool and instructs it to reproduce the illustration with minor alterations cannot safely assume that the resulting image is legally independent of the original work.
The Nigerian Copyright Commission has itself cautioned that AI-generated artwork may infringe another person's rights where it reproduces an existing artwork too closely. Copyright compliance must therefore be considered even where AI performs the actual image generation.
However, not every resemblance amounts to infringement. The assessment will depend on matters such as the similarity between the works, the protected elements involved, the rights in question and any applicable exception.
2. Using a Person's Image, Face or Voice Without Consent
Another important issue is the unauthorised use of a person's identity.
AI tools can generate images and videos that closely resemble real individuals. These materials may depict a person in a location they never visited, participating in an event that never occurred or endorsing a product they have never used.
Suppose a business generates an image of a well-known Nigerian entrepreneur and uses it in an advertisement suggesting that the entrepreneur endorses its products.
Even if the image was generated entirely by AI, the business may face legal questions concerning misleading representation, privacy, passing off or other applicable rights.
The same concerns arise where a creator uses someone's face or voice to produce misleading videos or fabricated statements.
Although Nigerian law does not provide one universal rule governing every unauthorised use of a person's likeness, the facts may engage several areas of law, including data protection, defamation, passing off and other civil or criminal provisions where their respective requirements are satisfied.
The key lesson is that the ability to generate someone's likeness does not automatically confer the legal right to use it.
3. Defamation: What If an AI-Generated Video Damages Someone's Reputation?
AI-generated content can also create serious reputational risks.
Imagine a creator produces a realistic video appearing to show a business executive admitting to financial misconduct. The video is fictional, but viewers believe it to be authentic, and it is widely circulated on social media.
The person depicted may suffer reputational damage, loss of business opportunities and other consequences.
Depending on the circumstances, publishing or distributing such material may give rise to a defamation claim.
A creator should not assume that adding a caption stating that a video is fictional will necessarily resolve every legal issue. The context, presentation, audience and overall impression of the publication may all be relevant.
Equally, not every critical, satirical or fictional depiction is defamatory. The legal assessment depends on the particular facts and applicable law.
4. Data Protection and Privacy Under Nigerian Law
The Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 provides an important framework for the processing of personal data.
An identifiable person's photograph, facial image, voice recording or other identifying information may constitute personal data, depending on the circumstances in which it is processed.
Consequently, uploading a person's photograph to an AI platform, using it to generate a modified image or processing it to create a realistic video may raise data protection issues.
In February 2026, the Nigeria Data Protection Commission joined other international data protection authorities in issuing a joint statement addressing AI-generated imagery and privacy. The statement highlighted concerns about non-consensual imagery, defamatory depictions, cyberbullying and risks to children and other vulnerable people.
The statement also emphasised the importance of safeguards, transparency and effective mechanisms for requesting the removal of harmful content involving personal information.
This development reinforces the importance of treating AI-generated imagery as a potential data protection issue, rather than merely a question of creative freedom.
5. Who Owns an AI-Generated Image?
Ownership is another issue that creators should understand.
Under OpenAI's current Terms of Use, and to the extent permitted by applicable law, users own the output generated through its services, and OpenAI assigns to the user any rights it may have in that output.
However, this contractual allocation of rights should not be confused with a guarantee that every generated image qualifies for copyright protection or is free from third-party claims.
First, copyright protection under Nigerian law depends on the statutory requirements for protection. The application of those requirements to works generated with substantial or exclusive AI assistance may raise questions about authorship and the extent of human creative contribution.
Second, a contractual grant from an AI provider cannot automatically confer rights in pre-existing copyrighted material belonging to someone else.
Third, AI-generated content may resemble output generated for another user. OpenAI's Terms of Use expressly acknowledge that outputs are not necessarily unique.
Therefore, a creator should distinguish between having permission under a platform's terms to use generated content and having an enforceable, exclusive copyright in that content.
6. Is the AI Platform Liable for Misuse of Images Generated Through Its Services?
This is one of the most significant questions in AI-generated content.
The answer is that an AI platform is not automatically liable for every unlawful use of an image generated through its services, but neither can its potential legal responsibility be ruled out in every circumstance.
Liability depends on the applicable law, the platform's conduct, the nature of the alleged wrongdoing and the connection between the platform's actions and the resulting harm.
A. The Creator's Responsibility
A person who generates and publishes unlawful content may be directly responsible for the publication or its consequences.
For example, a creator who knowingly uses AI to fabricate a defamatory video, reproduce protected artwork unlawfully or falsely suggest that a person endorses a product may face legal consequences where the relevant legal requirements are established.
The fact that the content was produced with assistance from AI does not automatically absolve the creator of responsibility.
B. The AI Platform's Potential Responsibility
An AI provider may face legal scrutiny where its own conduct is alleged to have contributed to a violation of law.
Depending on the circumstances, relevant questions may include whether the provider breached an applicable statutory duty, unlawfully processed personal data, infringed intellectual property rights, or failed to meet a legal obligation that applies to it.
The development, design and operation of an AI system may also become relevant in determining responsibility under the applicable legal framework.
However, the mere fact that an AI platform generated an image subsequently misused by a third party does not, by itself, establish the platform's liability. A claimant would need to establish a legally recognised basis for holding the provider responsible.
C. What Do the Platform's Terms of Use Say?
OpenAI's Terms of Use distinguish between ownership of generated output and responsibility for its use.
The terms provide that, as between OpenAI and the user, and to the extent permitted by applicable law, the user owns the output and is responsible for ensuring that the content complies with applicable law and the platform's terms.
The terms also prohibit using the services in ways that infringe or violate another person's rights. They require users to assess output for accuracy and appropriateness before sharing it.
OpenAI's terms contain disclaimers and limitations of liability, subject to the extent permitted by applicable law. They also provide a process for submitting copyright complaints.
These provisions are important in understanding the contractual relationship between the platform and its users. Nevertheless, a contractual disclaimer does not automatically extinguish every possible legal claim or override mandatory law. Its enforceability and scope depend on the applicable law and the circumstances of the claim.
The distinction is therefore between contractual allocation of responsibility and liability imposed by law.
7. What Should Content Creators Do to Reduce Legal Risk?
Creators who use AI-generated images and videos for social media or commercial purposes should adopt practical safeguards.
First, respect intellectual property rights. Avoid uploading or reproducing protected works without the necessary rights or a valid legal basis.
Second, exercise caution when depicting real people. Obtain appropriate permission where necessary, especially for commercial endorsements or realistic depictions that could mislead viewers.
Third, avoid misleading publications. Do not present fabricated events, statements or endorsements as authentic.
Fourth, review AI-generated content before publication. Check for accidental similarities to existing works, false depictions, personal information and other potential legal issues.
Fifth, understand the platform's terms. Review the rules governing output ownership, permitted use, prohibited content and complaints.
Sixth, consider disclosure. Where a realistic AI-generated image or video could reasonably mislead viewers, clearly identifying it as AI-generated may help reduce confusion, although disclosure alone does not cure every possible infringement or other legal violation.
Finally, respond appropriately to complaints. If someone raises a credible concern about the use of their image or copyrighted work, review the complaint promptly and consider removing or correcting the content where appropriate.
CONCLUSION
AI has created new opportunities for creativity, education, marketing and entertainment. However, technological innovation does not eliminate existing legal rights or responsibilities.
Copyright infringement, defamation, privacy violations, data protection breaches and unauthorised commercial use of a person's likeness remain important considerations when creating and distributing AI-generated content.
The responsibility for unlawful content may rest with the creator, publisher, AI provider or more than one party, depending on the facts and the applicable law.
This article is published by Koko Asuquo Chambers (KAC Legal) for general information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. The legal position may depend on the facts of a particular case, the applicable jurisdiction and developments in legislation and case law.
References
Copyright Act 2022 (Nigeria).
Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023.
Nigeria Data Protection Commission, Joint Statement on AI-Generated Imagery and the Protection of Privacy, 23 February 2026.
OpenAI, Terms of Use, effective 1 January 2026.
Nigeria Copyright Act, 2022.