In an era defined by rapid technological transformation, legislation governing creativity and intellectual property must evolve just as quickly.
Yet a troubling gap has emerged in the Copyright and Related Rights Bill, 2026. Across its seventy-eight pages, the bill does not mention artificial intelligence even once—not in its definitions, not in its limitations and exceptions, and not in its enforcement mechanisms.
For a law intended to regulate the protection of creative works in 2026, this silence is startling. Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant or speculative technology. It is already reshaping the creation, reproduction, and distribution of creative works across the world. Ignoring it in modern copyright legislation risks leaving both creators and innovators in a legal vacuum.
A Law Out of Step With Technological Reality
Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly capable of producing creative outputs that resemble or rival human work. Advanced AI tools can generate essays, music compositions, digital artwork, video, and even software code within seconds. These systems are often trained on enormous datasets drawn from books, music libraries, academic articles, images, and other copyrighted materials.
The rise of generative AI platforms such as ChatGPT, DALL·E, and Midjourney has sparked intense global debate about intellectual property rights. Courts, regulators, and policymakers are struggling with questions that did not exist when many copyright laws were first written.
Among the most pressing questions are:
- Who owns the copyright to works generated by artificial intelligence?
- Should creators be compensated when their works are used to train AI models?
- Is the training of AI systems on copyrighted content considered fair use or infringement?
- How should the law treat works that are partly human-created and partly AI-generated?
These questions are not theoretical. They are already shaping legal disputes, regulatory proposals, and policy reforms in many parts of the world.
Kenya’s Missed Opportunity
Kenya has often been praised as a technological leader in Africa, particularly in digital innovation and mobile technology.
The country’s legal framework has historically attempted to keep pace with emerging industries.
Yet the Parliament of Kenya, in drafting the new copyright legislation, appears to have overlooked the profound implications of artificial intelligence.
This omission represents a missed opportunity to prepare Kenya’s creative economy for the digital future.
Copyright law is meant to strike a delicate balance: protecting creators while encouraging innovation and access to knowledge. When the law fails to address transformative technologies, that balance becomes unstable. Creators may feel unprotected, innovators may face legal uncertainty, and courts may struggle to interpret outdated statutes in modern contexts.
The Impact on Creators
Kenya has a vibrant creative sector—musicians, filmmakers, writers, photographers, and visual artists whose works contribute both culturally and economically to the country. Artificial intelligence introduces new opportunities for these creators, but also new risks.
AI systems can now replicate artistic styles, generate music that resembles existing songs, or produce visual art that mimics particular artists. Without clear legal frameworks, creators may find it difficult to determine whether their works are being used to train algorithms without permission.
In jurisdictions where policymakers are actively addressing these issues, discussions are already underway about transparency requirements for AI developers, licensing systems for training data, and mechanisms for compensating creators.
By contrast, a law that remains silent on AI leaves Kenyan artists uncertain about how their rights will be protected in an increasingly automated creative landscape.
Legal Uncertainty for Innovators
The absence of AI provisions also affects technology developers and entrepreneurs. Kenya’s growing technology ecosystem depends on regulatory clarity. Companies developing machine learning tools, creative software, or digital platforms need to understand the legal boundaries within which they operate.
If copyright law does not address artificial intelligence directly, businesses may face ambiguity about what constitutes lawful training data, what rights attach to AI-generated works, and what liabilities might arise from automated content creation.
Such uncertainty can discourage investment and innovation, particularly in sectors where intellectual property rules are central to business models.
Lessons From Global Policy Debates
Across the world, governments are recognizing the urgency of adapting copyright law to the age of artificial intelligence.
In European Union, policymakers have debated the relationship between copyright law and machine learning as part of broader regulatory frameworks such as the Artificial Intelligence Act. Meanwhile, the World Intellectual Property Organization has convened international discussions on AI and intellectual property, exploring how existing legal principles should evolve.
These debates reflect a growing recognition that traditional copyright concepts—authorship, originality, and ownership—are being challenged by technologies capable of generating content autonomously.
Countries that address these challenges early are better positioned to protect their creators while fostering responsible technological innovation.
Why the Silence Matters
Legislation is not merely a reflection of the present; it is a framework for the future. When lawmakers draft a copyright statute in 2026 without acknowledging artificial intelligence, they risk creating a law that is outdated before it is fully implemented.
The absence of AI in the bill sends an unintended message that the legal system has not yet confronted the realities of the algorithmic age. For creators, innovators, and courts alike, that silence may become a source of confusion and conflict.
A Call for Forward-Looking Reform
The goal of copyright law should be to encourage creativity, reward originality, and support technological progress. Achieving that balance requires laws that are responsive to emerging technologies.
As Kenya continues to position itself as a leader in digital innovation, its legal frameworks must reflect the realities of the modern creative economy. Artificial intelligence is no longer a future challenge—it is a present reality.
A copyright law drafted in 2026 that says nothing about AI is, in many ways, like a traffic law that says nothing about cars. The omission may seem small on paper, but its consequences could shape the future of creativity, technology, and intellectual property for years to come.
Addressing this gap will require careful debate, informed policymaking, and collaboration between lawmakers, technologists, and creators. Only then can copyright law truly serve its purpose in the age of artificial intelligence.
