Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping intellectual property law worldwide. While early disputes focused on whether AI’s study of creative works amounted to infringement, the debate is now shifting toward the outputs of AI systems. That is, synthetic texts, images, and music that may compete directly with human creators. For Tanzania, this shift is critical. Our Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 1999, was drafted before generative AI existed, and it must now be interpreted by taking note of new realities. Looking at how Kenya and South Africa are approaching these challenges offers valuable lessons for Tanzania’s future.
- KEY TAKEAWAY POINTS:
- Whether AI replication constitutes mere observation or copyright infringement.
- That Copyright protects creators while enabling dissemination of knowledge.
- Tanzania must decide whether to reform law for AI challenges.
- POSITION ON AI AND COPYRIGHT IN AFRICA
- Kenya’s Approach
Kenya has taken a firm stance on authorship. Its Copyright Tribunal has emphasized that works created solely by AI do not qualify for copyright protection because they lack human originality. This position protects Kenyan creators by ensuring that only human‑authored works enjoy legal rights. At the same time, Kenya’s National AI Strategy highlights the need to modernize copyright law to balance innovation with creator protection. For Tanzania, Kenya’s approach signals caution which is, prioritize human creators first, and only later consider how AI outputs might fit into the legal framework. This strict requirement of human authorship could prevent confusion about ownership but may also limit incentives for AI‑driven innovation.
- South Africa’s Approach
South Africa is moving in a different direction. Under its Copyright Act of 1978, courts and scholars have debated whether AI challenges the traditional requirements of authorship and originality. The proposed Copyright Amendment Bill seeks to introduce a broader “fair use” defense, similar to the U.S. law, which would give courts more flexibility in assessing whether AI’s use of creative works is transformative or infringing. This approach recognizes that AI can add value by analyzing and repurposing works, but it also leaves room for courts to intervene when AI outputs substitute for originals. For Tanzania, South Africa’s reforms are instructive. This is because, our current law relies on narrower “fair dealing” exceptions, which may not be sufficient to address the scale of AI replication.
- IMPLICATIONS FOR TANZANIA
Tanzania’s Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 1999, provides protection for authors, musicians, and artists, while allowing exceptions for education and research. Yet it does not explicitly address whether AI‑generated works can be protected or whether AI’s replication of style constitutes infringement. Kenya’s strict human‑authorship requirement and South Africa’s move toward broader fair use both suggest that Tanzania should not remain passive. If AI systems generate imitations of novels or music, Tanzanian creators could face economic dilution. Without clear rules, innovators and creators alike face uncertainty, and Tanzania risks falling behind its regional peers in providing clarity for investors and businesses.
- STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Tanzania should begin by clarifying authorship. One option is to adopt Kenya’s position that only human‑authored works qualify for copyright, which would protect creators and avoid confusion about AI ownership. Alternatively, Tanzania could follow South Africa’s path by expanding fair use provisions, giving courts more flexibility to assess AI cases. Courts should focus on whether AI‑generated works substitute for originals, and infringement claims should be recognized when market harm is clear. Policymakers should also consider regional harmonization, working with East African Community partners to develop a shared approach to AI and copyright. This would ensure consistency across borders and strengthen Tanzania’s competitiveness.
- CONCLUSION
Kenya and South Africa are already reshaping their copyright frameworks to address AI. Tanzania must decide whether to follow Kenya’s strict human‑authorship model, South Africa’s flexible fair use approach, or a hybrid path. What is clear is that AI is not harmless, it raises real risks of market substitution and dilution. To protect Tanzanian creators while encouraging innovation, the law must evolve. By learning from regional peers and adapting our own framework, Tanzania can strike a balance between safeguarding cultural heritage and embracing technological progress.
Author
Mouline Ruhangisa is a lawyer at RIVE&Co in Dar es Salaam. She is reachable at ip@rive.co.tz or moulin.rive@outlook.com
Disclaimer
The contents of this publication are intended for general information purposes only and do not constitute legal, tax, or professional investment advice. We strongly recommend that parties seek bespoke legal counsel to navigate the complexities of the Tanzanian laws