When AI Stole the Mic: Originality, Ownership, and the Battle for Music Profits – A Legal Perspective

In early 2026, a digital reinterpretation of Papaoutai, the 2013 global hit by Belgian artist Stromae, went viral across social media and streaming platforms. The Afro-soul AI version, released in late December 2025, quickly amassed millions of streams and sparked debates around originality, ownership, and intellectual property rights.

Simultaneously, Nigerian digital content creators, including animator Willy Kanga (Williams Etombi), leveraged the renewed popularity of Papaoutai to engage audiences. His viral reel on 14 January 2026, captioned “This was exactly how I heard papaoutai,” garnered over 2 million likes and thousands of comments, demonstrating the intersection between AI-generated reinterpretations and original creator content.

The track, credited to producers Chill77, Mikeeysmind, and Unjaps, entered the Billboard World Digital Song Sales chart at #2 and the Billboard Global 200 by January 2026. With over 235,000 posts featuring the track across TikTok and other social video platforms, it illustrates both the commercial potential of AI-assisted music and the legal complexities it introduces.

AI, Attribution, and the Nigerian Creator Perspective

The surge of Papaoutai  Afro Soul on platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and streaming services reflects a broader global trend: AI-assisted music is reshaping how audiences consume and reinterpret classic works. Yet the mechanism often involving sophisticated machine learning models replicating vocal timbres, instrumental stylings, and genre signatures raises questions about originality and attribution.

For digital content creators like Willy Kanga, renowned for his storytelling and animation work across TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, the interplay between human creativity and AI achievements poses both opportunities and challenges. While AI versions of beloved songs can energise engagement (as seen with his popular Papaoutai reel), they also force creators and audiences alike to ask: Who truly owns this version? And should tribute be rewarded like original work?

In Nigeria, where the creative industry is rapidly expanding and digital content influences culture and commerce, these questions have practical implications for artists, platforms, and rights holders.

Legal Framework: Nigeria and Other Jurisdictions

1. Human Authorship Under Nigerian Law

Under the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022, intellectual property protection hinges on the concept of human creativity. The law recognises that copyright subsists only in original works created by natural persons and does not provide explicit legal standing for AI systems to be deemed authors.

This means:

1. AI-generated music without meaningful human involvement may lack copyright protection in Nigeria.
2. Where a human contributes original expression such as composing, performing, or arranging that contribution may be eligible for copyright.

This approach mirrors the principle adopted in other common law jurisdictions. For instance, in the United States, the D.C. Circuit in Thaler v. Perlmutter (2025) held that AI-generated artwork without human authorship could not qualify for copyright protection. Similarly, the Czech Republic and European courts have emphasised that originality requires human intellectual creation; works dictated solely by automated processes are not protected. These cases underscore a global consensus: copyright protection fundamentally depends on human creativity.

In contrast, jurisdictions such as China have taken a nuanced approach, recognising that AI-assisted works may qualify for copyright where substantial human creative input is evident, such as selecting, arranging, or refining AI output.

2. Derivative Works and Infringement

Even if an AI-generated version does not itself attract copyright, it may still constitute an infringing derivative work if it reproduces substantial elements of a protected original. A song like Papaoutai, renowned worldwide for its distinctive melody, lyrics, and vocal identity, is safeguarded by copyright. Recreating significant elements without authorisation, even using AI, can violate the rights of the original composer.

This principle is reflected in traditional music copyright cases. In Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films (6th Cir. 2005), the U.S. court held that even brief, unlicensed samples of copyrighted recordings constituted infringement. Similarly, in Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder (U.S. Supreme Court 1985), courts affirmed that licensing agreements for derivative works are binding and enforceable. These cases illustrate how derivative work standards continue to apply in the context of AI-generated music.

Moreover, the Munich Regional Court in Germany (2025) demonstrated that AI operators may be held liable where their systems are trained on copyrighted music without permission, highlighting that infringement can extend beyond direct reproduction to include unauthorized use in AI training.

3. Profit Entitlement and Commercial Exploitation

When an AI-generated work becomes a commercial success as seen with Papaoutai – Afro Soul charting globally and generating millions of streams the question of who profits legally becomes salient.

In many legal systems:

1. Original copyright owners (the composer, lyricist, or publisher) retain exclusive rights to control and profit from derivative uses of their work.
2. AI platforms and users generally obtain only the usage rights granted by their terms of service.
3. In some cases, original rights holders have negotiated deals with AI platforms to legitimise uses through licensing frameworks.

In Nigeria, the Copyright Act enforces economic rights that protect owners against unauthorised commercial exploitation. If an AI version is found to infringe, original rights holders may be entitled to damages or a share of profits under Nigerian infringement rules.

Challenges and Policy Considerations

Several legal and cultural challenges emerge from the intersection of AI and creative expression:

1. Opacity of Training Data: AI models are frequently trained on large datasets that include copyrighted music without clear consent mechanisms. Whether this constitutes infringement under Nigerian law or should be addressed by new legislation  remains unresolved.
2. Attribution and Ethical Use: Without clear attribution standards, AI can “[replicate] artists’ voices and creative identities without consent,” leading to ethical criticism alongside legal uncertainty.
3. Regulatory Gaps: Unlike some jurisdictions considering AI-specific IP reforms, Nigeria currently relies on general copyright principles, which may be inadequate to address the nuances of AI creativity.

Conclusion

The Papaoutai – Afro Soul phenomenon, with its millions of streams and viral engagement, highlights both the promise and legal challenges of the AI music era. For Nigerian creators like Willy Kanga and the global creative community, it raises questions of authorship, ownership, and value in a world where algorithms can rival human expression.

While AI expands creative possibilities, copyright frameworks in Nigeria and other jurisdictions continue to affirm that human creativity remains central to legal protection. Navigating this evolving landscape requires robust IP protection, clear licensing, and expert legal guidance to ensure innovation does not come at the expense of ownership or profits.

At Olisa Agbakoba Legal, we leverage our expertise in intellectual property, digital media, technology law, and dispute resolution to help clients safeguard their creativity, originality, and commercial rights in the age of AI.

References 

1. Nigerian Copyright Act 2022 (Nigeria).
2. Thaler v Perlmutter (2025) United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
3. Bridgeport Music Inc v Dimension Films, 410 F 3d 792 (6th Cir, 2005).
4. Mills Music Inc v Snyder, 469 US 153 (1985).
5. European Court of Justice, Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (Case C-5/08) [2009] ECR I-6569.
6. Munich Regional Court I, decision on AI training and copyright liability (2025).
7. Billboard, ‘World Digital Song Sales Chart’ (January 2026).
8. Billboard, ‘Global 200 Chart’ (January 2026).
9. TikTok, ‘Papaoutai Afro Soul’ hashtag analytics (January 2026).
10. Stromae, Papaoutai (Mosaert Records, 2013).
11. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (WIPO Publication No 1055, 2023).
12. European Parliament, Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Rights (Briefing, 2024).
13. U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence (2023).
14. Stromae, Papaoutai (Because Music 2013).
15. TikTok, ‘#PapaoutaiAfroSoul’ (TikTok Analytics, January 2026) https://www.tiktok.com accessed 9 February 2026.
16. Chill77, Mikeeysmind and Unjaps, Papaoutai – Afro Soul (AI-assisted sound recording, December 2025).
17. Willy Kanga (Williams Etombi), ‘This was exactly how I heard papaoutai’ (Instagram Reel, 14 January 2026) https://www.instagram.com accessed 9 February 2026.
18. YouTube Creator Academy, ‘How Remix Culture Drives Engagement’ https://www.youtube.com/creators accessed 9 February 2026.