Kenya stands at a critical legal and technological crossroads. The proposed Copyright and Related Rights Bill, 2026 represents a bold attempt to modernize the country’s intellectual property framework in response to rapid digital transformation. However, the Bill has sparked widespread debate particularly on how it addresses (or fails to address) artificial intelligence (AI) and the protection of personal image rights.
At its core, the Bill seeks to replace the outdated Copyright Act of 2001 and align Kenya’s legal framework with the realities of a digital economy. The proposed legislation introduces several progressive elements. It aims to strengthen enforcement of copyright, introduce mechanisms such as take down procedures for online infringement, and improve the protection of creators’ economic rights. These reforms are designed to empower artists and ensure they can earn a sustainable livelihood in an increasingly digital marketplace.
More broadly, the Bill reflects an acknowledgment that Kenya’s legal system must evolve alongside technology. The growth of the digital economy and the increasing role of online platforms in content distribution make it essential to rethink how intellectual property is protected. One of the defects that has sparked serious conversations is the lack of the Bill to address artificial intelligence.
Currently, Kenyan copyright law is built on the principle of human authorship. Courts and legal frameworks emphasize that copyright protection requires human creativity and originality. AI, as a machine, cannot own copyright. Instead, authorship may be attributed to the person who made the necessary arrangements for the work’s creation. However, this approach is increasingly inadequate. AI systems are now capable of producing highly sophisticated content with minimal human input. This creates uncertainty on who owns the AI generated Image, Is it the developer, the user, or no one at all? Should such works even qualify for copyright protection?
The Bill does not clearly answer these questions. Critics argue that ignoring AI in modern copyright legislation is not just an oversight, it is a fundamental flaw. Without explicit provisions, the law risks becoming obsolete almost immediately after enactment.
Another area of concern is the Bill’s silence around Image Rights. Just three weeks ago, Nairobi-based photographer came across something unsettling, one of her own photos, a piece she had carefully planned and shot, was being used by an AI platform to create adverts for a global brand. She hadn’t been asked, credited, or paid. Her experience isn’t unique. More Kenyan creatives are finding themselves in similar situations, where their work and even the images of people they capture are being used without their control.
It’s this growing concern that has put the proposed Copyright Amendment Bill, 2026 in the spotlight. For some, it offers much-needed protection, but for others, it raises fears about limiting innovation in Kenya’s fast-moving tech space. Kenya does have laws such as the Data Protection Act (2019) and the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act (2018), which offer some level of protection. However, these laws were not designed specifically for AI-generated content. They do not clearly define or regulate deepfakes or synthetic media.
Critics argue that the Bill does not address what happens when a photograph captures the likeness of a human being. It grants the photographer exclusive rights over the work but says nothing about the person whose photograph has been taken. The central concern is that individuals may not have adequate control over how their likeness is used, especially when AI tools can replicate faces and identities with alarming accuracy.
The debate surrounding the Bill ultimately reflects a broader tension: how to balance innovation with protection. On one hand, AI presents enormous opportunities. It can enhance creativity, reduce production costs, and open new avenues for artistic expression. Kenya, as a growing digital hub, stands to benefit significantly from embracing these technologies.
On the other hand, unregulated AI can undermine the very creators the law seeks to protect. If AI systems are trained on existing works without compensation or acknowledgment, artists risk exploitation. Similarly, individuals may lose control over their own identities in a digital environment where images can be manipulated freely.
One of the most encouraging aspects of the current process is the emphasis on public participation. Stakeholders including artists, legal experts, and the public have been invited to submit their views on the Bill. Since copyright doesn’t just impact professionals but also regular social media users, bringing in different voices helps ensure the law is fair, practical, and relevant to real life.