A growing legal battle over intellectual property rights is unfolding as artificial intelligence continues to reshape the creative landscape. A lawsuit filed in November 2025 by the Danish society Koda against Suno marks the latest challenge to AI platforms utilizing copyrighted material for training purposes,following similar actions by the RIAA and a subsequent agreement among major record labels to explore licensed AI music generation[[1]].This dispute raises critical questions about artistic ownership and fair compensation, especially for African creators who currently lack adequate legal protections against unauthorized AI use of their work[[2]], [[3]].
A landmark legal challenge in November 2025 highlights a growing global conflict between artistic creation and the rise of artificial intelligence. The case, brought by the Danish society Koda representing over 50,000 authors and composers, accuses the U.S.-based platform Suno of using copyrighted works to train its AI algorithms without permission or compensation.
The dispute underscores a fundamental question in the digital age: who owns creativity when machines can replicate artistic styles at scale? The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed similar actions against Suno and Udio just months prior, signaling a broader industry concern. These legal battles culminated in an unprecedented agreement in October 2025 between major record labels – Universal, Sony, and Warner – to launch a licensed music platform in 2026. This platform will aim to regulate and fairly compensate artists for the use of their work in AI training and generation.
While innovation isn’t inherently problematic, the situation reveals a deep divide between the freedom to create and the right of creators to be recognized and rewarded. The issue is particularly pressing in Africa, where no national legal framework currently exists to protect artists from the use of their work by artificial intelligence.
Despite the lack of legal protections, the continent is experiencing a surge in creative output. African sounds, languages, motifs, and stories are gaining global traction, often unknowingly fueling the algorithms that then imitate them without acknowledgment or royalties. Organizations like the African Culture Fund, the Creative Africa Nexus of Afreximbank, and the CREA Fund are already supporting African creativity, but none yet address the digital dimension, AI, and cultural sovereignty in the age of data. This regulatory gap represents not only a legal vulnerability but also a moral one, potentially leading to a new form of dependency – the exploitation of African imagination following the historical exploitation of its natural resources.
However, AI is not inherently a threat. When properly governed, it can be a powerful tool for cultural preservation and innovation, restoring archives, safeguarding languages, amplifying the creativity of young artists, and democratizing production. The danger lies in allowing AI to transform culture into a free raw material, rendering artists invisible contributors.
To address this, a proactive approach is needed. The creation of a National Center for Cultural Intelligence, an independent body bringing together artists, engineers, legal experts, and public institutions, is crucial. This center would regulate AI’s use in culture, demand transparency in training data, establish consent standards, and ensure equitable compensation for creators. Such a center would embody intellectual sovereignty, providing a framework for ethical and methodological oversight in the age of computation.
Regulation alone is insufficient. Culture thrives on the contributions of artists, and a new economic model is needed to ensure they can earn a living from their work. A proposed African Cultural Remuneration Mechanism, building on existing funds like the African Culture Fund and the Creative Africa Nexus, would establish an automatic royalty system. Whenever African cultural works – melodies, images, or data – are used to train or power an AI, a portion of the resulting profits would be returned to the original creator. This model, similar to licensed platforms already emerging elsewhere, would place African artists at the center of the evolving global creative order.
The debate extends beyond technology, touching on the very definition of what it means to be human. While a machine can combine words, sounds, and colors, it lacks the fervor, memory, and emotional depth that infuse true artistry. It cannot grasp the significance of the red dust of the Sahel, the resonance of a balafon at twilight, or the prayers of a people who sing to celebrate and to heal. It can replicate the form of beauty, but never its essence. Protecting culture is protecting this uniquely human element that no code can replicate, and ensuring the livelihoods of those who create it is essential to its survival.
Mali designated 2025 as the “Year of Culture,” and the moment calls for a broader African awakening. Failure to define the future of African creativity now risks allowing machines – or those who control them – to write that future instead, silencing the voices they replace.
Tidiani Togola
Source : Mali Tribune
