Chukwuebuka Okoli and Ifeanyi Ujah, in their article, Finding a Balance in Innovation and Authorship: AI-Generated Works in Focus, venture into the legal basis of protecting AI generated works. While the debates surrounding the protection of AI-generated works continue to linger, the United Kingdom (UK) Supreme Court in Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks ruled that AI cannot be regarded as an ‘inventor’ under the aegis of UK patent law. Before then, the Estonian Supreme Court had held that the presumption of authorship applies only in cases where the right holder, relying on the presumption, is a natural person who created the work, not a legal person who has obtained economic rights under the law or by contract. These cases and many others seem to give the impression that all hope is lost for the recognition of the input of AI in the Intellectual Property (IP) Law Regime. Nonetheless, when examined critically, this popular view, as exemplified in the above cases, highlights that the current stance leaves much to be desired – bearing in mind the pervasive consequences of technological advancements in our society. In this light, Okoli and Ujah make a case for a redefined approach to the placement of AI in the IP landscape through policy reforms and suggest that parties should be encouraged to set out parameters that could be enforced as contractual agreements. Relying on the doctrinal approach, it contends that works produced by AI should be protected like natural persons – but this should be dependent on the circumstances of each case. Conclusively, this work will employ the analytical method to drive home its points.