Preview: WIPO director general predicts AI liability changes

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Preview: WIPO director general predicts AI liability changes

gurry.jpg

Francis Gurry says liability in the event of AI-related accidents could shift from traditional interpretations, and that he rejects the idea of affording patent protection to machine inventors



gurry.jpg

The director general of WIPO says that questions of liability for artificial intelligence should be linked to IP ownership as technological developments begin to change established laws.

Francis Gurry suggests in an interview with Managing IP that the onus could fall on creators and IP owners in situations where the traditional liable party is no longer part of the equation.

Pointing to driverless cars as a hypothetical example, Gurry says international conventions would usually point to liability in the event of an accident resting with the driver.

“Remove the driver, and who is responsible?” Gurry asks. “It’s a complex question and depends on what went wrong. The person who created the AI and put it into operation has the responsibility, I think.”  

Gurry spoke to Managing IP yesterday during the AI: Decoding IP conference in London.

He also says he does not see why traditional IP rights should be attributed to non-human entities, adding that liability and property rights should be connected in a future world.

“It is right that there should always be a human at the end of it,” he says. “Look at automated cars or drones, if you have a machine or algorithm organised in certain way and you attribute the rights resulting from that to a machine, what do you do if the drone or vehicle crashes into a primary school?

“Liability is connected with property rights.”

He adds that he does not see much appetite to attribute rights to machines from an innovation standpoint either: “Why do we attribute rights? One is the moral reason of giving just reward for someone who has created something. But the main reasons are economic, because we want to encourage others to develop innovation.”

The full interview, in which Gurry talks more about how to determine property rights in the AI world, how technology has improved patent and trademark filing systems, and how the use of data can be linked to IP, will be published on Managing IP next week.



more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Data centres are being built across the US, prompting patent disputes, but Texas’s thriving tech industry and patent-ready courts make the state particularly ‘ripe’ for litigation
Carpmaels & Ransford is set to bolster its UK attorney team with the appointment of Simmons & Simmons’s head of IP in the UK
Updates on Nokia’s licensing strides and a surge in patent activity around battery recycling in Australia were also among the top talking points
To mark International Day Against Child Labour, Matteo Amerio at Corsearch says the people inside businesses who can identify counterfeiting risks must be given the tools and authority to act
With genuine equity at IP firms becoming rarer, securing partnership is harder than ever, but increased transparency is also making climbing the ladder more predictable
Yossi Sivan explains how Israeli judgment is a pro-brand owner departure from the norm and why it sends a strong message that corporate structures are not always a shield
Halim Shehadeh, group CEO of IP firm CWB, says that in the rush to discuss what AI can do, IP firms are overlooking the more important question of whether they are ready
Caitlin Heard, who formally joined the firm from CMS last month, says she is excited by the ‘energy’ of the London office
Ranjna Mehta-Dutt, who moved to Chadha & Chadha after 25 years at Remfry & Sagar, says the firm plans to expand its life sciences practice through targeted recruitment and dedicated teams for bigger clients
The initial contempt of court claim targeted Stobbs and the firm’s client for allegedly interfering with the administration of justice
Gift this article