Skip to main content

Informing the global Intellectual Property policy

In January 2019, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) issued a study that surveyed the landscape of Artificial Intelligence (AI) innovation. The WIPO Technology Trends report offers evidence-based projections to inform global policymakers on the future of AI. Subsequently, in September 2019, WIPO held a Conversation on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence bringing together member states and other stakeholders to discuss the impact of Al on IP policy, with a view to collectively formulating the questions that policymakers need to ask.

We are preparing a response to the World Intellectual Property Organisation consultation on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence policy, which invites feedback on an issues paper designed to help define the most pressing questions likely to face IP policymakers as AI increases in importance.

Our response brings together views from our Intellectual Property Law experts in the Law school, as well as other Brunel colleagues to formulate a broader view as the impact is wider to include areas such as privacy, consumer and competition law. The response will be published on the WIPO website.

Response of Brunel Law School & Centre for Artificial Intelligence, Dr Hayleigh Bosher

The UK Intellectual Property Office sought views on the implications artificial intelligence might have for IP policy. Hayleigh’s evidence argues that:

  1. The analogy of copying someone’s work inside a human brain, is not an appropriate way of considering whether copyright protected works are infringed by AI.
  2. The test for copyright infringement in these circumstances needs to be adapted, in that it focuses on the AI ‘Producers’ (meaning the person responsible) activities (such as data input) rather than the output.
  3. It should be clarified in what circumstances the current copyright exceptions apply to AI processes.
  4. It needs to be considered whether or not private agreements could or should be made above or below any policy decision as to the ownership of copyright in AI-generated works.
  5. There should be a distinction between AI-assisted works and AI-generated works.
  6. Additional rights should be considered such as performance and moral rights.

Read the full paper below.

Meet the Principal Investigator(s) for the project

Dr Hayleigh Bosher

Related Research Group(s)


AI Social and Digital Innovation - Social, economic and strategic effects of AI and associated technologies. Impact of AI and related technologies on societies, organisations and individuals.

corporate buildings

Law, Economics and Finance - The Centre for Law, Economics and Finance aims to advance the wider societal impact of our research by engaging with policymakers, practitioners and other stakeholder.

Partnering with confidence

Organisations interested in our research can partner with us with confidence backed by an external and independent benchmark: The Knowledge Exchange Framework. Read more.

Project last modified 14/11/2023