Liability regimes for creative machines. A European perspective

Author: Irina Buzu


Artificial Intelligence liability has been the subject of a lively debate on the European regulators’ agenda for quite some time, part of a larger regulatory framework discussion related to the legal status of intelligent machines and AI regulation in general.
As straightforward as the answer might seem to the question on whether AI systems should be granted legal status, and as such become holders of rights and duties, contradictory regulatory loopholes exist that make it possible for intelligent machines to be aligned on the same legal frontier as humans.
Namely, the recent judicial precedent in the DABUS case, where an AI was granted inventorship, has shed light on the need to harmonise and unify AI regulatory provisions regarding the legal status of AI, while creating and maintaining an ecosystem that could balance the preservation of individual safety and fundamental rights without overly inhibiting innovation in AI.
This article addresses the issue of machine liability in light of the current European regulatory framework on AI, while considering machine creativity as a medium for granting legal status to AI systems.


artificial intelligence, machines, creativity, authorship, inventorship, liability

To cite this article:

Irina Buzu (2021), Liability regimes for creative machines. A European perspective, Europuls Policy Journal, 1:1, p. 6-26



Agents in AI. Retrieved from:
Amabile, T. (1988). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76, no. 5 September–October,
76–87. Retrieved from
Babbage, Ch. (1864). Of the Analytical Engine. Passages from the Life of a Philosopher. Vol. 3.
Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, & Green, 112–141. Retrieved from
Ball, P. (2012, Jul. 1). Jamus, Classical Music’s Computer Composer, Live from Malaga. Retrieved from
Bidshahri, R. (2019, Jun. 17). The Rise of AI Art and What It Means for Human Creativity. Retrieved


Birdy, A. (2021). Coding Creativity: Copyright and the Artificially Intelligent Author. STAN.
TECH.L. REV.5, 17. Retrieved from

Boden, M. A. (2003). The creative mind: Myths and Mechanisms. England: Routledge. Retrieved
Boden, M. A. (2009). Computer Models of Creativity. 30 am MAY AI MAG, 23-24. Retrieved from
Boden, M. A. (2014). Creativity and Artificial Intelligence. A contradiction in terms? The
Phylosophy of creativity, 06, 224-228. Retrieved from
Bringsjord, S. & Ferrucci, D. (1999). Artificial Intelligence and Literary Creativity: Inside the Mind of
Brutus, A Storytelling Machine. United Kingdom: Routledge. Retrieved from
Bringsjord, S. et al. (2011). Creativity, the Turing Test, and the (Better) Lovelace Test, 11 MINDS
& MACHINES 3, 3-4. Retrieved from
Burri, T. (2018, May 31). The EU is Right to Refuse Legal Personality for Artificial Intelligence.

Retrieved from

Cave, S., Dihal, K. & Dillon, S. (2020). AI Narratives: A History of Imaginative Thinking about
Intelligent Machines. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Calo, R. (2015). Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw, 103 CALIF. L. REV., 513-528. Retrieved


C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagbaldes Forening (2001).
Cherniak, C. (1986). Minimal Rationality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Chesterman, S. (2020). Artificial Intelligence And The Limits of Legal Personality. NUS Law

Working Paper 2020/025. Retrieved from

Chopra, S. & White, L. F. (2011). A legal theory of autonomous artificial agents. The University of
Michigan Press. 155. Retrieved from
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988)
Committee of Ministers (2020). Recommendation CM/Rec(2020)1 of the Committee of Ministers to
member States on the human rights impacts of algorithmic systems.

Committee of Ministers (2021). Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on the risks of computer-
assisted or artificial-intelligence-enabled decision making in the field of the social safety net.

Council of the European Union (1958). Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
liability for defective products.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity. The psychology of discovery and invention. New York:
Harper Perennial.
Dutch Digital Design. (2018, Jan. 24). The Next Rembrandt: Bringing the Old Master back to life.

Retrieved from

Damiano, C. L. & Dumouchel, P. (2018). Anthropomorphism in Human–Robot Co-evolution. 9
Frontiers in Psychology, 468. Retrieved from
European Commission (2018). Artificial Intelligence: Commission Outlines a European Approach to

Boost Investment and Set Ethical Guidelines. Retrieved from https://digital-

European Commission High Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (2019). A definition of

AI: Main capabilities and scientific disciplines. Retrieved from https://digital-

European Parliament (2017). Resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the

Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL))

European Parliament (2020). Resolution of 20 October 2020 with recommendations to the
Commission on a civil liability regime for artificial intelligence (2020/2014(INL)).
European Parliament (2021). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council
Laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending
certain union legislative acts.
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. – 499 U.S. 340, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991).

Gardner, M. (1958). Logic Machines and Diagrams. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.
Gaumond, E. (2021, Jun. 4). The AI Act’s hierarchy of risks. Retrieved from
Guadamuz, A. (2017). Artificial intelligence and copyright. WIPO Magazine, 5/2017. Retrieved
Hamon, R., Junklewitz, H. and Sanchez Martin, J. (2020). Robustness and Explainability of Artificial
Intelligence. Retrieved from

High-Level Expert Group on AI (2019). Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence.
Retrieved from
Isherwood, C. (2016, Jan. 14). Review: ‘Yesterday Tomorrow’ a Meeting of Songs About Time.

Retrieved from

Javelosa, J. (2016, Dec. 6). Watch – Sunspring, a film written entirely by an AI. Retrieved from
King, M. A. et al. (1982). Public Policy and the Corporation. Corporate financial policy with
personal and institutional investors, Journal of Public Economics, Volume 17, Issue 3, 259-285.
Retrieved from
Korosec, K. (2017, Oct. 26). Saudi Arabia’s Newest Citizen is a Robot. Retrieved from
MacKinnon, D. W. (1963). The identification of creativity. Applied Psychology, 12, 25-46.
Retrieved from
Markoff, J. (2011, Feb. 16). Computer Wins on Jeopardy!: Trivial, it’s Not. Retrieved from 7jeopardy-watson.html
McCarthy, J., Minsky, M. L., Rochester, N., & Shannon, C. E. (2006). A Proposal for the
Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence. AI Magazine, 27(4), 12. Retrieved
Metz, C. (2017, Aug. 14). How AI is Creating Building Blocks to Reshape Music and Art. Retrieved

from and-
new-artists-proj ect-magenta.html

Minsky, M. (1961). Steps toward Artificial Intelligence. Proceedings of the IRE, vol. 49, no. 1, 8-30.
Retrieved from
Mordvintsev, A. et al. (2015, Jun. 17). Inceptionism: Going Deeper into Neural Networks.
Retrieved from
Naruto v Slater, 888 F 3d 418 (9th Cir, 2018) (2018).
Nimmer, M. B. & Nimmer D. (2018). Nimmer on copyright (rev. ed. 2018). New York: Lexis Nexis.
Open Letter to the European Commission Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (2018).
Patry, W. F. (2019). Patry on Copyright, (rev. ed.2019). England: Bna Books.
Plotkin, R. (2009). The genie in the machine; how computer-automated inventing is
revolutionizing law and business (n.d.) >The Free Library. (2014). Retrieved from…-a0213544191

Richards, N. M. & Smart, W. D. (2016). How Should the Law Think About Robots?, Robot Law 18- Retrieved from

Russell, S. & Norvig, P. (1995). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall. Retrieved from
Scherer, M. (2016). Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies,
and Strategies. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Volume 29, Number 2 Spring 2016, 354-398.
Retrieved from
Séjourné, S. (2020, Apr. 24). Draft Report on Intellectual Property Rights for the Development of
Artificial Intelligence Technologies (European Parliament, Committee on Legal Affairs,

2020/2015(INI), paras 9-10. Retrieved from

Simon, H. (2001). Creativity in the arts and the sciences. The Kenyon Review New Series, Vol. 23,
No. 2, Cultures of Creativity: The Centennial Celebration of the Nobel Prizes, 203-220. Retrieved
Thagard, P. (2018, Nov. 12). How Does Current AI Stack Up Against Human Intelligence.

Retrieved from

The rational agent approach. Retrieved from:
Tierney, J. (2008, Jun. 3). The Future Is Now? Pretty Soon, at Least. Retrieved from
Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing Machinery and Intelligence. MIND New Series, Vol. 59, No. 236,
433-460. Retrieved from
University of Surrey (2021, Jul. 28). World’s first patent awarded for an invention made by an AI
could have seismic implications on IP law. Retrieved from

Wilson, E. O. (2017). The origins of creativity. Great Britain: Penguin Books.
Wininger of Schwegman, A., Lundberg & Woessner, P. A. (2020, Jan. 3). Shenzhen Court Rules
AI-Generated Articles are Entitled to Copyright Protection. The National Law Review, Volume XI,

Number 220. Retrieved from

WIPO Secretariat (2020, May 21). Revised Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and
Artificial Intelligence. World Intellectual Property Organisation, WIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1 REV, para Retrieved from

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *