Skip to content 
Artificial intelligence has transformed the way images, illustrations and other creative works can be produced. However, as AI-generated content becomes increasingly sophisticated, an important legal question continues to divide the technology and creative industries: when does AI-generated content cross the line into copyright infringement?
This question has returned to the spotlight following reports that Axel Scheffler, the renowned illustrator behind the much-loved children’s book The Gruffalo, is considering legal action against artificial intelligence companies over the alleged reproduction of his illustrations.
The potential dispute could become another significant development in the ongoing battle between copyright owners and AI developers, raising questions about the protection available to artists under UK and European copyright law.
Why Is the Gruffalo Illustrator Considering Legal Action?
Axel Scheffler, whose distinctive illustrations have helped make The Gruffalo one of the world’s most recognisable children’s books, has expressed concerns about AI-generated images recreating his characters without permission.
According to reports published by the BBC on 30 October 2026, Scheffler was particularly concerned after discovering AI-generated images depicting his characters in entirely new environments.
Although these images were not necessarily direct reproductions of existing illustrations, they allegedly recreated the recognisable appearance of characters originally developed through Scheffler’s artistic work.
Scheffler has reportedly consulted lawyers in Germany and is considering bringing proceedings against AI companies. His primary concern appears to be preventing the unauthorised exploitation of creative works rather than obtaining financial compensation.
No proceedings by Scheffler against a particular AI company have been confirmed, and the allegations remain untested by a court.
Nevertheless, the situation highlights a growing concern among artists, illustrators and other creative professionals who fear that their work is being used to develop technologies capable of reproducing or competing with their original creations.
Does UK Copyright Law Protect Illustrations Against AI?
Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), original artistic works are automatically protected by copyright, provided they satisfy the applicable requirements.
This protection extends to drawings, paintings, illustrations and other qualifying artistic creations.
Importantly, copyright protection arises automatically when an eligible work is created. There is no requirement to register copyright in the United Kingdom.
Section 16 of the CDPA grants copyright owners exclusive rights, including the right to copy their work and authorise others to reproduce it.
Under section 17, copying can include reproducing a work in any material form, including electronic storage.
Consequently, where an AI system reproduces a protected illustration, or a substantial part of it, without permission, there may be grounds for a copyright infringement claim.
However, the legal position is not necessarily straightforward.
Copyright protects the original expression of an idea rather than the idea itself. An artist cannot generally prevent another person from drawing a fictional woodland creature simply because they previously created one.
The position may be different where the later illustration reproduces sufficiently substantial elements of the original artwork, including distinctive visual features and their particular combination.
In a dispute involving AI-generated images, the court would need to examine the similarities between the original illustrations and the allegedly infringing material, together with the evidence of copying.
Can an AI-Generated Character Infringe Copyright?
One of the most interesting aspects of Scheffler’s potential dispute concerns whether an AI-generated image of an established fictional character can infringe copyright even where the character appears in a completely new setting.
For example, an AI-generated illustration might depict a recognisable character undertaking an activity that never appeared in the original book.
The fact that the background, setting or activity is new does not automatically prevent copyright infringement.
The relevant question would be whether the AI-generated image reproduces the whole or a substantial part of protected artistic expression.
UK courts assess substantiality by reference to the quality and significance of what has been copied, rather than simply the quantity.
This means that reproducing a relatively small but distinctive element of an illustration could potentially constitute infringement if that element represents a substantial part of the copyright work.
However, merely producing an illustration in a broadly similar artistic style will not necessarily amount to infringement. Copyright does not ordinarily grant an artist a monopoly over a style or technique.
The distinction between copying protected artistic expression and merely imitating an artistic style is therefore likely to be central to future AI copyright disputes.
What About Using Copyrighted Images to Train AI?
The controversy extends beyond the images produced by AI systems.
Many generative AI models are developed using enormous collections of text, images and other materials. Some of those materials may be protected by copyright.
This raises a separate legal question: can AI developers lawfully use copyrighted works to train their systems without obtaining permission from the copyright owners?
Under UK law, reproducing copyright-protected material during the training process may engage the copyright owner’s exclusive rights.
There are certain statutory exceptions to copyright infringement, including the text and data mining exception under section 29A of the CDPA.
However, this exception is limited to computational analysis for non-commercial research, subject to its statutory conditions, including lawful access. It does not provide a general exemption permitting commercial AI companies to reproduce any copyrighted material for training purposes.
AI developers may argue that particular training activities do not infringe copyright, that appropriate licences exist, or that relevant exceptions apply.
The outcome will depend on the specific activities, the applicable jurisdiction and the evidence available.
It is also important to distinguish between the legality of using copyrighted works during AI training and the legality of the content subsequently generated. These are separate questions, and infringement at one stage does not automatically establish infringement at the other.
Why Is Germany Being Considered?
Interestingly, Scheffler is reportedly considering pursuing legal action in Germany rather than the United Kingdom.
This reflects the differences between the legal frameworks governing copyright and AI across jurisdictions.
The European Union has introduced legislation addressing text and data mining, including provisions under Directive (EU) 2019/790.
Article 4 provides an exception for certain text and data mining activities involving lawfully accessible works, but permits rights holders to reserve their rights in an appropriate manner.
This means that commercial AI training is not automatically unlawful throughout the EU, but the ability of copyright owners to reserve their rights may be particularly significant.
The EU Artificial Intelligence Act also introduces obligations relevant to general-purpose AI models, including requirements concerning copyright compliance policies and information about training content.
The interaction between these obligations and existing copyright legislation is likely to become increasingly important as European courts consider disputes involving AI-generated material.
However, bringing proceedings in Germany would still require the claimant to establish an appropriate legal basis, jurisdiction and evidence of infringement.
Could This Become a Landmark Copyright Case?
Scheffler’s concerns arise against a backdrop of increasing litigation involving AI developers and copyright owners.
A separate dispute in Germany involves Penguin Random House and children’s author and illustrator Ingo Siegner, who have brought proceedings against OpenAI concerning alleged reproductions of the character The Little Dragon Coconut.
That case is expected to be considered by the Munich Regional Court in spring 2027.
Its outcome could provide useful guidance on how European courts approach AI-generated reproductions of recognisable fictional characters.
For Scheffler, the potential legal action raises wider questions about whether established copyright principles can adequately address technologies capable of generating convincing versions of protected artistic creations.
A successful claim could provide further guidance for artists seeking to prevent the unauthorised reproduction of their illustrations.
Equally, a decision in favour of an AI developer could help clarify the circumstances in which AI-generated content falls outside the scope of copyright infringement.
Much will depend on the particular evidence and legal issues before the court.
What Does This Mean for Artists and Businesses in the UK?
The growing number of disputes involving AI-generated content serves as an important reminder that the accessibility of AI technology does not eliminate existing intellectual property obligations.
For artists and illustrators, it is increasingly important to understand who owns the copyright in their work, what rights have been licensed to third parties and what action may be available where unauthorised reproductions appear online.
Creators should also consider preserving original artwork, dated drafts and evidence of the creative process, together with records of any suspected infringement.
For businesses using generative AI, caution is equally important.
The fact that an image has been produced using an AI platform does not necessarily mean that it is free from third-party intellectual property rights.
Businesses using AI-generated illustrations in advertising, packaging, websites or other commercial materials should consider whether those images reproduce recognisable protected artwork or characters.
They should also review the contractual terms of their AI providers, particularly provisions concerning commercial use, intellectual property ownership, indemnities and liability.
An AI provider granting permission to use generated content does not necessarily guarantee that the content will not infringe somebody else’s copyright.
Is UK Copyright Law Keeping Pace with Artificial Intelligence?
The dispute also arrives at a time when the UK Government continues to consider how copyright law should respond to the rapid development of artificial intelligence.
The central challenge is balancing two competing interests.
On one hand, AI developers argue that access to large quantities of data is necessary to develop increasingly capable technologies and support innovation.
On the other, copyright owners argue that their creative works should not be commercially exploited without permission, recognition or appropriate remuneration.
The Government has been considering possible reforms to the relationship between copyright and AI training, including questions surrounding transparency, licensing and the ability of rights holders to control the use of their works.
For the creative industries, the outcome of these discussions could have significant commercial consequences.
Artists, photographers, musicians, authors and designers all rely upon intellectual property rights to protect the value of their work.
If AI systems can reproduce commercially valuable creative material without meaningful restrictions, the traditional licensing models supporting those industries may face increasing pressure.
Equally, legal uncertainty can create difficulties for businesses seeking to develop and adopt AI technology responsibly.
The challenge for lawmakers will be establishing a framework that encourages technological development without undermining the rights of those whose creativity contributes to it.
Conclusion: Creativity, Copyright and the Future of AI
The potential legal action involving the illustrator of The Gruffalo demonstrates that the relationship between artificial intelligence and copyright is far from settled.
Although AI technology offers considerable opportunities for innovation, it also creates new risks for creators whose original works can potentially be reproduced at the click of a button.
The fundamental principle of copyright law remains that original creative expression is entitled to legal protection.
However, determining how that protection applies to AI training and AI-generated outputs presents increasingly complex legal challenges.
Whether Scheffler ultimately pursues proceedings remains to be seen, but his concerns reflect a much wider debate about the future of intellectual property rights in an AI-driven world.
For artists and businesses alike, understanding where inspiration ends and copyright infringement begins has never been more important.
How Can Lawdit Solicitors Help?
At Lawdit Solicitors, we understand the importance of protecting intellectual property in an increasingly digital marketplace.
Our intellectual property team advises businesses, artists, designers and other creative professionals on copyright ownership, licensing, infringement and enforcement.
Whether you are concerned that your creative work has been reproduced without permission, or your business requires advice on the intellectual property implications of using AI-generated content, our team can assist you in understanding your legal rights and obligations.
For further information, contact Lawdit Solicitors at www.lawdit.co.uk.
