Gruffalo illustrator considers legal action over AI images
Axel Scheffler says artificial-intelligence companies reproduced his work without permission.
.jpg){kind=link}
Axel Scheffler, the illustrator of The Gruffalo, is seriously considering legal action against artificial intelligence companies over the use of artists’ work. He says AI-generated images can reproduce recognisable elements of his style and characters without permission.
Scheffler told BBC London that he wanted AI companies to stop using artists’ creations without authorisation. He said he had been shocked by an image that appeared to reproduce the characteristic look of his work, while other elements had been generated by a machine.
The Gruffalo was written by Julia Donaldson and first published in 1999, with Scheffler’s illustrations becoming central to the book’s identity. The story follows a mouse who outsmarts a fictional creature and has become one of Britain’s best-known children’s picture books.
Scheffler is considering bringing a case in Germany. He believes German and wider European law may offer creators a stronger route to challenge unauthorised use. An intellectual-property lawyer quoted by the BBC said Germany could provide a possible legal forum, but also warned that proving infringement would not be straightforward.
The dispute reflects a wider question about the difference between copying a specific protected work and producing an image in a recognisable style. The question is how copyright should apply to training data and generated images, and where the boundary lies between imitation of a style and infringement.
A separate German case involving OpenAI, publisher Penguin Random House and author-illustrator Ingo Siegner is expected to be considered by the Munich Regional Court in spring 2027. That case concerns allegations that a children’s-book character was copied, although the court has not yet ruled on the claim.
Scheffler’s comments describe a possible legal challenge; they do not confirm that he has filed a lawsuit. It remains unclear which AI system produced the image he described.
For artists and publishers, the outcome could affect how illustrations are licensed, how training material is disclosed and whether creators can object to generated images that imitate their work. For AI companies, a broad interpretation of copyright could increase costs and restrict the material available for model development.
Also show where in Europe and in the world
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- Scheffler says AI systems have reproduced recognisable elements of his work.
- He is considering legal action in Germany.
- No court has ruled that a particular AI company infringed his copyright.
- The legal distinction between style imitation and copying a protected work remains contested.
Left
Arguments Artists should not be forced to subsidise AI companies by surrendering their work without consent or payment. Creators need collective bargaining rights, transparency and strong remedies.
Values Fair pay, cultural labour and protection from concentrated corporate power.
Consequences Stronger rules could preserve livelihoods and diversity in publishing, although they may limit some AI development.
Centre
Arguments The law should distinguish between copying protected works and learning from broad cultural patterns. Courts and lawmakers should create transparent licensing and opt-out systems that balance creators’ rights with useful innovation.
Values Legal clarity, proportionality and sustainable innovation.
Consequences A workable licensing framework could reduce litigation while giving creators more control over commercial uses.
Right
Arguments Copyright should protect identifiable works and characters, not create ownership of an artistic style. Expanding rights too far could entrench established publishers and reduce competition in creative tools.
Values Free expression, innovation and limited intellectual-property monopolies.
Consequences A narrower approach could keep AI tools accessible, but artists might have little leverage against systems that imitate their work.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Priya Shah — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The article accurately reports that Scheffler is considering legal action and does not present the alleged infringement as proven. It also identifies the separate German case as unresolved.
- confirmed Axel Scheffler is seriously considering legal action against AI companies. — Reported from his interview with BBC London. source
- confirmed The Gruffalo was written by Julia Donaldson and illustrated by Scheffler. — Confirmed by the BBC report and background source. source
- confirmed A separate Munich case is due to be decided in spring 2027. — Reported in the BBC account. source
Editor's note
Scheffler is considering legal action, but no confirmed case or court ruling was found. The article distinguishes his allegation from established copyright infringement.Sources
- Gruffalo illustrator considering legal action against AI firms — BBC London
- The Gruffalo — Wikipedia
More on this in other media
- BBC News — „axel scheffler”
- The Guardian — „axel scheffler”
- Sky News — „axel scheffler”