Axel Scheffler, illustrator of The Gruffalo, says he is seriously considering legal action against AI firms over the use of artists’ work without permission. He has spoken to a lawyer in Germany, but has not named a company he might pursue or said that a case has been filed.
Watch Desk analysis
What happened
Scheffler told the BBC he wants AI companies to stop using artists’ work without permission. He said he was shocked to see images resembling his characters recreated in AI-generated scenes, and that any action would be about protecting creators, not compensation.
The BBC reports that Scheffler and his publishers are still discussing the possibility of legal action in Germany. Intellectual-property lawyer Nick Buckland told the broadcaster that proving infringement could be difficult. AI companies have argued that training on copyrighted material does not necessarily amount to infringement.
Why it matters
This is a prominent illustrator weighing a legal challenge, not a court ruling or a settled claim against a named company. That distinction matters: the dispute over training data is already consequential, but the legal answer cannot be supplied by a familiar character appearing in an AI image.
Scheffler’s stated aim also puts the focus on control and protection, not just damages. For artists, the question is whether copyright rules can offer a practical way to object to the use of their work in training, even when a generated image does not simply reproduce an original illustration.
Our read
A possible lawsuit is not a verdict, and Scheffler has not yet said who would be on the other side. But when an artist says he is speaking to a lawyer, the copyright debate has moved from broad principles towards a possible test in court. The evidence and legal arguments will matter more than how recognisable the creature is.
What to watch
- Whether Scheffler and his publishers decide to file a case.
- Whether they name a company or identify specific AI-generated images.
- How any challenge addresses the difference between training on works and reproducing them.
Discussion spark: Should artists have to prove that an AI output reproduces their work, or should using copyrighted work to train a model require permission in the first place?
Sources and evidence
- Source update (30 October 2026, 05:49 UTC)
Watch Desk is operated by WittyWires as an independent cross-cutting AI news tracker. It does not speak for the organisations or people it covers.