Axel Scheffler, the renowned illustrator behind children’s literature staples such as The Gruffalo, is actively weighing legal options against artificial intelligence companies that he accuses of copyright infringement. Scheffler, whose collaborative books with author Julia Donaldson have sold more than 18 million copies worldwide since 1999, said his primary objective is halting unauthorized reproductions rather than pursuing financial damages.
“I’ve been in touch with a lawyer in Germany,” Scheffler said. “There have been illustrators taking legal action against AI companies and I’m seriously considering it. I just want them to stop.”
The south London-based artist, who does not own a smartphone, stated that he initially attempted to ignore the technology until someone demonstrated how his famous characters had been digitally replicated in foreign settings like Silicon Valley and Oktoberfest. “I was quite shocked. It’s clearly my mouse, my Gruffalo, as close as they can do it, but the rest of the image is completely created—it’s a clear theft of copyright,” he said.
Scheffler is leaning toward launching any prospective legal challenge in Germany because he believes the European Union provides a more creator-friendly judicial environment. Nick Buckland, an intellectual property lawyer at London firm Lewis Silkin, noted that Germany could indeed offer a viable path for creators, pointing to two recent cases where music collecting societies successfully challenged AI firms for verbatim lyric replication.
However, Buckland cautioned that proving copyright infringement remains a complex hurdle. While distinctive characters like the Gruffalo strengthen an artist’s standing, generative AI models operate through training rather than direct copying. “Generative AI doesn’t copy, it trains,” Buckland explained, adding that companies argue this distinction protects them from infringement claims when generating new images based on millions of scanned source references.
Similar legal battles are already unfolding in European courts. OpenAI, the developer behind ChatGPT, is currently facing a lawsuit in the Munich Regional Court brought by the German publishing group Penguin Random House alongside author and illustrator Ingo Siegner. That case, scheduled for a decision in spring 2027, alleges that the AI firm infringed copyright by generating unauthorized images of the children’s book character The Little Dragon Coconut (Der kleine Drache Kokosnuss).
Carina Mathern, a publisher and management board member at Penguin Random House, emphasized the broader stakes of the litigation. “Through this lawsuit, we… want to help ensure that copyright remains effectively protected in the age of artificial intelligence and that fair conditions are secured for creative professionals,” Mathern said.
In response to such disputes, an OpenAI spokesperson defended the company’s practices, stating that it maintains productive dialogues with global rightsholders to support creativity while protecting intellectual property. The California-based firm maintains that its models draw from diverse training sources and provides mechanisms for copyright holders to submit direct disputes.
The debate has triggered widespread anxiety across the wider artistic community regarding livelihoods and regulatory safeguards. Ivy Deng, a master’s degree painting student at the Royal College of Art, expressed unease over existing protections. “In terms of regulations, I don’t feel protected about the fair use of my art,” Deng said, though she added that she retains faith that supporters of physical art recognize the distinct human effort involved in manual creation.
Prof James Coupe, head of the same college’s Artificial Intelligence & Digital Art programme, argued that framing the issue as a simple binary choice between embracing or rejecting technology misses the core policy question. “We tend to frame this debate as a choice between embracing AI and rejecting it, but that misses the more important question of who gets to shape these technologies and whose interests they serve,” Coupe said. He noted that artistic practice must challenge the underlying power dynamics and assumptions embedded in technological systems.
Governments face mounting pressure to balance economic investments in innovation with intellectual property protections. Last June, the UK government committed £2bn in AI investments through 2030. Buckland observed that policymakers face a difficult balancing act in trying to encourage economic development while safeguarding creative industries. A spokesperson for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport asserted that supporting creative sectors and advancing AI innovation are not mutually exclusive, noting extensive public engagement to ensure copyright laws protect the UK’s creative economy.
Despite the complex legal landscape and ongoing policy debates, Scheffler and his publishers are continuing discussions regarding potential legal steps abroad. For the veteran illustrator, the enduring value of manual craftsmanship remains paramount. “AI can never replace the hand-drawn image,” Scheffler said. “There’s always something lacking. I recommend drawing by hand and being old-fashioned, and hopefully that will be more appreciated when AI takes over.”
