Gruffalo Illustrator Axel Scheffler Considers Legal Action Over AI Copies of His Art

The illustrator behind The Gruffalo has said he is seriously considering legal action against artificial intelligence firms that he says reproduce his work without permission. Axel Scheffler told BBC London on Friday, 30 October 2026, that he had spoken to a lawyer in Germany and wanted the practice to stop.

“I just want them to stop,” Scheffler said, adding that other illustrators had already taken legal action against AI companies. He has not named any company he might pursue, and no court filing by him has been confirmed in the BBC-based reporting.

The moment Scheffler says changed his mind

Scheffler, who does not own a smartphone, said he had tried to ignore artificial intelligence until someone showed him what it could do with his best-known creations. He described seeing his characters digitally recreated in places he had never drawn them, including Silicon Valley and Oktoberfest settings.

“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 told the BBC. The south London-based artist said the images kept the recognisable look of his characters while inventing everything around them.

That distinction sits at the heart of the wider argument. AI companies have previously argued that training models on copyrighted material does not necessarily amount to infringement. Creators reply that an output which reproduces a recognisable character, even in a new scene, still trades on work they made. Neither side’s argument has been tested in a case brought by Scheffler, because no such case has been filed.

Gruffalo Illustrator AI Copyright — Quick Reference Summary

Why Germany, and what a case there would have to prove

Scheffler said he was considering Germany because he sees the European Union as more favourable to creators than the current position in the UK. Nick Buckland, an intellectual property lawyer at London firm Lewis Silkin, told the BBC that Germany could offer a route for creators seeking to protect their work.

Buckland pointed to two German cases in which music collecting societies won against AI companies after showing that lyrics had been copied word for word and presented as original work. A picture-book case would face a different test. Lyrics reproduced verbatim are straightforward to compare with an original. An illustration recreated in a new setting, with new background details, would require a court to decide how much of the original character survives in the output, and whether that is enough to count as infringement.

Legal analysis of the reports also draws a line between two separate questions. The first is whether using copyrighted works to train a model infringes copyright. The second is whether the images a model later produces infringe copyright. An answer to one does not automatically settle the other. Scheffler’s complaint, as reported, is aimed mainly at the second: images that look like his characters, appearing without his permission.

The European Union’s text and data mining rules add another layer. Under Directive (EU) 2019/790, rights holders can reserve their rights against certain mining uses, and the EU AI Act sets copyright-related duties for general-purpose AI models. How those rules apply to a German illustrator’s claim against a particular firm remains untested in this instance, and no defendant has been named.

A dispute that reaches beyond one picture book

The Gruffalo is one of the most recognised children’s books in the world, and Scheffler and Donaldson have worked together on more than 30 books since their first collaboration in 1993. That long partnership is why the story has travelled so far: readers know the characters at a glance, which is also why a digital recreation is instantly recognisable.

The case of Penguin Random House and author-illustrator Ingo Siegner against OpenAI, over the Little Dragon Coconut character, shows the direction other publishers have taken. That dispute is already before the Munich Regional Court, which is expected to rule in spring 2027. If Scheffler does file in Germany, his claim would arrive while that case is still moving, and lawyers on both sides would watch it closely.

For working illustrators, the stakes are practical rather than abstract. A book illustrator’s style is built over decades, and commissions depend on clients being able to tell one artist’s hand from another’s. If a prompt can produce a close version of a known character in seconds, illustrators argue, the market for the original work shrinks even when no single image is an exact copy. AI firms reply that their systems learn patterns rather than copying pictures, and that style alone is not protected in the way a specific image is. Courts have yet to give illustrators a clear answer that covers both training and output.

Scheffler has framed his own position in narrow terms. He has said any action would not be about compensation, but about protecting creators now and in the future. That framing matters, because it suggests the goal is a ruling or settlement that changes behaviour, rather than a damages payment. It also leaves the door open to no case at all: “seriously considering” is not the same as filing, and the reports leave open the possibility that discussions with his publishers end without court action.

What happens next for readers and illustrators

Nothing changes for readers of The Gruffalo in the short term. The books remain on sale, and no court has ordered any AI firm to change its products in response to Scheffler. What changes is the pressure on the debate. A creator of his standing weighing a German claim gives other illustrators a visible example, and gives AI firms a reason to clarify how they handle requests that name a living artist’s characters.

Three questions will decide whether this becomes a case or stays a warning. The first is whether Scheffler and his publishers settle on a defendant and a legal basis. The second is whether a court accepts that a recreated character in a new scene infringes the original illustrations. The third is whether any ruling reaches beyond one firm to the way models are trained and prompted. Until the first of those is answered, the story remains a threat of legal action, not legal action itself.

Frequently asked questions

Has Axel Scheffler sued an AI company?

No. Reports on 30 October 2026 say he is seriously considering legal action and has spoken to a lawyer in Germany. No defendant company has been named and no filing by him has been confirmed in the BBC-based reporting.

What exactly is he objecting to?

Digital recreations of his characters, including the Gruffalo and the mouse, placed in settings he never drew, such as Silicon Valley and Oktoberfest scenes. He calls this a clear theft of copyright, while AI firms have argued that training on copyrighted material does not necessarily infringe copyright.

Why is he considering Germany rather than the UK?

He told the BBC he sees the European Union as more favourable to creators. His lawyer discussions are in Germany, and intellectual property lawyer Nick Buckland noted German wins for music collecting societies in cases where lyrics were copied verbatim.

Is this the same as the Penguin Random House case against OpenAI?

No, but it is related. Penguin Random House and Ingo Siegner have sued OpenAI over the Little Dragon Coconut character, with the Munich Regional Court expected to decide in spring 2027. Scheffler’s possible case would be separate, and no defendant has been named.

Does this mean AI images in the style of an artist are illegal?

Not as a general rule, and no court has ruled on Scheffler’s complaint. Style alone and a specific copied image are different questions, and the legal position differs between training a model and generating an output. That is why lawyers describe the outcome as uncertain.