The Gruffalo's Illustrator Is Considering Legal Action Over AI — But No Lawsuit Has Been Filed

Axel Scheffler, the illustrator behind The Gruffalo, is seriously considering legal action against AI companies he says are using his work without permission. He has not filed a case, has not named a company, and has not chosen a country for any claim. What he has done, in an interview with BBC London published on 30 October 2026, is describe what he was shown, why it shocked him, and what he wants: for the use to stop.

What he did say is clear and personal. He wants AI companies to stop using artists' work without permission, and says any action would not be about compensation, but about protecting creators now and in the future.

Scheffler told the BBC he wants AI use of his work to stop

Scheffler, whose illustrations for Julia Donaldson's The Gruffalo have been on children's bookshelves since 1999, told BBC London that he had tried to ignore AI until someone showed him what it could do with his creations. "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.

He is considering Germany, rather than the UK, because he believes the European Union is more creator-friendly. Even so, the BBC reports that Scheffler and his publishers are still discussing the possibility of legal action in his native Germany. No defendant has been named, no court has been chosen, and no claim has been lodged. Readers should treat any report that a case has already begun as wrong.

Scheffler told the BBC he is in touch with a lawyer in Germany, and that he does not own a smartphone — he was shown the AI recreations of his characters, including versions set in Silicon Valley and at Oktoberfest, by someone else. He said the images were recognisably his work, and that he wants companies to stop using artists' work without permission.

Shelves of children's books. Generic photograph, not Scheffler's books or artwork — via StockCake.

A case would be hard to win because training is not copying

Nick Buckland, an intellectual property lawyer at London firm Lewis Silkin, told the BBC how the process works — and his explanation is the argument Scheffler would have to overcome. When someone asks for a picture of a dog, he said, the machine scans everything it was trained on — millions of pictures of dogs — and then one image gets presented. The output is newly generated, not a retrieved copy. For Scheffler, that defence runs into a specific feature of his case: his characters are so distinctive that an output can be recognisably his mouse and his Gruffalo even when everything around them is new.

But Buckland warned that proving infringement in court would not be straightforward, because generative AI systems train on data rather than copying it directly. He pointed to two German cases in which music collecting societies won against AI companies over verbatim lyrics, but noted those involved direct reproduction of protected material.

Library shelves in a classroom. Generic photograph, not connected to Scheffler or any legal case — via StockCake.

A parallel case against OpenAI is already running in Germany

Scheffler would not be the first children's creator to sue. Penguin Random House and Ingo Siegner, creator of Little Dragon Coconut, are suing OpenAI in Germany, with a decision from the Munich Regional Court expected in spring 2027, according to the BBC report.

Carina Mathern, children's and young adult books publisher and a member of Penguin Random House's management board, said the lawsuit aimed to ensure "copyright remains effectively protected in the age of artificial intelligence and that fair conditions are secured for creative professionals." An OpenAI spokesperson said the company was "having productive conversations with rightsholders around the world about supporting creativity, including fan art, while protecting intellectual property."

The wider argument is unresolved UK AI-versus-creators policy

Scheffler's BBC interview did not come from nowhere. He had already warned publicly that AI was becoming a "real threat" to illustrators, after discovering his artwork could be reproduced in seconds. Speaking at the Publishers Association's annual reception in Parliament, he described AI as having a "very limited moral compass."

He also noted an asymmetry: the AI tool he tried would not recreate Donaldson's actual words, because she is a living author, but the same protection did not appear to extend to an illustrator's work. Text and image are treated differently by different systems and guardrails, and illustrators have argued that they fall through the gaps between them.

The wider context is a UK policy argument that is still unresolved. Last June, the UK government announced £2 billion of investment in AI by 2030. Buckland told the BBC the government faced a difficult choice: maximising AI investment seemed to require opening the floodgates to training data, while protecting creative industries required restricting it. A Department for Culture, Media and Sport spokesperson said the government did not accept that backing creative industries and supporting AI were mutually exclusive, and that copyright law "must protect the UK's position as a creative powerhouse while unlocking the extraordinary potential of AI-driven innovation." No resolution to that tension was announced, and Scheffler's intervention lands squarely in it.

For illustrators, the statement raises pressure without a court date

For illustrators, the practical significance of Scheffler's statement is not a court date. It is that one of the most recognisable names in children's illustration has publicly aligned himself with legal action, in the jurisdiction where the leading European case is already running. That raises the profile of the training-data question for publishers, agents and licensing bodies, whether or not a claim is ever filed. It also puts pressure on AI companies' existing complaint and opt-out processes, which OpenAI's spokesperson pointed to in response.

For readers, nothing changes about the books. The Gruffalo books have sold more than 18 million copies worldwide, according to the BBC report, and Scheffler's own advice was deliberately old-fashioned: "AI can never replace the hand-drawn image," he said. "There's always something lacking. I recommend drawing by hand and being old-fashioned."

For anyone following the legal question, the thing to watch is narrow and specific: whether Scheffler and his publishers move from discussion to a filed claim, in which country, and against whom. Until then, the accurate summary is a considered threat, not a lawsuit — from an illustrator who says he simply wants the unauthorised use to stop.

A hand sketching with a pencil. Generic illustration of drawing by hand, not Scheffler's work — via Proactive Creative.

Key Takeaways

• Axel Scheffler told BBC London on 30 October 2026 that he is "seriously considering" legal action against AI firms over copyright — no company has been named and no case has been filed.
• He has spoken to a lawyer in Germany and is considering a case there, believing the EU is more creator-friendly; he and his publishers are still discussing the possibility.
• His complaint is that AI systems reproduce his characters recognisably without permission. AI firms argue training is not copying, and lawyers say proving infringement would not be straightforward.
• Penguin Random House and Ingo Siegner are already suing OpenAI in Germany over the Little Dragon Coconut character, with a Munich court decision expected in spring 2027.
• Scheffler says any action would not be about compensation, but about protecting creators now and in the future.

Conclusion

The Gruffalo's illustrator has drawn a public line: stop using artists' work without permission, or face a legal fight in Germany. He has not yet filed anything, named anyone, or chosen a court. The power of his statement lies in who he is and where he is pointing — at the training-data practices of an entire industry, in the jurisdiction where the test case is already running. Whether that line becomes a lawsuit will be decided in discussions with his publishers. Until it is, the story is a warning, clearly delivered, from an artist who still believes a hand-drawn image is something AI cannot replace.

Sources

• BBC London, "Gruffalo illustrator considering legal action against AI firms," published 30 October 2026 (full text read via reproduction; BBC original not located on bbc.com in re-checks on 30–31 Oct, and no correction or withdrawal found — account corroborated by further coverage on 31 Oct): https://bitcomme.com/gruffalo-illustrator-considering-legal-action-against-ai-firms/
• Newsbytes, "‘Gruffalo’ illustrator could sue AI firms over ‘theft of copyright’" (30 October 2026; corroborating coverage of the BBC London interview, including Buckland’s role): https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/world/gruffalo-illustrator-contemplates-legal-action-against-ai/story