Germany - Anonymous creator of AI-generated logos and operator of personal website v Anonymous user of the claimant’s logos on his own personal website, 13 February 2026

Claimant: Anonymous creator of AI-generated logos and operator of personal website

Defendant: Anonymous user of the claimant’s logos on his own personal website

The claimant used generative AI to create three logos: (1) a handshake between two individuals of different skin colours, accompanied by a ringing bell ("Handshake Logo"); (2) an envelope depicted in front of a columned building ("Envelope Logo"); and (3) a laptop with a book floating over a laptop displaying a section sign (“§”)("Laptop Logo"). The claimant generated these logos by providing instructions and descriptive inputs to the AI system to produce the outputs. Some of these instructions were detailed, while others were developed iteratively through prompting. He subsequently published these logos on his personal website.

The defendant, an acquaintance of the claimant, copied the three logos without authorisation and used them on his personal website, "J de". 

The claimant filed an action against the defendant before the Munich Local Court, alleging copyright infringement due to the defendant's publication of the three logos, of which the claimant asserts to be the author.

Claimant’s claim 

The claimant asserted his authorship of the contested logos. He argued that AI-generated image files, such as logos, are also eligible for copyright protection under Sec. 2 (2) of the German Copyright Act. He maintained that using AI is comparable to using a tool and does not exclude a "personal intellectual creation”. He further argued that his creative contribution was reflected in the prompts and in the iterative revision process through which he progressively shaped the outputs in accordance with his own artistic vision.

Defendant’s defence

The defendant disputed the claim, asserting that the AI-generated logos cannot be considered works eligible for copyright protection under German copyright law as they were not created by a human being. He argued that the claimant's role was limited to providing prompts, while the AI fully performed the creative process. He rejected the idea that AI is merely a tool, emphasizing that AI-generated output is automated, unpredictable, and beyond the user’s control, with the AI determining the final appearance independently.

Court’s judgement 

The Munich Local Court rejected the claim, determining that the contested logos do not meet the criteria for protection as works under Sec. 2 (2) of the German Copyright Act.

The court emphasized that, in accordance with EU and German copyright law, a work must be an original expression of its creator's personality, embodying independent and creative human choices.

The court stated that whether AI-generated content qualifies for copyright protection depends on the extent to which human creative influence is exercised. AI-generated content can be protected under German copyright law if human intervention, such as carefully designed prompts, individual settings or a selective revision process, results in output that reflects the creator's personality. The input must shape the output in a sufficiently objective and clearly identifiable way. This standard is only met if the creative elements incorporated in the prompt dominate the output to such an extent that the final product can be considered the author's own original creation. However, mere selection from AI-generated options or iterative technical adjustments are not sufficient for this purpose.

In this case, the court found that the claimant's involvement through instructions and iterative prompting, largely consisted of general, outcome-open or technical instructions. The AI system played a pivotal role in finalising the designs.

According to the court, the Laptop Logo did not qualify as a copyright-protected work since the prompt was only two lines long and contained an abstract request to create a "simple, but unusual" logo for a website on which legal texts can be read. The court held that this prompt did not contain any creative decisions made by the claimant that could have influenced the appearance of the output.

Even though the claimant used a prompt of 1,700 characters to create the Envelope Logo, this was not enough to categorise it as a copyrighted work. The court emphasised that much time and significant effort required to create the logo alone is not sufficient for copyright protection. The prompt contained descriptions of the desired output which were too abstract and therefore did not determine the appearance of the output.

The creation of the Handshake Logo was also based on prompts containing overly abstract and open-ended requests regarding its appearance.

Overall, the AI's automated process dominated the creative process, and the claimant's input did not demonstrate the necessary free and creative choices for copyrightable authorship.