In a significant legal clarification on February 13, 2026, the Munich District Court (LG München I) ruled that three logos created using generative AI do not qualify for copyright protection under German law.
The decision underscores a growing international consensus: while AI is a powerful tool, copyright is reserved for the “personality of the creator,” a standard that mere prompt engineering often fails to meet.
The Ruling: Why Copyright Was Denied
The case involved a plaintiff who created logos via an AI generator and sued an acquaintance for using them without permission. The court dismissed the claim, citing several key reasons:
- Prompting ≠ Authorship: The court stated that writing even elaborate prompts (some in this case were over 1,700 characters) does not make one an “author.” The instructions were deemed too general, leaving the final creative “decisions”—such as precise placement, color hues, and geometric form—to the AI’s autonomous process.
- Effort is Not Protected: In a blunt rejection of the “sweat of the brow” argument, the judge noted that copyright does not reward investment, time spent, or the cost of a “premium” AI subscription. It only protects the result of a human creative activity.
- Lack of Control: The court found that because the AI’s output is not deterministic (the same prompt can yield different results), the user does not have enough “guiding influence” over the specific execution to be considered the creator.
The “Door is Still Open”
Importantly, the court did not categorically ban AI-assisted work from copyright. It laid out a high bar for future cases:
“Copyright protection is conceivable… if human intervention—even retroactively or step by step during the prompting process—results in output that reflects the personality of the prompter.”
To gain protection in Germany now, a creator must likely prove that their input dominated the output to such an extent that the final work is an original human creation where the AI was merely a “tool,” similar to a camera or a paintbrush.
Comparison: The Global AI Copyright Landscape (Feb 2026)
| Jurisdiction | Current Stance | Key Recent Decision |
| Germany | Restricted | Munich District Court (Feb 2026): Logos denied; human “personality” required. |
| United States | Restricted | USCO (2025): Denied protection for “Zarya of the Dawn” images; requires “human hand.” |
| China | More Permissive | Beijing Internet Court (2024): Granted copyright to an AI image due to “significant” human effort in prompting. |
Practical Takeaways for Designers
If you are using AI for branding or commercial work in 2026, this ruling suggests a shift in how you should document your process:
- Human Post-Processing: Manually editing or compositing AI results significantly increases the likelihood of copyright eligibility.
- Document the “Why”: Keep records of how specific creative choices were forced by you, rather than being random AI generations.
- Use as a Sketch: Treat AI as a “mood board” or starting point, with the final deliverable being a human-refined vector or design.
