In its ruling on copyright for logos created primarily with the help of AI, the Munich District Court (AG München) specified the requirements for the character of a work in accordance with §2 (2) of the German Copyright and Related Rights Act (UrhG) when working with AI. (AG Munich, final ruling of February 13, 2026 – 142 C 9786/25).
Among other things, it ruled that the existence of the character of a work depends on human creative influence. This is not the case if the creative decision is left to the AI through general and open-ended prompts.
Course of Proceedings
The plaintiff had three logos created by an AI using prompts that were partly detailed and partly iterative. He used the logos for publication on his own website.
The logos depicted a laptop “with a book floating in front of its screen with a paragraph symbol,” a handshake “between two people of different skin colors and a ringing bell,” and an envelope “depicted in front of a building with columns.”
The defendant then published the AI logos on his website without first obtaining the plaintiff's consent.
The plaintiff initially requested, unsuccessfully, that the defendant delete the logos and refrain from using the AI logos in the future. He argued that he had acquired the copyright for the AI logos.
In the copyright dispute before the Munich Local Court, the plaintiff again sought an injunction and the deletion of the AI logos from the defendant's website (§97 (1) UrhG). The court did not grant the request due to a lack of copyright protection.
Art Law Background: Copyright Issues Surrounding Art and AI
In art law, the use of AI plays a role in two areas in particular.
First, there is the question of protecting existing works of art from AI (more on protecting works of art from AI).
The second question, which is relevant to the present ruling, concerns the authorship of AI. Specifically, the question is whether an AI-assisted product can be granted copyright protection.
In the well-known Thaler v. Perlmutter lawsuit, a US court ruled in 2023 that a work of art generated independently by AI does not enjoy copyright protection. In this case, the necessary substantial human contribution was lacking.
In the same year, the Prague District Court also dealt with the question of whether an image created using two prompts by an AI image generator could be considered a work. It denied copyright protection because the AI image was not a unique result of the creative activity of a natural person.
At present, there is no case law that grants AI-generated products the status of works and thus copyright protection (as of 24. February 2026).
However, there is agreement that a purely AI-generated product is not eligible for copyright protection. There is also agreement on the general assumption that a human being can be considered the author of an AI-assisted product if they exercised a certain degree of creative control and the output is an expression of their personality.
Why is the Question of AI Authorship Relevant?
For all those involved in the art market and for those involved in art law, clarifying and continuously specifying the legal aspects of AI authorship is of great importance.
This is because copyright grants the creator an exclusive right to their work, thereby securing its commercial exploitation. For example, it rewards artistic creation and the work of artists by generating sources of income.
Existing copyright in a work of art is also important for collectors and galleries, as it is a factor that adds value. Only if the artist is recognized as the author of a work of art and the work does not become public domain can third parties be excluded from exploiting the work (§§16 et seq. UrhG).
Conversely, this means that the creator of an AI product that is not protected by copyright must tolerate reproductions. This circumstance can result in a reduction in the commercial value of the artwork in question for those involved in the art market.
dtb-lawyer Maximilian Brazel advised at the LVBG's AI + Art (Market) conference on 23. February 2026: “If artists use AI in their artistic work, they should document their work in a specific way. Legally compliant documentation can serve as proof that AI was used purely as a tool.”
“Galleries should also consider drafting specific contractual provisions for the purchase or exploitation of AI art,” Brazel continued.
How did the Court Specifically Answer the Questions Regarding Copyright in AI Logos?
The district court concluded that AI logos are not copyright-protected works of applied art pursuant to §2 (1) Number 4, (2) UrhG.
The Copyright-Prootected Work
The focus of copyright protection was on the work to be protected.
The existence of a work presupposes a personal intellectual creation by a human being (§2 (2), 7 UrhG). Such a creation exists if it “reflects the personality of its author by expressing his or her free creative decisions.”
An important criterion in this context is the level of creativity required under copyright law (Schöpfungshöhe). This describes the minimum degree of individuality and personal expression of the creator.
Case law typically denies the status of a work if the form and creation of an object are dictated by technical considerations, rules, or other constraints. This is because the exercise of artistic freedom is not reflected in the creation. Copyright protection is denied (the BGH dealt with this issue in the Birkenstock ruling).
This criterion corresponds to the protective purpose of copyright law. It is intended to ensure that only those works that have social added value as an expression of creative individuality are recognized and protected.
How did the AG Define the Term “Work”?
First, the district court found that copyright protection could arise on the basis of “human intervention in AI results, which can also take place retrospectively or successively during prompting and which leads to the output also reflecting the personality of the person prompting.”
The court thus specifies the requirements for the work to be considered a work when working with AI.
The product can be classified as a work if the AI was used purely as an aid and not as a decisive and independent creative tool. The creator must have had a human influence on the design of the specific work.
The decisive factor for the existence of the work characteristic is therefore whether the prompts express the artist's creative abilities in an independent manner by making free and creative decisions and thus giving the output a personal touch.
For this to be the case, the “creative elements of the prompting must dominate the output to such an extent that the object as a whole can be regarded as the author's own original creation.”
Contrary to the defendant's opinion, it is not sufficient for numerous prompts to have been formulated in a complex and careful manner if the creative decision is ultimately left to the AI.
The district court summarizes that copyright law does not reward and protect investment, time, or diligence, but only the result of creative activity.
Furthermore, it emphasizes that copyright protection should not be granted if the product was generated exclusively by software.
Why did the District Court specifically Deny Copyright Protection for the AI Logos?
The district court argued that none of the three logos met the requirements for copyright protection. This was because the plaintiff's personality was not reflected in any of the three logos as the result of a free creative decision.
In this regard, the district court referred to a comparison between the plaintiff's rather elaborate prompts and a detailed request to a human developer to create a logo. In both cases, the creative decision was ultimately made by someone else.
Furthermore, the plaintiff's selection from among several generated outputs did not justify copyright protection.
Résumé
The AG's ruling takes an important step toward clarifying the conditions under which copyright protection can be granted for the use of AI. In doing so, it follows existing guidelines from European and US case law and formulates specific requirements for human creative influence in the context of the nature of the work.
“The ruling makes instructive statements on the conditions for the creation of copyright in AI-assisted creations,” According to dtb-lawyer and expert in the art market, art law, and AI, Maximilian Brazel. "Nevertheless, the question of authorship for such creations will remain a case-by-case decision. In light of the findings of the district court ruling, it is advisable for players in the art market to document their work with AI in a legally secure manner and to adapt corresponding contracts with the help of experts.
Status 26.02.2026