Do you own the copyright to a logo you designed with AI?

More and more entrepreneurs and designers are using generative artificial intelligence (AI) to create logos or other imagery quickly and cost-effectively. The logical question that follows is whether you enjoy copyright protection for these works. The answer is usually no, unless you can show that your human influence shaped the end result in an objective and clearly identifiable way. Merely entering commands (prompts) to an AI model is insufficient to be recognized as an author.

The facts

In a judgement of the Amtsgericht Munich (Germany) of Feb. 13, 2026 the copyright protection of AI-generated logos was tested on the merits.

The facts were as follows:

• A plaintiff had created three different logos using a generative AI system, including an image of a laptop with a floating law book, and a handshake with a bell.
• To obtain these results, the plaintiff entered textual instructions (prompts), some of which were very detailed and refined in successive steps (iteratively).
• A third party copied these logos and used them on its own website without the creator's permission.
• The creator then demanded that these publications be ceased and removed, based on an alleged copyright.

Although this is a German ruling, the legal context is founded on harmonized European law. After all, the term “work” is an autonomous concept in EU law that must be interpreted in the same way in all Member States, including in the Belgian Code of Economic Law (CEL)..

The court's decision

The court rejected the plaintiff's claims, ruling that none of the three logos qualified for copyright protection. The court's reasoning is sharp and provides important guidance for future litigation:

• Not a human creative decision: A logo is not copyrightable if the final visual interpretation is determined by the AI based on broad, open-ended assignments.
• Time and effort don't count: In one of the logos, the plaintiff used a prompt of as many as 1,700 characters that he had tested extensively. However, the judge ruled that copyright law does not reward investment, time or diligence, but only the result of a creative activity.
• AI as a performer, not a tool: The extensive descriptions in the prompts were likened by the court to a written order to a human developer or designer.
• Corrections are purely technical: Even when the plaintiff gave the AI specific instructions to adjust errors (such as changing the skin color of a hand in the logo), this was viewed as a manual, technical intervention and not an expression of the plaintiff's creative personality.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This judgement goes to the absolute heart of intellectual property rights in the AI era. According to established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (such as the rulings Infopaq, Cofemel and Painer) an object can only be considered an original work if it reflects the author's personality by expressing his free creative choices.

The crux of the debate lies in the qualification of the AI. Is the AI a mere ‘tool’ (like a camera in the hands of a photographer), or does it act as an independent instrument of creation? The court ruled that human influence on the end result must be objective and clearly identifiable. This is the case only when the creative elements from the prompt dominate the final output to such an extent that the whole thing can be seen as a human's own original creation.

This places a significant burden of proof on the party invoking copyright . Whereas in traditional arts or applied arts copyright is often granted leniently, in AI generation the courts seem to apply a stricter, more technological standard of proof. As long as the user uses the AI merely as an ‘idea generator’ and the algorithm fills in the visual choices, the end result remains in the public domain.

Want to know more? 👉 Read AI and copyright.

What this specifically means

This case law has implications for practice:

• For businesses and start-ups: If you have your company logo generated exclusively by tools such as Midjourney or Nano Banana, you most likely do not own a copyright on it. This means that competitors could, in principle, copy this logo legally, unless you can defend yourself through other areas of law (such as trademark law or rules on unfair market practices).
• For marketing and design agencies: Take care when delivering AI-generated designs to your clients. You cannot transfer intellectual property rights that you do not own yourself. Transparency about the creation process is crucial to avoid contractual liability claims.
• Strategic advice: To still protect your AI creations, you must show that you added substantial human creative editing after or beyond mere generation by the AI. Consider the output of the AI as an unprotected base (a rough sketch), which you then substantially modify and shape yourself in traditional graphics software. Document this design process carefully.

FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)

Can I claim copyright on an image generated entirely by AI?
No, not as a rule. To enjoy copyright protection, a work must reflect the free and creative choices of a human being. Merely specifying a textual instruction to an AI system is not considered sufficiently creative by courts.

Does it make a difference if I spend hours writing a very complex prompt?
No. The court explicitly states that copyright law does not reward time, investment or diligence, but only the result of actual creative activity. Rather, a long prompt is legally viewed as a very detailed purchase order to a designer.

Can a competitor just copy and use my AI-generated logo?
From a purely copyright perspective: yes, since the logo is probably in the public domain for lack of human creativity. You can only guard against this by substantially manually editing the logo, or by successfully filing it as a trademark (which is subject to other legal requirements).

Conclusion

The integration of artificial intelligence into creative processes offers enormous advantages, but at the same time creates a shaky legal basis when it comes to property rights. Merely ‘prompting’ does not make you an author in the eyes of Belgian law. It is essential to adapt your IP strategy accordingly and not rely blindly on the output of algorithms.