Illustrator
fails against
Film producers.
Illustrator
fails against
Film producers.
of
When are characters from a children’s book protected by copyright against film adaptations? Why is the specificity of the claim so important in copyright law? What lessons can illustrators and licensors learn from the proceedings?
What it’s about
Anyone who illustrates a successful book series often finds that a film adaptation follows. The question then arises as to how far your own image rights extend and whether they are infringed if the film characters closely resemble the drawings from the book.
An illustrator has illustrated the highly successful German children’s book series “Die Schule der magischen Tiere”, which has sold millions of copies. Over the course of many volumes, she drew the characters in the stories, including people, animals and recurring objects such as a distinctive bus. A film production company later produced a movie series based on the books and brought them to cinemas. The films were a huge commercial success.
The illustrator saw the external design of the film characters as a takeover of key elements from her illustrations. Hair colors, hairstyles, glasses, clothing, eye-catching boots or typical color combinations of the animal characters were taken from her drawings. She claimed that she retained the illustration rights expressly excluded in the work use agreement between the publisher and the production company. On this basis, she demanded extensive information about the use of her illustrations in edited form and a declaration of liability for damages.
The production companies defended themselves with several arguments. For example, they considered the claims to be indefinite and therefore inadmissible. On the merits, they argued that the film characters conveyed an overall impression of their own and that individual features such as glasses or a hairstyle were not protectable on their own. In addition, many motifs, such as a double-decker red bus based on the well-known London buses, were part of the generally available design reservoir.
The decision
The Hamburg Regional Court has ruled Judgment of 29.01.2026 – Ref. 310 O 376/23 dismissed the action.
The main request for information on the protection of the figures was already inadmissible as it did not describe a sufficiently specific infringing act. In the opinion of the court, the mere reference to the own illustrations and their use in edited form was not sufficient to clearly define the scope of the intended acts. Neither the defendants nor the court could infer from the application which specific scenes or figures were to be attacked and how. An application that shifts the concretization to the enforcement level is also not admissible in copyright law .
The alternative claim, which was based on individual illustrations in comparison with specific film scenes, was sufficiently specific but unfounded. The Board examined each of the disputed figures and each of the objects individually and compared the overall impression of the illustration with the overall impression of the film scene.
The result was consistently unfavorable for the plaintiff illustrator. Individual design features such as glasses, a pinned-up hairstyle, certain boots or a fur color are banal in themselves and do not reach the level of creativity.
Eligibility for protection is based on the specific combination of design features and their graphic implementation – with regard to style, coloring and lines, for example. In this case, however, the illustrations as a whole were not taken over by graphic means, but – if at all – only individual design features as such, which are not protectable in themselves.
The film versions differed in so many details that the creative features of the drawings were unrecognizable. This also applied to eye-catching objects such as the red double-decker bus, whose design was recognizably based on the well-known London model.
What the decision means in practice
The ruling shows how fine the line is between legitimate inspiration and unauthorized adaptation in the area of figure creation. If you want to defend your laws, you should not only focus on individual external features, but also demonstrate that the formative overall impression of a particular drawing is reflected in the new design. This requires a detailed comparison of specific illustrations with specific scenes; mere references to individual details are not sufficient.
The ruling provides publishers and film producers with legal certainty when adapting illustrated book templates. As long as the drawn style of an illustrator is not transferred to the moving image and the film characters create an independent overall visual impression, the film adaptation is generally on the safe side in terms of copyright. Nevertheless, it makes contractual sense to clearly regulate the legal situation for illustrated templates in contracts for the use of works. This applies in particular in the event that the illustrator and author are different persons and their laws would have to be granted individually.
Conclusion
If an illustrator wishes to take legal action against a film adaptation, he or she must state precisely which specific illustration was used in which specific film excerpt with which overall impression.
Individual outward appearances are not sufficient; the decisive factor is the formative overall creative impression. At the same time, the ruling underlines how carefully claims must be formulated in copyright law in order to meet the requirements for certainty.
We are happy to
advise you about
Copyright!
