Protect logos, illustrations, and visual identity
Dated proof of prior authorship for your graphic and illustrated creations — €2, no signup, verifiable by anyone.
The situation
You're a freelance graphic designer. You respond to a tender for a small business's new visual identity: research, inspiration boards, three logo directions, palette proposals, variations. You deliver the file. The quote is deemed too high. A few weeks later, the company unveils its new logo: a clear variant of your direction 2, with your palette, your typography, your construction.
Or: you're a children's book illustrator. You pitch a project to a publisher with a complete dossier (visual synopsis, dummy, six finished plates, character research). The project isn't accepted. Eighteen months later, you discover a book published by that publisher, illustrated by someone else, with your narrative concept and a visual world disturbingly close to yours.
Or — a situation that has become central in 2026 — you're an illustrator with a recognizable style, and your work has been published online for years. A generative AI service now lets anyone produce images "in the style of [your name]" in seconds. You know what happened: your illustrations were likely part of a training dataset, scraped without consent, and now reproduced at scale.
These three scenarios share one legal denominator: you must be able to prove, on a specific date, that your creation was yours in that form.
The real risk
In most jurisdictions following the Berne Convention, copyright protects graphic works, illustrations, and applied arts from the moment of creation. Under French law (Art. L.112-2 of the Code de la propriété intellectuelle), protected categories include: drawings, paintings, engravings (7°); graphic and typographic works (8°); applied arts (10°); and illustrations (11°).
Unauthorized reproduction constitutes contrefaçon (infringement), punishable under Art. L.335-2 by up to three years imprisonment and a €300,000 fine. The word "plagiarism", widely used in creative circles, has no legal existence in French law — the legal term is contrefaçon.
But a particular difficulty applies to graphic works. For applied arts (logos, visual identities, commercial creations), originality is not presumed — it must be demonstrated. The judge will ask the creator to prove that the work bears "the imprint of their personality" and results from a creative effort that distinguishes it from a banal combination of public-domain elements. This is precisely where the traceability of the creative process becomes decisive.
Trademark registration with national or EU authorities is an option (in France: €190 + €40 per additional class with INPI in 2026), as is registered design. Both are effective but costly when creations accumulate, and they cover only the registered output. Proof of prior authorship of the entire creative process is complementary: less formal than registration, but broader in scope.
The specific case of generative AI
For illustrators, a new risk now overlays the classic disputes.
The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689), in force since August 1, 2024, has imposed since August 2, 2025 two obligations on providers of general-purpose AI models (GPAI) directly relevant to illustrators:
- Article 53(1)(c): implement a copyright compliance policy, including the identification and respect of opt-outs expressed by rightsholders under Article 4(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/790
- Article 53(1)(d): publish a "sufficiently detailed summary" of the content used to train the model, according to an official template published by the AI Office (template released July 24, 2025)
In practice, this means two things for you:
- AI providers must now publicly disclose the nature of the data they used to train their models — including dates and sources
- If you can demonstrate that your works were published before a model's training date, and that the model produces results "in your style", you have factual elements for an infringement action
In the United States, Andersen v. Stability AI (filed in January 2023 in the Northern District of California, Judge William Orrick), brought by illustrators including Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz against Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt, cleared a key threshold in August 2024: the judge refused to dismiss the main infringement claims and allowed the case to proceed to discovery. The trial on the merits is scheduled for September 2026. No final ruling has been issued, but the mere fact that these claims are considered serious has already shifted the conversation in the profession.
What you can anchor
For a graphic design or illustration project, what matters goes well beyond the final file delivered to the client:
For graphic designers
- Written briefs and scoping notes
- Inspiration boards and moodboards
- Hand sketches and first drafts
- Rejected directions (often the most valuable as evidence)
- Intermediate versions of a logo (vector files, PDF)
- Complete brand guidelines (frozen PDF)
- Variations (formats, colors, media)
- Typographic and palette selections
- Print and web mockups
- Client correspondence (emails exported as PDF)
For illustrators
- Preparatory research, photographic references
- Sketches and roughs
- Character studies, character sheets
- Storyboards, dummies (children's books, comics, animation)
- Intermediate versions (inking, coloring, finishing)
- Final high-resolution illustration
- Color notes, palettes
- License and usage notes granted
Why the bundle changes everything
Legally: as explained above, the originality of a graphic work or applied art creation must be demonstrated. This means evidencing the creative effort and personal imprint. A final work alone may be characterized as "banal" or as a "classical arrangement of public-domain elements". By contrast, a bundle that traces the creative trajectory — initial moodboard, hand sketches, rejected intermediate directions, final version — gives the judge the material to characterize that personal imprint. It's the central argument of IP lawyers: prove your process, you prove your originality.
Strategically: these professions often produce in large quantities (an independent designer may deliver 30 to 50 visual identities per year; an illustrator, hundreds of pieces). Registering each one individually is financially impractical. An ETcH bundle anchored at each project delivery (or grouped in monthly batches) provides progressive, affordable coverage of your entire output. For €2 — the price of a single anchoring — you can fit up to 50 MB of files in one bundle. A complete visual identity project, exported as frozen PDFs, easily fits within that envelope.
A real case
A freelance graphic designer delivers a complete visual identity dossier to a client: three directions, palettes, variations, fifteen-page brand guidelines. The quote is deemed too high. Three months later, the company communicates a logo that clearly reuses the construction of direction 2, with a nearly identical palette.
Without dated evidence, the designer has only their working files, emails, and an unpaid invoice. They could attempt a cease and desist, but the opposing defense will raise two objections: "how do you prove these files existed before our communication launch?" and "how do you prove the originality of this graphic construction, which is merely a banal arrangement of classical design elements?"
With an ETcH bundle anchored at the moment of dossier delivery — containing the three directions, initial moodboard, hand sketches, rejected variants, final guidelines — the designer answers both objections at once. The date is opposable and verifiable on Etherscan. The creative process is documented and demonstrates the personal imprint.
From there, several remedies exist — most without a lawyer and without court — to stop the infringement or seek compensation: cease and desist, platform takedowns, and if necessary, infringement action.
For the European angle, the Tribunal judiciaire de Marseille decision of March 20, 2025 (AZ Factory v. Valeria Moda, RG 23/00046) recognized the probative value of blockchain timestamps to establish prior authorship of original creations. The case concerned fashion sketches, but the legal principle applies to logos, brand guidelines, and illustrations.
How to use it
Finalize your deliverables in the version you want to protect. Export as frozen PDFs — native files (AI, PSD, INDD) modify their metadata when opened, which invalidates the proof.
Gather the project files you consider relevant to the proof: sketches, intermediate directions, rejected directions, moodboard, final guidelines, relevant correspondence.
Drop them on etchproof.eu SHA-256 fingerprints are computed in your browser — no file ever leaves your machine.
Keep the proof ZIP delivered after anchoring. It contains the PDF certificate, the manifest, the Ethereum transaction, and your original files. This is what holds up in case of dispute — keep at least two copies, in two different locations.
Honest limits
ETcH timestamping proves prior existence, not authorship. To support authorship in a dispute, you'll often need other elements: witness statements, correspondence, evidence of iterative design — which is exactly what bundling enables.
Timestamping does not replace a bailiff's report (or your jurisdiction's equivalent) if the dispute goes to court. But that report can be issued months or years after the anchoring: in the AZ Factory case, the bailiff's report came more than fourteen months after the original anchoring. You pay €2 now — and only the cost of the report (typically a few hundred euros) if a dispute actually arises.