Wilders' Party Paid Court Artist for AI-Altered Drawing

Dutch far-right Freedom Party (PVV) of Geert Wilders paid monetary compensation to court chronicle artist Petra Urban — after a regional party branch took her drawing without permission, processed it with AI, and distributed it on social media as political content.

Neutral Chronicle and Scandal

Petra Urban is a court chronicle artist with nearly twenty years of experience. Her work exists in a narrow niche: when photo and video recording in the courtroom is prohibited, chronicle artists create a visual document of what is happening. Their drawings are published by newspapers and television channels; they are the official visual record of the court. Last year, Urban made sketches of two Syrian brothers accused of killing their sister. Both were convicted and received long sentences. The drawings were supposed to be a neutral documentation of the trial — the artist strictly adheres to the principle: her work does not comment on or judge, only records.

The regional PVV branch in the province of North Brabant found the drawing in open access and used it without any notification to the author. The image underwent AI processing: the faces of the defendants became darker, features — sharper and more aggressive. The final version was included in a video posted on Instagram and Facebook. Urban learned about it from the network after the video had already spread. The artist, who for 19 years avoided any political bias, suddenly found herself part of xenophobic content.

What AI Did to the Drawing

Generative AI tools allow you to change an image in minutes. In this case, the effect was targeted:

• Dark skin tones of the defendants were intentionally intensified
• Facial expressions were made more tense and threatening
• The overall tone of the image shifted towards danger and aggression

This is the new type of threat: for political manipulation, designers or budget are no longer needed. Any activist with an AI tool can remake someone else's work in minutes with a few clicks to suit the desired message. This case is important not only as a legal precedent, but also as a clear illustration of a new class of information manipulation.

Violations and Compensation

PVV violated several Dutch copyright norms:

• Use without consent — the drawing was taken without the permission of the copyright holder
• Violation of the integrity of the work — the original was changed without the author's knowledge
• Unscrupulous context — the material was used for political purposes that the author clearly would not have approved

In Dutch law — as in most European systems — these are separate rights, the violation of each of which serves as a separate basis for claims. Court artists are protected in the same way as photographers or illustrators — despite the fact that their works are often perceived as "public" illustrations of a public trial.

"My work is neutral documentation.

What they did with it is the direct opposite," Petra Urban told Dutch publications.

The party paid compensation out of court. The amount of the sum is not disclosed.

What This Means

This is one of the first documented cases where AI manipulation of someone else's work resulted in actual monetary payment. For artists, photographers and other visual content creators — a reminder: the neutrality of intentions does not protect against targeted use by others. For political players, the signal is different: the legal and reputational costs of such actions are quite real, even when the material seems "nobody's."

*Meta has been recognized as an extremist organization and is banned in the Russian Federation.