Wilders' party paid a court artist after distorting her sketch with AI

Geert Wilders' far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) in the Netherlands has paid financial compensation to court artist Petra Urban. A regional branch of the party took one of her drawings without permission, reworked it with AI, and spread it on social media as political content.

Neutral record, then a scandal

Petra Urban has sketched court proceedings for almost twenty years. Her work fills a narrow niche: when photography and video are banned in the courtroom, court artists produce the visual record of what happens. Newspapers and TV channels publish their drawings, which serve as the court's official visual record.

Last year, Urban sketched two Syrian brothers accused of murdering their sister. Both were convicted and received long sentences. The drawings were meant to be neutral documentation of the trial. The artist sticks to a strict principle: her work does not comment or judge; it only records.

The PVV's regional branch in the province of North Brabant found the drawing online and used it without notifying the artist. The image was run through AI: the defendants' faces were darkened and their features made sharper and more aggressive. The final version went into a video posted on Instagram and Facebook.

Urban found out online, after the video had already spread. An artist who had avoided any political affiliation for 19 years suddenly became part of xenophobic content.

What AI did to the drawing

Generative AI tools can alter an image in minutes. In this case, the effect was deliberate:

• The defendants' dark skin tones were intentionally intensified
• Their facial expressions were made tenser and more threatening
• The overall tone of the image shifted toward danger and aggression

That is the new kind of threat: political manipulation no longer requires designers or a budget. Any activist with an AI tool can rework someone else's work to fit a desired message in a few clicks.

The case matters not only as a legal precedent but also as a clear illustration of a new class of information manipulation.

Violations and compensation

The PVV breached several provisions of Dutch copyright law:

• Use without consent — the drawing was taken without the rights holder's permission
• Violation of the work's integrity — the original was altered without the artist's knowledge
• Prejudicial context — the material was used for political purposes the artist clearly would not have endorsed

Under Dutch law, as in most European systems, these are separate rights, and a breach of each one is independent grounds for a claim. Court artists are protected just like photographers or illustrators, even though their work is often treated as "public domain" illustration of a public trial.

"My work is neutral documentation.

What they did with it is the exact opposite," Petra Urban told Dutch media.

The party paid the compensation out of court. The amount has not been disclosed.

What it means

This is one of the first documented cases in which AI manipulation of someone else's work ended in an actual financial payout.

For artists, photographers, and other creators of visual content, it is a reminder: neutral intent offers no protection against others repurposing their work for targeted ends.

For political players, the signal is different: the legal and reputational costs of such actions are very real, even when the material seems to belong to "no one."

*Meta is designated an extremist organization and banned in Russia.