Renowned artists often spend years developing their own style. Therefore, it sometimes feels unfair that AI systems make it possible for anyone to generate new paintings or music “in the style of” these grand masters without any additional creative effort. The social relevance of this issue is confirmed by recent media coverage. Copyright and design law only protect creations that constitute a sufficiently concrete form of expression. Mere ideas do not enjoy protection. The question of whether “styles” enjoy protection is not easy. As a matter of principle, styles are unprotectable, but this axiom is increasingly coming under pressure. Especially the fact that AI makes it possible to create paintings or music “in the style of X” makes artists fear for their jobs. Who will still pay for their work if AI offers a (nearly) free alternative with the same look-and-feel? Even if intellectual property law offers no solution, the question arises whether there are no alternative protection regimes. Although the emergence of AI draws attention to the importance of this research, it goes beyond AI. It is conceivable that there are other circumstances in which style protection exists or is desirable. Through qualitative and comparative law research, this project will, for the very first time, tackle the questions as to what extent style is eligible for protection today (de lege lata) and to what extent normative changes are desirable in the future (de lege ferenda).