GHIBLI AI ART AND COPYRIGHT: THE COPYRIGHT DILEMMA OF GHIBLI STYLE CREATIONS AND THE LOOMING LEGAL BATTLES AHEAD

The beginning of use of the artificial intelligence (AI) in the creative space has sparked significant ethical and Legal debates predominantly concerning copyright and licensing. Recently, social media users embraced a new AI-powered feature allowing them to transform internet memes and personal photos into artwork resembling the distinct style of Hayao Miyazaki, the founder of Studio Ghibli after OpenAI’s launch of GPT-4o, which enables high-quality image generation in distinct artistic styles. While this has generated nostalgia and excitement, it has also raised critical concerns regarding legal boundaries of AI-generated art.[1]

AI, COPYRIGHT, AND LICENSING CONCERNS:

Studio Ghibli’s artistic legacy is built on years of meticulous craftsmanship by skilled animators, making the unauthorized replication of its style is a controversial issue give the fact that even the artist Hayao Miyazaki has expressed concerns. AI generated art that closely mimics a protected artistic style raises several copyright and intellectual property issues. The U.S. Copyright Act, Indian Copyright Act along with international treaties such as the Berne Convention, grants creators exclusive rights over their original works. While copyright law protects the expression of an idea rather than the idea itself known as the idea-expression dichotomy, the replication of a highly recognizable and unique style such as that of Studio Ghibli is far beyond the Idea and is derivative and infringing.

However, as per the Indian Copyright Act, the copyright owner holds exclusive rights to reproduce, adapt, and distribute artistic works. Similarly, the U.S. Copyright Actprovides protection against unauthorized reproduction and derivative works. If AI-generated images closely mimic the distinct style of Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli, they may fall under the scope of derivative works, thereby requiring explicit authorization from the copyright holder. In the current matter as per the publicly available information, it remains unclear whether OpenAI obtained a license to generate Ghibli style AI art. If OpenAI used copyrighted Studio Ghibli works to train its model without authorization, it could potentially face legal challenges under Section 106 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which grants the copyright owner exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and create derivative works[2]. Studio Ghibli’s works represent decades of creative labor, with films and characters cherished by audiences worldwide. The unauthorized reproduction or adaptation of these distinctive works through AI generated images threatens to devalue the brand’s global reputation. The sale and distribution of such unlicensed products constitute potential copyright infringement, which could lead to legal consequences.

THE GHIBLI AI ART TREND: AN INNOVATION OR AN INSULT?

Many artists argue that AI generated images damage their work by using vast datasets that may contain copyrighted content without explicit permission. The concern is that as AI continues to grow and upgrade, human artists could be displaced, leading to a significant shift in the creative industry. Artist Hayao Miyazaki, the founder of Studio Ghibli himself has expressed skepticism regarding AI’s role in animation stating that AI-generated art is “an insult to life itself”[3]. A key concern in this dispute is whether AI tools are trained on copyrighted works without permission. If AI generated images reflect the essence of a copyrighted style, it raises questions of whether the AI is merely reproducing original elements or creating new transformative works.

THE DEFENCE OF THE IDEA-EXPRESSION DICHOTOMY:

One argument in defence of AI generated Ghibli style images is the idea expression dichotomy, a fundamental principle in copyright law. This doctrine states that copyright protection applies to the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. However, in this case, Ghibli AI art does not merely adopt general artistic concepts but explicitly replicates the unique and recognizable visual identity of Studio Ghibli’s works. Thus, it may not be protected under this legal principle. However, it would be interesting to see how various courts around the world react to this defence if OpenAI chooses to rely on it.

THE FIGHT FOR ARTISTIC AUTHENTICITY AND NEED OF ETHICAL DEBATE OVER GHIBLI AI ART:

According to International copyright frameworks such as the Berne Convention, creators must provide consent before their works are reproduced or adapted. If AI models incorporate copyrighted materials without compensation or authorization, legal claims for infringement may arise. The authenticity of AI generated art remains a grey area, as none of the copyright laws around the world were originally designed to address AI created works. Hence, some key legal concerns of AI created works are as follows:

Does AI generated content constitute a derivative work?

Well,whether AI generated content constitutes a derivative work depends on its similarity to preexisting copyrighted material and the legal framework governing copyright protection. As per U.S. Copyright Act, a derivative work is one that is “recast, transformed, or adapted” from an original work. If an AI generated image closely resembles a copyrighted work such as Studio Ghibli’s distinct artistic style and was produced using training data containing copyrighted materials without permission, it could be considered an unauthorized derivative work, which grants exclusive rights to copyright holders. If AI generated content merely draws inspiration from a style without replicating specific protected elements such as characters, compositions, or unique visual elements, it may not constitute a derivative work. The legal status of AI generated works remains uncertain, but unauthorized replication of copyrighted content through AI could lead to liability for both AI developers and users.

Can an Artist’s unique style be protected under Copyright Law?

The copyright safeguards the expression of an idea, not the idea itself, a principle known as the Idea Expression dichotomy. This means that while a specific artwork (such as a painting or illustration) is copyrightable, the broader artistic style or technique used to create it is not. Courts have around the world have consistently ruled that copyright protection does not extend to methods, techniques, or artistic approaches, as doing so would restrict creative freedom and innovation. However, if an AI generated work closely replicates original copyrighted elements, such as specific characters, compositions, or distinctive visual motifs, it may constitute copyright infringement. If AI merely imitates a general style without copying specific protected elements, it is unlikely to be considered infringement. However, if an AI generated work substantially mimics an Artist’s copyrighted works, it could be subject to legal action, especially if used commercially.

Should AI companies be required to obtain licenses or provide compensation when training models on copyrighted works?

Whether AI companies should be required to obtain licenses or provide compensation when training models on copyrighted works is a key legal and ethical debate. Under current copyright law, copyright holders have exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and create derivative works. If AI companies use copyrighted materials without authorization, it could constitute copyright infringement, unless it qualifies as “fair use”[4]. The fair use doctrine considers factors such as:

The purpose and character of the use,
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used, and
The effect on the market.

AI companies often dispute that training models on copyrighted works is transformative and falls under fair use. Some jurisdictions are already moving toward requiring licenses for AI training. The EU’s Copyright Directive permits text and data mining but allows copyright holders to opt out, effectively requiring AI companies to seek permission[5]. In contrast, U.S. copyright law does not yet provide clear regulations on AI training. If courts rule against AI companies, they may be required to obtain licenses or pay royalties to copyright holders, similar to how streaming services compensate music artists. Conversely, if AI generated outputs are found to be sufficiently transformative, AI companies may continue using copyrighted works without direct compensation. The legal landscape remains unsettled, but future regulations will likely clarify the obligations of AI developers regarding copyrighted materials[6].

END NOTE:

As AI generated art becomes more prevalent, the legal structure surrounding copyright and intellectual property must evolve to address new challenges. The case of Studio Ghibli AI art emphasises the growing tension between technological innovation and the protection of artistic integrity. Until clearer regulations emerge, AI companies, artists, and copyright holders will continue to navigate this uncertain landscape. Meanwhile, the area is still grey, ending the article with some famous Ghibli AI Art and IP Press following the trend produced herein below: