Generative AI and copyright: The Studio Ghibli effect 

The rapid dissemination of AI-generated images in the style of the famous Japanese Studio Ghibli on social media will probably not have escaped your attention. This new trend raises some important legal and ethical questions about generative AI and copyright, as Gaëlle Andrieu explores. 

Do images generated by artificial intelligence (AI) using a known artistic style, such as Studio Ghibli, constitute copyright infringements? Is using copyright-protected works in the context of generative AI training lawful? Let's consider these questions and the potential legal and ethical issues that can arise in 'AI art'.  

Artistic style: Protected by copyright?   

To be protected by copyright, a work must be:   

• original,  
• the intellectual creation of its maker,  
• and created in a tangible form (e.g., drawn, written or performed).   

Ideas, methods or concepts are not protected by copyright, but their original and concrete expression is. In other words, artistic styles are not protected by copyright, only the works created in those styles – such as Studio Ghibli's animated films.   

Therefore, creating an image inspired by the style of the Ghibli animation studio, without reproducing elements actually present within the copyrighted works, is not an infringement in itself.   

However, if an AI-generated image uses recognisable elements of an existing work, such as a character, a specific scene, or scenery, it may constitute copyright infringement. 

In addition, when AI-generated images are used for commercial purposes and/or widely disseminated, the public may be misled as to the origin of those images. The AI art in such cases will unduly benefit from the author's notoriety and creative efforts. Consequently, such use could constitute acts of parasitism/passing off and unfair competition.   

AI art legal issues: The line between inspiration and infringement 

Infringement may result from a violation of one or more of the rights conferred by copyright. Thus, the reproduction of a work without the authorisation of its author is prohibited.   

The infringement will then be assessed according to the existing similarities between the works in question: the original and the second work.   

For infringement to occur, there must be a substantial similarity between the works. This similarity is assessed according to the original elements of the original work. If the similarities relate to unprotected aspects (such as general ideas or themes), they will not be sufficient to indicate an infringement.  

Therefore, to demonstrate the existence of an infringement in the context of AI-generated images in the style of the famous Studio Ghibli, it will be necessary to study each image in isolation, on a case-by-case basis, and to compare them with existing works to know whether or not the latter reproduce identifiable elements of the protected works.   

If the AI-generated work reproduces original elements in a sufficiently similar way, then the infringement could be recognised.   

In other words, drawing inspiration from a pre-existing artistic style does not constitute an infringement in itself, as long as no original element belonging to the protected work is reproduced in an identifiable way within the second creation.   

While the image generated by AI does not necessarily constitute an infringement of copyright by the mere use of an artistic style, however, the use of protected works to train generative AI (without the consent of their owners) also raises questions of legitimacy.   

Generative AI training databases: a legal grey area  

The creation of images inspired by existing artistic styles also raises the question of how these generative AI tools are trained.  

To reproduce images that faithfully reproduce the style of Studio Ghibli, generative AI must have been fed a considerable number of images in this style; for example, images taken from protected works such as Studio Ghibli animated films.   

However, the collection of data and protected works carried out without the consent of their author and without their knowledge raises copyright infringement and other legal issues, even if the images generated do not directly reproduce these works.   

The text and data mining exception to copyright 

There is an exception in copyright law, however, allowing text and data mining for training purposes. Therefore, unless authors have explicitly exercised their right to opt out – i.e., they have made it clear that they do not allow the use of their works in the context of data mining – the use of their works to train generative AI could be considered legal.   

As the European Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) now imposes an obligation of transparency regarding the data used for AI training, authors and creators will be able to check whether their works have been exploited by generative AI tools. 

AI-generated images and copyright: A balancing act 

While artistic styles are not protected by copyright as such, the 'Studio Ghibli Effect' nevertheless demonstrates the importance of providing a clear legal framework to regulate the use of AI to preserve IP rights on the one hand and freedom of expression and technological innovation on the other. 

To find out more about this hot topic of generative AI and copyright, explore our recent articles on AI-generated images or subscribe to our newsletter to ensure you receive our future alerts.  

Gaëlle Andrieu is a Trademark and Design Attorney at Novagraaf in Paris.