[Photo by: Kyla Duhamel, CC BY 2.0]
Studio Ghibli, its creators, and the characters have a special place in hearts of people who grew up with their movies, as each one of them must have left deep impact in our psyche. The universe of Chihiro, Totoro and all have been etched into our thoughts and imaginations.
Recently, (apparently after a post shared on March 25, 2025, by Seattle-based software engineer Grant Slatton that went viral) there have been a sudden surge of Studio Ghibli inspired AI generated art in social media. Ever since, as all our timelines and ‘stories’ are flooded with beautiful drawings in our friends’ liking, there also have been a renewal of the debate of ethical and legal aspects of use of Studio Ghibli’s work, or works inspired by their style.
Meanwhile, a legal notice was being circualted where Studio Ghibli was apparently going to sue the software companies involved including OpenAI for the misuse of their intellectual properties. It turned out to be a fake letter, that too is apparently generated by AI. However, if the Studio would go for such legal action, I would whole heartedly support Studio Ghibli’s legal battle against the use of their style of art in generating images using AI. And I would have hoped they would have won it.
Here is why I think it is unethical to use their style as a template for reproducing images, first, it is similar to copying a tune of a song, if that’s not ok, then why copying a style of a visual art is? On top of that, they rather created a tool for mass reproduction of the original tune for profit!
Second, it should be a matter of choice, did the AI companies ask Studio Ghibli if they are ok with letting anyone create/recreate images using their style and name in a manner of a factory mass production? The Studio could have chosen to make a deal, in exchange of a one off payment or per image royalty or whatever, given that they were asked, and that discussion and negotiation had taken place. Nothing of that sort happened.
This is not the first time an artist or a group raised their concerns about AI generators stealing their works. It might seem legally and morally complicated to judge, but here is an easy way for everyday evaluation, i.e: remove AI from the scene, and think how an artist would feel if you as an individual or a group would have blatantly copied their work. AI is just a tool for remixing and reproducing, similar to a human artist helping you with copying works of another artist—if that’s not ok, then AI is also not ok.
The legal and moral frameworks are the same. Just replace the AI with an individual or an army of workers while you are thinking, you’ll get your answers.
Reactions and Discussions
I originally posted a version of the writing above on Facebook, it has seen an overwhelming majority of agreement sounding reactions, and a few good arguments. Here I am summarising one of them
“A ‘style’ can not be copyrighted“
Copying a visual style is like following a genre, not a specific tune. Style is like a genre of music. A genre cannot be copyrighted. Similar to art movements, for example, if one paints a cubist painting, would that be considered a copy of Picasso’s work?
My argument: That depends! It depends on timing. A style of an artist turns into a genre typically much later than the contemporary time of the artist who starts it. Given the Picasso example, he did not named the geomatric abstraction as Cubism, a critic or a historian did, much later than the style is already picked up by other artists, and Picasso himself has created a good number of works by then. However, during the early days of Cubism when only a handful of paintings were done in this style was still pretty much Picasso’s personal property, it was yet to be a genre. I believe, Ghibli style is yet to become a genre, and the visual style still belongs to the studio alone.
And here we are talking about a commercial tool that is sold for profit being used to produce hundreds and thousands of copies without royalty or permission—that I believe is never Ok, even if it turns out to be a genre, until, the works of Ghibli completely goes to the public domain.
Check out the full discussion on Facebook.
What Does AI Say About Using AI for Generating Ghibli Style Art?
I asked ChatGPT to tell what does it think about the use of AI for generating Ghibli style art, considering, legal, moral and ethical point of views, here is what the response I got:
“That’s a great and timely question, and the ethical considerations are quite layered when it comes to AI-generated art inspired by specific artists or studios like Studio Ghibli.
Legally (as of now):
• Studio Ghibli’s visual style isn’t copyrighted per se — copyright protects specific works (like characters, scenes, and scripts), not general styles. So mimicking the style of Ghibli (such as soft backgrounds, large-eyed characters, or particular colour palettes) isn’t a direct violation.
• However, using copyrighted characters like Totoro or No-Face in AI-generated art would likely cross the line into infringement.
Ethically:
• Creative Attribution: The Ghibli style is deeply associated with the vision of Hayao Miyazaki and a team of dedicated artists. Generating work in this style without attribution, or worse, for profit, can be seen as exploitative.
• Consent and Legacy: Miyazaki has been very vocal against AI art and automation in creative work. Ethically, using a style so personally and philosophically crafted by someone who disapproves of the medium could be seen as a lack of respect for his legacy.
• Royalties and Revenue: If companies or creators begin monetising Ghibli-style AI-generated works (e.g., selling prints, NFTs, or using them in ads), it raises serious issues of unfair competition and revenue appropriation. Studio Ghibli receives no royalties from such uses, despite being the source of aesthetic inspiration.
Wider cultural impact:
• There’s a risk of style dilution — flooding the internet with AI imitations might devalue the uniqueness of Ghibli’s hand-drawn artistry.
• It could also affect the market for human illustrators trained in the Ghibli tradition or inspired by its methods.
Summary:
Is it illegal? Not always.
Is it unethical? Often — especially if there’s no credit, consent, or care.
If AI-generated Ghibli-style art is used for fun, with attribution, and not for profit, the ethical concerns are lighter. But once it becomes commercial or misleading, it raises serious questions about artistic integrity, ownership, and respect.”
