Will users, organisations be in trouble for posting Ghibli-style AI pictures?

The flood of artificial intelligence-generated images mimicking anime producer Studio Ghibli’s style on social media following the rollout of a new feature on ChatGPT has reignited a long-standing debate over plagiarism in art.

OpenAI’s latest ChatGPT update, launched on March 26, lets users transform their photos into cartoons inspired by real animators based on the user’s prompts – for free and more convincingly than most of the competition.

Countless individual users and organisations have jumped on the trend of turning their photos into cartoons inspired by the works of Studio Ghibli – the Japanese studio behind animated movies such as Spirited Away and My Neighbour Totoro, known for their warm palettes and signature hand-drawn style.

The White House on March 28 shared a Studio Ghibli-style illustration of a real-life convicted drug dealer in tears during her arrest by the authorities. Comedy platform SGAG faced online criticism from some commenters after sharing a post containing popular local memes reimagined in the Ghibli style. A&W Restaurants also joined in, posting an anime-style rendition of its mascot.

Even OpenAI’s chief executive Sam Altman changed his profile picture on social media platform X to match the trending style.

Digital marketer Tan Jenn Chye, 47, said that while AI tools have long mimicked existing art styles, the wave of anime-style creations has gone overboard – especially when organisations use them for marketing or social media buzz.

Mr Tan said most marketers would work with extreme caution to ensure their content does not infringe other brands’ intellectual property (IP), yet to create Ghibli-inspired art, users would need to tell ChatGPT to convert images to look like the studio’s work.

“That’s a clear indication that the user or company knows that they are copying Ghibli’s work,” he said. “So, why is it suddenly acceptable with AI?”

Legal experts said that current laws offer little recourse despite public outcry likening it to plagiarism.

Individuals are unlikely to face legal action for posting their own Ghibli-style images online, as copyright law does not protect an artist’s style – no matter how distinctive it is, said Mr David Alfred, a senior technology lawyer at Drew and Napier.

“This would include Studio Ghibli’s memorable art style,” added Mr Alfred.

Copyright covers specific expressions of an idea, like a particular depiction of a place, but not broad artistic traits such as soft pastel tones or forest-focused themes that Ghibli is known for, he added.

IP lawyer Cyril Chua of Robinson LLC said that rights must be clearly defined for infringement claims to hold.

Even within Studio Ghibli, its art direction has varied across different artists, despite the studio’s strong association with its co-founder Hayao Miyazaki, said Mr Chua.

He cited pop star Ed Sheeran’s US$100 million (S$134 million) copyright case, where claims that his song Thinking Out Loud copied musician Marvin Gaye’s Let’s Get It On were dismissed because chord progressions cannot be monopolised.

“Likewise, no one can claim exclusive rights over a style, which would need to be well defined and scoped,” said Mr Chua. “If you can’t pinpoint a style, how can you protect it?” 

However, organisations using AI-generated Ghibli-style images for commercial purposes – like ads, packaging, or merchandise – may be at higher risk of IP infringement.

Mr Alfred of Drew and Napier said that organisations doing so could mislead consumers into thinking that they are the official content producer and potentially harm Studio Ghibli’s licensing market.

It is also unclear if OpenAI has infringed IP over the input used to train its ChatGPT model to produce Ghibli-style images, or if they could rely on defences under the Copyright Act, he said, noting that no known precedents in Singapore have been set.

OpenAI faces multiple pending lawsuits, including one from The New York Times, which alleged that its content was used without permission to train AI models. OpenAI argued that the data was publicly available and can be used for research.

Actress Scarlett Johansson also sued OpenAI in 2024, alleging it used her voice without consent for an AI persona.

IP and tech lawyer Natalie Huang from Baker McKenzie Wong & Leow said that firms that explicitly copy the characters owned by Ghibli, like Totoro, especially for commercial use, risk running afoul of copyright laws.

While non-commercial ChatGPT users may not be at risk of copyright infringement, those who upload their pictures freely onto the AI platform expose themselves to other risks.

Lawyer Khelvin Xu, a director of Covenant Chambers who handles tech disputes, said that when users upload their pictures onto ChatGPT, they are providing OpenAI with their personal data for them to use according to their own terms – and in potentially unexpected ways. For example, someone might see a new image that was made using photos uploaded by a user who didn’t expect or want their photos to be used that way.

OpenAI is no stranger to data management lapses, experts noted. In 2023, a bug allowed some ChatGPT users to see the conversation titles of other users.

“The lesson is to assume anything digital could be ingested, replicated or leaked,” said Mr Kevin Shepherdson, chief executive of privacy management firm Straits Interactive. “In the AI era, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

Even in the creative sector, views are divided on AI. Advertisers and some artists have welcomed AI as a tool for efficiency or even creative expression.

On the other hand, films like the Oscar-winning The Brutalist, for example, have faced backlash over the use of AI in its production. In Singapore, writers objected to national plans to build a South-east Asia-focused large language model that would use their writings for training.

Famously in 2016, Miyazaki said he has no intention of incorporating AI-generated art into his work, describing AI-generated art as an “insult to life itself”.

Mr Chua of Robinson LLC said that original works should be given credit if they had been used to produce AI work.

“Today, AI might be able to get close to reproducing the look of a film, but there’s still artwork, script-writing and music that make a film enjoyable. There is still some way to go for AI to even come close to combining all these elements together,” said Mr Chua.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

ADV: The Law on Sexual Offences - book out now [SAcLJ]: A Comparative Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Regulation: Implications for Singapore