Author: Carla Acosta – Visual Designer
The internet is currently enchanted by a new trend: users uploading selfies and prompts to ChatGPT’s new image generation tools and receiving beautiful, dreamy illustrations in the unmistakable style of Studio Ghibli. These AI-generated artworks channel the cozy mysticism of Spirited Away or the whimsical charm of My Neighbor Totoro, all without a human artist in sight.
At first glance, it’s fun and harmless, a celebration of creativity and technology. But underneath the surface, this trend exposes deeper ethical questions about artistic ownership, consent, and the future of creative work in the age of AI.
CAN CHATGPT REPLICATES AN ARTISTIC STYLE?
One of the first questions this trend raises is deceptively simple: can you own a style?
From a legal perspective, the answer is usually no. Copyright protects specific works, not artistic styles. This means that mimicking Studio Ghibli’s look; its watercolor backgrounds, expressive eyes, and signature character design, is not technically illegal.
But ethically, the issue is more complex.
Studio Ghibli’s style is not just a visual technique, it’s the result of decades of creative labor, storytelling, cultural identity, and personal philosophy. It’s the artistic voice of co-founder Hayao Miyazaki, whose works embody a profound respect for nature, childhood wonder, and anti-industrial themes. Reducing that to an AI filter, one that neither credits the creators nor asks for consent, can feel more like appropriation than appreciation.
Meme generated by ChatGPT Studio Ghibli style
Consent and Control: What Would Miyazaki Say?
We actually know what Miyazaki thinks about AI-generated art. In a 2016 interview, he referred to it as “an insult to life itself,” expressing deep discomfort with the soullessness of machine-generated visuals. Studio Ghibli has never authorized the use of its style in generative AI tools, and there’s no evidence they were involved in training any such models.
So while the Ghibli-like art may be technically impressive, it lacks the permission or participation of the people whose work it imitates.
In an era where artists increasingly fight for control over their work, this raises some essential ethical questions:
Should creators have the right to determine how their artistic voice is replicated by machines, especially after they’re gone?
What could artists do if an artwork with opposite ideologies is created with their own style?
Is it possible to ask big AI companies to stop using their style? Or at least ask for a financial retribution?
Monetization: When AI Becomes Exploitation
What began as a fun visual trend has already taken a commercial turn. From Ghibli-style profile pics being sold on Etsy, to influencers monetizing engagement with AI art, the line between homage and exploitation is becoming blurry.
This is particularly concerning when the original creators see none of the revenue, and their brand is indirectly leveraged for profit. While tools like ChatGPT prohibit generating copyrighted content, the stylistic imitation exists in a legal gray zone, ripe for commercial misuse.
Gen AI images: Undermining Human Artists?
The growing availability of tools that can generate professional-looking artwork in seconds has understandably left many human artists feeling sidelined. The Ghibli trend is a potent example: people who once commissioned artists to create fan art are now turning to AI to do it faster, and often for free.
But let’s be clear: generative AI doesn’t create like a human, however is competing directly with artists; it only creates the illusion of creativity. It doesn’t imagine, feel, or reflect. It predicts patterns based on massive datasets, some of which likely contain scraped or unlicensed images from the very artists it replaces.
While it may mimic the look, it can’t replicate the meaning and storytelling behind the art.
So Where Do We Go From Here?
Generative AI isn’t going away, it’s evolving rapidly. But as we marvel at its capabilities, we must also build ethical guardrails to protect human creativity.
Here are a few starting points:
Give credit where it’s due, even if the AI doesn’t (…at least this trend involves Studio Ghibli’s name).
Push for clearer consent mechanisms for training data. Can we involve in this model training the artists’ context, ideologies, likes and dislikes?
Avoid monetizing outputs based on the recognizable work of unconsenting artists or studios. (Ask for permission!)
Encourage tools that support, not replace, artistic collaboration.
Conclusion
The Studio Ghibli x ChatGPT trend is magical, no doubt. But like many things in AI, its magic comes with a cost. As users, creators, and developers, we have a choice: to treat these tools as thoughtful collaborators, or careless imitators.
If we truly love the art that inspires us, we owe it the respect it deserves, even when it’s just one click away.
Carla Acosta – Visual Designer
