Source: The Hindu  

Introduction 

A recent incident involving AI-generated Studio Ghibli-style images has reignited the debate about AI art, reminiscent of when Hayao Miyazaki called AI animation "an insult to life itself." The controversy highlights dispute between technology companies' "fair use" claims and artists' concerns about their work being used without permission to train AI models. This raises fundamental questions about copyright protection for artistic styles versus specific works and the future livelihood of human artists.  

Did AI-generated Ghibli-style Images Misuse Miyazaki's Anti-war Legacy? 

• The controversy began when AI-generated images mimicking Studio Ghibli's distinctive art style were circulated online, including by the US White House, the IDF, and individuals celebrating the destruction of Islamic places of worship in India. 
• These AI-generated "Ghibli-fied" images were created rapidly by machines, contrasting with Miyazaki's meticulous hand-drawn animation process and misappropriating his well-known anti-war stance. 
• The incident revived attention to an older video where Hayao Miyazaki, when shown AI-generated animation, expressed disgust and called it "an insult to life itself." 
• This situation highlighted the stark difference between AI-generated imitations and genuine artistic homages like "The Glassworker," a 2024 Pakistani hand-drawn animated film that respectfully drew inspiration from Studio Ghibli while honoring Miyazaki's anti-war beliefs. 
• OpenAI defended its AI training practices under "fair use" doctrine, claiming such usage was "fair to creators, necessary for innovators, and crucial for US competitiveness," putting them at odds with creators concerned about their work being used without permission. 

Can AI Legally Imitate Artistic Styles Without Violating Copyright? 

• The "fair use" doctrine was cited by OpenAI as their defense for using copyrighted works to train AI models, claiming it's permissible under specific circumstances outlined in US copyright law. 
• US copyright law protects specific creative products or works, but does not extend protection to concepts, ideas, or artistic styles (such as Studio Ghibli's distinctive aesthetic). 
• Moral Rights protection, which exists in many civil law countries but is significantly limited in the United States and would not allow Studio Ghibli to prevent others from imitating their artistic style. 
• The ongoing case in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., is referenced as one where courts are still determining whether AI image generators that produce images in specific artists' styles constitute copyright infringement. 

What is the Doctrine of Fair Use ? 

United States Fair Use Doctrine  

• Fair use is codified under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, 1976. 
• It permits limited use of copyrighted material without permission for specific purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. 
• Fair use is determined by analyzing four factors: 
  • The purpose and character of the use (e.g., commercial vs. non-commercial, or transformative use). 
  • The nature of the copyrighted work. 
  • The amount and substantiality of the portion used. 
  • The effect of the use on the market value of the original work. 
• U.S. law does not protect ideas, styles, or concepts—only tangible expressions (e.g., books, images, films). 
• The "transformative use" test is crucial: if the new work adds value or changes the original meaning, it may be fair use. 
• Moral rights are very limited under U.S. law; artists cannot always control how their work is reused or modified. 
• Courts in the U.S. have allowed fair use in tech-related cases (e.g., Google v. Oracle). 
• The legality of using copyrighted works to train AI models is currently under judicial review (e.g., Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.). 
• Fair use promotes innovation, education, and freedom of expression. 
• Each fair use case is judged individually—there is no fixed formula. 

In India : 

• Fair dealing is provided under Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. 
• It allows limited use of copyrighted works for private use, research, criticism, review, reporting, or judicial purposes. 
• Fair dealing applies only to literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, not computer programs. 
• Indian courts assess fairness using similar factors as U.S. law: 
  • The purpose of the use (non-commercial, educational, etc.). 
  • The nature of the work. 
  • The amount and substantiality used. 
  • The effect on the original work's market. 
• The intention behind the use (e.g., academic or parody) is considered vital. 
• Use of copyrighted work for commercial exploitation is not protected under fair dealing. 
• Indian law considers fair dealing as part of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• Courts in India have emphasized a balanced approach, weighing both creator’s rights and public interest. 
• Indian courts discourage defining "fair dealing" rigidly; instead, context and intent are key. 

Conclusion 

Artists are exploring protective measures including paywalls, the Robots Exclusion Protocol, and anti-AI tools like Glaze to prevent their work from being scraped for AI training. Some experts suggest that social and labor policies might better protect artists from AI-related economic harm than extending copyright protections. The controversy represents a "surface-level warning" about deeper transformations that may pose an "existential risk" to the future of visual artists and their profession. The debate extends beyond legal questions to fundamental concerns about how society values human creativity in an era of rapidly advancing AI capabilities.