Introduction
Human beings are creative and innovative, and ideas that come from their minds are always original and outstanding. A work that comes from the intellect of an individual is as valuable as a property of one’s own. Therefore, intellectual property rights are essential to protect and promote new ideas and creations in the world. Intellectual property is considered intangible property, a proprietary right of the author of the work.
Every person is different from another, whether it is in terms of character, intelligence, ideas, behavior, etc. This distinctiveness among human beings brings a flood of a variety of notions, which are expressed in different ways, such as in their poems, stories, art, lyrics, etc. Art is one of the most favored means of expressing ideas; it connects human emotions and reflects the hard work and creativity of the artist. Such creativity is invaluable; thus, it needs appreciation and protection.
The need to provide legal protection for copyright, trademarks, patents, etc., has garnered attention at the international level; hence, the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property in 1883, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1886, and the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) were established to protect and promote intellectual property rights.
However, as technology advances over time, the threat of piracy or infringement of copyrighted works has become a major concern. This article aims to explore the ramifications of AI-generated content and the infringement of copyrighted works. In today’s world, human beings are now entangled with artificial intelligence, making it difficult to detach from it.
Human Creativity Versus AI-Generated Content
The human mind is a pool of abstraction that coordinates between reality and delusion, resulting in inventions. Art is a form of intellectual creativity that expresses emotions, body language, etc., and reflects the creativity of the artist. Artists from ages past have provided visual expressions of thoughts, written matter, and beliefs that do not require the ability to read and write. Any layman can pursue the theme of the artist, unlike literary work. The paintings of Raja Ravi Varma depict Hindu mythological subjects by using European-style oil pastels to make his paintings resemble a realistic scene. Similarly, in Japan, the manga-style art conveys emotions, body language, facial expressions, and visual symbols such as sweat, blush, anger, etc., making it more realistic. Art is not only a mere visual representation of real-life scenes, but it also contains the emotions of an individual and her hard work behind it, which is precious.
In today’s world, Artificial intelligence (AI) has been replacing humans in this field. An AI generates artistic work within seconds, which could have taken hours or years for a human being. It provides similar content that is easy to access for the common man. By using existing data, AI trains its algorithm to create such artistic works. Maybe an AI-generated art can be as aesthetic as the art of an artist; nevertheless, the emotions connected to that art and its uniqueness cannot be brought into the artistic work of AI. However, it is possible that it may minimize human creativity, which helps in bringing new ideas, and limit the career options for those who are eager to showcase their talents.
Legal Position For AI Generated Work
Generative AIs can be trained to generate synthetic data; they ingest copies before making the AI model. This means that an AI-generated work is not its original work. However, if the work is a derivative work, then it can be called the original work of AI. There are no legal provisions that explicitly give authorship to AI-generated work. The lack of legal provisions is creating problems in dealing with issues related to the infringement of copyrighted work by AI.
Recently, in New York Times v. OpenAI, the New York Times[1] sued OpenAI for infringing their copyright. Their claim is that OpenAI used their work without their license for training their AI. Similarly, in Andersen v. Stability AI et al.[2], the cartoon artists sued multiple generative AI platforms for infringing their copyright by using their work without authorization to train their AI in their style and then reproduce it. The court in both cases discussed this topic, noting that there is no legal framework for resolving such issues; therefore, reliance on judicial pronouncements is essential.
Test Of Originality
In the USA, the Zarya of the Dawn case established a test for ‘Zarya’ where the copyright officer’s decision should be based on the assessment of skill, judgment, and creativity exercised by the author to make arrangements for that work, which will determine its originality and eligibility for copyright. If the work of AI is based on its own skill, judgment, and creativity, it will be capable of obtaining copyright for its work.
In India, the “Significant Human Input” test is used to determine the extent of human input in the creation of the work. If the extent of human input is not significant in the work, then the AI can obtain authorship.
Doctrine Of Fair Use
The Doctrine of Fair Use is an exception for using copyrighted work without the consent of the owner, and it will not cause infringement. Generally, fair use includes the use of work for criticizing the work, commenting on it, reporting news, teaching, and research purposes. This is still a matter of dispute as to whether the use of copyrighted work for training AI will be considered fair use or not, it depends upon the decision of courts which can vary case to case.
Recently, in ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. Open AI Inc & Anr., ANI Media is claiming that Open AI has used their published article to train its AI. This issue is not only present in India but in other countries as well, where Open AI is facing legal suits for using their work to train its AI.
A Study Of Studio Ghibli And Openai
Studio Ghibli, which is known for its anime characters, has a long history behind it. The founder of Studio Ghibli, Miyazaki Hayao, was born during World War II. His father was the director of Miyazaki Airlines; therefore, Miyazaki was fond of airplanes, and the struggles he faced during his childhood due to the war are reflected in his work. At that time, manga-style art was quite popular in Japan. Miyazaki was also influenced by this style, taking inspiration from his life and surroundings. Miyazaki and Takahata together launched Studio Ghibli. The very famous anime movies like My Neighbor Totoro, Kiki’s Delivery Service, Spirited Away, etc., are the work of Studio Ghibli.[3]
AI- Generated Ghibli
Recently, OpenAI launched a new feature in ChatGPT that allows real-life images to be transformed into Ghibli-styled images, providing the public easy access to Ghibli art to create their own aesthetic anime characters. This feature has increased the number of ChatGPT users, with almost 150 million users added by April this year. On one hand, the trend of AI-generated Ghibli images has flooded social media; on the other hand, many people are raising concerns that AI-generated work infringes on copyrighted material, as companies use this work to train their generative AI, which does not produce its own original work. This may affect future creativity in humans.[4]
Legal Position
The OpenAI mimicry of Ghibli-styled images is raising questions regarding the copyright of the owner, as images created by ChatGPT are similar to the art of Studio Ghibli. However, the artistic techniques or aesthetics are not protected by copyright. In the USA and other countries, derivative works cannot receive copyright; a derivative work means the recasting, transformation, or adaptation of an original work. If we consider ChatGPT’s images to be derivative works and Studio Ghibli as the original owner, then using Ghibli art to train their AI without a license to do so would infringe on the copyright of the original owner.[5]
The OpenAI company can defend its work by claiming that mere ideas are not protected under copyright law, and creating art similar to human features is an idea and hence not protected under copyright laws. Nevertheless, the artistic work of Studio Ghibli is not a mere idea; it is an expression of an idea. The anime characters have distinctive features that make it an original artistic work of Studio Ghibli.[6]
The OpenAI companies can also claim protection under the doctrine of Fair Use, as the use of copyrighted work was for training their AI only. However, whether the doctrine of Fair Use applies is at the discretion of the court. The court has to determine the purpose of the use of the work, the amount that is used from such work, and its effect on the market, which will determine whether the use of Ghibli-styled images by OpenAI was fair use or not. In support of the infringement of copyright of Studio Ghibli, it can be argued that the use of training generative AI has employed a transformative method to mimic the Ghibli style, which will affect the commercial interest of the original creators.[7]
The intersection of AI- GENERATED art and copyrights law raises complex questions and it highlights the need for clarity on copyright law and AI generated work to navigate the fine line between creative innovation and copyright infringement.
Conclusion
Humans are very creative and innovative beings; this is the reason for the development of human society. It is humans who are creating artificial intelligence to assist them in their creative and innovative work. With the passage of time, AI has started replacing humans in various sectors and has been developing creative and innovative functions, but this is not possible without using available data, which comes from human original work. Humans generate original work by using their intellect; similarly, AI generates work by ingesting copies before making any new content. However, in some cases, AI uses copyrighted work only for inspiration and creates something new or original, but it is not an easy task to separate original work from AI-generated work. Therefore, a proper legal framework is needed to resolve the issue of copyright infringement by AI.
[1] The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, 1:23-cv-11195, (S.D.N.Y.).
[2] Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., 3:23-cv-00201, (N.D. Cal.).
[3] Pat Bauer, Studio Ghibli | History, Animated Films, Characters, & Facts, Britannica ( Mar. 31, 2025), https://www.britannica.com/money/Studio-Ghibli.
[4] Lingamgunta Nirmitha Rao, What is ChatGPT’s ‘Studio Ghibli’ and why is the internet obsessed?, Hindustan Times (Mar. 28, 2025, 06:29 AM IST), https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/what-is-chatgpt-s-studio-ghibli-and-why-is-the-internet-obsessed-101743100327626.html.
[5] Shantanu Mukherjee and Varun Alase, OpenAI, Studio Ghibli and Copyright Infringement: A closer look, RONIN LEGAL (Apr. 3, 2025, 9:12 PM), https://roninlegalconsulting.com/openai-studio-ghibli-and-copyright-infringement-a-closer-look/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%2C%20if%20the,infringing%20on%20any%20copyrighted%20material.
[6] Ms. Swagita Pandey Tewari, GHIBLI ART AND COPYRIGHT: THE COPYRIGHT DILEMMA OF GHIBLI STYLE CREATION AND THE LOOMING LEGAL BATTLE AHEAD, THE IP PRESS ( Mar. 31, 2025, 9:25), https://www.theippress.com/2025/03/31/ghibli-ai-art-and-copyright-the-copyright-dilemma-of-ghibli-style-creations-and-the-looming-legal-battles-ahead/ .
[7] Shantanu Mukherjee and Varun Alase, OpenAI, Studio Ghibli and Copyright Infringement: A closer look, RONIN LEGAL (Apr. 3, 2025, 9:12 PM), https://roninlegalconsulting.com/openai-studio-ghibli-and-copyright-infringement-a-closer-look/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%2C%20if%20the,infringing%20on%20any%20copyrighted%20material.
Author: Sweta Pathak is a (B.A.LL.B(Hons) student at S. S. Khanna Girls’ Degree College ( Constituent of University of Allahabad )
