Ghibli. Since open AI software began recreating images in the typical style of Japanese filmmaker and animator Miyazaki Hayo, it has taken the world by storm and sent social media feeds in a frenzy. A 2016 interview with the well-known Studio Ghibli co-founder quickly sparked a lot of debate and was reportedly referred to as the use of AI in “inhumation on life itself.” >
These events remind us of two main questions: First, what is the legality surrounding AI-generated artwork, especially in the copyright domain? Second, what is the ethical dilemma in the use of technology to replicate a particular style of art? >
To answer the first question, there have been many examples of art generated by AI over the years as the world has embraced this toddler in the digital world. Moritzshui of The Hague used images generated by the AI ​​of Vermeer’s “Girls and Pearl Earrings” when the original work was loaned out to the exhibition. The Museum of Modern Art in New York also hosted an AI exhibition using the Generated Hostile Network (GAN) that “taught himself” by browsing the gallery’s archives. AI image generators like Dall-E, a homage to word play to the respected painter Salvador Dali, have “art” present by following a text prompt, using clips (pre-training contrast language images) with datasets of images. The new GPT 4o, which is used to generate images like Studio Ghibli, uses similar technology to reproduce images in the unique and unique style of Japanese creators. >
Copyright law faces many challenges in registering artwork created by “nonhuman” entities. You may remember the famous monkey conflict incident over a selfie clicked by a macaque named Naruto. Although US courts have refused to grant copyright protection to non-humans like macaques, the case holds clues to dark terrain in granting intellectual protection to the arts. This is especially appropriate when AI image generators like Dall-E have their platforms open to the market to create and sell AI-generated artwork. The datasets used to supply these platforms are often used to essentially train and reproduce art using copyrighted images, so owners may be liable for copyright violations under most national laws. This happened in the case of Getty Images, which advanced a lawsuit against stability AI, which allegedly processed copyrighted images for training data. >
Furthermore, when artwork is generated using only AI, it strikes the requirement for “originality” to allow artwork to be copyrighted. However, certain states allow AI support for artwork, including registering for “Suryast” artwork inspired by Gogh’s Starry Night in Canada, which was generated using the Raghav application by Indian IP lawyers. India also granted copyright protection to its work, but was later revoked. In the US, the Copyright Office has revoked copyrights granted to images generated by the text-based image generator Midjourney, designating “non-human” authors. This illustrates the lack of consensus for understanding the concepts of “originality” and “people” in the realm of copyright law. Therefore, the lack of clarity of the law allows businesses not only bypass the requirements of originality, but also consent and fair use in the use of such copyrighted material for commercial purposes. >
When you come to the ethical question of using artificial intelligence to create art, music, etc., it becomes important to answer the purpose of the art itself. Are AI-generated artworks considered “real art”? Is Ghibli’s trends underestimate Miyazaki’s legacy or are they celebrating it? You can engage in a long conversation about the power of art to move humanity. The Studio Ghibli loyalists have rightly argued that engagement in this AI trend is to underestimate the holiness, diligence and creativity of the artists involved in creating every frame of Ghibli film. Reducing Gibli’s aesthetic, including hours of hard work and research to generate colored images to social media trends, is not called a compliment. It is theft and appropriation of art, as the artist’s AI platform owner clearly did not ask to use his images to train image generators. >
The other side of the internet is debating the need to make art more accessible. This is a plea that is often used to counter AI-generated tasks. It can be argued that in the darkness of the Gibli’s concept, the lack of knowledge of the Creator came to know his masterpiece through the tendencies of the matter. Is this a sign of a change in the era where niche artists have the opportunity to introduce their work to the world through controversial trends? And it’s just that the reproduction of images using Ghibli-inspired aesthetics. It is an inspired art form that never challenges the originality of Ghibli’s legacy, but joins it as a fan-made tribute. However, without proper protection, this opens up legal issues, bypasses art maker consent, and extends the limits of “fair use.” With no law targeting AI image generators, these $1 billion companies can keep their training data opaque, thus keeping their audiences darker with the type of image used to train the datasets used in machine learning. >>
The Ghibli controversy has reclaimed a conversation about the need for strict AI regulations that allow for the integration of AI in AI, while respecting the demands of creators. The essence of art lies in the capture, evocation and blessing of human emotions that our ancestors have done since the dawn of mankind. Miyazaki’s harsh criticism of the art of algorithms is based on the premise of art, which is reproduced without understanding human emotions, and soulfully drives out works like factory products. In outsourcing this highly human quality to an AI generator, we are on the brink of losing ourselves at the altar of technology. Remember that it is art that gives us our conscience while allowing technology to make our lives easier. >
Anindita Bhattacharjee is a judicial officer under the judicial services of West Bengal. ba.llb. (hons.) Alumni, she completed LL.M. He currently holds his PhD in 2023. West Bengal National University of Justice, Kolkata>
