In March 2025, OpenAI added a new image creation feature to ChatGPT. Now users can generate images using artificial intelligence through special text prompts. In an instant, the internet was flooded with Ghibli-style scenes: Elon Musk walking through magical forests or Frodo Baggins strolling under floating clouds, as if taken from an animated film.
This trend quickly gained popularity on social networks, with thousands of users trying to create Ghibli-style images. Reports circulated that even OpenAI CEO Sam Altman joined this trend, replacing his profile picture with an AI-generated image based on Ghibli aesthetics.
But behind these pleasant photos lie the sharp and increasingly complicated debates in the era of artificial intelligence related to art, property rights, and copyright.
Style Isn’t Copyrighted—But What About the Data Behind It?
At the center of the controversy is a legal gray area: can an AI model legally mimic the style of a human artist or studio without breaking copyright law?
Currently, in most jurisdictions, an artistic style—like “Studio Ghibli-inspired” or “in the style of Van Gogh”—isn’t protected by copyright law. This means people can freely paint in similar styles, as long as they’re not copying specific works.
But when it comes to AI, the problem isn’t just the output. It’s the input.
AI models like OpenAI’s image generator are trained on massive datasets, many of which may include copyrighted material scraped from the web. If Ghibli movie stills were used to train the model—without the studio’s permission—then the model may have effectively “learned” how to recreate their style from protected work.
Evan Brown, an intellectual property lawyer at Neal & McDevitt, points out that while styles may not be copyrighted, the training process itself could be considered an infringement if it uses copyrighted data without a license. And if the model starts generating visuals that are too close to the originals, legal problems escalate.
Creators Push Back
The creative industry is already pushing back hard against AI platforms that use copyrighted work without consent or compensation. Recently, more than 400 artists, writers, and film directors appealed to US lawmakers, requesting that AI companies be compelled to obtain licenses for the works their models are training on.
Hollywood actors, musicians, and major publishers also joined this struggle. At the beginning of the year, The New York Times filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, claiming that their content was used without permission to train ChatGPT.
For visual artists, the stakes are high. If an AI can generate art that looks just like yours—trained on your actual work—how do you protect your brand, your style, and your career?
Studio Ghibli has not yet commented on this viral trend, but similar studios have previously criticized the unauthorized use of their styles and images in AI projects.
What Happens to Art in the Age of AI?
The Ghibli-style image trend is more than just a fun internet moment—it’s a sign of what’s coming. AI tools are getting better at replicating not only facts and images, but also the creative fingerprint of real artists. With just a few words, users can now generate visuals that resemble the work of renowned creators—without hiring a designer, buying a license, or crediting the original source.
Supporters say this kind of technology democratizes creativity, allowing people with no artistic training to bring their visions to life. But critics argue that it devalues real artists, whose work gets mimicked by algorithms that never ask permission.
This raises a concerning question: if AI can create an image very similar to your favorite artist’s work in just a few seconds, what happens to the original artist?
What Comes Next?
The legal system hasn’t fully caught up with the technology. But things are moving fast. Several lawsuits are already underway to determine if training AI on copyrighted material without permission counts as fair use or infringement.
Meanwhile, companies like OpenAI are facing increasing pressure: they must disclose what data is being uploaded to their models and ensure that AI is a means of protecting art, not exploiting it.
Artists, film studios, and legislators are demanding better licensing systems, more precise authorship guidelines, and the right to exclude their works from AI training databases.
Conclusion
The viral “Studio Ghibli moment” shows the amazing potential of AI to mimic the magic of beloved styles. But it also reveals the deep tension between innovation and ownership in the digital age.
As AI-generated content becomes more sophisticated and widespread, society will have to answer a fundamental question: Where is the line between inspiration and imitation—and who gets to draw it?
Prepared by Navruzakhon Burieva
