The rise of Ghibli-style AI-generated images has reignited a crucial debate around AI ethics and copyright law. When entrepreneur Janu Lingeswaran uploaded a photo of his cat to ChatGPT’s new image generator, he wasn’t expecting a controversy. Within seconds, the AI tool transformed the image into an enchanting Ghibli-style portrait reminiscent of beloved characters from Hayao Miyazaki’s classics like My Neighbor Totoro and Spirited Away. Delighted, he considered printing it to hang on his wall.
But not everyone shared the excitement. What began as a viral trend quickly triggered a firestorm of concern over AI ethics, copyright, and the future of human creativity.
This blog explores the deeper implications of AI-generated art styled after iconic creators and studios—through the lens of deontological ethics, legal uncertainty, and the responsibilities that come with training powerful AI models like Gemini AI.
OpenAI recently launched a new feature in ChatGPT allowing users to generate images in specific artistic styles. While the company claims it avoids mimicking living artists directly, it has permitted the generation of content in the broader style of major studios like Studio Ghibli.
Thousands of users flooded social media with charming anime-like portraits in the whimsical, hand-drawn style long associated with Hayao Miyazaki. Even OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, updated his profile picture to a Ghibli-style avatar.
However, this trend resurfaced Miyazaki’s famous condemnation of AI animation. In a 2016 documentary clip, he called one such AI demonstration “an insult to life itself.”
Studio Ghibli has not commented on the recent surge of AI art imitating its aesthetic (AP News).
AI Ethics and Copyright: Where Is the Line?
Here’s the ethical dilemma: is it right to train an AI model on the “style” of a studio or artist without their consent? Under current copyright law, style itself is not protectable—only specific expressions are. But AI’s ability to synthesize and reproduce countless subtle traits blurs that line.
This is where deontological ethics enters the debate. From this moral perspective, actions are judged by their adherence to rules and duties—not outcomes. If the creator’s work was used without permission for training, is that action inherently unethical, regardless of whether the output is legally compliant?
Artists like Karla Ortiz, who is suing AI companies for copyright infringement, believe it is. She describes the use of Ghibli-style output by AI models as exploitation—leveraging a studio’s brand and legacy without acknowledgment or compensation.
Deontological Ethics in AI: Beyond Legal Compliance
Ethical frameworks like deontological ethics argue that consent and respect matter more than outcomes. Even if AI-generated art is popular or creative, its foundations may still be unethical if they bypass permission and fair compensation.
The situation also opens up important discussions about responsibility in the age of AI. Developers, companies, and users must ask whether their actions reflect a commitment to ethical standards—not just innovation.
Miyazaki's View: A Human-Centered Take on AI Ethics
Miyazaki’s criticism of AI stems from a deeply humanistic worldview. His rejection of grotesque AI-generated animation emphasized respect for human pain, effort, and emotion. “I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself,” he said.
This isn’t just about style—it’s about AI humanizer values. Should AI respect the ethical frameworks of the artists and cultures it draws from? If AI tools become mainstream in creative production, do they owe a duty to honor the philosophies and boundaries of their sources?
Can Studio Ghibli’s Style Be Protected from AI Models?
Legally, we are navigating uncharted territory. AI companies argue that since they don’t copy specific works, their outputs are transformative and fall under fair use. Yet if the outputs mimic identifiable elements from Ghibli films—architecture, color palettes, facial expressions—where does originality end and infringement begin?
Experts like Josh Weigensberg point out that although style isn’t copyrightable, specific visual elements can be. The ethics of AI art thus exist in tension with copyright law, which wasn’t designed to handle non-human creators.
The lawsuit outcomes in the coming years—particularly those involving DeepSeek, Gemini AI, and other major models—will likely shape new standards in creative IP rights (CNN).
What Students in AI & Cybersecurity Can Learn From This
If you’re studying or planning to join the Master’s in AI & Cybersecurity at the University of Cape Canaveral, this case is a perfect example of why ethical literacy is just as important as technical skills.
Future AI leaders need to:
Understand the implications of training data sourcing
Recognize how bias and misuse can be embedded in creative outputs
Advocate for transparency, accountability, and respectful innovation
This program equips you not only with AI development expertise but also the ethical frameworks to guide responsible innovation.
FAQs
Q1: Can AI copy an artist’s style legally?
A style itself is not copyrighted, but copying recognizable visual elements may still infringe on copyright depending on the context.
Q2: What is deontological ethics in AI?
It’s an ethical framework that judges the morality of AI actions based on duties and rules—such as not using data without permission—regardless of consequences.
Q3: Why is AI ethics important in cybersecurity?
Because unethical AI practices can lead to bias, misinformation, and exploitation—risks that cybersecurity professionals must anticipate and mitigate.
Interested in becoming an ethical AI leader? Explore our Master’s in AI & Cybersecurity
