Brown’s Law: Who Owns a Style? AI, Ghibli, and the Limits of Copyright
In the weeks since OpenAI released its updated image generation tool, the internet has been buzzing with AI-created images copying the visual style of everything from Studio Ghibli films to Wes Anderson movies. Creators and critics alike are raising red flags, especially artists who feel their signature looks are being copied without consent, credit, or compensation.
Much of the controversy centers around the idea of stealing someone’s style. And while the emotional and ethical concerns are real and valid, the legal landscape is more complicated.
For a deeper dive into the firestorm surrounding Studio Ghibli imagery in particular, see Phil Nugent’s Delight and Disgust: How AI Sparked a Ghibli-Style Art Controversy.
As I’ve written before in Brown’s Law: Take it Slow with AI Regulation, laws that go too far can end up hurting the very innovation they aim to guide. This debate is a prime example.
What U.S. Copyright Law Actually Protects
Let’s start with what’s legally protected. Under U.S. copyright law, protections extend to “original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression.” That includes things like music, art, business documents, and even computer code. You can learn more in the Copyright Office’s FAQ.
But copyright protection does not extend to general ideas or artistic styles. That means that the visual style of Studio Ghibli isn’t protected. Neither is the tone or mood of Wes Anderson, or the musical style of Grandmaster Flash.
That isn’t a flaw in U.S. copyright law; it’s by design. Intellectual property laws exist to incentivize creation, not to gatekeep creativity. If we start granting ownership over something as broad as a style, we risk stopping new creators from expressing their ideas with new and innovative works.
That Doesn’t Mean Artists Have No Protection
Although copyright law may not protect a creator’s unique style, other laws may provide some support:
- Trademark law can sometimes offer protection if a specific look or brand style is strongly associated with a source. Think the red sole of a Louboutin shoe.
- Right of publicity or false endorsement claims could arise if AI-generated images imply that the original artist or studio was involved or endorses the work.
- Contract and licensing law might come into play when artists license their work to AI training sets or try to opt out.
That said, these protections are narrow and don’t always apply to generalized artistic aesthetics.
What Should AI Creators and Users Do?
This is a tricky time for AI providers and users alike. To navigate the legal and ethical minefield, a thoughtful approach is essential.
First, transparency matters. Making it clear when content is AI-generated (especially when it closely resembles a known artist’s work) can help set appropriate expectations and reduce confusion. AI platforms should also consider ethical defaults, such as nudging users away from prompts that closely mimic living creators or well-known studios without permission. I’ve personally seen ChatGPT take this approach in recent days to curb direct copying of a particular artist’s or studio’s style.
Moreover, giving artists real and easy ways to opt out of having their work included in training datasets would go a long way in establishing trust. How and whether this is even feasible given the open nature of the internet is debatable. But it should at least be explored.
These approaches won’t solve every problem, but they are a step in the right direction.
The Road Ahead
As we’ve seen in Colorado’s own approach to regulating AI, the best regulatory path may be slow, iterative, and collaborative.
AI isn’t going away. And neither are human artists. The challenge now is figuring out how both can coexist and thrive without legal chaos or slowing down the ability of creators to create new works.
I believe society should keep pushing for solutions that support both creators and creativity, which I admit is a more challenging task than can be accomplished in one short article.