Re-Spirited Away: Can Intellectual Property Law Protect Against OpenAI’s “Ghibli-fication” Trend

Photo by AJITH S on Unsplash

When Japanese animator and filmmaker Hayao Miyazaki was asked how he felt about designers using AI to replicate art in 2016, he bluntly responded that the creation was “[a]n insult to life itself.” The Studio Ghibli co-founder prefaced his point by saying, “I am utterly disgusted. If you really want to make this creepy stuff, you can go ahead and do it, but I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all.” 

Miyazaki’s scathing critiques of AI-generated art remain relevant since OpenAI rolled out a new image generator in March, inviting a surge of user-generated images that are specifically reproduced in the animation style of Studio Ghibli. With this technology, images are created using the studio’s signature cozy, cartoonish style with relatively unrestricted copyright filters. The trend has taken over popular social media platforms, such as X, where users have utilized the technology to create memes, alter movie stills, and edit their own personal photos.

The rise of Generative AI poses many legal challenges on top of countering the ethos of those in the film industry who value human art over AI replications of it. There are many dangers posed and questions unanswered due to the fact that AI is largely unexplored and unregulated. For example, there are infringement and fair use issues, uncertainty about ownership of AI-generated works, questions about unlicensed content in training data, and whether users should be able to reference other creators’ copyrighted and trademarked works without their permission.

On a moral level, artists and creators deserve protection from infringement of their unique aesthetic points of view and technical ability. Miyazaki’s career endures on the legacy of his theory of art: that animation is meant to bring life to the imagination, beauty, and profound storytelling of the human condition. It is not surprising that Miyazaki himself would be fiercely opposed to this new “Ghibli-fication” function, viewing it as a bastardization of his life’s work. But how can he, and all other artists, legally ensure that their individual contributions to the artistic canon are not co-opted by open-source, generative artificial intelligence?

Rob Rosenberg, former General Counsel at Showtime, believes that Studio Ghibli may be able to take legal action against OpenAI. While it's a "complex question,” Rosenberg says that the company "might have the ability to claim OpenAI has violated the Lanham Act which provides the basis for claims related to false advertising, trademark infringement and unfair competition.” The Lanham Act (1946) is the primary federal statute governing trademark law in the United States and establishes a national system of trademark registration that allows owners to pursue infringement lawsuits. Rosenberg argues that “by converting user photos to 'Ghibli-style,' OpenAI is trading off the goodwill of Ghibli’s trademarks, using Ghibli’s identifiable style and leading to a likelihood of confusion among consumers that this function is endorsed or licensed by Studio Ghibli.” 

In addition to Rosenberg, Pryor Cashman Partner Josh Weigensberg said that one question the Ghibli-style AI art raises is whether the AI model was trained on Studio Ghibli’s work. This “raises the question of, ‘Well, do they have a license or permission to do that training or not?’” Weigensberg added that “if a work was licensed for training, it might make sense for a company to permit” it, but if the use happens without their permission, it could be “problematic”. Additionally, Weigensberg followed by saying that on a general level, style is not copyrightable. However, people sometimes think of “more specific, discernible, discrete elements of a work of art” when talking about “style,” which could make a difference in copyright litigation.

Legal precedent holds that animation style is not, in itself, protectable under theories of intellectual property. Animation studios are typically only able to receive copyright protection for their original works themselves and not for an overarching style of animation that is consistent among all works. Further, trademarks have historically only been awarded for franchise names and certain recognizable characters. However, recent court developments have indicated potential trademark protection for artistic styles as “trade dress”, or what is typically relegated to product packaging. The District Court in the Northern District of California ruled in Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd. (2024) that AI programs that train using an artist’s work without their consent or knowledge were indeed infringing on the artist’s IP rights. However, there is limited application of this doctrine when formally considering an animation style to be a “trademark” in the legal sense.

There is still an argument for trademark protection against AI programs even if studios cannot themselves tangibly demonstrate that they have developed a “trademarkable” animation style. Indeed, the fact that the AI program has developed a method to recreate the style inevitably indicates that such signature style exists, even if it took a computer program to extract such style. In extracting the common animation style from amalgamating each of Ghibli’s copyrighted works, OpenAI has, effectively, facilitated the identification of the Ghibli’s potential trademark. However, even if Studio Ghibli is able to successfully argue that their animation style constitutes a valid trademark, Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act requires that they demonstrate that infringing use of the trademark would cause consumer confusion as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the goods or services. It would be difficult to prove that using the AI image generator would cause confusion among consumers because participants in the trend have been quite transparent on the origin and artificial nature of the images. Trademark law might be too underdeveloped in protecting against rapidly expanding AI capabilities.

The strongest arguments for Studio Ghibli arise from the doctrines of copyright protection. First, Ghibli could invoke the “total concept and overall feel” test for determining substantial similarity in copyright infringement cases, which compares the defendant’s and plaintiff’s works on their non-literal elements that are subjective and holistic. Some courts argue that children’s media should be held especially subject to this test due to their limited literary complexity and heavy reliance on stylistic originality, as in Williams v. Crichton (1996). Studio Ghibli could argue that OpenAI has unjustly developed a program that infringes upon the “total concept and feel” of their copyrighted works by replicating the studio’s signature animation design style. X users report that “Ghibli-fication” of their uploaded images allow individuals to feel as if they are able to experience the fantastical emotions evoked by a Studio Ghibli film as it applies to snapshots of their own reality. Whatever may be the “total concept and feel” Miyazaki has carefully curated over the course of his inimitable career, OpenAI has concentrated it and bottled it for public use. This opens the door for any claims Ghibli may have towards those who may attempt to claim legal rights over “Ghibli-fied” images.

The final angle which Ghibli can take comes from recent case precedent and allows for the studio to terminate the “Ghibli-fication” process from its source. A February 2025 decision from the U.S. District Court in Delaware interpreted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a 1998 federal statute which updated copyright laws for the emerging digital age, to extend a copyright owner’s rights to prevent use of copyrighted work to train generative AI programs. Studio Ghibli would most likely be successful under this doctrine of copyright protection from AI training; if they can demonstrate that OpenAI has sourced copyrighted Studio Ghibli films in order to develop their “Ghibli-fication” process, courts should hold that they are liable for copyright infringement under the provisions of the DMCA. 

In conclusion, it seems that Studio Ghibli faces different legal and ethical questions in the face of AI-generated Art. While current IP laws offer limited avenues for safeguarding the studio’s animation style, emerging case law and long-standing doctrines such as the Lanham Act and the DMCA provide a strong basis for protection against AI infringement. In this new era, the legal system will need to evolve to meet the demands of the digital age, where human art risks dilution by replication via artificial intelligence. 

*The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of Santa Clara University.