Urgent Request to Restrict AI-Generated Ghibli-Inspired Images

ChatGPT
1

Dear OpenAI Team,

I appreciate the responsible AI policies that OpenAI has implemented. However, I would like to raise a critical concern regarding the ethical and artistic implications of AI-generated Ghibli-inspired images. While AI can be a powerful tool for creativity, it should not come at the cost of devaluing the work of traditional artists and animation studios.

Key Concerns:

  1. Unethical Replication of a Distinct Artistic Identity
    Studio Ghibli’s art style is an iconic and handcrafted animation technique. Each second of Ghibli animation requires artists to hand-draw 50-60 unique frames, often taking months of effort. Allowing AI to instantly generate similar images without effort, credit, or consent undermines the artistic dedication that has built Ghibli’s legacy.

  2. Risk of Devaluing Hand-Drawn Animation
    If AI can generate Ghibli-inspired images in seconds, it could falsely normalize the perception that such art styles are easily replicable, reducing appreciation for real artists who spend years mastering this craft. This also incentivizes studios to replace traditional artists with AI, affecting employment in the animation industry.

  3. Intellectual Property & Ethical Concerns
    Ghibli’s visual style is a signature aesthetic developed over decades. While AI-generated images might not directly copy specific copyrighted works, they still mimic an identifiable style, which raises ethical concerns regarding artistic ownership and fair use. If OpenAI allows this, it sets a precedent that any studio’s or artist’s unique style can be mass-produced without consent.

  4. Misuse & Commercial Exploitation
    AI-generated Ghibli-style images are being widely misused by individuals who previously disregarded or disrespected anime. Many users now mass-produce and sell such AI images, profiting from a style that they had no part in creating, while real artists are ignored.

Proposed Actions:

  • Restrict or Remove Ghibli-Inspired Image Generation – OpenAI should either completely remove AI’s ability to generate such images or require explicit permission from animation studios before enabling such features.
  • Implement a “Protected Art Style” Policy – Any distinct, widely recognized artistic style (like Ghibli, Disney, or UPA) should not be replicable by AI without authorization.
  • Introduce AI Ethical Disclaimers – Every AI-generated image that mimics a specific artistic style should carry a mandatory watermark or disclaimer stating that it is AI-generated and not an authentic representation of the studio’s work.
  • Strengthen Artist Protection Measures – OpenAI should work with animation studios and independent artists to ensure AI is used to assist artists rather than replace them.

I strongly urge OpenAI to address this issue and take stricter measures to protect the integrity of traditional animation. AI should be a tool for innovation, not a shortcut to devalue the art of dedicated creators.

I hope this feedback is taken seriously, and I look forward to OpenAI implementing ethical safeguards for artistic integrity.

Sincerely,
[Antariksh]

4 Likes
3

Agree with your post.
Recognisable style is as good as the signature of the artist, it can inspire other artists but not directly be used as a commodity. Who on earth would make their signature an opensource font? If a commercial font is not free, what makes a specific art style created by Ghibli Studio a free-for-all? Especially when the studio was not the one providing the style to all?! Even when a style cannot be copyrighted, it doesn’t mean it can be easily accessible to all.

1 Like
4

I am using Sora/ChatGPT to generate concept art for my children’s book series. If this series ever gets published and AI tools are used for the ultimate, final graphics generation using Ghibli style I will be happy to credit the animation studio and perhaps even offer payment for the use of their style. But I would not know how.
I’d also like to say that not everyone is using references to ghibli in roder to use it as a filter. I use it to help develop a piece of fiction I put a lot of work into and it will help me once I do contact a real artist (who may or may not use AI tools) for the final drawing work.
The results are definitely what I am looking for though I hope the artist does not copy Ghibli exactly. For me it’s great and I have no intention of exploiting studio Ghibli or anyone else.

Two cartoon characters in plaid shirts and boots share a playful moment, with one laughing and the other looking surprised. (Captioned by AI)
Two cartoon characters in plaid shirts and boots share a playful moment, with one laughing and the other looking surprised. (Captioned by AI)1024×1536 186 KB

1 Like
5

Ok… as expected they added the mention that you must own the right on the images or the right to modify an image.
In other words, the user is responsible of the use of the image.

Let’s say that:

  • it depends if you use it for your personal use, privately, or publicly or even commercially
  • your country and its rules
  • the protection that apply to the image (example: an AI generated image is not really protected, but a paint picture is clearly.
7

Art style is not theft—it’s innovation and expression. It’s both legal and ethical to be inspired by or adopt a style. What you’re proposing doesn’t make sense. If someone creates a delicious dish (Even Rap or rock n Roll ) and I recreate it using the same style, would I be sued just for that? That would be absurd. You’re being a bit silly.
Sam has been ringing the bells about how the world is going to change, but perhaps many people didn’t take him seriously. What you’re seeing now is exactly what has happened throughout history. Remember when Sega Genesis was pleading with Nintendo not to release the N64, fearing all their hard work would be erased? They were right—and they eventually faded away. The same pattern applies to technology. Look at what happened to Nikola Tesla. People tried to stop him because his ideas threatened to disrupt the work and profits of others. They tried to sabotage him. That’s the nature of innovation—it disrupts and reshapes society. Welcome to the real world, where progress is often met with resistance, and the path forward is harsh and unkind.
Moreover, now, let’s say OpenAI is kind enough to do exactly as you ask. Do you really think OpenAI will be the only one? This is a big world—countries like Russia or China could develop something similar, or even some underground super-nerd could create and freely distribute it like Pirate Bay. The cat’s already out of the bag. OpenAI is now in fierce competition with other companies. If you believe they’re going to bend to your wishes, you’re mistaken.

8

"I completely understand your perspective, but there’s a crucial difference that needs to be addressed. Being inspired by an art style and replicating it using AI are not the same. When an artist spends 3-4 days crafting a piece with thought, emotion, and experience, they are pouring a part of themselves into it. That’s not just output—it’s expression.

Now when AI, trained on thousands of such works—often without consent—reproduces something similar in 3 seconds, it skips the entire creative process. It’s not about speed, it’s about value and respect.

Think of it this way: if someone builds a beautiful house brick by brick, and another person uses a 3D printer to copy it instantly—without credit or effort—wouldn’t that feel like a violation? The same logic applies here.

Innovation should never come at the cost of the original creator’s dignity. AI can be a powerful tool, but using it to bypass someone’s hard-earned artistry and claiming it’s ‘just inspiration’ is not innovation—it’s exploitation.

Respecting artists doesn’t mean rejecting technology; it means using it ethically. That’s the real evolution we should aim for."

9

Art is a matter of taste. Prompt-based art is simply the next evolution—no different than a banana duct-taped to a wall. Many scoff at such things, claiming they lack meaning or depth. But who am I to judge?

If you say that using AI and prompts isn’t a form of expression, I hate to break it to you—but it absolutely is. Art is, and always has been, one of the most subjective realms imaginable. It’s the one domain where subjectivity not only exists—it thrives.

Back to the banana taped to the wall, or a chair with a soda can delicately balanced on top: these are acts of artistic expression. Just like crafting with paint or melody, prompting an AI is a form of creative intent. It’s still about vision, taste, and the strange alchemy of meaning.

Think of it this way: if someone builds a beautiful house brick by brick, and another person uses a 3D printer to copy it instantly—without credit or effort—wouldn’t that feel like a violation? The same logic applies here.

Nope—it’s simply called efficiency.

Innovation should never come at the cost of the original creator’s dignity. AI can be a powerful tool, but using it to bypass someone’s hard-earned artistry and claiming it’s ‘just inspiration’ is not innovation—it’s exploitation.

It’s all semantics, but I get where you’re coming from—I really do. Still, style isn’t theft, even when it’s used by AI.

Many artists use AI in rap or classical music. They’re not copying the original song or the artist’s lyrics—they’re borrowing a style. Should they be reprimanded for that?

Imagine saying, “Eminem, how dare you copy the style of earlier rappers!”—but oh wait, he didn’t use AI, so he gets a pass? That logic doesn’t hold up. It doesn’t flow.

We just have a different take.