Nearly a fortnight in the past, a wave of pastel-coloured, comfortable dreamscapes took over our social media timelines. These portraits, with their glimmering eyes, lush surroundings, and eccentric touches, had been harking back to the deft hand of Studio Ghibli co-founder Hayao Miyazaki, the creator of putting up with masterpieces reminiscent of Spirited Away and My Neighbor Totoro.
However as timelines full of Ghibli-inspired creations, a thornier dialog started taking root. Some critics and authorized observers raised questions concerning the permissibility of utilizing prompts like ‘Ghibli-style’ or ‘anime-inspired’ in AI instruments. Is that this artwork, homage, or one thing nearer to infringement? May AI instruments or their customers be held legally accountable for mimicking an inventive fashion?
Model versus substance
“The fashion of an artist will not be copyrightable,” says Shatrajit Banerji, Companion Designate at regulation agency Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. “A specific portray might be copyrighted. However once I speak about a method — just like the romanticism of Ghibli’s aesthetic — that’s not one thing that may be protected.”
Ankit Sahni, IP and expertise regulation counsel, clarifies the nuance beneath Indian regulation with a hypothetical instance. “Whereas Japan is understood for a number of animation types — anime, hentai, and so on — Studio Ghibli’s aesthetic is sort of distinct. If an AI output unmistakably evokes Ghibli and never, say, Pokémon or Transformers, then beneath the ‘unmistakable impression’ take a look at laid down by the Indian Supreme Court docket in RG Anand v. Deluxe Movies, that would nonetheless quantity to infringement,” he says.
So, the place does the authorized line lie?
Consultants say that the core challenge rests in what copyright regulation is designed to guard.
“Below the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright protects unique literary, dramatic, musical, and creative works, together with particular artworks like work or sculptures,” says Dr Hema Krishnamurthy, a copyright scholar and professor at Christ College. “Nonetheless, it doesn’t shield concepts, ideas, themes, strategies, strategies, and types.”
In different phrases, creative types fall exterior the protecting umbrella of copyright. “You’ll be able to create works within the fashion of one other artist, however you can’t copy their particular art work,” Krishnamurthy provides.
Story continues under this advert
Sahni, nevertheless, believes the problem will not be as clear-cut, particularly in relation to how AI fashions are educated. “Part 14 of the Indian Copyright Act defines copyright to incorporate replica, together with storage of a piece in any medium.” So, if a mannequin has been educated on Ghibli content material and that coaching concerned storing and reproducing copyrighted works with out consent, that would quantity to infringement beneath Indian regulation, he says.
No person requested for Bollywood film scenes in Ghibli fashion — however right here they’re. pic.twitter.com/umiDAA7LNu
— Vivek Choudhary (@ivivekch) March 26, 2025
Conventional artwork and technological imitation
These questions grow to be much more fraught when conventional Indian artwork types enter the dialog. People types like Madhubani, Gond, and Miniature work carry robust regional and cultural identities, handed down by means of generations. May an AI-generated picture that mimics such types be protected? “The reply can be no,” says Banerji.
However there may be one other layer of potential safety: Geographical Indications (GIs). These are a definite type of mental property that safeguard merchandise with particular regional origins and reputations. “A GI tag in India protects merchandise which have a selected geographical origin and possess qualities or a fame on account of that origin,” mentioned Pallavi Singh, Companion at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. “Whereas a GI tag may also help stop the misuse or false illustration of conventional artwork types, it doesn’t particularly stop AI from reproducing or producing artwork based mostly on these types.”
Singh notes that authorized motion is likely to be attainable if an AI’s output intently resembles unique works to the purpose of infringement, however GI safety, by itself, can not cease AI from imitating an artwork fashion.
Sahni says, “These are historic neighborhood artwork types. GI safety solely kicks in when there’s a misrepresentation of origin. So if an AI-generated art work doesn’t declare to be an ‘genuine’ Madhubani portray, it might not breach GI guidelines, however the moral debate stays.”
Story continues under this advert
Artists, nevertheless, have voiced concern over the rising stress between technological development and creative integrity. “We’re but to grasp what AI is all about. It’s not very clear. My fear is that individuals could benefit from it and dupe folks. Already, there are problems with authenticity and provenance. AI is just a few sort of phantom approach. We’re coping with copyright, provenance, and fakes,” says Ina Puri, author, artwork curator, documentarian, and collector.
Ghibli photographs, posted by the Authorities of India’s official MyGov account on X, depicted PM Modi shaking palms with US President Donald Trump. (X@@mygovindia)
A jurisdictional puzzle
Jurisdiction is one other complication. OpenAI is predicated in California, a jurisdiction identified for its comparatively broad interpretation of “honest use”.
“Copyright and IP rights are jurisdictional,” Banerji factors out. “You might need safety in India, however that doesn’t mechanically prolong to the US or Europe.”
Sahni says that OpenAI has taken the place in Indian courtroom that as a result of its servers are based mostly in California, and the coaching occurred beneath US regulation — which permits such use — it shouldn’t be liable in India. “They’re arguing that as a result of the copying and coaching occurred legally of their jurisdiction, Indian courts shouldn’t have a say,” Sahni says. “However that’s a query the courts should resolve.”
Story continues under this advert
And whereas Japan has carved out a text-and-data-mining exception, that too complicates enforcement: “It’s attainable OpenAI educated its fashions on Ghibli-style artwork in Japan, counting on that exception,” he says.
Banerji notes that whereas worldwide treaties just like the Berne Conference and TRIPS Settlement exist, enforcement relies on home regulation and bilateral agreements. “There isn’t a worldwide copyright physique that may implement these rights globally.”
The worldwide authorized panorama
Totally different nations are approaching the intersection of AI and copyright in strikingly various methods. Whereas Japan and the UK have launched particular exceptions for non-commercial knowledge mining, India has not, Sahni says.
“Within the European Union, there’s a proactive emphasis on transparency and moral issues,” says Singh, referencing the proposed AI Act, which classifies AI techniques by danger stage and imposes stringent oversight on high-risk functions.
Story continues under this advert
China, she provides, has adopted a centralised strategy by means of the Interim Measures for Generative AI Companies, requiring AI suppliers to respect mental property rights. Within the UK, the Thaler v. Comptroller Common of Patents choice underscored the authorized system’s reluctance to deal with AI as a creator.
Within the US, a high-stakes lawsuit — New York Occasions v. OpenAI — is testing the boundaries of “honest use” within the context of AI coaching, echoing the considerations on the coronary heart of the Ghibli-style debate.
“As AI’s artistic capacities evolve, authorized techniques wrestle to adapt,” Singh says. “There’s a vital hole between technological developments and current mental property legal guidelines.”
OpenAI’s place: Model is a good sport
Requested to touch upon the ‘Ghibli-style’ debate, OpenAI instructed information company AFP that it at the moment prohibits picture era “within the fashion of particular person residing artists” however does enable broader studio types.
Story continues under this advert
“We proceed to forestall generations within the fashion of particular person residing artists,” an organization spokesperson mentioned, “however we do allow broader studio types, which individuals have used to generate and share some actually pleasant and impressed unique fan creations.”
The corporate mentioned it will proceed refining its fashions based mostly on consumer suggestions and moral issues.
What can Indian artists do to guard their work?
Sahni asserts the necessity for authorized readability and attainable amendments to Indian copyright regulation to handle AI-era challenges. “India nonetheless lacks particular exceptions or laws round AI coaching and magnificence replication,” he says. “Till that occurs, we’re left deciphering decades-old legal guidelines for brand-new expertise.”
Singh presents sensible steps for artists navigating this evolving panorama. “Indian artists can shield their artwork by means of a number of mechanisms beneath Indian copyright regulation. Registering works with the Copyright Workplace establishes possession and secures authorized rights in opposition to unauthorised replica. Whereas registration isn’t obligatory, it strengthens your case in authorized disputes.”
Story continues under this advert
Amid ongoing debates round AI’s influence on Artwork, Puri lists current achievements in Indian artwork — just like the Rs 118 crore sale of MF Husain’s Untitled (Gram Yatra), the Rs 61.8 crore sale of Tyeb Mehta’s 1956 oil on canvas throughout his centenary 12 months, and Arpita Singh’s solo retrospective at London’s Serpentine — as causes to have fun, not cloud with ambiguity. “Indian artwork is doing brilliantly… However till and until there are strict legal guidelines, this (AI) will muddle the market. We’re all within the artwork world and questioning the way it will have an effect on us. AI is writing essays and making artwork, but it surely nonetheless lacks the human hand and coronary heart.”