machina.mondays // Ghibli AI or Garbage?
The elites say it's insulting, lawyers say it breaches copyright but what if the rest of us think it's the future?
In this Issue: We explore the uneasy collision between AI and creativity—how machines mimic beloved styles like Studio Ghibli, challenge our definitions of originality, and stir legal, ethical, and emotional debates across art, film, and forensics. From viral memes to courtroom drama, generative AI is reshaping what we value as human-made—and forcing us to ask: when style is free to copy, what makes creation meaningful?
Style Without Substance? AI, Art, and the Copyright Conundrum
When artificial intelligence began generating images in the recognisable style of Studio Ghibli, the response was equal parts enchantment and unease.
For some, it was enchanting to see those dreamy pastels and expressive cartoon faces conjured by text prompts. For others, something felt off. One AI-generated image, styled like a Ghibli frame, depicted a weeping woman’s immigration arrest and was posted by the White House’s official X account during the Trump administration—tipping the unease into public controversy1. It wasn’t just about accuracy. It was about what’s at stake when machines mimic a visual language that took decades of human labour to refine.
The promises of AI in creative industries are undeniably compelling. Many artists see these tools as offering new dimensions of possibility. According to a Salzburg Global report by Luba Elliott in 2024, AI is already helping artists “expand their creative horizons [and] explore new aesthetic possibilities.” Graphic designers using text-to-image generators have shown up to 25% increases in productivity and quality2. For creators without traditional training, these technologies lower the barrier to entry dramatically, enabling more people to express themselves visually. This democratisation of aesthetic tools—at once liberating and provocative—has become a hallmark of the current generative wave.
Yet alongside this creative expansion comes a creeping concern: what gets lost when machines dominate the act of image-making?. Critics argue that if AI tools primarily draw on the most popular, widely available visual styles, they are more likely to regurgitate cultural averages than challenge them. The more derivative works flood the internet, the greater the risk of aesthetic stagnation. As Epstein and co. suggest, a feedback loop may emerge: imitative AI outputs become part of new training data, entrenching stylistic sameness3. The Writers Guild of America has been blunt about this dynamic, stating that generative AI "does not create anything" genuinely new, but instead produces a "regurgitation" of its training data4. Some worry we’re heading toward a cultural landscape in which novelty is rare and authenticity is an afterthought.
For animators, the threat feels particularly visceral. Studio Ghibli’s reputation is not just built on its visual charm, but on its soul—its detail, intent, and emotional craftsmanship. When AI re-creates the visual cues without the underlying narrative ethos, it risks hollowing out what makes that art meaningful in the first place. “It can never truly capture the essence of [Miyazaki’s] work,” animation critic Szapiro notes. The Ghibli aesthetic, in this view, is inseparable from the process behind it—the narrative coherence, the years of labour, the subtlety of a single pencil stroke5.
Even the surface quality of AI art has shown cracks. A widely circulated image of a cat, for example, featured an inexplicable extra limb—an error no Ghibli artist would ever let pass6. While small, such quirks signal the difference between human and machine-made art. More disturbingly, when these tools are used to depict serious, real-world events in a whimsical Ghibli style, it becomes clear that the AI has no grasp of context. One artist called this use of Ghibli’s language to depict real-world trauma “a butchering” of the studio’s emotional depth7. As Miyazaki himself once said about AI-generated art: “Whoever creates this stuff has no idea what pain is”8.
Yet none of this, from a legal standpoint, crosses into infringement. That’s because style itself is not protected under copyright law. It never has been. “Style is not copyrightable under any jurisdiction,” as one researcher stated, “and it shouldn’t be.” The distinction is a crucial one. An AI image in the style of Ghibli is legal; a reproduction of Totoro is not. The law protects characters, plots, and specific creative works—not the general aesthetic they embody.
This can feel deeply unsatisfying to artists and fans alike, especially when the aesthetic in question is as beloved and emotionally charged as Ghibli’s. But it’s also consistent. If a human artist watches a few Ghibli films and then creates work in that style, we tend to see it as homage. If an AI does the same, it feels threatening—largely because of scale. A human might produce a few stylistic tributes. A machine can produce thousands, in seconds. That shift in efficiency changes the stakes, even if the legal framework hasn’t caught up.
Still, many of these AI-generated works do not try to deceive. They are almost always labelled as Ghibli-style, and rarely presented as official works. “It is, in a sense, ripping off the style,” one creator remarked, “but it’s always being attributed.” In this way, they function more like fan art or remix culture than fraud. For some, this is part of the joy: participatory, expressive, and democratic. AI now enables fans to express their affection visually—without needing to commission artwork or become professional artists themselves. It has become a means of direct creative engagement, where someone can simply generate an image and say, "Hey, I’m a fan."
And yet, a sharp line still exists between casual memetic use and commercial exploitation. So far, there’s been no evidence of someone trying to sell an AI-made Ghibli-style film or T-shirt claiming it’s an official product. Much of the activity so far has centred on sharing, memification, fun, and clear attribution. No one has attempted to release a film claiming to be a new Studio Ghibli production. But if that line is crossed—if imitation becomes commercial deception—then trademark or unfair competition laws could come into play.
The core dilemma remains unresolved: why do we apply one standard to human artists and another to machines? If a person studies a style and reproduces it, it’s usually praised as skill. When a machine does the same, it’s often condemned. Perhaps the discomfort lies deeper—in the erosion of artistic labour as a distinguishing value. When creation becomes instant, what happens to effort as a marker of worth? There is a lingering sense of snobbishness within traditional art communities—an anxiety that when anyone can do it, it no longer feels special. The shift resembles the rise of street art over museum art, a sign that creativity is no longer confined to elite spaces. It’s now on the streets.
What AI is really challenging, then, is not just how we make art—but how we value it. It exposes the fragility of our criteria for originality and worth. If animation is, as one saying goes, “art through painstaking effort,” then AI art—effortless, fast, and eerily accurate—forces us to question whether effort was ever the point, or just part of the story we told ourselves.
As Epstein and co. suggest9, AI’s creative influence will give rise to new aesthetics, and reshape our relationship to cultural production. Whether that leads to homogenisation or innovation—or both—depends not on the machines, but on us.
In the end, AI may replicate the surface, but the question of substance remains a human one.
Fresh Perspectives
“There are three key resources that generative AI companies need to build AI models: people, compute, and data. They spend vast sums on the first two – sometimes a million dollars per engineer, and up to a billion dollars per model. But they expect to take the third – training data – for free”
“While ChatGPT refuses to replicate ‘the style of individual living artists,’ OpenAI does permit it to replicate ‘broader studio styles.’”
// Spotlight
Hayao Miyazaki’s AI Nightmare
AI-generated art is stirring controversy again—this time by mimicking Studio Ghibli’s iconic style. But is it creative homage, cultural theft, or just the internet’s next big meme? | Read via The Atlantic
// Creative AI: News, Articles & Opinions
» Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Make Art
Ted Chiang argues that true creativity is born from intentional choices, not autocomplete algorithms in disguise | Read via The New Yorker
HOT TAKE
Chiang overlooks how art already reuses formulas, turning his critique of AI’s “algorithmic” creativity into a defence of a status quo that’s just as derivative. AI simply accelerates what humans have been doing for decades—blending influences, recycling ideas, and remixing styles—while posing a threat to those who mistake tradition for authenticity.
Listen to the full Hot Take
» An AI avatar tried to argue a case before a New York court
It took only seconds for the judges on a New York appeals court to realise that the man addressing them from a video screen — a person about to present an argument in a lawsuit — not only had no law degree, but didn't exist at all | Read via The New York Post
» AI proves that fingerprints are not unique, upending the legal system
A new AI model has revealed that fingerprints from different fingers of the same person can sometimes appear more similar than previously believed, challenging the long-standing forensic assumption of fingerprint uniqueness. This breakthrough, driven by an undergraduate-led team at Columbia Engineering, could transform how law enforcement connects suspects to crime scenes and reopens debates about the reliability of fingerprint evidence in legal proceedings | Read via Earth.com
→ [See the Full Acadmeic Study]
» AI was enemy No. 1 during Hollywood strikes. Now it's in Oscar-winning films
Once fiercely opposed during the 2023 Hollywood strikes, AI has now been embraced in Oscar-winning films, sparking debate over its role in reshaping the entertainment industry. While many fear job displacement and copyright exploitation, some filmmakers argue that—with ethical use and artist control—AI could democratise production and empower new creative voices.
// HOT TAKES
Welcome to the semantic apocalypse
Erik Hoel reflects on the rise of AI-generated art and how it signals a growing “semantic apocalypse,” where meaning itself is diluted by endless imitation. As AI floods our culture with close-enough replicas, Hoel argues that we risk losing our emotional connection to the originals—until even something as beloved as Totoro feels hollow. | Read via The Intrinsic Perspective
HOT TAKE
The claim that replicating a creative style kills its unique meaning is fundamentally misguided, and they’ve got it backwards: it’s not that Studio Ghibli’s style made the work beloved, but rather the underlying story, craft, and personality that gave the style its power. Just as a logo’s influence stems from its history and cultural resonance—rather than mere aesthetics—Studio Ghibli’s art endures because of its narrative depth, emotional weight, and Miyazaki’s personal touch. Imitating a style (whether by human hand or AI) simply can’t replicate the fabric of storytelling and authorship that truly imbues art with significance.
// Spotlight Analysis
We believe Ted Chiang’s argument amounts to a protectionist, somewhat elitist defence of human artistic uniqueness that overlooks just how formulaic and commercially driven much art already is. His critique of AI for “algorithmic” creation ignores the fact that mainstream music, film, and literature have long relied on reworked formulas and recycled ideas. What truly seems to alarm him—and others who share his view—is the shift in power and speed: now anyone can mass-produce derivative content in an instant, challenging an establishment that equates labour with authenticity.
We see this pattern as nothing new. Every technological leap, from the camera to digital editing software, has stirred anxieties that “real” art would vanish. Yet what usually disappears is the monopoly on creation. AI merely follows this tradition of disruptive innovation, accelerating our ability to generate content based on existing patterns. Yes, it makes imitation easier, but it also exposes how often we’ve already been cloning familiar formulas. Commercial art, after all, flourishes on predictable story arcs, chord progressions, and themes that have proven popular over decades.
Our view is that the real question isn’t whether AI can claim the label of “true creativity” but how we choose to integrate and direct its powers. Authenticity has always been subjective, shaped by shifting definitions of what counts as meaningful labour and genuine self-expression. If we’re honest, many of us enjoy products that are themselves the results of repetitive formulas. AI simply zooms in on that truth, stripping away any illusions that the creative process is purely magical. We can still infuse AI-assisted work with human insight, vision, and emotional resonance—just as we have with any tool.
We also think there’s an overlooked democratic aspect here. The speed and efficiency of AI can empower people who lack traditional training or resources, enabling them to craft music, art, or stories they might not otherwise be able to make. Instead of a small group of privileged creators driving the cultural conversation, many more voices can join in. Naturally, this worries gatekeepers who prefer a slow, carefully curated approach. Yet history shows that when tools become widely accessible, we often see an explosion of new styles, collaborations, and experiments.
Ultimately, AI shines a spotlight on formulas we’ve used all along, but it doesn’t negate human agency or imagination. We suspect Chiang’s dire warnings about AI “destroying” originality reflect a deeper fear of sudden change and loss of control. The question, for us, is how to guide that change. Like every new medium—from the first photographs to digital composition—AI is neither a standalone threat nor a guaranteed salvation. It all comes down to whether we recognise that human intention, taste, and innovation can steer these tools to create something worthwhile.
So if there is a crisis, it’s not about the legitimacy of AI per se, but about how we adapt, collaborate, and continue to value genuine authorship in a world where machines can imitate us so effectively. As with every creative revolution, it’s less about the technology itself than about what we decide to do with it.
// Final Thoughts
OpenAI’s abrupt and sudden clampdown on Ghibli-inspired art—after fueling a wave of AI-generated creations—is the latest situation fueling debates on AI’s creative boundaries. Critics say it reveals a company torn between bold innovation and cautious retreat.
OpenAI: bold enough to copy the masters, too scared to own it. You can’t lead the future with one foot on the brake —Creative Machina
// Featured Media
ChatGPT’s Ghibli-style AI draws millions — but at what ethical cost?
“Open AI gained a million users within an hour as posts began to flood social media… The hype was instant”
A new AI feature called “Gibli” went viral upon its March 25, 2025 release for transforming users’ selfies into whimsical, anime-inspired art reminiscent of Studio Ghibli. Although it attracted over a million users almost instantly, it also sparked controversy: Hayao Miyazaki’s known disdain for AI art resurfaced, creators raised copyright concerns, and critics pointed to privacy risks from mass image-scraping. The debate intensified when the Israeli military used “Gibli-fied” pictures of its troops, drawing accusations of exploiting Miyazaki’s humanistic style for propaganda.
Associated Press. (2024). ChatGPT’s viral Studio Ghibli-style images highlight AI copyright concerns. https://apnews.com/article/0f4cb487ec3042dd5b43ad47879b91f4?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Jones, A., & Wang, M. (2023). Productivity effects of text-to-image AI tools in graphic design. Oxford Academic Journal of Computational Creativity, 14(2), 221–234. https://academic.oup.com
Epstein, Z., Shen, S., Sharma, A., Salehi, N., & Maes, P. (2023). Art and the science of generative AI. Science, 381(6659), 37–41. https://ide.mit.edu/research/art-and-the-science-of-generative-ai/
Duffy, C. (2023, May 9). Writers Guild says generative AI “does not create anything” new. Gizmodo. https://gizmodo.com/writers-guild-ai-strike-chatgpt-openai-1850418936
ABC News. (2024). Why the AI-generated “Studio Ghibli” trend is so controversial. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-30/ai-studio-ghibli-art-trend-criticism/103632108
Business Insider. (2024). OpenAI quietly limits Ghibli-style image prompts after viral backlash. https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-image-tool-ghibli-style-prompts-limited-ai-art-2024-3
Associated Press, “ChatGPT’s viral Studio Ghibli-style …”
NDTV. (2024, March 31). “I would never incorporate this”: What Studio Ghibli’s Hayao Miyazaki once said about AI animation. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/quot-i-would-never-incorporate-this-quot-what-studio-ghibli-039-s-hayao-miyazaki-once-said-about-ai-animation-8021037
Epstein, “Art and the science of generative AI”