Copyrights and AI: imitation of Studio Ghibli Style

Por: Diego Guzmán - Researcher Professor. LLM.

The use of technology such as ChatGPT to adapt photographs in the style of the films produced by Studio Ghibli has made an interesting debate about creativity and intellectual property. Studio Ghibli, known for its distinctive art and storytelling style, has created a highly recognizable visual aesthetic that has captivated audiences of all ages. By employing artificial intelligence to transform images into compositions that evoke the essence of Ghibli, the question arises as to how much this adaptation respects copyrights and the originality of the artwork. To this end, this text will explain the scope of protection that copyrights recognizes for the style and how the process of training artificial intelligence (AI) systems can infringe copyrights. Thus, a dialogue is opened on the balance between technological innovation and respect for artistic creation.

Style protection has an important precedent in Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), decided by the Second District Court of New York. In this decision, the distinctive style of artist Saul Steinberg, used on a cover of The New Yorker magazine published in 1976, was considered to be protected by copyrights. Consequently, the Court ruled against Columbia Pictures because the poster for the film Moscow on the Hudson made a non-literal copy of Steinberg’s style, which constitutes an infringement of the right to copy.

However, the protection of style is not limited to the American caselaw. In the European Union, Article 5(k) of European Directive 2001/29/EC provides for possible exceptions and limitations to copyright in cases where “the use [of a work] is for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche”. Pastiche means the imitation of the style and, consequently, in European countries that have included it in their legislation, the style of an artist can be replicated without requiring authorization or payment of royalties.

In contrast to the European legislation, in Colombia we do not have an exception and limitation that admits pastiche. Currently, the closest thing that exists is the parody exception, introduced by paragraph d of article 16 of Law 1915 of 2018. This law states that “the transformation of disseminated literary and artistic works will be allowed, provided that it is carried out for the purpose of parody and caricature, and does not imply a risk of confusion with the original work.” However, the scope of parody limits its applicability to pastiche. Therefore, the use of the style of protected works without proper authorization, including for adaptation purposes, may not be protected by current Colombian regulation.

It is also important to note that the process of training AI systems involves feeding the model with a vast dataset, which often includes copyrighted works. This process, which constitutes an act of reproduction and, in some cases, of making available, requires the prior authorization of the owner of the rights. Otherwise, the use of those works without the corresponding consent could constitute an infringement, since the exclusive rights would be infringed. As a result, it is imperative that entities that develop and train artificial intelligence have adequate licenses to prevent potential infringements.

In conclusion, imitation of the artistic style of protected works, such as those produced by Studio Ghibli, may constitute a copyright infringement, since such activity could infringe the owner’s exclusive rights over his creation. Therefore, it is essential to have the authorization of the rights holder before using this style in any adaptation or copy. Alternatively, it would be necessary to have an exception and limitation to copyrights that expressly allows such use, which is not contemplated in Colombian legislation. In the absence of these conditions, the use of stylistic imitations could lead to legal actions for copyright infringement, highlighting the importance of clarity in the regulation of these issues in the field of intellectual property.