A CHATGPT TREND OF GHIBLI ART: A SERIOUS THREAT TO THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

---

ABSTRACT

This paper investigates the growing trend of producing Ghibli-style art from real photographs using ChatGPT and related artificial intelligence methods and contends that this seriously compromises intellectual property rights and privacy. It starts with outlining the popularity online and how this trend operates. Supported by important rulings and professional studies, the paper next looks at the legal framework under Indian constitutional and penal law. It also offers graphics to define legal hazards and contrasts world solutions to related problems. Recommendations to control AI-generated art and defend personal rights round out the paper.

INTRODUCTION

The use of ChatGPT to create art inspired by Ghibli has become a popular and viral trend, especially on social media platforms. By incorporating image-generation features—often via tools like DALL·E or various plugins—users are turning real-life photos into illustrations that capture the gentle, enchanting, and nostalgic essence reminiscent of Studio Ghibli films. This trend is driven by a mix of fandom culture, the availability of AI, and the charm of customized, aesthetically pleasing artwork. While it sparks public interest, it also brings to light important issues regarding digital consent, privacy, and the unapproved use of personal images.
This paper argues that the growing trend of utilizing ChatGPT and similar AI tools to create Ghibli-style art, particularly when drawing from real individuals’ images, significantly endangers privacy and intellectual property rights. Transforming identifiable personal photographs into stylized art without consent compromises an individual’s control over their image, opens the door to potential misuse or misrepresentation, and brings to light important ethical and legal questions surrounding AI-generated content. Moreover, it could violate the intellectual property rights of the original Ghibli creators, as their unique artistic style is being imitated without permission or acknowledgment.

THE RISE OF AI-GENERATED GHIBLI ART

When you combine ChatGPT with image-generation tools like DALL·E or third-party AI platforms such as MidJourney and Stable Diffusion, you can create artwork that captures the unique essence of Studio Ghibli’s style. These AI models are developed using extensive collections of data that encompass a range of artistic styles, including the gentle, imaginative, and hand-crafted look that characterizes Ghibli films. By entering a descriptive prompt—like “a child walking through a magical forest in Ghibli style”—users can create unique images that reflect the vibrant colours, composition, and enchanting ambiance characteristic of Studio Ghibli animation.
Additionally, certain tools enable users to upload actual photographs (such as their own faces) and convert them into Ghibli-style portraits. In this scenario, the AI recognizes important facial characteristics and creatively transforms them, frequently resulting in very lifelike and individualized cartoon versions. ChatGPT can help enhance prompts to achieve more precise or imaginative results, making the experience approachable for everyone, regardless of their artistic background. This technology, though attractive, brings up important issues regarding consent, ownership of images, and the unauthorized replication of copyrighted styles.
The rise of creating Studio Ghibli-inspired art with AI tools like ChatGPT, DALL·E, and MidJourney has become incredibly popular on social media platforms like Instagram, Reddit, and TikTok. People are captivated by the charming, whimsical essence of Ghibli art and the delight of witnessing themselves or familiar moments transformed in this cherished animation style. The ease of using AI tools—needing minimal technical know-how—has sparked broad involvement, transforming a previously niche form of artistic expression into a popular, community-driven phenomenon.
Yet, this widespread appeal brings significant consequences for artists and the creative sector. Firstly, it brings up worries regarding artistic appropriation, as the distinctive Ghibli style—cultivated over many years by Studio Ghibli artists—is being replicated without permission, acknowledgment, or remuneration. This diminishes the worth of authentic artistic creation and confuses the distinction between tribute and violation. Secondly, it poses a challenge to the livelihoods of human artists, who might find it difficult to compete with content created by AI that is quicker, more affordable, and easily tailored. Ultimately, it raises questions about authenticity and authorship, as works created by AI frequently miss the emotional depth, intention, and cultural nuance that characterize art made by humans.
Ultimately, although the trend opens up opportunities for art creation, it also challenges established ideas of creative ownership, prompting the industry to consider important ethical and legal issues.

LEGAL AND ETHICAL CONCERNS

RIGHT TO PRIVACY

• CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

In India, the right to privacy is viewed as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court, in the significant case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental aspect of Article 21. This ruling safeguards individuals from unnecessary monitoring, the unauthorized gathering of personal information, and any intrusion into personal space or likeness. The right to privacy allows individuals to manage their personal information, especially in relation to AI-generated images that mimic personal likenesses without permission.
Additionally, Article 19(1)(a) ensures the freedom of speech and expression; however, this freedom comes with reasonable limitations, such as safeguarding individual privacy. This establishes a conflict between the freedom to express oneself through AI-generated content and the right to privacy when personal images are utilized without consent.

• CRIMINAL LAW ASPECTS

Several criminal laws in India can be applied in cases where personal data is used without consent, or where identity theft or copyright infringement occurs in the context of AI-generated art:

• Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000: This part criminalizes the infringement of privacy by means of photos or videos of people captured, shared, or published without permission. Within the framework of artificial intelligence art, this issue may be relevant should someone is likeness be utilized without authorization to create artwork, particularly in cases of public sharing of such images.
• Section 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000: These clauses address the publication or distribution of obscene content in electronic form, which would be relevant should artificial intelligence-generated art feature overt or offensive depictions of people.
• Section 419, 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): These sections address impersonation and cheating. These clauses might apply, particularly in cases involving fraud or identity theft, if someone is likeness is utilized without permission in AI-generated artwork to mislead others (e.g., via deepfakes or false representations).
• Copyright Act, 1957: Additionally causing questions about copyright infringement is AI-generated art. Particularly if the work is sold or utilized commercially, the replication of Studio Ghibli’s unique artistic style or a person’s likeness without permission might violate copyright laws.

LANDMARK JUDGMENTS

Several judgments have shaped the understanding of privacy and intellectual property in the context of new technologies, including AI:

1. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court decided that under the Indian Constitution, the right to privacy is a basic right constituting the basis for upcoming legal claims about privacy infringement, including those resulting from AI-generated content involving personal data or photos.
2. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994): This decision confirmed the right to privacy against illegal dissemination of personal information and images. The Court decided that an individual’s right to privacy covers their image, which might be claimed should artificial intelligence systems use real faces without permission for creative reasons.
3. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): Significantly for online freedom of expression, the Supreme Court declared Section 66A of the Information Technology Act unconstitutional as unworkable. When debating AI-generated content that might fit the category of online speech or expression, this ruling helps to balance it against personal privacy rights.
4. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008): Regarding copyright infringement, the Court decided stressing the need of safeguarding intellectual property from illegal use. When artificial intelligence systems copy other artistic styles, as those of Studio Ghibli, without authorization, this precedent could be applied to handle problems.

These judgments underscore the complex intersection of privacy, intellectual property, and AI technologies, highlighting the need for robust legal frameworks to protect individual rights in the age of digital and AI-generated content.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

• Creating Ghibli-style work without permission using artificial intelligence could violate Studio Ghibli’s copyright in a number of respects. Renowned animation company Studio Ghibli owns copyrights over its creative works, including the unique visual style, character designs, and artwork seen in movies including Spirited Away, My Neighbor Totoro, and Princess Mononoke. International accords such the Berne Convention and India’s Copyright Act, 1957 guard this copyrighted content.
• AI programs as ChatGPT, DALL-E, or MidJourney are essentially reproducing copyrighted elements including the artistic style, colour palettes, character traits, and visual themes when they create Ghibli style artwork. Although the AI does not directly replicate copyrighted visuals, it may create outputs that are sufficiently like Studio Ghibli’s unique approach, therefore violating copyright law.
• The fundamental problem resides in the derivative works created by artificial intelligence tools. Creating derivative works based on someone else’s copyrighted work without permission violates the Copyright Act. If the resulting artwork closely matches the general style and elements trademarked or copyrighted by Studio Ghibli, even if the AI might not be explicitly replicating particular scenes or characters, it may still be judged as a derivative work.
• Furthermore, commercialized AI-generated art can be done without the original artist’s authorization, therefore directly affecting Studio Ghibli’s capacity to benefit from and govern its intellectual property. Economic damage and a loss of market value for the studio could result from this illegal use of AI-generated works flooding markets or sold in a way that competes with Ghibli’s own products or licencing deals.

TRADEMARK ISSUES

• Generating Ghibli-style graphics using artificial intelligence could also spark questions over trademark infringement.Protected under trademark law, Studio Ghibli has developed trademarks over its distinctive characters, logos, and visual aspects. These trademarks are meant to set Ghibli’s products and services—including movies, goods, and advertising collateral—uniquely apart.
• Should AI-generated art feature visual components or character designs reminiscent of Studio Ghibli’s trademarks—such as iconic characters like Totoro or Spirited Away’s No-Face—trademark infringement may result from commercial usage of the work. For example, customer uncertainty regarding the origins or connection of an AI-generated artwork sold as goods or utilized in branding without permission could arise. In trademark law, this uncertainty is a major problem since buyers can think the product is formally licensed by Studio Ghibli while in fact it is not.
• Furthermore, if works created by artificial intelligence are sold with Ghibli-style images, the Ghibli brand runs the danger of becoming diluted. Even without creating consumer misunderstanding, trademark dilution results from the use of a well-known trademark in a way that compromises its originality or repute. Should Ghibli-style art produced by artificial intelligence become widely available and financially successful, it may lessen the uniqueness of Studio Ghibli’s trademarks and compromise the studio’s brand identification.
• Using artificial intelligence to create Ghibli-style art without permission carries major legal concerns overall, including copyright infringement for producing derivative works and trademark infringement should the art be used commercially in a way that compromises the brand’s uniqueness or causes consumer confusion. These problems draw attention to the need of honouring intellectual property rights while applying artificial intelligence in the creative sectors.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

CONSENT AND ATTRIBUTION

• Using artificial intelligence to replicate a particular artist’s work, say Studio Ghibli, without their permission or appropriate attribution creates serious ethical questions. Like the creators of Studio Ghibli, artists labour years of creatively to establish a distinctive and identifiable style. AI models that copy these styles without authorization ignore the artist’s right to control how their work is used, disseminated, or modified.
• The lack of permission raises one of the main ethical questions here. For artists, their work embodies not only a major time and talent commitment but also their creative identity. Often without the artist’s knowledge or permission, people are co-opting their identity for either personal or economic benefit by utilizing artificial intelligence to create works in their manner. This unilateral appropriation of an artist’s style reduces their creative autonomy and ignores their right to control the usage of their intellectual property.
• Furthermore ethically dubious is the absence of credit. Often there is no reference to the original artist’s influence or inspiration when AI-generated art is shown or sold. In the creative sectors, the artist’s input is vital, so this exclusion denies respect of it. Many times, the artist’s work is appropriated; the AI author or user of the tool claims credit for the end product, therefore devaluating the original artistic effort. Attribute not only honours the intellectual property the artificial intelligence is referencing but also gives credit. Without this, the approach runs the danger of encouraging an artistic exploitation culture whereby original authors are left unrecognized and creativity is sold.

THE FUTURE OF CREATIVITY

• The advent of artificial intelligence in creative processes raises serious ethical questions for the livelihoods of conventional artists as well as for the direction of art. For the creative sector, as artificial intelligence gets more advanced in producing original content—from visual art to music and literature—it presents both possibilities and problems.
• On one hand, artificial intelligence could democratize creativity by allowing people without official creative education to produce excellent work and realize their ideas. AI tools enable people to experiment with fresh styles and techniques and make art more approachable. This might result in a more inclusive creative environment in which everyone can participate to the artistic conversation.
• For artists, nevertheless, this technological development raises serious ethical and financial questions. The growing usage of AI-generated art begs the issue of authorship—who owns the work created by AI? Is the person that gave the prompt, the business developing the artificial intelligence, or the AI itself? As artificial intelligence can imitate styles, produce new works, and even forecast trends without the emotional depth, intuition, and lived experiences human artists bring to their work, the erosion of unambiguous authorship risks to reduce the value of human creativity.
• Moreover, the sale of AI-generated art could endanger the livelihoods of conventional artists. AI-generated material could flood markets and make it more difficult for individual artists to compete since it allows one to create quickly and at scale. This could result in a pricing and creative value race to the bottom whereby mass production of AI-generated work obscures the authenticity of human-made art. Artists may find it difficult to market their creations or be underappreciated since consumers would value reasonably priced, AI-generated works above handcrafted, original art.
• The way ethical concerns including permission, attribution, and intellectual property protection are handled will significantly influence how artificial intelligence affects the creative sector over long run. Unchecked, artificial intelligence might drastically change the value system of creativity, pushing mass-produced, algorithm-driven works ahead of more conventional artists. Conversely, if ethical systems are set in place to guarantee fair recompense, acknowledgment, and respect for original creators, artificial intelligence might become a tool that improves rather than replaces human talent, hence fostering a more varied and cooperative cultural scene.
• In essence, the application of artificial intelligence in artistic domains poses both great opportunities and major ethical and financial difficulties that must be carefully negotiated. In the AI era, the balance between technological progress and the defence of human artistic labour and intellectual property will define the direction of creativity.

REPORTS AND DATA

INDUSTRY REPORTS

• WIPO PATENT LANDSCAPE REPORT ON GENERATIVE AI

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has brought attention to the explosive expansion of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technologies—including those applied in the creation of AI-generated art. Driven by developments in processing power, big datasets, and better AI algorithms, the count of GenAI patents grew from 733 to over 14,000 globally between 2014 and 2023. China lead in GenAI patent filings, notably contributing more than 38,000 inventions throughout this period than any other nation.

• EUROPEAN UNION STUDY ON AI AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Examining how artificial intelligence affects copyright and design infringement and enforcement, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) found The paper explored 20 hypothetical situations regarding AI-related intellectual property concerns and noted several uses of artificial intelligence including cloud services, robotics, and 3D printing. Important conclusions include the difficulties in upholding IP rights in the digital era and the necessity of revised laws to handle artificial intelligence’s influence in content production and dissemination.

DATA ANALYSIS

• Although particular statistics on the expansion of AI-generated Ghibli-style art are lacking, overall the trend of AI-generated content has witnessed notable increase. With approximately 15 billion photos made by August 2023, it is predicted that an average of 34 million photographs have been created everyday employing image generating artificial intelligence since the release of DALL·E 2 in 2022. Many of these pictures were produced with models derived from Stable Diffusion.
• This explosion of AI-generated content highlights how increasingly popular and easily available AI tools are in creative processes. The volume of AI-generated art, including styles evocative of Studio Ghibli, is projected to keep increasing as these technologies get more user-friendly and generally accessible, therefore perhaps affecting traditional artists and the creative sector overall.

CHARTS AND VISUALIZATIONS

This chart shows the rapid increase in the number of AI-generated artworks over the past decade, reflecting advancements in image generation technologies like DALL·E, MidJourney, and Stable Diffusion.

2. ESTIMATED ECONOMIC IMPACT ON ARTISTS

The economic impact chart highlights a growing trend in the reduction of earnings for artists due to competition from AI-generated content.

3. KEY LEGAL DEVELOPMENT (AI AND IP RIGHTS)

This section provides a timeline of major legal events and reports that influence how AI-generated content is regulated, especially concerning privacy and intellectual property.

• 2015: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
• 2017: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
• 2021: NITI Aayog – Responsible AI Report
• 2023: EU AI Act (Drafted)
• 2024: WIPO Report on GenAI

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• • REGULATION AND POLICY

The fast development of artificial intelligence systems able to create art in unique styles like that of Studio Ghibli demands focused and quick legislative involvement. Applied to AI-generated work, current intellectual property rules often fall short, leaving original artists unprotected. Laws passed by governments and international organizations should clearly provide copyright rights to artistic forms and mandate that developers of artificial intelligence get licenses for the datasets used to train their models. Moreover, openness should be mandated as attractive means of revealing the training data sources. In order to handle AI-related conflicts and guarantee ethical compliance in the production and dissemination of synthetic content, regulatory systems need also create specialized monitoring organizations.

• EDUCATION AND AWARENESS

The fast development of artificial intelligence systems able to create art in unique styles like that of Studio Ghibli demands focused and quick legislative involvement. Applied to AI-generated work, current intellectual property rules often fall short, leaving original artists unprotected. Laws passed by governments and international organizations should clearly provide copyright rights to artistic forms and mandate that developers of artificial intelligence get licenses for the datasets used to train their models. Moreover, openness should be mandated as attractive means of revealing the training data sources. In order to handle AI-related conflicts and guarantee ethical compliance in the production and dissemination of synthetic content, regulatory systems need also create specialized monitoring organizations.

• INDUSTRY COLLABORATION

Development of sustainable and ethical solutions to the problems presented by artificial intelligence in the creative field depends on cooperation among artists, artificial intelligence developers, and legal experts. Advisory panels and multidisciplinary task teams can help to promote policy development that strikes a compromise between artistic integrity and innovation. AI firms should collaborate with creators to create ethically trained models, therefore ensuring that datasets do not profitably use copyrighted content without permission. Such cooperation can also help to create shared income systems that fairly pay original musicians. Furthermore, creating accessible methods for reporting and fixing AI-driven violations would help to create a more harmonic and cooperative creative ecology.

CONCLUSION

Particularly in the identifiable style of Studio Ghibli, the emergence of AI-generated art highlights a mounting conflict between technological advancement and the defense of fundamental rights. This paper has investigated how tools such as ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence platforms are progressively utilized to reproduce different artistic styles, therefore posing major issues regarding privacy, copyright, and consent. The intellectual property rights of artists and the privacy of people whose data might be contained in training datasets are seriously threatened by the use of such technologies without appropriate permission or attribution. Unchecked, this trend may destroy the creative sector and lower esteem for unique artistic expression. Thus, a coordinated response including legal change, ethical awareness, and multi-stakeholder cooperation is absolutely vital. Policymakers have to act quickly to build strong systems; artists and the public have to be alert and knowledgeable. We can make sure AI is a tool for creative enrichment instead of exploitation only by working together.

REFRENCES

• Studio Ghibli AI art trend: A privacy nightmare in disguise, experts warn, The Hindu (Apr. 7, 2025), https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/studio-ghibli-ai-art-trend-a-privacy-nightmare-in-disguise-experts-warn/article69421789.ece.
• Nikhil Pandey,Ghibli Art: Fun Trend Or Privacy Nightmare? Experts Warn Of Risks Involved, (Apr. 1, 2025), https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/ghibli-art-fun-trend-or-privacy-nightmare-experts-warn-of-risks-involved-8059734.
• Is your data at risk when you use ChatGPT’s Ghibli art generator?, (Mar. 31, 2025), https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/openai-chatgpt-ghibli-art-generator-privacy-concerns-safety-photos-13876043.html.