In an NHK documentary series, Hayao Miyazaki — The One Who Never Ends, the animation artist who co-founded Studio Ghibli, famously said to a group of students who wanted to design a machine that automated animation, “I am utterly disgusted. If you really want to make creepy stuff you can go ahead and do it. I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all. I strongly feel this is an insult to life itself.”
This past week, netizens have been taken by ChatGPT 4o’s new tool, which enables users to recreate existing images in the Studio Ghibli style. In terms of technology, this is a leap forward in artificial intelligence (AI). ChatGPT 4o’s new tool allows anyone with a simple prompt to generate images that echo the hand-drawn, otherworldly art of Hayao Miyazaki’s iconic works. This tool can proficiently generate images similar to the famed Japanese studio’s sensibility.
However, the sudden surge in AI-generated art raises some serious questions: is this a sign of innovation or imitation? And, as the boundaries between human and machine creativity blur, is the value of traditional craftsmanship being overshadowed?
The ethical question
More than the technical implications, the concerns around AI replicating the style of award-winning artists like Miyazaki are also deeply ethical. Many within the creative community argue that AI-driven tools, while offering impressive capabilities, are often based on works that have not been properly licensed or credited.
Suresh Eriyat, the founder of the National Award-winning animation studio, Studio Eeksaurus, puts it succinctly: “AI is riding on the years of dedication and craftsmanship that artists have put into evolving their unique styles. We protested against this long ago, yet AI, as we know it, is now unstoppable. The real issue is the lack of regulations to discourage such unethical use, which ultimately undermines artistic liberties, devalues artistic efforts, and cheapens creativity itself.”
Eriyat met Miyazaki in his studio on March 12.
While Eriyat’s concerns are rooted in the protection of artistic ownership, Uday Dandavate, co-founder of SonicRim, a San Francisco-based design research agency, is more worried about the deep philosophical and ethical implications of AI’s potential to ‘replicate’ human creativity.”
He says, “If an AI tool replicates the style of an artist, it is a copyright violation at an ethical level.”
“Humans are defined not just by our intelligence but by our consciousness. AI cannot match that,” he argues. Dandavate has previously taught at the California College of Arts and Carnegie Mellon University’s Integrated Innovation Institute.
Awesome. The Ghibli style is now going to become oversaturated and associated with lazy and boring content – can’t wait for kids to grow up thinking the Ghibli movies are Ai-generated and instead of art that’s crafted by excellent artists https://t.co/YFOUIRLYAm
— Fredrik (@F_Edits) March 27, 2025
For him, the question of ownership is central, and he strongly believes that the creators of AI models must be held accountable for the consequences of their tools. Speaking about an initiative by his friend Manjula Nadkarni, who is working to empower artists through a start-up called Yuni, he highlights how the venture aims to protect artists’ styles while allowing others to use them for their own work, with the original creators receiving royalties.
Roshni Lachhwani, an intellectual property lawyer and founding attorney at Intellexsys Legal Solutions, further raised the issue of intellectual property (IP) in AI-generated art. Lachhwani argued that as such it could indeed infringe upon the IP rights of traditional artists.
“If an AI model is trained on copyrighted material, such as works in the public domain or licensed datasets, ownership typically depends on the level of human contribution,” Lachhwani says and adds, “AI-generated images mimicking Studio Ghibli’s signature style could constitute infringement as there was no permission sought by OpenAI before training on such artistic works.”
AI as a tool in design
Despite several jarring ethical concerns, some designers actually see AI as a helpful tool that can enhance their work rather than replace the human element of creativity.
Krishan Jagota, president of the Mumbai Chapter of the Association of Designers of India and head of product design at Sideways Consulting, believes that AI can serve as a collaborative tool that augments creativity without overshadowing the designer’s role.
“AI serves as a collaborative tool in design, offering a vast pool of inspiration for quick, effective co-creation,” Jagota says, adding that its use, however, must be ethical and sustainable. He says that the importance of using AI is to complement, rather than replace, the originality and craftsmanship that define great design.
Offering a broader perspective, Anando Dutta, dean of academics at the ATLAS ISDI School of Design and Innovation, argues that AI can elevate the future of design. “Art and design are not the same thing, they have very different purposes, reasons and functions. AI only captures history, art and design are all about everything in our future. Using AI will help design get better, more incisive, appropriate and meaningful,” he says.
While sharing this notion of AI as a supplement rather than a substitute for human creativity, Kushagr Awasthi, a communication design student from Mumbai at the Parsons School of Design in New York, also raises skepticism about the true potential of AI to replace human creatives. “Art isn’t simply an aesthetic discipline but an expressive one,” he says.
“Art’s value derives from a compelling person trying to tell a compelling story, and AI, as it spews mimicked styles, is anything but that,” he adds. AI tools, Awasthi goes on to express, although can assist in creating basic mock-ups or conducting research, they fall short of crafting innovative and novel ideas.
“AI can’t yet be trusted to create a generative brand identity for a Fortune 500 company nor can it create a creative-code illustration for the New York Times,” he concludes.
Jagota too notes that AI could provide new forms of inspiration for designers. “AI could evolve into a service that compensates artists whenever their work inspires AI-generated content,” he says, proposing a model where creators would be compensated for the use of their work in AI training.
This, he believes, could ensure fair remuneration and address some of the copyright concerns around AI-generated art.
Navigating the intersection of AI and art
As AI tools become more integrated into the creative industries, design education has had to adapt too. As Awasthi shares, both at the Parsons School of Design and Central Saint Martins in London, AI tools were swiftly incorporated into their curriculum.
“At Parsons, my curriculum was updated immediately after ChatGPT became publicly available. We were instructed to utilise AI content for some of our projects,” Awasthi notes but adds, “My larger concern around ethics and AI is the protection of intellectual property rather than the displacement of jobs that I feel is a more distant problem.”
He believes that with more and more students getting exposed to AI, it is crucial that they not only understand how to use the tool but also the impact it could have on the industry, noting that these discussions are key to shaping how future creatives approach AI.
The road ahead
With AI getting more advanced every day, the creative industry will inevitably face an onward struggle balancing technological innovation with the preservation of traditional artistic practices. The insights of designers and legal experts show that while AI’s ethical and legal challenges are currently far worse than its potential to enhance creativity, be it exploitation of artists’ work or the potential erosion of original creative thought.
Ultimately, the way forward may lie in embracing AI as a tool that enhances human creativity while protecting the rights of original creators. Dandavate says, “In the midst of the buzz about technology, the pedagogy of design must stay committed to what being human means.”
Meanwhile, Lachhwani shares five ways in which artists can be safeguarded against artificial intelligence:
- Seek permission: Ensure explicit consent is obtained before using any artist’s work for AI training.
- Utilise open licenses: Encourage AI developers to use public domain or Creative Commons works, which do not require permission for use.
- Fair compensation: Establish systems where artists can opt-in to AI training programs for royalties or fair compensation when their work inspires AI-generated content.
- Disclose training data: AI developers should be transparent about the datasets they use for training their models. This would require mandatory disclosure, so artists can understand where their work is being utilised.
- Label AI-generated art: Clearly label AI-created art to distinguish it from human-made works, ensuring proper attribution.
As designers and artists continue to navigate this evolving landscape, one thing remains clear: AI will not replace human creativity, but it will shape the way in which we create, consume, and appreciate art.
The future of AI in design and art, as many in the industry have pointed out, must involve a careful examination of the ethical, legal, and creative dimensions of this new technology. By fostering a dialogue between designers, artists, technologists, and legal experts, the industry can ensure that AI serves as a tool to enhance human creativity, rather than diminish it.
Anhata Rooprai is a Mumbai-based journalist.
