You’ve probably seen it by now — Ghibli-style reimaginings of Star Wars, political scenes, mundane office life, or even GDPR notices. Using image generators like Midjourney or DALL·E, creators prompt models to generate illustrations that echo the emotional warmth and visual cues of Studio Ghibli: soft pastels, whimsical machinery, flowing nature, big eyes and bigger skies. The effect is stunning. But few stop to ask:
- Is this “inspired” or “imitated”?
- Is it legal?
- Is it ethical?
Where AI Style Meets IP Law
This isn’t just a creative or cultural debate. It touches on core intellectual property (IP) concepts and growing global concern around AI governance.
Can You Copyright a Style?
Legally, style itself isn’t copyrightable. You can’t own “impressionism” or “Studio Ghibli aesthetic” as a legal entity.
However, specific characters, logos, background art, compositions, and names are protected under:
- Copyright law (e.g., Berne Convention, Swiss Copyright Act – LDA/LDAut)
- Trademark law (if a style is associated with a brand identity, like Totoro)
- Model training concerns (if training data included copyrighted works, permission may be needed)
If an AI model was trained on copyrighted material without license, the resulting use can be legally shaky — especially in commercial settings.
What Legal Frameworks Apply?
In Switzerland and the EU, several frameworks are relevant:
🇨🇭 Swiss Copyright Act (LDA)
- Covers artistic expression, not “style” per se.
- Relevant when AI-generated content imitates characters, scenes, or distinctive creative elements.
- Key for national legal context.
🇪🇺 EU AI Act
Why it matters: It’s the first binding legal framework for AI, and it impacts any organization that offers AI services or tools in the EU — even non-EU companies (like those in Switzerland).
Key points relevant to AI-generated art:
• Transparency obligation: AI-generated content must be clearly labeled if it may be mistaken for human-made (e.g., realistic Ghibli-style illustration used in marketing or media).
• High-risk classification: Not relevant for pure art generation, but if AI is used for hiring, surveillance, or legal decisions — strict rules apply.
• Foundation models (like GPT, Midjourney): Will require technical documentation, risk mitigation, and transparency around training data sources.
🌍 WIPO Discussions on AI & IP
- Focused on authorship, copyright, and ownership of AI-generated content.
- Still evolving, but signals the global direction of regulation.
- Important for understanding international trends and uncertainty.
🛡️ Enter ISO 42001: The AI Management Standard
ISO/IEC 42001, released in late 2023, is the first international standard for AI management systems. It offers an operational framework for organizations using AI responsibly — not only technically, but ethically and legally.
ISO 42001 doesn’t replace copyright law, but it encourages organizations to:
- Identify and document IP-related risks
- Track training data provenance
- Build transparency policies around AI-generated content
Implement accountability structures when deploying generative tools
It’s about governance — knowing what you’re building, what you’re using, and what consequences might arise.
Miyazaki’s views on AI resurface after this week’s craze
In a widely shared moment from the documentary “Never-Ending Man: Hayao Miyazaki”, the Studio Ghibli co-founder was shown a prototype of AI-generated animation — a zombie-like creature dragging itself unnaturally by its head.
The developers explained that AI could generate grotesque movements “that we humans can’t imagine.” What followed was not curiosity or applause, but quiet anger.
Miyazaki responded with a personal story:
”Every morning, not in recent days, I see my friend who has a disability. It’s so hard for him just to do a high five; his arm with stiff muscle can’t reach out to my hand. Now, thinking of him, I can’t watch this stuff and find it interesting. Whoever creates this stuff has no idea what pain is whatsoever. I am utterly disgusted… I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself.”
This is more than creative critique — it’s a philosophical boundary. For Miyazaki, art and storytelling are deeply human acts. To replicate their outer form without understanding their emotional core risks creating soulless outputs — and, worse, disrespectful ones.
In the context of AI governance, Miyazaki’s reaction serves as a reminder: Just because we can generate something doesn’t mean we should. Frameworks like ISO 42001, the EU AI Act, and ethical AI practices don’t exist to limit creativity — they exist to protect the dignity of creation and the humans it touches.
- We can help you become FADP compliant!
Expert Guidance, Affordable Solutions, and a Seamless Path to Compliance
