'Anyone Can Tell It's Ghibli'... Is Using KakaoTalk Photos Okay for Copyright? [AI Error Notes]

Anyone Can Tell It's 'Ghibli,' But Why?
Copyright Law Separates 'Idea' and 'Expression'
Only Specific Expressions Are Protected, Ideas Are Not

Editor's NoteExamining failures is the shortcut to success. 'AI Wrong Answer Note' explores failure cases related to AI products, services, companies, and individuals.

If you open KakaoTalk these days, many friends have changed their profile pictures, right? The 'Ghibli-style photo creation' using ChatGPT is truly a craze.

Studio Ghibli is a famous Japanese animation studio. It is the place that created works such as Hayao Miyazaki’s "My Neighbor Totoro," "Howl’s Moving Castle," and "Spirited Away." Its calm and warm fairy-tale-like art style is very appealing.

Image generated by ChatGPT. DALL·E3

With the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) image generation technology, anyone can easily transform their photos into the desired Ghibli style. On the 25th of last month, OpenAI released the 'ChatGPT-4o Image Generation' model. OpenAI encouraged users to try creating 'Ghibli-style pictures,' and Sam Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, also changed his profile picture on his X (formerly Twitter) account to a 'Ghibli-style' image.

Since then, images imitating the Ghibli style have been pouring out like a flood. Even Altman was surprised by the response. On the 27th of last month, he said, “GPUs are melting,” referring to the server overload caused by the influx of users, which was so intense that GPUs were metaphorically melting.

The Other Side of the Ghibli Craze: 'Copyright Infringement' Controversy

Studio Ghibli, directed by Hayao Miyazaki, is known to spend several months working on just a few seconds of animation. Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation

Perhaps because of its immense popularity, the Ghibli craze has also given rise to another issue: the 'copyright infringement controversy.'

Josh Weigensberg, a partner attorney at the U.S. law firm Pryor Cashman, said in an interview with the Associated Press, “Whether OpenAI’s AI model was trained on works by Studio Ghibli or Hayao Miyazaki could be problematic,” adding, “If such use of works is done without consent and compensation, it could be an issue.”

Coincidentally, Director Hayao Miyazaki has expressed a critical stance on animation work done through AI. In past interviews, he said, “The results drawn by AI do not understand the pain of the people who actually work on the creation. It’s completely disgusting,” and “I would never use such technologies in my works. I think this is an insult to life itself.”

In another interview, he warned against excessive reliance on technology, saying, “Animation is something that requires pencils and the human touch.”

Studio Ghibli is a for-profit private company. The claim that imitating the Ghibli art style with AI constitutes copyright infringement is perhaps a natural progression. However, it is not easy to conclude simply that it is 'copyright infringement.'

It’s Clearly ‘Ghibli’ to Anyone... So Why Can’t It Be Conclusively Called Copyright Infringement?

Poster of the movie 'War of the Worlds' directed by Steven Spielberg.

One of the basic principles of copyright law is the 'idea-expression dichotomy.' Simply put, copyright protects only the specific 'expression' and not the underlying 'idea.'

For example, the idea of 'a story about Earthlings fighting off an alien invasion' is not protected by copyright. However, specific works based on that idea, such as the movies Avengers (2012), War of the Worlds (2005), and Independence Day (1996), including their specific dialogues, scenes, and characters, are protected by copyright.

However, artistic styles or painting styles are different. Generally, artistic styles or painting styles are closer to 'ideas' and are often not subject to copyright protection. Therefore, simply imitating Studio Ghibli’s general art style may not be considered copyright infringement.

Park Ae-ran, a lawyer at the Korea Copyright Commission, explained in an interview with Yonhap News, “Under copyright law, areas like style or painting style, which belong to the idea domain, are not protected as works, but expressions are protected,” adding, “Even if not protected under copyright law, there may be violations of other laws such as unfair competition prevention law.”

The current copyright law’s 'idea-expression dichotomy' logic is not about 'protection of copyright' itself but rather about 'promotion and development through protection.' Protecting ideas would risk allowing a few to monopolize too broad a creative domain.

By freeing ideas, other creators can create new expressions based on existing ideas, fostering an environment where cultural resources and knowledge are freely shared and spread.

In that sense, copyright law can be seen as a balance between 'encouraging innovation and rewarding creators’ efforts.'

Was Nike’s 'Jumpman' a Copy?

Nike's 'Jumpman' logo

A photo that inspired Nike's 'Jumpman'. Taken by photographer Rentmeister in 1984 at the University of North Carolina. Submitted as evidence in a U.S. court case.

Looking at historical cases of copyright disputes related to style imitation may help understanding.

Michael Jordan’s famous 'jump' photo is well known. Nike turned this jump into a brand logo, which became a core brand earning billions of dollars annually. However, it got involved in a copyright lawsuit.

Photographer J. Rentmeester claimed that Nike’s 'Jumpman' logo infringed on the copyright of a photo he took of Jordan in 1984. However, the court ruled, “It is clear that Nike’s Jumpman logo was inspired by Rentmeester’s photo,” but “the specific expression (angle of the legs, background, lighting, etc.) is sufficiently different,” and thus it was not copyright infringement.

There is also the 2003 'Jellyfish Glass Sculpture' case. Glass artist Richard Satava created a three-dimensional glass sculpture that looked like a real jellyfish inside glass. Another artist, Lowry, was inspired by Satava’s work and created a similar piece. Satava sued Lowry for copyright infringement.

Jellyfish glass art by Sataba. Since then, similar glass artworks have flooded the market, but they could not be stopped even by copyright lawsuits. Art Journal

The court again ruled 'no copyright infringement.' The court judged that realistically depicting a natural organism (jellyfish) can only receive limited copyright protection. Expressing an actual living creature as it is is closer to an idea or fact rather than a creative expression. The method of depicting a jellyfish inside transparent glass was considered a logical and universal way to express the jellyfish’s natural characteristics (translucency, floating in water, etc.).

Rogers v Koons: Rogers' 1985 work (left) and Koons' 1988 work.

On the other hand, there are cases where copyright infringement was recognized. The famous 1992 case 'Rogers v. Koons' involved photographer Art Rogers’ black-and-white photo being transformed by sculptor Jeff Koons into a sculpture called 'String of Puppies.' Koons claimed it was a “parody and artistic transformation,” but the court ruled it was copyright infringement. The court found that Koons’ work copied too many specific expressive elements of Rogers’ photo (pose, composition, expression, etc.) rather than just the style.

No Clear Legal Standards Yet... But Coexistence of Technology and Creation Is Always a Concern

Image generation through AI has sparked copyright controversies, but the conclusion remains uncertain. Getty Images Bank

As such, courts generally focus more on how much specific expressive elements of a particular work have been copied rather than the style or art style itself. Moreover, copyright precedents related to AI-based style imitation are not yet well established. Technology is advancing so rapidly that legal standards cannot keep up.

However, saying that copyright infringement cannot be conclusively determined does not mean copyright can be treated carelessly. Rather than lingering indefinitely in a legal gray area, responses should be made with the core of current copyright law (the separation of idea and expression) in mind. No matter how great the technology, the basic principles of copyright law must be respected.

There are many companies in the IT industry that failed due to copyright issues. Napster in 1999, which caused a stir in the music industry, is a representative example. Napster was a P2P (Peer-to-Peer) service that allowed users to exchange MP3 music files directly. It gained explosive popularity immediately after launch, securing tens of millions of users within months. However, it went bankrupt due to copyright infringement rulings. This left a lesson that no matter how innovative a service is, it can fail if legal issues like copyright are not properly addressed.

Companies must seriously address copyright issues while also considering coexistence with creators. A sustainable AI ecosystem will be one where technological innovation and creator protection coexist.