AI Image Tools Are Advancing Fast—But So Are the Copyright Challenges
As artificial intelligence continues to shape creative industries, one of its most striking transformations is happening in visual art. Text-to-image tools powered by AI are becoming more advanced, more accessible, and—some would argue—more controversial. Platforms like Midjourney, DALL·E, and ChatGPT’s image editor now allow users to generate professional-looking visuals in seconds. But as these tools go mainstream, they're forcing a reckoning with long-standing ideas about ownership, originality, and artistic integrity.
At the heart of the debate is a simple question with complex implications: when an AI generates an image, who really owns it—and what happens when that image mimics the work of a human artist?
AI-generated images are no longer niche. With OpenAI’s recent rollout of advanced image tools inside ChatGPT, even casual users can describe a scene and see it visualised instantly. The new capabilities include inpainting (editing specific parts of an image) and multiple style options—from digital painting to photorealism. For marketers, content creators, and hobbyists, the appeal is clear: fast, customisable visuals with no design experience required.
This represents a dramatic shift in how visual content is made. It also introduces a layer of abstraction—users don’t necessarily know where the model learned its "style" or what data it was trained on. And that’s where the controversy begins.
The Ghibli Backlash
A recent incident involving ChatGPT’s image model offers a case study in the ethical gray zones of AI art. Not long after the platform introduced its image editing features, users began sharing AI-generated images in the distinct style of Studio Ghibli—the legendary Japanese animation house co-founded by Hayao Miyazaki.
What made this especially contentious wasn’t just the volume—it was the speed. In just seconds, anyone could "Ghiblify" their selfies, product mockups, or random prompts. The style, painstakingly cultivated over more than four decades by Miyazaki and his team, was now replicable at the click of a button.
Miyazaki has long expressed his disdain for machine-made creativity, once calling AI-generated animations “an insult to life itself.” Many in the artistic community echoed the sentiment, questioning the ethics of repurposing a living artist’s legacy without permission.
In response to the backlash, OpenAI restricted the ability to generate images that closely resemble the style of specific artists. While the company has not published a comprehensive list, prompts explicitly referencing Studio Ghibli or Miyazaki now appear to be blocked.
...But Why Does This Matter?
While OpenAI’s move may help calm tensions, it doesn’t resolve the underlying issue: the law still hasn’t caught up with the technology.
Under most current copyright laws—including in the U.S.—AI-generated works are not considered eligible for copyright protection, because they lack a human author. This means that users generating images with AI may not be able to claim ownership of them in a legal sense. On the flip side, if an AI-generated image mimics or borrows too closely from a copyrighted style or specific work, the original artist could potentially claim infringement—even if the final result was machine-made.
This creates a paradox: AI-generated art is both unownable and potentially infringing, depending on the context.
To make matters more complex, most AI models—including the ones powering text-to-image tools—are trained on vast datasets scraped from the internet. While platforms like Adobe Firefly use licensed and public domain content, others (including OpenAI and Midjourney) have been less transparent. Lawsuits have already been filed by artists and stock content companies arguing that their work was used to train AI models without consent.
The Case for AI in Art
It’s not all criticism, though. Supporters of generative image tools argue that they’re simply the next evolution of creativity—tools that, like photography or Photoshop before them, broaden access and change how we think about authorship.
For small businesses, solo creators, and students, AI image tools can level the playing field, enabling professional-quality visuals without expensive software or training. Some artists even embrace AI as a medium, using it for idea generation, compositional layout, or rapid prototyping.
There's also a broader point to be made about how art and technology have always coexisted. From collage to CGI, artistic styles evolve in dialogue with their tools. The question now is whether society can strike the right balance between innovation and attribution.
Moving Toward Clarity
In the absence of firm legal guidance, tech companies are taking varied approaches. Adobe has introduced watermarking and labeling tools to indicate when content is AI-generated. Getty Images has banned AI-generated art that mimics real photography. OpenAI has implemented moderation filters, but critics argue enforcement remains patchy.
Meanwhile, regulators are starting to pay attention. The European Union’s upcoming AI Act includes provisions for transparency in training data, and copyright reform is on the agenda in multiple countries. However, regulation moves slowly—and the technology is evolving fast.
Conclusion
AI-generated image tools are powerful, accessible, and transformative—but they’re also a flashpoint in the debate over how creativity is defined and protected in the digital age.
The Studio Ghibli example, and the backlash it provoked, makes it clear that while the technology can imitate style, it can’t replicate the years of experience, emotion, and meaning embedded in the original. And that’s where the core tension lies.
As tools like ChatGPT continue to blend text, images, voice, and code, the lines between creator, user, and machine are only going to get blurrier. Navigating that new reality will require more than new features or filters—it will require new rules, new norms, and most of all, new respect for the people whose work makes creativity possible in the first place.
