1. Ghiblistyle AI images sweeping social media
A new service from OpenAI that transforms photos into Ghiblistyle illustrations has surged in popularity on social media. Upload a favorite photo and watch it turn into something straight out of a Studio Ghibli film—truly impressive, but it has also sparked a copyright controversy.
[Source: ChatGPT-generated image]
2. Controversy on secondhand trading platforms
The issue grew serious when users began selling Ghiblistyle AI artworks on used goods marketplaces. Platforms like Bungaejangter issued warnings, stating that “standards for copyright and ownership of AI-generated images are not yet clear, so transactions may lead to disputes and legal issues.” Similarly, Danggeun Market removed related listings, noting that such commerce doesn't align with the nature of second-hand trading.
[Source: ChatGPT-generated image]
3. Is imitating an art style copyright infringement?
Generally, artistic style—like the “Ghibli style”—is treated as an idea under copyright law, meaning it isn’t protected, and imitation of a style alone is not considered infringement. Copyright protects only the specific expressed form—unique characters, scenes, or creative expression—not the underlying idea or technique. However, copying identifiable characters or specific visuals from Ghibli could still be infringing.
[Source: Pixels]
4. Could copying an art style violate publicity rights?
Separately from copyright, using a famous person’s name, image, voice, or signature for commercial gain without consent can infringe publicity rights under Korea’s Unfair Competition Prevention Act. While Studio Ghibli (as a company) isn’t a publicity-rights owner, the Ghibli style is deeply associated with Hayao Miyazaki. Since the style is strongly identifiable with him, using it—especially tied to his name or likeness—for commercial purposes might count as unfair competition or a violation of his publicity rights.
[Source: ChatGPT-generated image]
5. Unauthorized use of creative investment is also problematic
Using someone else’s significant creative investment—like the decades of effort behind Ghibli’s art style—for commercial advantage without permission is also considered unfair competition under Article 2(1)(pa) of the Act. If Ghibli’s aesthetic, honed over many years, is used commercially without consent, it could be legally challenged on those grounds.
In short, while casual, non-commercial use may raise fewer issues, once the output is used commercially, the legal complexities increase.
[Source: ChatGPT-generated image]
6. Beyond the law: ethical challenges
Hayao Miyazaki has publicly lamented AIgenerated art, saying, “AIproduced works don’t understand the suffering of real creators. It’s completely disgusting.” He critiques the mechanical reproduction of his creative world for profit—raising not just legal concerns, but deeper ethical ones: respect for the creator’s labor, emotion, and context—those intangibles that can’t be captured in legal terms. In a society where AI and creativity must coexist, these questions are essential.
[Source: ChatGPT-generated image]
By Park Yeonsoo
Patent Attorney, BLT Patent & law Firm: www.en.blt.kr
1. Ghiblistyle AI images sweeping social media
A new service from OpenAI that transforms photos into Ghiblistyle illustrations has surged in popularity on social media. Upload a favorite photo and watch it turn into something straight out of a Studio Ghibli film—truly impressive, but it has also sparked a copyright controversy.
[Source: ChatGPT-generated image]
2. Controversy on secondhand trading platforms
The issue grew serious when users began selling Ghiblistyle AI artworks on used goods marketplaces. Platforms like Bungaejangter issued warnings, stating that “standards for copyright and ownership of AI-generated images are not yet clear, so transactions may lead to disputes and legal issues.” Similarly, Danggeun Market removed related listings, noting that such commerce doesn't align with the nature of second-hand trading.
[Source: ChatGPT-generated image]
3. Is imitating an art style copyright infringement?
Generally, artistic style—like the “Ghibli style”—is treated as an idea under copyright law, meaning it isn’t protected, and imitation of a style alone is not considered infringement. Copyright protects only the specific expressed form—unique characters, scenes, or creative expression—not the underlying idea or technique. However, copying identifiable characters or specific visuals from Ghibli could still be infringing.
[Source: Pixels]
4. Could copying an art style violate publicity rights?
Separately from copyright, using a famous person’s name, image, voice, or signature for commercial gain without consent can infringe publicity rights under Korea’s Unfair Competition Prevention Act. While Studio Ghibli (as a company) isn’t a publicity-rights owner, the Ghibli style is deeply associated with Hayao Miyazaki. Since the style is strongly identifiable with him, using it—especially tied to his name or likeness—for commercial purposes might count as unfair competition or a violation of his publicity rights.
[Source: ChatGPT-generated image]
5. Unauthorized use of creative investment is also problematic
Using someone else’s significant creative investment—like the decades of effort behind Ghibli’s art style—for commercial advantage without permission is also considered unfair competition under Article 2(1)(pa) of the Act. If Ghibli’s aesthetic, honed over many years, is used commercially without consent, it could be legally challenged on those grounds.
In short, while casual, non-commercial use may raise fewer issues, once the output is used commercially, the legal complexities increase.
[Source: ChatGPT-generated image]
6. Beyond the law: ethical challenges
Hayao Miyazaki has publicly lamented AIgenerated art, saying, “AIproduced works don’t understand the suffering of real creators. It’s completely disgusting.” He critiques the mechanical reproduction of his creative world for profit—raising not just legal concerns, but deeper ethical ones: respect for the creator’s labor, emotion, and context—those intangibles that can’t be captured in legal terms. In a society where AI and creativity must coexist, these questions are essential.
[Source: ChatGPT-generated image]
By Park Yeonsoo
Patent Attorney, BLT Patent & law Firm: www.en.blt.kr