Studio Ghibli and Identity Theft

TL;DR Generating images in the style of Studio Ghibli is identity theft.

In 2014, the Delhi High Court pronounced its judgement in the case of Reckitt Benckiser VS Hindustan Lever, the marketeers of Dettol and Lifebuoy soaps. Reckitt Benckiser filed a suit against Hindustan Lever claiming that they had disparaged the Dettol brand by referencing it in a Lifebuoy advertisement, by showing a bottle that looked like a Dettol bottle, in both shape and colour with a claim that it is ineffective as opposed to Lifebuoy.

The judge ruled in favour of the Dettol brand.

I’m bringing this up because I’ve been knee-deep in arguments about the recent spate of A.I. generated Ghibli styled artwork. The arguments¹ by the people who have been generating it range from: “Artists have been referencing other artists’ works for centuries, so it is not unethical”, to “now more people know about Studio Ghibli, so it’s a good thing.”

My view on this has been that A.I. generated Ghibli style art cannot be termed as anything other than identity theft. A brand’s identity lies in the specific ways that colour, shapes, typography and so on are used to form a specific visual identity. Copying or referencing that specific style is illegal. It’s why Dettol won its suit.

Since it is not possible to generate a Ghibli style artwork without referencing Ghibli in some way or the other, all A.I. generated artwork that is referred to as a Ghibli style artwork is nothing but the theft of a brand identity.

Some examples of how the Indian press is exercising it’s right to free speech and expression by encouraging people to generate more Ghibli style artwork.

Just because laws concerning A.I generated images have not entered our legal system yet does not mean that people, brands and especially the press does not have a responsibility towards safeguarding the work of the Japanese studio that is beloved by millions of people.

It’s a damn shame that convenience always wins out over conscience².

Notes