From Cute Filters To Courtrooms: The Legal Minefield Of AI Ghibli Art In India

INTRODUCTION

The Ghibli- style art refers to the digital artwork which has taken its inspiration from the distinctive visual and thematic elements of Studio Ghibli. Studio Ghibli is a Japanese animation which was founded by a legendary filmmaker named Hayao Miyazaki. This artwork is well- known for being hand- drawn and narrating stories with full emotions. Studio Ghibli's art has been influenced by the Japanese folklore, nature and narratives of the human being.

Nevertheless, like any emerging technology, AI-generated images present a host of challenges and concerns. One of the foremost issues is data privacy. Users often upload personal photographs to these AI tools to generate stylized visuals, such as those inspired by Studio Ghibli. This raises important questions: Who has access to these images? How are they stored and used? and what safeguards exist to prevent misuse? In addition, as these tools become increasingly capable of producing highly realistic and detailed images, they open the door to serious risks—including identity theft, deep-fake creation, and a range of other cyber threats. The implications for user security and consent are significant and demand urgent attention.

This article explores how Indian law addresses these emerging challenges, with a focus on Copyright and Privacy issues in the context of AI-generated Ghibli-style art.

CREATION OF GHIBLI- STYLE ART USING AI

The OpenAI image generator is an advancement in technology which is a form of artificial intelligence known as Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) used to convert photos uploaded by users into visually captivating Ghibli-style artwork. The GAN algorithm uses two interconnected neural networks. First one being, the generator creates a Ghibli-style version of the uploaded image, while the second one being discriminator which assesses its quality and guides improvements.¹

This innovation has quickly gained popularity online with users eagerly transforming their images into elegant, hand-made artistic creations but behind this new popularized art creation lies a deeper and more intricate set of data privacy issues that deserve careful scrutiny.²

The creation of Ghibli-style art through artificial intelligence involves the use of advanced image-generation tools such as Midjourney, DALL·E, Artbreeder and a different type of mobile-based applications. These platforms are specifically programmed to replicate the distinct, hand-drawn and distinctive artistic expression known for its emotional depth and visual storytelling. The output generated by these mobile applications often reflects the soft color palettes, whimsical landscapes and expressive character designs that are iconic to Ghibli films.

GHIBLI-STYLE AI ART AS A TREND IN INDIA: LEGAL CONTEXT

In recent months, Ghibli-style filters have surged in popularity across Indian social media platforms, particularly on Instagram. Influencers, digital artists, and everyday users are enthusiastically sharing AI-generated portraits that transform real photographs into animated visuals. While this trend has boosted user engagement and appreciation for digital art, it has also contributed to the widespread sharing of personal data and the potential normalization of copyright-infringing content.

PRIVACY CONCERNS

The Ghibli-style art trend raises significant privacy concerns, as uploading personal photos involves sharing sensitive facial data that may be used to train AI systems. This practice brings critical questions to the forefront regarding data ownership, permissible usage, and the adequacy of data protection measures in place to safeguard user information. As the trend grows, so do concerns over user awareness and legal compliance. The main questions here are can this data reveal a person's identity or is it anonymized to ensure privacy? How are these data stored and transmitted? What measures are in place to prevent unauthorized access or breaches? To address these pressing concerns, it is essential to examine the legal framework governing privacy and copyright in India, particularly as it applies to the creation and use of Ghibli-style AI-generated art.

The question of user consent and getting clarity about it is especially important in the context of how OpenAI handles uploaded images. While the company's privacy policy indicates that it collects user data for AI training but it does not explicitly mention that uploaded photos may be reused as part of training datasets.³ This absence of clear disclosure raises serious concerns about data usage and the effectiveness of safeguards against misuse. A major issue lies in the misunderstandings caused to the users where they may believe that their images are used solely for generating personalized outputs.⁴ In reality, the policy implies that these images could be repurposed for broader applications which also includes training the models. This lack of clarity could result in user's photos being utilized in ways they neither intended nor anticipated thus exposing them to unintended privacy risks. Section 6 (1)⁵ of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) requires that personal data may be processed only upon obtaining free, informed, specific, and unambiguous consent from the data principal. However, in the context of AI applications generating Ghibli-style images, users may not be fully aware that by using such tools, they are implicitly granting permission for the collection, processing, and potential storage of their personal data, including biometric and facial information. This becomes particularly problematic when consent mechanisms are obscured through ambiguous language or buried within lengthy and complex privacy policies, thereby compromising the voluntariness and clarity required under the DPDP Act.

Many AI platforms lack transparency regarding whether uploaded images will be stored, deleted, or reused. However, most users engaging with AI applications for Ghibli-style transformations remain unaware of how their facial data may be retained or reused for algorithm training or further processing without their explicit consent. This lack of transparency raises critical concerns regarding the potential misuse, unauthorized sharing, or even monetization of user data, all of which are prohibited under the DPDP Act and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).

The Indian privacy jurisprudence has gradually begun to recognize the "Right to be Forgotten" as part of the right to privacy under Article 21⁶ of the Indian Constitution. This right empowers individuals to request the removal of their personal data from public domains, especially in cases where AI-generated images or likenesses are shared without consent or recourse.⁷

The growing use of AI tools, many of which are operated by foreign-based platforms, raises significant cross-jurisdictional concerns regarding data protection. As personal data collected by these AI tools is often transmitted across borders, Section 16⁸ of DPDP Act provides a regulatory framework to control such data transfers. This section empowers the Central Government to restrict the transfer of personal data to certain countries or territories outside India. However, the increasing flow of data across international boundaries creates a risk of exposure, especially when sensitive personal data is handled by foreign entities. This situation is aggravated by the lack of strong enforcement measures and well-defined international data-sharing frameworks, which leaves user data vulnerable to misuse, such as in cases of facial recognition, deep-fake creation, identity theft, or unauthorized commercial use of personal images.

While remedies such as penalties for misuse and breaches of confidentiality are available under Section 33⁹ of the DPDP Act and Section 72¹⁰ of the IT Act, they are not sufficient to fully address the privacy risks associated with AI-generated art and other rapidly developing technologies. In addition, Section 43A¹¹ of the IT Act remains relevant in this context. It provides that any body corporate handling sensitive personal data is liable to pay damages by way of compensation if it is negligent in implementing and maintaining reasonable security practices, resulting in wrongful loss or gain to any person. Together, these provisions emphasize the legal obligation of platforms and AI service providers to maintain transparency, accountability, and data security when handling user information particularly in instances where image data could be processed, stored, or used for training future models.

The current legal framework falls short in preventing the unauthorized exploitation of personal data, particularly in the context of AI tools used for generating images or content. To better protect user privacy, there is an urgent need for comprehensive laws specifically focused on AI that can strengthen data protection standards. Such laws should evolve in parallel with technological advancements to ensure the privacy and security of individuals' personal data.¹²

COPYRIGHT CONCERNS

With the rising popularity of AI-generated Ghibli-style visuals, significant questions emerge regarding copyright protection and infringement. Studio Ghibli's iconic characters, distinct animation techniques, and artistic motifs are globally recognized and deeply associated with the studio's creative identity. Under Indian law, these elements are not merely aesthetic, they are protected assets.

Section 2(c)¹³ of the Copyright Act, 1957 (Copyright Act) defines "artistic work" to include paintings, drawings, sculptures, and other forms of visual expression, regardless of artistic quality. The distinctive visual elements and characters developed by Studio Ghibli fall squarely within this definition, thereby granting them copyright protection. As a result, any unauthorized replication, adaptation, or imitation of such works, especially through AI tools, can potentially constitute copyright infringement.

Under Section 14¹⁴ of the Copyright Act, the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce the work, prepare adaptations, and communicate it to the public. AI-generated content that mimics Ghibli's unique style without permission risks violating these rights, particularly when such content is distributed or monetized.

FAN ART VS. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Fan art is often viewed as a heartfelt tribute—a creative expression by admirers who reinterpret beloved characters, styles, or universes. It serves as a personal homage to the original creators, allowing fans to engage with existing works by reimagining their visual language or narrative in fresh ways. In the case of Studio Ghibli, artists around the world attempt to capture its enchanting style, blending the studio's signature elements with their own artistic imagination.

However, under Indian copyright law, such creativity must operate within legal boundaries. Section 51¹⁵ of the Copyright Act states that any act of reproduction, adaptation, or public communication of a copyrighted work without the owner's permission constitutes infringement. This applies even when the work is non-commercial. Therefore, if fan art replicates original copyrighted elements, whether fully or partially, and is shared publicly on platforms such as Instagram, YouTube, or digital portfolios, it may still infringe upon the rights of the copyright holder.

However, Section 52(1)(a)¹⁶ of the Copyright Act provides limited exceptions to what may otherwise amount to infringement. These include uses for private study, research, criticism, review, or reporting of current events, commonly referred to as "fair dealing" provision. Yet the scope of these exceptions is narrow and often does not cover publicly shared or monetized content. For instance, if Ghibli-style fan art is used to promote a personal brand, generate ad revenue, or form part of a digital portfolio meant for commercial gain, it is unlikely to qualify for the fair dealing defence.

Thus, while fan art fosters community and admiration, creators must be mindful that such artistic expression does not grant immunity from copyright law. Clear distinction between homage and infringement is critical especially in the age of AI and social media where content reaches large audiences and may be repurposed commercially.

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT

G. Anand v. M/s. Delux Films & Ors.¹⁷ is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court held that ideas cannot be copyrighted but the expressions can be copyrighted. The Court pointed out that the origin of the work being common similarities will be there but the way the ideas are expressed must be different to not constitute copyright infringement. The Court used the terms, "theme or idea or plot or storyline" to determine that mere ideas are not protectable. This ruling helps to differentiate between lawful artistic inspiration and unlawful imitation in the context of AI-generated art.

In the case of Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Mr. Aditya Pandey & Anr., ¹⁸the Delhi High Court held that performers and authors have distinct rights and that the ownership of a work does not automatically grant the right to publicly exploit or perform it without permission from the rights holders. The Court emphasized the importance of obtaining licenses for commercial usage by reinforcing that the economic rights associated with a copyrighted work such as communication to the public, broadcasting and adaptation which are protected under the Copyright Act.

In K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India¹⁹ the Supreme Court declared the right to privacy to be a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that informational privacy, that is, the individual's control over his/her personal data is an important facet of individual autonomy and dignity. This ruling further strengthened the demand for data protection laws in India, including the passing of the DPDP Act.

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

AI-generated Ghibli-fiction imagery represents an exciting convergence of technology and creativity. However, it also raises serious concerns regarding privacy, misinformation, cultural appropriation, and cybersecurity. As these technologies continue to proliferate, it is imperative that society approaches them with caution, responsibility, and foresight.

For these challenges to be effectively addressed, transparency and accountability must be prioritized in both the development and deployment of AI-generated imagery. This includes providing users with clear, accessible information on data usage and ensuring robust safeguards against misuse. Moreover, the training datasets used for AI models should be representative of diverse communities and inclusive of the interests and perspectives of all stakeholders.

Ultimately, the most effective tool for mitigating the risks associated with AI-generated Ghibli-fiction is public education and awareness. By understanding the potential harms—such as privacy breaches, deep-fakes, or the spread of malware, users and developers alike can take proactive measures to minimize them. As this technology continues to evolve, it is imperative to remain vigilant, protect sensitive data, and ensure that AI tools are not exploited for malicious purposes.

To that end, India must develop a dedicated legal framework for AI, supported by stronger data protection standards that are responsive to technological advancements. Such laws should strike a balance between innovation and individual rights, ultimately fostering a digital environment that is secure, ethical, and inclusive.

Footnotes

1. Dasgupta, D., & Roy, A. (2025). What should GAN in AI stand for? Authorea Preprints.

2.George, A. S. (2025). The Dark Side of AI-Generated Ghibli-fication Images: A Review of the Potential Risks and Consequences.

3. OpenAI. (n.d.). Privacy Policy. https://openai.com/policies/row-privacy-policy/

4. Soma Shiva Sai Babu, G., & Rekha, K. S. (2024, March). Innovative AI-Powered Image Generator: Converting Text into Images with OpenAI. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Smart Energy (pp. 436-446). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

5. Section 6(1) of DPDP act 2023 read as: The consent given by the Data Principal shall be free, specific, informed, unconditional and unambiguous with a clear affirmative action, and shall signify an agreement to the processing of her personal data for the specified purpose and be limited to such personal data as is necessary for such specified purpose.

6. Article 21 states that: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

7. Ghial, R., Pundir, D., & Kaur, R. (2024, January). Right to be forgotten: A human rights-based approach for governance in generative AI. In International Conference on Smart Computing and Communication (pp. 23-33). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

8. Section 16 (1) The Central Government may, by notification, restrict the transfer of personal data by a Data Fiduciary for processing to such country or territory outside India as may be so notified.
(2) Nothing contained in this section shall restrict the applicability of any law for the time being in force in India that provides for a higher degree of protection for or restriction on transfer of personal data by a Data Fiduciary outside India in relation to any personal data or Data Fiduciary or class thereof.

9. Section 33. Penalties for Breach of Provisions of the Act:
(1) If the Board determines on conclusion of an inquiry that a breach of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder by a person is significant, it may, after giving the person an opportunity of being heard, impose such monetary penalty specified in the Schedule.
(2) While determining the amount of monetary penalty to be imposed under sub-section (1), the Board shall have regard to the following matters, namely: —
(a) the nature, gravity, and duration of the breach;
(b) the type and nature of the personal data affected by the breach;
(c) the repetitive nature of the breach;
(d) whether the person, as a result of the breach, has realized a gain or avoided any loss;
(e) whether the person took any action to mitigate the effects and consequences of the breach, and the timeliness and effectiveness of such action;
(f) whether the monetary penalty to be imposed is proportionate and effective, having regard to the need to secure observance of and deter breach of the provisions of this Act; and
(g) the likely impact of the imposition of the monetary penalty on the person.

10.Section 72. Penalty for Breach of confidentiality and privacy. Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, if any person who, in pursuance of any of the powers conferred under this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder, has secured access to any electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document, or other material without the consent of the person concerned discloses such electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document, or other material to any other person shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to five lakh rupees.

11. Section 43A. Compensation for Failure to Protect Data: Where a body corporate, possessing, dealing or handling any sensitive personal data or information in a computer resource which it owns, controls or operates, is negligent in implementing and maintaining reasonable security practices and procedures and thereby causes wrongful loss or wrongful gain to any person, such body corporate shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation to the person so affected.

12. Rouvroy, A. (2008). Privacy, data protection, and the unprecedented challenges of ambient intelligence. Studies in ethics, law, and technology, 2(1).

13.Section 2(c) defines "artistic work" to include:
(i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not such work possesses artistic quality;
(ii) a work of architecture; and
(iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship.

14. Section 14. Meaning of copyright.-- For the purposes of this Act, copyright means the exclusive right subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or any substantial part thereof, namely--
(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, not being a computer programme,--
(i) to reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it in any medium by electronic means;
(ii) to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation;
(iii) to perform the work in public, or communicate it to the public;
(iv) to make any cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work;
(v) to make any translation of the work;
(vi) to make any adaptation of the work;
(vii) to do, in relation to a translation or an adaptation of the work, any of the acts specified in relation to the work in sub-clauses (i) to
(vi);
(b) in the case of a computer programme:
(i) to do any of the acts specified in clause (a);
(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or for commercial rental any copy of the computer programmer:
Provided that such commercial rental does not apply in respect of computer programmes where the programme itself is not the essential object of the rental.
(c) in the case of an artistic work,--
(i) to reproduce the work in any material form including—
(A) the storing of it in any medium by electronic or other means; or
(B) depiction in three-dimensions of a two-dimensional work; or
(C) depiction in two-dimensions of a three-dimensional work;
(d) in the case of a cinematograph film,--
(i) to make a copy of the film, including—
(A) a photograph of any image forming part thereof; or
(B) storing of it in any medium by electronic or other means;
(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or for such rental, any copy of the film.
(iii) to communicate the film to the public;
(e) in the case of a sound recording,--
(i) to make any other sound recording embodying it including storing of it in any medium by electronic or other means;
(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or for such rental, any copy of the sound recording;
(iii) to communicate the sound recording to the public.

15. Section 51, When copyright infringed: Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed—
(a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act—
(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright, or
(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or
(b) when any person—
(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or
(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or
(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or
(iv) imports into India, any infringing copies of the work.

16. Section 52 (1)(a),Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright:
(1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely, —
(a) a fair dealing with any work, not being a computer programme, for the purpose of —
(i) private or personal use, including research;
(ii) criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work;
(iii) the reporting of current events and current affairs, including the reporting of a lecture delivered in public;

17. (1978) 4 SCC 118.

18. (2011) SCC OnLine Del 3113.

19. (2017) 10 SCC 1.