CHENNAI: The Studio Ghibli filter has led to its users, and later its creators, being vilified for giving away for free something pains takingly hand drawn by Hayao Miyazaki, co-founder of the Japanese Animation Studio, who had specified a few years ago that he doesn’t want his style reproduced digitally. Some in India went patriotic and started creating Madhubani and Kalamkari style filters instead, but they were also called out by the public, as this, again, meant reducing the work and talent of generations of skilled artisans to a free filter.
Knowingly or unknowingly, many continue to use these and other filters, but the Ghibli filter has sparked a debate; if a free software can create an illustration in a signature style in seconds, what is the future of commercial artists whose lives depend on their talent?
The fall has already started, says Sreshta Suresh, a Chennai-based illustrator. “Art jobs are evolving from creating or drawing to making minor corrections to what has been generated through AI.” Her friends working in design studios or marketing agencies who had heavily integrated AI in their workflow, have been slowly phased out or have had their roles reduced to being prompters, she says.
Generative AI is capable of reproducing a something as distinct as a New Yorker cartoon or Calvin and Hobbes strip, and soon publishers might not both er to employ cartoonists anymore, says Rohan Chakravarty, a full-time cartoonist and author who specialises in works based on environment conservation. “Also, people like us depend on various trusted software to create our works. I don’t know how much of my work I unknowingly grant to these companies when I sign up. These are questions beginning to bother the fraternity.”
Even animation studios that have won global acclaim such as Studio Eeksaurus say they are feeling the heat. “We’ve developed dozens of original visual styles — each film of ours is different, purposefully so. That originality is hard-earned. If others can simply lift those designs and aesthetic choices with a prompt, what does that mean for the future of bespoke creative work?” asks Suresh Eriyat, co-founder. “We can rise to the challenge, and we’ll keep creating new things. But we are almost being forced into an endless race just to stay ahead of those who imitate without understanding or acknowledgment.”
Besides the filters, what’s wrong with AI generated art which is copyright-free, one might ask. might ask. might ask. While these free image generators might seem harmless, especially when used just for fun, you are using a mish mash of a huge repository of original artistic styles, for which the creators get no credit, artists say.
“AI does not credit or give these artists any monetary benefits neither do they have a say in anything. The ethical way forward is to come up with a profit-sharing model with artists whose works are being used to train AI models,” says Sreshta. “Artists should also be allowed to consent to their work being used to train AI models. ethical technology is the need of the hour.”
It’s not easy to pinpoint a copy as these models use gazillions of styles spread across the internet. “The pace at which AI companies are releasing style-replicating tools is far ahead of the speed at which copyright law or ethical considerations are evolving,” says Suresh. “We’re living in a moment where imagination — which used to be a skill, something artists were paid for — is now being commodified by algorithms that don’t acknowledge the originators.”
While the average Ghibli filter user would have no clue about these nitty-gritties, OpenAI well knew the power of their tool, and the fact that the Studio Ghibli creator wouldn’t want his style used mindlessly, says Ashvini Menon, UX Designer and Wildlife Illustrator.
“They just wanted to highlight to the world the power of GPT; that they can recreate even the most complex styles for any image. They could have made it a partnership, after consulting the creators.”
But not only were these styles never meant to be templates or filters, this encourages a kind of creative amnesia, when technology companies make them widely accessible without context or consent, feels Suresh. “Users rarely stop to ask why a certain style looks the way it does or what it represents.”
No one has clear answers on the way forward, but all agree that AI software creators should be more responsible.
“Art was never elitist — it was always about access through effort, through feeling, through experience. Making it more accessible shouldn’t mean de valuing it,” says Suresh.
“What’s need ed now is not just in novation, but responsibility. Those creating such tools must be held to ethical standards, and we need systems in place that recognise and protect the creators.”
The best-case scenario, says Ashvini, is to generate images out of your own work. Adobe, for example, has developed an image generation tool called Adobe Firefly. The company has created its own Shutterstock kind of website called Adobe Stock and it generates new images only from this library.
There is no stopping AI and there will always be a market for quick mass-produced work, especially among smaller organisations, Ashvini Menon, UX Designer and Wildlife Illustrator says. “Those jobs will be taken away, But there will always be demand for high quality, authentic illustrations. There are clients that come to illustrators specifically for the hand drawn essence they bring in.”
Some like Shreshta have put their foot down and declined requests to use AI to generate art in projects to bring down the costs. “The beauty of creation lies in the journey. Art is not about convenience. AI has pushed me to try new creative fields where I can work with my hands,” she says.
Or even better, we should all pause and take a step back from technology as a society, feels Rohan. “Call me a grumpy old man, but the only real solution I see is that people go back to engaging in literature and reading books rather than waste time on mobile applications. They have only contributed to dumbing down of the human mind.”
link