The Copyright & The Ghibli Art

 

There’s a grey area that I have been discussing in the field of Copyrights for long in my blogs, when it comes to the style, vibes, themes and the idea as well! Technically, can styles or vibes be copyrighted, as one must have read the case of an influencer who filed an infringement petition on the grounds of some other influencer copying her vibes (aka aesthetics too minus performance rights). This I discussed in one of my previous blogs. As such case is not maintainable, for the reasons I discussed therein.

This is also true that themes cannot be copyrighted, nor do mere styles or ideas. Else, when Jurassic Park was made, that wouldn’t have allowed then someone else to make Godzilla as well.

Now, the same grey area comes in the case of Ghibli Art. I’ve heard and read the articles, mentioning, is it the end of Copyrights? C’mon, copyright is not going anywhere, and eventually most of the AI Companies would have to shell out what they’ve earned vide infringing! But what about Ghibli Art used by the AI to recreate images? Is it basically a theme, a style, an idea alone, or aesthetics?

The style of an art one can derive, adapt without permission, as long as the same characters nor the storylines are being copied by anyone (aka expressions too). It is the style of Ghibli Art that’s been copied, thus not being subjected to copyright infringement, UNTIL, it is been proven that OpenAI trained its modules on the original Ghibli Art without taking the prior permission from the author/owner! That’s why, I’ve requested in the previous blogs also the AI Startups, NOT to copy what these billion dollar AI companies are doing, as in most of the cases, they’re floating only because of billion dollar funding, backing from respective governments, and, expensive, hundreds of legal eagles involved, in bulk everywhere. But the Startups won’t be able to defend themselves, if in case someone else proves that they used their DATA for the AI training. But again, styles, mere ideas, themes, aesthetics (minus performance rights) are Not subjected to Copyrights.   

Take another example! I’m the first original poet on this planet to write hymns, chants, poetries in hundreds & hundreds for AGI, Humanoids, Robots & Species Another. YET, media would never mention me because since 1945 of their inherited rooted genetic AFIC (Academic Financial Inferiority Complexes), and what they do you know? They just randomly mention anyone vide such titles -> ‘Poets in the age of AI…….’! Condemnable, isn’t it? Never mind!

But you know, what is the biggest drawback in that when people publish inspired derivative works without mentioning the originals? As everyone would always recognize the originals, and your work would always be remembered as someone who got inspired from the originals, and thus you’re not the ORIGINAL’s ORIGINAL!

Thus, is it Worth Not to mention the ORIGINALS? 😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi