Match made in heaven, or hurdle for creativity?

Images generated by artificial intelligence have taken over social media over the past weeks with social media personalities and politicians posting Studio Ghibli-inspired images of themselves.

The images have piqued the curiosity of many across the globe, including Malta. But the social media trend has fuelled the debate on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in art.

The Studio Ghibli image generation debate centres on the ethical and legal concerns surrounding AI-generated artwork that mimics the iconic animation studio’s visual style.

Artists and fans have argued that using AI to replicate Ghibli’s hand-crafted aesthetic – often trained on copyrighted material without consent – undermines creative integrity and devalues original work.

Studio co-founder Hayao Miyazaki has publicly criticised AI art as lacking humanity. While some view AI-generated Ghibli-style images as homage, others see it as exploitation, fuelling wider debates about authorship, copyright, and the future of creative industries in the age of AI.

MaltaToday reached out to experts from various fields to better understand how the rapidly evolving technology is affecting artists, and whether they can protect their art.

Maria Galea, President of the Malta Entertainment Industry and Arts Association (MEIA) said AI is presenting both challenges and opportunities for the sector.

“While it can be a valuable tool, there is concern about it replacing human creativity,” Galea said, noting this is already happening in Malta in ads and marketing campaigns.

“Photographers, actors and illustrators are already being replaced by AI. We must find a way to co-exist and co-create,” she said.

However, Galea said creative professionals and designers are already integrating AI into the artistic process to facilitate processes or create new forms of art. “At the end of the day, in this case, while AI is being used as a tool, artists are still the ones driving the vision.”

Imitation or inspiration?

But the global debate going on right now centres around the need to protect artistic work from scraping of publicly available work by AI engines.

Ioanis Revolidis, lecturer at the Department of Media, Communications, and Technology Law at the Law Faculty of the University of Malta, said the debate centres around the fundamental issue of copyright.

“Does copyright protect style? The reality is that it does not. This is because it could stifle creativity,” he said.

But it gets trickier when AI machines are prompted to generate images in a certain artistic style.

“There are several dimensions as to whether users are infringing copyright when prompting. One could argue that without the user’s prompts, the image would not be generated, but on the other hand, without the machine scraping online data the image would not be generated,” Revolidis said.

He said there is a lot of “nuance”, but the fact of the matter remains that the AI model does not request permission from the artist, and does not request copyright permission, while not sharing royalties and profits.

Artificial intelligence expert Alexiei Dingli agreed with Revolidis and Galea that the debate presents a conundrum.

“While the legal concept of ‘fair use’ has traditionally acted as a flexible framework to balance innovation and creator rights, the sheer scale and nature of generative AI shift the dynamics entirely,” Dingli said. “When models ingest millions, sometimes billions, of creative works from the internet, including highly expressive content such as visual art, and use them to produce outputs that directly mimic or even replace the original, the ethical lines begin to blur.”

Maria Galea also argued that while AI can replicate styles, it lacks the emotion, the context, and intention that comes from human creators.

“There is a profound distinction between inspiration and automation. Art integrates into the shared cultural landscape by assuming its own identity through inspiration and emotion, deeply rooted in human experience and emotion. When using tools like ChatGPT, by typing in prompts you are essentially providing directions to a system that mimics patterns. Art, on the other hand, is not predetermined; it is a unique form that transcends mere technicality,” she said.

Will legal protection safe guard art?

At the end of the day, while operating within a globalised community, artists can only seek refuge in the law.

Ioanis Revolidis said posting something online does not relinquish art ownership.

“Because someone posted something online, it does not mean one is given the licence to make that art their own, and even more so gain profits from it. You lose control from a practical point of view, but you do not lose control from a legal standpoint. The owner has to give permission,” he said. “Only the artists should decide the amount of copies being made.”

Alexiei Dingli said there is a need for new regulation, but one which is “thoughtful and adaptable”.

“The systems we currently rely on were never intended for this scale or complexity. Laws designed for print media or broadcast cannot adequately address the peculiarities of algorithmic training, digital mimicry, or the rights of creators in a world of generative content. At the same time, we must be careful not to overregulate in a way that stifles genuine innovation. The goal is not to hinder progress, but to guide it with a steady hand,” he said.

Galea shared the sentiment on the need for legal regulation, saying governments should create frameworks which protect jobs, and ensure human creativity remains central in an AI-driven world. “This raises a critical question: How can policymakers ensure that regulations keep pace with rapid technological advancements while fostering a fair and thriving creative ecosystem?”

On the other hand, Revolidis believes Europe, and in turn Malta, operates within one of the most prepared jurisdictions in the world.

The EU has introduced new rules to help manage how artificial intelligence uses art and other creative works. Through a law called Directive (EU) 2021/790, the EU allows researchers and companies to use digital content for training AI, as long as they respect copyright.

This means that AI can analyse large amounts of data, like books or images, to learn – but artists and creators still have the right to say no if they don’t want their work used. The goal is to support new technology while also protecting creative rights.

“Obviusly law is a process, and we are not at the finishline yet,” he said.

A quick solution to a fast-paced problem

Until a secure and lasting legal framework is achieved, artists can seek quick solutions in protecting their art.

“Watermarking and metadata can certainly help with attribution, and they may serve as useful tools in specific cases, but they’re far from perfect solutions. Watermarks, for example, can be easily removed – often with the very same AI tools we’re trying to regulate,” Dingli said.

Metadata, he said, is notoriously fragile, disappearing the moment a file is uploaded to most social platforms or converted into a different format.

“These technologies offer partial assistance in tracking provenance, but they fall short when it comes to proving infringement, especially when AI outputs are not identical reproductions but stylistic echoes,” he said.

Dingli said the deeper issue lies in the fact that many of these tools were never designed for the challenges AI presents today. “What we need is not just better tracking, but a rethinking of how consent, provenance, and compensation are handled in a world where algorithms can consume vast libraries of human expression in a matter of hours.”

It remains to be seen whether the AI age will bring about an artistic renaissance, or stifle the creative spirit. What is certain is that as generations have done before them, artists need to adapt to the new realities they face.

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}