The Ethics of AI in Creative Practice

The ethics of AI has been a topic of discussion for some time now, with people holding a wide range of perspectives. I personally approach new technologies with a neutral stance, welcoming innovation while critically evaluating its potential, strengths, and limitations. Over the past few years, I’ve spent time researching and experimenting with different AI tools, particularly how they intersect with design in the AEC industry.

Recently, the widespread use of OpenAI’s image-generation tools to create Studio Ghibli-style renderings has raised significant legal, ethical, and cultural concerns. Studio Ghibli is a renowned Japanese animation studio, internationally celebrated for its storytelling, hand-drawn artistry, and distinctive visual style developed by creators like Hayao Miyazaki. The intersection of art, ethics, and technology has never been more visible or contentious. What began as a whimsical exploration of aesthetic impression has rapidly become a complex web of copyright law, the ethics of AI-generated art, cultural appropriation, and an ongoing debate on the role of AI in creative disciplines. With this trend, we are witnessing an inflection point that impacts digital artistry and has profound implications for creative authorship across professions.

Studio Ghibli’s work is deeply human. It’s rooted in hand-drawn expression, emotional storytelling, and cultural depth. That is what makes the irony so sharp: AI-generated Ghibli-style images imitate the look, but not the soul. In a 2016 clip that resurfaced recently, Miyazaki famously rejected an AI prototype, calling it “an insult to life itself.” Though he was speaking about animation, his sentiment resonates across creative disciplines, including architecture. 

At the core of the debate is a fundamental legal question: Can style itself be copyrighted?

Technically, the answer is no. Copyright law protects specific works, not styles. This distinction allows AI tools to produce images “in the style of Ghibli” without technically violating the law. Since these images are technically “new” creations and the source training data remains undisclosed, companies like OpenAI shift responsibility to the user.

But the ethical issue runs deeper.

Should an artist’s visual language be replicated without their consent or credit?

For artists like Miyazaki, style is not just an aesthetic; it's a philosophy. When AI strips that away from its cultural and creative context, it reduces decades of intentional work to shallow visual motifs. This concern becomes more serious when monetized. As Ghibli-style posters and prints flood online shops, the line between homage and exploitation becomes dangerously thin.

This conversation is not limited to digital art. Architecture, too, operates within recognizable stylistic territories—be it the fluid forms of Zaha Hadid, the meditative precision of Tadao Ando, or the playful pragmatism of Bjarke Ingels. These are not merely visual signatures; they are reflections of ideology and processes built over years of work.

With AI now capable of generating architectural renderings that mimic such styles, we must ask: Who is the author? If someone inputs “a futuristic library in the style of BIG” and receives a compelling image, is that a new creation or derivative by design? Is it tribute, plagiarism, or something else entirely? And when that image ends up in a student portfolio, a competition entry, or a client pitch, who gets the credit?

As someone who mentors students/ emerging professionals, I have started to see AI-generated work creeping into submissions. The concern is not just about plagiarism, but about losing sight of what it means to cultivate a personal design language. In practice, the stakes are even higher. An architectural brand is deeply tied to visual identity. A firm’s visual identity is hard-earned and brand-defining. If AI-generated renderings start to represent that identity without any authorship, it raises serious questions about intellectual labor, originality, and even liability.

Studio Ghibli’s work is inseparable from its cultural and philosophical roots. Stripping the visuals from this context for the sake of internet aesthetics or design exercises does a disservice to the original intent. The same applies to architectural works rooted in place, culture, and history. Mimicking aesthetics without respecting the context leads to hollow design. In our line of work, style is never just about appearance. It is generally informed by program, site, materiality, and community. AI, by contrast, often flattens design into pattern recognition, making decisions based on visual cues rather than critical thinking. This disconnect can undermine the integrity of the design process itself.

That said, I don’t think AI is inherently harmful. When used thoughtfully, it can aid ideation, speed up visualization, and help small firms or students explore ideas. However, we need to be intentional about how we use it, as ethical use requires clear frameworks. 

This Ghibli trend is just one lens into a much larger picture of ownership, ethics, and authorship. As these tools become more accessible, the temptation to use them for speed or spectacle will grow. Architecture is grounded in meaning, process, and purpose. If we let AI shortcut that journey, we risk turning our discipline into a collage of borrowed aesthetics—disconnected from context, culture, and authorship.