The AI Art Controversy: Studio Ghibli Style Sparks Debate on Creativity and Copyright

ChatGPT's Studio Ghibli-style images are no laughing matter

Miyazaki, copyright protection and the 'insult to life itself' of AI images Opinion Many people are having fun making Studio Ghibli-style images with OpenAI's ChatGPT. I see it as copy-and-paste intellectual property stealing on an industrial level. It was sort of cute for, oh, say, five minutes after OpenAI CEO Sam Altman announced you could use his business's GPT-4o model to generate images when everyone started using it to mimic Studio Ghibli, founded by renowned animator Hayao Miyazaki, iconic style. But then everyone, I mean everyone, was transforming photos into pictures that resemble - read ripoff - Miyazaki's distinctive hand-drawn aesthetic, as seen in such loved movies as Spirited Away and My Neighbor Totoro. Note, I said "generate," not create. There's no creation here. What OpenAI is enabling us all to do is industrial-style copy and paste. It's so cute it makes me want to puke - especially after I saw dozens of these images daily. And that was before I saw the ChatGPT's Ghibli-style JFK assassination and Hitler being cheered on by Nazi troops. In a word, "barf." Hayao Miyazaki, the artist and animator who co-founded Studio Ghibli and who still serves as its chairman, hasn't addressed this issue yet. But, in 2016, he called an automated animation tool "an insult to life itself," so I think we know where the elder statesman of fantasy animation stands. Mind you, there's nothing new about this kind of theft. Even back in 2022, the famous Dungeons and Dragons fantasy artist Greg Rutkowski reported that tens of thousands of AI-created takes on his art had appeared online. Things have only gotten much worse since then for artists. It also doesn't help that even digital rights and freedoms defenders are wrong. For example, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) states: Sorry, EFF, I was there when the ARPANet was transiting into the internet you know. The internet you describe did indeed liberate people and ideas. But that Internet has been dead for decades. Just ask Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the worldwide web, who recently said, "In the past decade, instead of embodying these values, the web has instead played a part in eroding them." That's because of the "dysfunction caused by the web being dominated by the self-interest of several corporations." Unlike the internet of the late '80s and early '90s, however, there's been no golden age where individuals were free to create and profit from their works. AI is completely and totally dominated by billion-dollar companies, with only self-serving lip service for individuals or small creators. What does OpenAI think? CEO Sam Altman claims AI has made it easier for people to create art. Thanks to OpenAI, anyone can create and publish meaningful work. "If they have something interesting to say, they get it out there, and the world benefits from that." He sees art; I see enshittification. I have no problem with people building works on the foundation of others. But, what I see with AI art isn't people creating their own work or even a take on someone else's images. I see near-exact duplication over and over again of an existing artist's work. This is all of a part of Altman's attack on creators. He has been claiming that his AI engine's copyright ripoffs are all "fair use" under US copyright law since almost day one. He denies OpenAI is stealing anything, but the evidence is clear that that's precisely what he's doing. Specifically, OpenAI claims its models are trained not to replicate works for public use. Instead, "they learn from the works and extract patterns, linguistic structures, and contextual insights." Yeah, right. At the same time, OpenAI claims if "American companies are left without fair use access, the race for AI is effectively over." It sounds to me like they want to have it both ways." Of course, Altman could pay creators, but that's just crazy talk. The cash should not go to the people who do the work but to the company that copies it in the first place. Needless to say, I find it more than a little ironic that Altman sings an entirely different tune when an AI rival, like, say, DeepSeek, is perhaps using some of OpenAI's work. Then it's "DeepSeek may have inappropriately distilled our models, and will share information as we know more. We take aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our technology." You see, it's stealing when someone else uses Big AI's work, but it's all fine and dandy when OpenAI et al uses your work. Like many other billionaires, Altman hopes President Donald Trump will help him with any possible legal trouble. Will his million-dollar donation to Trump's inaugural fund give him carte blanche to ignore those troublesome writers, artists, musicians, and publishing companies? Stay tuned to see what happens with the forthcoming US AI Action Plan. Regardless of how that works out, unless someone stands up for creators, much of the "art" we'll see in the future will be endless rehashes. Think, if you will, of how today, instead of genuinely new movies and TV shows, all we get is endless reboots and remakes. If the AI companies get their way, that will be true of art, novels, music, and - yes - movies and TV shows as well. You could perhaps have looked forward to watching Die Hard XXI, long after Bruce Willis dies, starring his digital twin. That's if the rumors were true that he sold an AI version of himself; he has denied this. But when that kind of digital creation dominates the screen, it spells not a revival of creativity but art for big business, by big business forever without end. ®

AI-generated action figures were all over social media. Then, artists took over with hand-drawn versions.

Illustrator and ceramicist Holly Rolfe was one of many artists who drew their own non-AI-generated versions of the action figure trend that's flooded social media in recent days.Holly Rolfe Artificial intelligence-generated action figures permeated social media feeds last week as people fed images of themselves to ChatGPT and asked it to package them into a miniature toy. The resulting image, dubbed a "starter pack" for a specific person, displays a packaged doll that takes on the appearance of the subject, complete with personalized mini accessories -- such as an iced coffee, a laptop, perhaps a camera or a pair of running shoes -- and labeled with the subject's name and job title. The action figure starter pack trend is the latest iteration of a growing AI meme cycle, in which internet users who discover ideas for AI-generated artwork quickly inspire others to produce content using the same prompt. Over the last few years, AI-inspired fads have spurred growing scrutiny over how they're contributing to issues like environmental waste and the devaluation of human labor. The starter packs gained traction over the past few days as brands and public figures took part. Holly Rolfe, an England-based illustrator and ceramicist who sells her work online, said she found herself sighing in frustration when she noticed the AI action figures taking off. "The worst was seeing small, especially creative, businesses -- and even graphics designers -- hopping on the trend," Rolfe said. "I think it reinforces how tone-deaf big business can be and accentuates the gulf between brand and consumer. Every single one of those businesses, even the small ones, could have afforded to pay an artist. But they didn't." Soon, artists like Rolfe began circulating their own hand-drawn versions of the trend, shared on various social media platforms under the hashtag #StarterPackNoAI, in an effort to counter the wave of AI-produced content. OpenAI, the AI giant behind ChatGPT, has been sued by several news outlets, authors and visual artists who allege copyright infringement. It has recently asked the U.S. government to make it easier for AI companies to learn from copyrighted material, citing a need to "strengthen America's lead" globally in advancing the technology. A spokesperson for OpenAI wrote in an emailed statement that the company's image generation tools "are designed to support human creativity, not replace it, helping anyone explore ideas and express themselves in new ways." As generative AI becomes increasingly sophisticated and accessible, many AI models appear capable of generating images in the style of specific artists or studios. Last month, ChatGPT-generated memes and portraits in the theme of Studio Ghibli's distinct animation style flooded the internet, triggering potential copyright concerns from users online and causing some observers to resurface studio cofounder Hayao Miyazaki's comments calling AI-generated art "an insult to life itself." OpenAI told NBC News at the time that the company prevents image generations "in the style of individual living artists, but we do permit broader studio styles." Studio Ghibli did not respond to a request for comment last month about the AI-generated images created in its animation style. Rachel Dormal, a graphic designer in Michigan who sells her own art prints online, said she worries about artists being pushed out of their livelihoods as people choose to pay lower prices for instantaneous AI-generated commissions rather than human-made work, which often costs more due to the artists' time and labor. And most developers do not reveal the specific data used to train their AI models, giving rise to concerns about the potential pilfering of human work without artists' knowledge or consent. "People don't understand all the training data that is sucked up to create a soulless reproduction of someone's style. There are some artists who spend their entire lives building a specific style, only for it to be stolen and rebranded as the 'AI style,'" Dormal said. "Ghibli is an excellent example. But it happens to smaller and less-known artists every day." Dormal was among the many artists online who shared her own take on the "starter pack" trend, drawing her own personalized version in the digital art software Procreate. In her drawing, the package label reads: "Real Human Artist." Kentucky-based digital artist April Schweiss joined those participating in the #StarterPackNoAI trend and drew herself as an action figure with accessories like her cat Fred, her composition notebook and her roller skates. Ever since AI-generated images infiltrated the market, Schweiss said, she's been struggling to make a full-time living through her illustrations. "I can't keep up with someone who's using AI to create shirt designs, and they're doing drop shipment and uploading 150 designs in a month, whereas I might only create five paintings that month," Schweiss said. "That other artist that uses AI might have 10,000 sales, where I'll have three." To writer and illustrator Haley Weaver, who has been sharing her art online for nearly a decade, the internet's eagerness to embrace AI-powered trends isn't surprising. Weaver, based in Seattle, said she can understand why people are tempted to try out tools that show them what they'd look like as a Disney princess, a Studio Ghibli character or an action figure, especially when those options are quicker and cheaper than hiring a real artist. "But I also think there's something really sad about that. And it's scary as someone who currently makes a living as an artist," Weaver said, noting that she has frequently found her own art style reposted or sold without permission throughout her career. More recently, she's also discovered that some AI models were able to produce written responses that resembled her tone when prompted to generate something "in the style of @haleydrewthis." Weaver said that while she thought the AI-generated starter packs were "so cute," it wasn't until she began seeing artists give their hand-drawn takes on it that the action figures began feeling "soulful." On her own "Haley Weaver Starter Pack," she made sure to include the label: "100% AI Free!" "It's such an instant gratification to type in some things about yourself, upload a photo and there you are as an action figure. But from my experience, so much of that gratification is also making it yourself and taking the time to really think about it," Weaver said. "There's also the beauty of everyone having their own unique style. I think a lot of AI art just kind of looks the same."

Unpacking Studio Ghibli's Unique Style That Became ChatGPT's Viral Obsession

There's something special about Studio Ghibli's hand-drawn style that struck a viral chord with ChatGPT users. On March 25, OpenAI announced a new ChatGPT feature that allows users to turn text prompts into images in a number of familiar cartoon styles. Options included The Simpsons, Rick and Morty and Pixar, among others. But as soon as OpenAI CEO Sam Altman changed his X profile picture to a Studio Ghibli-inspired image of himself, it was clear which style was the favorite, and ChatGPT users soon began to revel in making their own Ghiblified pictures, too. Sign Up For Our Daily Newsletter Sign Up Thank you for signing up! By clicking submit, you agree to our <a href="http://observermedia.com/terms">terms of service</a> and acknowledge we may use your information to send you emails, product samples, and promotions on this website and other properties. You can opt out anytime. See all of our newsletters Of all the iconic aesthetics available, why was it the Ghibli style that exploded online? There are quite a few factors at play, from the internet generation's relationship with Ghibli to the studio's enduring signature style. Ghibli films "don't talk down to children." Millennials, born between 1981 and 1996, were the first generation to grow up with Studio Ghibli (and internet communities that fostered Ghibli's global significance). A pivotal moment was The Walt Disney Company (DIS)'s 1996 deal with Ghibli's then owner, Tokuma Shoten, to distribute its films globally. Disney dubbed Ghibli films for English-speaking audiences, releasing Princess Mononoke in theaters and Kiki's Delivery Service on VHS at a time when Disney animation was in its own renaissance period. With such reach, Disney brought Ghibli's work to an entire generation, "and it was a touchstone to the larger globalization of anime as a whole," Toussaint Egan, an animation expert and editor for the entertainment news site Polygon, told Observer. The Disney boost wouldn't have counted for much, though, if Ghibli films didn't capture audience hearts and imaginations. Egan touts these movies' tone as a big reason as to why they have enjoyed such enduring adulation. He considers their subject matter as surprisingly mature and intelligent, given how much of the work operates on a level of childlike innocence. "These films do not talk down to children or their audiences. They treat children as just as intelligent as, if not more than, adult audiences, [like] they're more intuitive," he said. Hand-drawn simplicity and nostalgia But it's not the impressive and moving story arcs that people are seeking to replicate with A.I., it's the aesthetic that they've come to associate those narratives with. Ghibli's hand-drawn, 2D animation has long distinguished itself from competitors, thanks to the studio's scrupulous attention to detail towards everything from fluffy clouds to flowing tears. But on a more fundamental level, it's the most basic things that stick for people, like a character's silhouette. "When you're able to strip away all of the surface details of a character's design and you're able to hone in on their silhouette, it's very distinctive," Egan said. "You can tell who Totoro is, you can tell who San from Princess Mononoke is, you can tell who the robot is from Castle in the Sky. It's so easy to identify, it's so immediately distinctive and so well done." Most significantly, he added, Studio Ghibli "found a way to create characters that are both simplistic and easily legible, and yet enduringly expressive." That stylistic endurance has made Ghibli an outlier in contemporary animation. Disney ditched hand-drawn animation in favor of the more modern computer-generated style years ago; the studio has only produced two traditionally animated films in the past 20 years (2009's The Princess and the Frog and 2011's Winnie the Pooh), compared to 16 films with computer-generated animation in the same period. Studio Ghibli's stylistic consistency ironically makes its output unique, giving each movie a timeless quality. That aesthetic nostalgia has likely been a driving force behind the generative A.I. craze, with Ghibli's fondly remembered style allowing people to wear some rose-colored glasses in the face of ongoing arguments about generative art, its validity and its legality. Hayao Miyazaki's unique aesthetic Perhaps a part of the trend also has to do with ChatGPT allowing people to gain proximity to a major auteur with a unique aesthetic. Studio Ghibli is known for its "house style," and the director Hayao Miyazaki is inextricably linked to that look. Miyazaki has directed more films for the studio than anyone and was heavily involved in many Ghibli movies he didn't helm. His hand-drawn style "is part of and distinct for Studio Ghibli," Egan said, and so Miyazaki is the person who ChatGPT takes its cues from here. In that sense, this social media storm exists on the same plane as the "Accidentally Wes Anderson" phenomenon, in which a travel Instagram page dedicated to places that look like they've sprung from a scene in The Grand Budapest Hotel or Moonrise Kingdom became a massive internet brand touting numerous books and global exhibitions. With this online guide and similar social media accounts, people can feel like they've stumbled into a finely crafted world created by a renowned contemporary artist. But unlike ChatGPT's "Ghiblification" craze, these sites and images have been found, not generated. That key difference is what makes this influx of A.I.-generated images so troubling. Animation is a painstaking medium, especially when performed at Studio Ghibli's caliber. Miyazaki's most recent (and potentially final) film, The Boy and the Heron, premiered in 2023; he began working on it in 2016. That work pays off when seen on screen, but it's cheapened when run through a computer program to fit a person's fleeting fancies. "These A.I.-generated image models are a technology that, as they are being used now, explicitly exist in a way to disentangle artistic expression from human labor," said Egan, and it's a painful irony that Miyazaki made similar comments years ago, expressing his concern that human beings were losing faith in their own artistic expression. While plenty of people have voiced opposition to OpenAI's co-opting of Studio Ghibli's style, it seems that many, many more have been happy to partake in it. And though Ghiblified pet pics or group photos might look cute now, a computer program will never really be able to replicate the heart and soul of a Studio Ghibli work.

The Role of Human Creators in an A.I. Ecosystem

A.I. is making art, music and literature at scale -- faster, cheaper and eerily close to human. For educators, artists and copyright lawyers alike, the question isn't if human creators still matter -- it's how much longer they will. Not long ago, creativity was the sacred domain of human imagination. Now, A.I. is drafts screenplays, remixes songs and even paints the next "masterpieces." The rise of generative technology is reshaping the creative industry, challenging long-held notions of authorship, authenticity and intellectual property. Sign Up For Our Daily Newsletter Sign Up Thank you for signing up! By clicking submit, you agree to our <a href="http://observermedia.com/terms">terms of service</a> and acknowledge we may use your information to send you emails, product samples, and promotions on this website and other properties. You can opt out anytime. See all of our newsletters Over the last two years, artificial intelligence (A.I.) -- technology the industry has used for years -- shifted from a niche tool to a mainstream phenomenon. It became the hottest topic of the day, and then of the week, the year and probably now the century. ChatGPT sprang up as a household name, quickly becoming a tool that people of all ages began to use prolifically. In a matter of months, A.I. revealed itself to be much more than a far-off concept confined to sci-fi movies; A.I. rapidly integrated into business operations, transforming industries by streamlining customer service, optimizing data analysis, enhancing product design and automating content creation. Since 2013, I have taught a class at American University's Kogod School of Business called "Protection of the Creative Class in the Digital Age." When I initially wrote the syllabus, nascent technologies, digital advances and resulting piracy were central concepts of the course. What once felt like a timely discussion on emerging technologies has become an urgent curriculum on the seismic shifts A.I. brings to creative industries. Several times in the past year, students experience a visible "aha moment" when they suddenly realize why the full title of the course makes sense. They ask insightful questions to the creators who visit our classroom about how they protect themselves from the threats of A.I. bots training from their copyrighted works to create competitive material. Fast forward a decade. The meteoric rise of A.I. has since sparked novel conversations about technology's role in fostering creativity. While creativity has traditionally been associated with human imagination, it is now being explored through the lens of a non-human entity. Technology can generate original works, analyze patterns and even assist in complex decision-making. With these advances, questions about "protecting the Creative Class" have evolved to encompass these new technologies, and it seems appropriate to consider an even bigger question. Where is the role for human creators in this new A.I. ecosystem? Technological advances and their impacts on business have been at the forefront of my thinking for decades. Before joining Kogod's faculty full-time in 2023, I spent the bulk of my career working on policy issues of importance to the music, film and TV companies. A.I. presents a new challenge for traditional copyright industries, which, historically, have tended to agree on the importance of intellectual property considerations in the global business environment. With A.I. disrupting content creation, traditional copyright industries -- once unified in their approach to intellectual property -- found themselves divided on how A.I.-generated works should be classified, owned and monetized. This type of disagreement is what led to the Hollywood strikes of 2023, for example. Book authors, songwriters, music labels and major studios all look at A.I. through drastically different lenses. The important thing to teach students interested in these fields is why this is the case and how those lenses impact the business of entertainment across the industry. Kogod students go on to lead businesses, found companies, manage organizations and more. We quickly recognized the importance of incorporating A.I. into the day-to-day business school experience, ensuring students develop not only technical fluency in A.I. but also the strategic mindset to apply it ethically and effectively in their future careers. That means more than using A.I. in the classroom; it means equipping our students with the knowledge and skills required to navigate a world where technology and creativity have converged. It is crucial for educators to ensure students have both the tools and understanding to succeed in the modern-day workplace. That includes talking about the ways technology can be (and is actively being!) used inappropriately. From unauthorized A.I.-generated remixes to entire books written using uncredited source material, students must critically evaluate how A.I. intersects with intellectual property and advocate for ethical and transparent creative practices. To that end, Kogod was honored to have co-hosted the 4th Annual Artist Rights Symposium on AU's campus. Because the event was held in Washington, D.C., we brought together global thought leaders from government, academia, trade associations and corporations to discuss key issues surrounding artists' rights in the age of A.I. The industry's top minds clashed over one question: Can A.I. create art, or is it just sophisticated theft? Lawyers, executives, and artists debated how to protect creativity in a world where an A.I. model can remix your life's work in seconds. The event underscored the urgency of establishing legal frameworks and best practices that protect creative ownership while allowing for technological innovation. Two key panels in particular -- entitled, "Show Me the Creator: Transparency requirements for A.I. technology," and "Name, Image & Likeness Rights in the Age of AI: Current initiatives to protect creator rights and attribution" -- squarely posed the timeliest questions about key policy issues that will impact the entertainment industry for years to come, if not forever. As for the future of my "Creative Class" course, we will work to distinguish how A.I. can serve as a tool to augment human creativity, rather than replace it. Human creators find themselves at a pivotal crossroads in this moment; to find the fair and proper balance between human and machine. How does an artist prove their worth when A.I. can mimic their style in seconds? And if A.I. can create faster, cheaper, and at scale, will audiences still value the human touch? The stakes are high for students, artists, and entire industries. That's why I want to call on all creators, and my students who study them, to leverage A.I.'s power to amplify creativity, ensure originality, and set ethical standards in the next era of artistic innovation.

These digital artists have made progress in the fight against unethical AI

In the second half of 2022, when artists discovered that their work had been swept up and used to train models for AI image generators without their consent, it didn't take long for activists to organise themselves against the practice. As the raw impact of AI on artists' lives became apparent many wanted to fight back. Within weeks artists were asking 'what can be done to stop generative AI?'. Within months, lawsuits had been filed against the major AI companies. The Concept Art Association had raised over $270,000 through crowdfunding to hire a lobbyist to advocate for creators in Washington D.C., and activists in Europe had formed the European Guild for Artificial Intelligence Regulation (EGAIR), an organisation that lobbies EU lawmakers on behalf of creators. It's now been two years since the lawsuits against AI companies began to mount up, and since then political lobbying has got under way both in Europe and the US. So what progress has been made in this time? The first thing is that the lawsuits have stuck around, despite AI companies' protestations that they should be thrown out. Many legal cases are ongoing, and the outcome of these will determine what material can be used to train AI models, and under what conditions. Most of the cases allege that use of a plaintiff's material without their consent constitutes copyright infringement. The AI companies argue that their actions fall within the "fair use" exception to the law. It's up to the courts to decide how existing copyright law will be applied to AI, but these cases are making progress, and the fact they're seen by judges as having sufficient merit to proceed is promising. One of the most important cases in the US has been filed by a group of artists against a string of companies for their use of Stable Diffusion. Follow its progress at Image generator litigation. In the UK, one to watch is Getty Images v Stability AI. Another arm of anti-generative AI activism is the lobbying of governments and lawmakers, and in Europe, lots has been achieved in this area. The European Union (EU) has approved the AI Act, the world's first comprehensive law relating to AI. The Act requires AI companies to obtain consent from rights holders before using their material to train models; to label AI-generated content as such; and to provide a publicly available summary of the data training data. EGAIR was instrumental in achieving these victories, and their work is far from over as AI companies will seek to influence the final draft of the Act as it passes through the last stages of becoming law. Looking back over the last two years, EGAIR's founder Francesco Archidiacono reflects on how things have changed. "Two years ago, talking about companies illegally using our data, infringing copyright, and the right to privacy was more complicated," he says. "The politicians and institutions weren't particularly informed on what was happening and much of the discourse was still centred on whether copyright had anything to do with AI training." But today, things are different. Francesco adds: "We've had OpenAI publicly admitting their need for high-quality and copyright-protected content for their AI services, the EU AI Act explicitly states that any use of copyrighted content to train an AI model must be authorised by the rights holder, and politicians are usually much more sympathetic to our requests." He adds: "I've been in more than one meeting in Brussels where I was told it was clear that certain AI companies have broken the law. It has become much easier to explain the issues with AI companies without looking like crazy anti-technology weirdos." Francesco also sees the reaction of some AI companies to the new EU laws as a sign that they're on the back foot. The transparency requirements around labelling AI content and providing information about the data used to train models have been a sticking point for some companies. "Despite the light weight of this burden, we've seen a lot of companies complaining to EU authorities, and Meta deciding not to release their generative AI services on the European market," says Francesco. "This tells me that some of them are scared of what complying with the European Union's transparency requirements might reveal." On top of lobbying and legal action, a key priority for activists is keeping the public and the art community informed - something that Francesco describes as "a big challenge". He says: "I fear nobody, us included, is doing a good enough job with that. We need to be better at teaching our peers what's going on, and if we could find the resources and the time to do it properly, I genuinely believe that the fight would be much easier." The illustrator and creature artist Eva Toorenent is also EGAIR's representative for the Netherlands. She believes that these days, public opinion is on the side of artists, and making sure people are informed will keep it that way. "People are becoming more aware of AI's enormous environmental impact, ethical concerns surrounding its use, and its other potential dangers, such as misinformation, fraud and deepfakes," she says. There is also a growing sense of distaste around AI-generated material. Eva tells me: "When I inform someone that an image is AI-generated, they often express feelings of being duped. "Companies are updating their contracts to ensure their commissioned work is free from AI-generated material. I've also noticed a growing appreciation for human creators and craftsmanship. "The more AI-generated images flood the market, the less I perceive it as a threat. In my opinion, the unending production of generative AI content has increased the value of human-made work." Eva contends that one of the most important things in this fight is that people know their rights. She says: "What I've learned in my activism these past two years is that you, alone, can have more impact than you think." Many organisations have sprung up to help, and Eva urges artists to look for the ones in their own countries. In the Netherlands, an organisation called Opt Out Now! enables artists to opt their entire body of work out of AI training with a single application. Eva also emphasises the importance of calling out companies and people who use unethical generative AI. She says: "For instance, I've noticed several artists using generative AI to create images that they then copy exactly, even replicating the mistakes." Eva addS: "In mimicking Midjourney images, they lose their unique artistic voice and style. Artists using this technology in this way take advantage of their peers and fellow creatives. We should resist normalising the use of a technology that's fundamentally rotten. Solidarity among creatives is crucial." It's easy to get disheartened by generative AI and the other threats to the creative community that exist today. We've heard from Stanley "Artgerm' Lau on his fears human artists could be replaced. but Eva tells us that one of the most powerful things we can do is to keep creating. "Art is human. Everything in the world has been created before, but not yet by you. Art is so much more than just a product. It's a reflection of who you are as a human. "It would be a shame if you would deprive the world of your unique vision because some thieves can't keep their hands to themselves. Human beings and art are flawed, complex and strange. That's what makes them interesting. "I don't think people want to see movies, art and music made by computers. Because who do you want to support? AI companies that steal our work, mutilate it, and sell it back to us? Or the person who has spent years developing a unique voice?"