Hayao Miyasaki is the co-founder of Studio Ghibli, a Japanese animation studio known worldwide for their stunning, emotional, beautiful stories and movies. At the core of Studio Ghibli’s work is a deep engagement with questions of humanity. About what it means to be a human, about how to care for one another and the world […]
Cool, another preachy argument that jumps to irrational conclusions.
Because Ghibli?
It is a display of power: You as an artist, an animator, an illustrator, a writer, any creative person are powerless. We will take what we want and do what we want. Because we can.
Uh…we always could & did.
Imitators have been doing that since always, long before LLMs.
No one owns an art style.
This is the idea of might makes right. The banner that every totalitarian and fascist government rallied under.
That’s the argument?
Plagiarism & imitating art styles is fascism?
Wow!
The rest of the article is worse.
It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t, either.
It is a fallacy of modal logic to claim an action that is not one that should be done is an action that should not be done.
If we limited ourselves to doing what we should, then entertainment like Ghibli wouldn’t exist, and you wouldn’t write comments here.
There’s no reason you should write comments here, yet you did.
Does that mean you’re “devoid of any morals” & “lack the integrity expected of a contributing adult”?
Imitation & derivative works hardly rise to anything worth fussing or losing total perspective over.
If we pay attention, all human creativity is derivative, nothing is truly original.
Works build on & reference each other.
Techniques get refined.
It’s why we have genres.
From the Epic of Gilgamesh & ancient mythology to modern storytelling, or the development of perspective in graphical works across time, there’s a clear process of imitation & development across all of it.
Oddly enough, Princess Mononoke is inspired by the Cedar Forest guardian Humbaba from the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Should we also condemn Ghibli’s “lack of integrity” for their “intellectual property theft” from the ancient Mesopotamians?
If Ghibli were somehow deprived of economic gain & welfare due to others passing off derived work as their own, then you might have a point.
However, I doubt when they sincerely want to watch Ghibli, people decide instead to watch LLM generated stills on social media that no one would pay for.
They’re no substitute for real, creative output.
If anything, the increased exposure stirs interest in the real work of Ghibli.
Even the objection is speculation: the article doesn’t state Miyazaki objected, it merely argued he would.
So, no, you don’t have a real point here, either.
This is as much “theft” as any other imitative, derivative expression.
I’ll take free speech over decrying fake “theft”.
more images of text
alt text that misleads people with accessibility needs
So just to be clear
false “IP theft” (derivative works in a similar style aren’t theft) that harms no one violates your moral code
discrimination that objectively disadvantages the disabled is fine to you.
Much can be understood about someone’s sense of morality in their actions (eligible for moral consideration) toward the disadvantaged.
Does that person treat others as that person would want to be treated by them?
Do they prioritize a cause that doesn’t address a credible harm over their easily addressable actions that do cause credible harm?
Your moral code & moral claims seem confused & mistaken.
Are we pretending this is new & their opinion matters in some new way it hasn’t before?
There might be an argument to demand licensing royalties on intellectual property.
Is that too capitalist?
Maybe it’s fine if we work that into the word fascism somehow, wear it out a bit more to hit that sweet spot.
Ooh.
No. We’re acting as if their opinion always mattered just as much as it does now.
While your style is not, can not, and should not be your intellectual property, you should have the right to say “I don’t want you to imitate my exact style” and people should respect that.
How does “respect” “allow” an artist “unfettered creativity”?
How exactly is instructing others how to treat/imitate their work & expecting their wishes to be fulfilled promoting “unfettered creativity”?
Seems like the opposite.
Can you break that down into logic?
Are you suggesting artists are fragile beings whose creativity only exists at the mercy of our “respect” and the slightest disrespect breaks them?
That seems rather self-important.
I submit that artists don’t need our respect to be creative: the suggestion is belittling to artists.
The real point is the article fails to argue well.
Cool, another preachy argument that jumps to irrational conclusions. Because Ghibli?
Uh…we always could & did. Imitators have been doing that since always, long before LLMs. No one owns an art style.
That’s the argument? Plagiarism & imitating art styles is fascism? Wow! The rest of the article is worse.
Please make the word fascism more meaningless.
deleted by creator
It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t, either. It is a fallacy of modal logic to claim an action that is not one that should be done is an action that should not be done.
If we limited ourselves to doing what we should, then entertainment like Ghibli wouldn’t exist, and you wouldn’t write comments here. There’s no reason you should write comments here, yet you did. Does that mean you’re “devoid of any morals” & “lack the integrity expected of a contributing adult”?
Imitation & derivative works hardly rise to anything worth fussing or losing total perspective over. If we pay attention, all human creativity is derivative, nothing is truly original. Works build on & reference each other. Techniques get refined. It’s why we have genres. From the Epic of Gilgamesh & ancient mythology to modern storytelling, or the development of perspective in graphical works across time, there’s a clear process of imitation & development across all of it.
Oddly enough, Princess Mononoke is inspired by the Cedar Forest guardian Humbaba from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Should we also condemn Ghibli’s “lack of integrity” for their “intellectual property theft” from the ancient Mesopotamians?
If Ghibli were somehow deprived of economic gain & welfare due to others passing off derived work as their own, then you might have a point. However, I doubt when they sincerely want to watch Ghibli, people decide instead to watch LLM generated stills on social media that no one would pay for. They’re no substitute for real, creative output. If anything, the increased exposure stirs interest in the real work of Ghibli. Even the objection is speculation: the article doesn’t state Miyazaki objected, it merely argued he would. So, no, you don’t have a real point here, either.
This is as much “theft” as any other imitative, derivative expression. I’ll take free speech over decrying fake “theft”.
deleted by creator
Well, you’re wrong.
And you’re ableist for that. Good job.
deleted by creator
So just to be clear
Much can be understood about someone’s sense of morality in their actions (eligible for moral consideration) toward the disadvantaged. Does that person treat others as that person would want to be treated by them? Do they prioritize a cause that doesn’t address a credible harm over their easily addressable actions that do cause credible harm?
Your moral code & moral claims seem confused & mistaken.
deleted by creator
Fill me in a bit. Are you under the impression that artists are particularly okay with/enjoy people imitating their art style?
Are we pretending this is new & their opinion matters in some new way it hasn’t before?
There might be an argument to demand licensing royalties on intellectual property. Is that too capitalist? Maybe it’s fine if we work that into the word fascism somehow, wear it out a bit more to hit that sweet spot. Ooh.
No. We’re acting as if their opinion always mattered just as much as it does now.
While your style is not, can not, and should not be your intellectual property, you should have the right to say “I don’t want you to imitate my exact style” and people should respect that.
So not at all: got it.
You do.
“That’s just like your opinion, man.” meme goes here.
The argument seems to amount to “stop using/imitating my work to express yourself in ways I don’t like”, which is futile & senseless.
So, to recap, your position is this:
Artists do not deserve the respect that would allow them to be creative unfettered. Gotcha.
How does “respect” “allow” an artist “unfettered creativity”? How exactly is instructing others how to treat/imitate their work & expecting their wishes to be fulfilled promoting “unfettered creativity”? Seems like the opposite. Can you break that down into logic?
Are you suggesting artists are fragile beings whose creativity only exists at the mercy of our “respect” and the slightest disrespect breaks them? That seems rather self-important.
I submit that artists don’t need our respect to be creative: the suggestion is belittling to artists.
The real point is the article fails to argue well.
I didn’t say they needed respect to be creative. I said they needed respect to be creative unfettered.
Respectfully, I don’t see what unfettered here is adding. I clarified by editing the earlier comment to request to explain the logic.