"I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself."
This is what Hayao Miyazaki said back in 2016, in the documentary "Never-Ending Man: Hayao Miyazaki," when he was shown an animation generated by AI. After all, Miyazaki has always believed in the importance of the human touch — from storytelling to execution — crafted through hours of artisanal work and an almost obsessive attention to detail. And yet, it’s precisely his work that is now being replicated by thousands of AI-generated images.
The question is: are these images a tribute or a theft?
Miyazaki and his studio never gave consent for the thousands of images required to replicate this content to be used. And if human artists must respect copyright laws and ethical boundaries, why shouldn't algorithms be held to the same standard?
This isn't the first time AI has stirred debate in the creative world. These tools are revolutionizing how content is produced. On one hand, they can be used to speed up processes and support new ideas. On the other, without clear regulations, they risk becoming mass-scale plagiarism machines.
From a legal standpoint, there are still no clear rules. And as companies continue to develop increasingly advanced models, the art world finds itself stuck in a limbo.
The trend we’re seeing today is a clear reflection of this legislative gap — but also of how little we truly understand about how these systems work.
AI does not feel emotions, it does not dream, it does not have a story to tell. It can imitate, but it cannot feel. And if the world continues to be seduced by its speed and accessibility, the risk is that the very concept of art will be reduced to an algorithm that regurgitates perfect but soulless images. And above all, devoid of innovation: the machine will end up feeding itself, if the professionals that feed it are not protected.
Today we are faced with a choice: if the law has not yet imposed boundaries, it is up to us to decide how far we want to go.
