• Artistic inspiration is a precondition to creativity. As eloquently said by Picasso: “Good artists copy, great artists steal” — referring to the idea that artists create new works by drawing from previous styles and techniques.

    Artists might visit a museum, get inspired by other people’s works, and later incorporate these impressions (often unconsciously) into their own creations. These practices have never created concerns in the artworld. Indeed, from a legal standpoint, style itself is not protected by copyright laws, which only prohibits the copying of distinctive expressions, rather than the reproduction of aesthetic choices and techniques. Indeed, artists taking inspiration from the work of others still have to work out their own creativity, and master the tools or techniques necessary to create new works.

    Things are changing with the advent of generative AI, which makes it possible for anyone to prompt an AI model to generate content “in the style of” another artist. This explicit request feels less like a subconscious influence and more like purposeful mimicry. Besides, the creation of new works with generative AI no longer requires the skills and creativity of an artist, beyond the crafting of the prompt. This raises novel legal questions about originality and copyright.

“AI-generated content created “in the style of” an artist requires specific legal considerations.”

This article examines the legal implications of prompting “in the style of” an artist, as well as the emerging  ethical implications of generative AI. Using a specific case to illustrate our points, we’ll show how copyright/IP laws, moral rights, and commercial considerations may influence the production and commercial exploitation of AI-generated content.

  • Pierre Pauze, digital artist, generated on Alias

  • POL Barbero, oil painter, generated on Alias 

INTERVIEW

First, is it legally permissible to prompt in the style of an artist ?


Creating AI-generated content in the style of an artist opens up complex legal questions. Since copyright law protects specific expressions rather than styles themselves, using an artist’s style theoretically doesn’t infringe on copyright. However, legal concerns arise if the resulting work is substantially similar to an existing artwork of that artist. Here are two key factors to consider:

1. Substantial similarity: Copyright law protects specific expressions, not general styles. Yet, it is important to ensure that the AI-generated content doesn’t bear an overly close resemblance to specific pieces by the artist. This means avoiding recognizable elements that may bring the generated output to appear as a derivative of the original artist’s creations.

2. Moral Rights: In jurisdictions recognizing moral rights - which ensure the artist’s reputation and authorship are respected even if they sell their work - an artist may object if an AI-generated work in their style harms their reputation.

Imagine a content producer prompting an generative AI model  to make a poster “in the style of” Wes Anderson for an upcoming event. The output doesn’t copy any single frame or scene from Anderson’s films, but mimics his iconic visual style to the extent that it could be mistakenly be regarded as Wes Andreson’s body of work. In fact, given that the generative AI model has been trained on many of Anderson’s scenes, it is not unlikely that, even if it is not an exact replica, the generated output could be regarded as substantially similar to one of his previous work. To the extent that it qualifies as a derivative work, the production and commercialisation of the poster would thus constitute an infringement of Anderson’s copyright, unless it has been done with the proper authorizations.

Besides, even if there is no substantial similarity—and therefore no copyright violation—when Anderson’s singular aesthetic is mimicked by a generative AI model, the output can feel deceptively authentic to Anderson’s body of work, implying an association or endorsement that doesn’t exist in reality. The reason is that Anderson’s style isn’t part of a broader movement like impressionism, where many artists share similar stylistic traits; instead, it’s uniquely attributed to him. As a result, the resulting poster could be said to violate Anderson’s moral rights — such as the right of paternity, insofar as the work could be falsely attributed to him, or the right of integrity, if the poster were to depict a scene that could have a negative impact on Anderson’s reputation..  Thus, while copyright may not directly protect Anderson’s “style,” moral rights could enable him to prevent anyone trying to misrepresent or misuse his creative identity.

Technical response to these legal issues:

Platforms like Alias.studio provide tools for artists to create and certify the authenticity of their own Generative AI model trained on their pre-existing works. Models published on the platform can be prompted by users to generate content in the style of the artist, without risk of copyright infringement. Users can also choose to purchase licenses for the right to use the generated content in specific context, e.g. for commercial purposes.

Under what conditions can I legally sell the results of such prompting? Under what conditions can I legally sell the results of such prompting?

Even if the generated output does not violate the copyright nor moral rights of the artist, selling AI-generated content created “in the style of” an artist requires specific legal considerations.

1. Generative AI Tool’s License: Each generative AI tool has its own license terms, which may impose restrictions on commercial use or require attribution for specific types of usages. Users should always verify that the tool permits the sale and commercial usage of the generated content to avoid potential contractual breaches.

2. Publicity rights: Publicity rights give people control over the commercial use of their identity or likeness. They might therefore be leveraged to prevent using an artist’s name or likeness to market or sell AI-generated works without their permission.

Going back to the illustrative example of Wes Anderson, or other artists with a unique and clearly-identifiable style. Associating AI-generated content to the names or likelihood of these artists could be perceived as a commercial use of their identity, raising possible infringement claims under publicity rights. This is particularly the case in the context of generative AI models specialized in voice-cloning, which are often used to replicate the voices of famous actors or singers without permission. A well-known example involves actress Scarlett Johansson, an actress known for her unique and recognizable voice, who voiced her concerns regarding the use by OpenAI of an AI-assistant that mimicked her voice. This case is illustrative of a growing concern for artists and public figures, whose identities—be it visual style, voice, or likeness—are commodified by generative AI without consent. This invites critical discussions on the ethical and legal frameworks needed to protect personal rights in an era where AI tools make it increasingly easy to replicate and monetize distinctive personal traits.

Technical response to these legal issues:

Alias.studio enables users eager to sell the works generated by an artists’ generative AI model to do so by acquiring a license to the generated output. Indeed, through Alias licensing scheme, artists can specify the scope of usage rights they are granting to the platform users, ensuring they retain control over how these works are used and distributed. These licenses are recorded on the blockchain to provide users with legal safeguards against infringement claims.

By Alias co-founders

Charlotte Heylliard / Primavera de Filippi

Back to blog