Can AI Legally Mimic an Artist’s Style? In short, yes — at least for now.

Photo by engin akyurt on Unsplash

Generative AI tools are getting more powerful by the day. They can now replicate visual aesthetics (Ghibli-style family photos, anyone?), musical tendencies, and storytelling patterns with stunning precision. But as these tools are increasingly used to create content “in the style of” known artists, a critical legal question is emerging: can an artist’s style be protected under intellectual property law? Unfortunately, as of now, the answer in the U.S. is: not really.

Copyrighting your style?

In this Bloomberg Law article, the reporter points out that style, as legal scholars and practitioners suggest, is tricky to define. That is because style can be a combination of choices, habits, and techniques. A musician’s vocal tone, lyrical themes, and production preferences all play into it. A visual artist’s line quality, color palette, or brushwork might define theirs. But under current law, these elements, taken individually or even collectively, usually fall into the category of “ideas,” not “expression.” And copyright protects expression, like a specific picture that you have painted with a color palette while the color palette itself would be an "idea" that is not copyrightable.

While it makes common sense that no one can copyright a color palette, there are times when "style" plays role in copyrights. There is precedent for courts acknowledging stylistic similarity as part of a copyright infringement claim—the 1987 case of Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures, where a movie poster was found to infringe a magazine cover by Saul Steinberg because of a “striking stylistic relationship.” But that was the exception, not the rule. And even then, style alone wasn’t enough - the court also found similarities in overall composition and subject matter.

What if Ai is copying your Style?

Enter generative AI, which can now mimic styles far more quickly, convincingly, and economically than any human imitator. That raises not just legal questions, but economic and ethical ones too. Perhaps well-known artists like Dua Lipa and Elton John have the means and fanbase to challenge copycat content and influence lawmakers. Lesser-known artists, in particular, may find themselves undercut by models trained to generate content indistinguishable from their signature look or sound.

The law hasn’t caught up with the technology yet, but pressure is mounting. As generative AI blurs the line between inspiration and imitation, we’re likely to see new battles in court, in Congress, and in public discourse over what it means to protect creativity and the livelihoods of those dedicated to advancing human creativity in the age of machines.

Until then, creators may have to rely more on their fanbases—and less on the law—to protect their unique ways of expressing themselves.