Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallThatPainter is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn More
Some Japanese readers have criticized AI-assisted manga and anime-related art, but the reported reactions are mixed. The available coverage does not establish that anime fans in Japan generally oppose AI-generated manga. The clearest manga example shows a more specific dispute: whether polished AI-assisted images convey the expression and panel-to-panel emphasis that readers expect from manga.
What happened in the AI-assisted manga remake?
In 2024, Manga Kingdom included 児童福祉司 一貫田逸子 in its “Masterpiece Remake Project.” The original, by さかたのり子 and 穂実あゆこ, had been published as a two-volume book in 2006. The remake used generative AI to color and remake the work, keeping its original panel layout and composition and continuing to credit the original authors, according to ITmedia’s report.
The creators expressed positive views about the remake. ITmedia also reported a range of reader responses: some were curious or welcomed AI as a tool, while critics said that the images looked clean but lacked expressive power. One criticism was that the art did not vary its emphasis from panel to panel.
That distinction matters. The reported objections were not simply that AI had been used; they addressed how the images functioned as sequential storytelling. A manga panel can be technically neat yet fail to make a reaction, pause, or dramatic beat feel distinct. These comments document individual reactions, not a representative survey of readers.
Why the anime tribute illustration became a separate flashpoint
A related dispute concerned an anime tribute illustration, not an AI-generated manga. In October 2024, the official account for the anime adaptation of ぷにるはかわいいスライム posted a commemorative illustration by manga artist すがやみつる. He later said he used DALL·E 3 to make the moon in the background and drew the person himself. ITmedia reported that some X users reacted angrily after the AI use became known. The artist defended the limited use and said he intended to continue using AI with restraint.
Explaining his position, すがやみつる said: 「生成AIについては、多くの問題が指摘されているが、この背景のような使い方なら、他の漫画家、イラストレーターにも迷惑はかけていないはず。」 The statement reflects the artist’s view about using AI for a background element; it does not settle the broader dispute over consent, rights, or acceptable use. ITmedia’s account of the illustration and reactions provides the details.
What the criticism is about beyond image quality
Commercial use and artists’ objections
Ethical concerns can intensify when AI-assisted work is sold or presented commercially. In September 2024, French manga publisher chattochatto withdrew an AI illustration after complaints from artists, clients, and X users. The publisher said it had not fully understood the issues and would avoid AI illustrations and AI-involved products while legal developments continued. The same report also condemned harassment directed at the artist. This was a case involving a French publisher, not evidence of a Japanese audience consensus. ITmedia reported on the withdrawal.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsUnauthorized imitation and resemblance
In a May 2024 interview, manga artist 樋口紀信 described an unauthorized style-LoRA connected, in his account, to impersonation and harassment. That is his account of what happened, not a court judgment. ITmedia’s interview records his description.
In October 2025, Shueisha said it would respond firmly if it judged that its works’ rights had been infringed by generative-AI outputs. The publisher raised concerns about videos made with Sora 2 that it considered similar to existing manga and anime, and called for effective measures against infringement and remedies for rights holders. Shueisha’s statement is the publisher’s position, not a legal ruling that every similar output infringes. It also acknowledged the potential benefits of generative AI, while arguing that creative opportunities must not come at the expense of creators’ dignity and others’ rights. ITmedia reported Shueisha’s statement.
How to compare the cases fairly
The examples point to several questions that can clarify why a particular use draws support or criticism. They are useful comparison points, not a standardized scorecard:
- How much did AI make? The manga remake used AI in remaking and coloring the work; in the tribute illustration, the artist said AI made only the moon in the background.
- Was the use disclosed? Readers may judge a work differently when they learn after publication that AI contributed to it.
- Did the original creator consent, and were they credited? The remake report says the original authors remained credited and expressed positive views. Other cases raise different questions about artist objections and authorization.
- Does the result resemble existing work or characters? Similarity can raise rights concerns, but a publisher’s concern is not itself a legal finding.
- Does it work as visual storytelling? In manga, expression, panel emphasis, and the rhythm between images can matter as much as surface polish.
What Japanese copyright guidance does—and does not—say
Japan’s Agency for Cultural Affairs published its “AI and Copyright” document in March 2024. The Agency describes it as an organization of current thinking in an area where court precedents have not accumulated. It says the document is not legally binding and does not make a definitive legal assessment of any particular AI or technology. The Agency’s document should therefore not be read as a blanket declaration that AI training or any particular output is automatically lawful or unlawful.
Recommended Free Tools
It is also useful to separate questions about developing or training a system from questions about generating, publishing, or selling a particular result. The relevant facts and legal analysis can differ; a general discussion of AI and copyright does not decide the status of a specific work.
So are anime fans in Japan unhappy with AI-generated manga?
Some reported readers and artists are unhappy with particular uses of generative AI. Others have shown curiosity or acceptance, and the original creators of the reported manga remake were positive. The cited reports do not provide representative polling or a reliable measure of how common opposition is among Japanese anime fans. The headline’s broad claim is therefore stronger than the evidence supports: the documented response is mixed, and the criticism concerns specific questions of storytelling, disclosure, consent, commercial use, and resemblance.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
