The article accurately reports on the release of OpenAI's new AI image generator and its ability to replicate styles, such as Studio Ghibli. It correctly notes the viral response on social media, with users generating images in popular styles. The mention of legal concerns related to copyright infringement is also supported by ongoing discussions in the field, as noted by IP lawyer Evan Brown. However, the claim that OpenAI's CEO, Sam Altman, has changed his profile picture to a Ghibli-style image, while plausible, lacks direct citation or verification. Additionally, the article asserts that Google has released a similar feature, which aligns with known developments in AI technology, although specific details about Google's tool are not thoroughly verified within the text.

The article presents a balanced view by discussing both the technological advancements and the legal implications of AI-generated images. It includes perspectives from an IP lawyer, which adds depth to the discussion on copyright issues. However, the article could benefit from including more voices from the creative industries or legal experts to provide a broader range of viewpoints. The focus on OpenAI's developments might overshadow similar advancements by other companies, such as Google, which are mentioned but not explored in detail.

The article is generally clear in its presentation, with a logical flow from the introduction of the new AI tool to the discussion of legal implications. The language is accessible to a general audience, although some technical terms related to AI and copyright law might require further explanation for complete understanding. The inclusion of specific examples, such as the Studio Ghibli-style images, helps to illustrate the points made, but additional context on the legal concepts discussed would enhance clarity.

The article references an IP lawyer, Evan Brown, which adds credibility to the discussion on legal matters. However, it lacks a diverse range of sources, relying heavily on the statements of a single legal expert. The absence of direct quotes from OpenAI or Google representatives, or from users who have experimented with the new tools, limits the depth of the source quality. Including more authoritative voices from the tech industry or legal field would enhance the reliability of the information presented.

The article provides some transparency regarding the legal grey areas surrounding AI-generated images and acknowledges the ongoing nature of related lawsuits. However, it does not fully disclose the methodology or sources used to gather information about the AI tools' capabilities or the specific legal cases mentioned. Greater transparency about the data collection process and any potential biases in reporting would improve the reader's understanding of the article's foundation.