The Nano Banana trend: A double-edged sword of AI-generated art

Explainer

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, Updated At : 08:13 PM Sep 15, 2025 IST

What is the 'Nano Banana' trend

• Origin/technology:

“Nano Banana” is a viral AI image-editing/generative art trend powered by Google Gemini (specifically Gemini 2.5 Flash Image model).

• What users are doing:

Users upload a photo (self, pet, celebrity, etc.) + give a text prompt and the system produces a hyper-realistic 3D “figurine” or miniature collectible style image. These images often show toy-like figures, acrylic bases, packaging mockups, etc.

• Appeal/virality:

It is free to try (with some limits), easy, visually polished, shareable. Social media trends, influencers, even political figures are participating. Hashtags like #NanoBanana are spreading it.

• Features & safeguards by Google:

• Invisible watermark (SynthID) embedded in images to mark them as AI-generated.

• Data processed on Google’s servers; user images aren’t automatically used for model training unless consent is given.

• Privacy controls via Gemini/Google’s policy.

Privacy & ethical concerns

From the evidence plus general concerns about AI image tools, following issues arise:

1. Personal data/likeness misuse

• Photos of real people, especially celebrities or private individuals, used without explicit consent could be misused or misrepresented.

• Once images are generated, they may be widely shared. The person in the image may no longer control how the generated figurine is used.

2. Data retention & use

• Even if the policy says images are not automatically used for training, metadata, processing logs, storage are involved. There is risk of retention beyond users’ understanding.

• Human reviewers might see some content, depending on policy.

3. Copyright/Intellectual Property

• When using images or likenesses of copyrighted characters, trademarked elements, style of living artists, etc., there may be infringement or legal risk.

• The model’s training data may include copyrighted images; unclear licensing or fair use issues. This is a known issue in AI art in general.

4. Misleading Deepfake risks

• Someone could generate “Nano Banana” images of people in misleading context or generate imagery that looks real but isn’t, creating confusion.

• Potential for identity misuse, defamation, impersonation.

5. Privacy of sensitive information

• Use of sensitive backgrounds, objects etc. in photos that reveal location, private property, or private details could leak information unintentionally.

• If the app or tool gains access to other apps, files, etc., there’s risk. (Related to the broader Gemini privacy concerns)

6. Bias/discrimination

• AI image generation tools are trained on large image datasets that may have biases (gender, race, ethnicity, cultural representation). The figurines generated may reflect stereotyped or biased features.

• Underrepresented groups may see misrepresentation or lack of representation.

How it can be harmful

• Psychological/self-image effects: Constant exposure to idealised, stylised images (even of oneself) might contribute to unrealistic expectations of appearance, body image issues, or comparison culture.

• Cultural/social effects: If used irresponsibly, could trivialise certain images or cultural symbols. Also could be used in ways that disrespect or exploit identities.

• Erosion of privacy: Once something is generated and shared, it may persist (e.g. screenshots, reposts). You may lose control over your image, likeness, or the context in which it is used.

• Job/creative labour displacement: If these tools become good enough, some commercial creative work may shift to AI rather than humans. This could hurt professional artists, photographers, etc. although this is a longer term effect. (See debates in AI art generally)

• Diminished creativity/overreliance: If people rely too much on AI for visual creativity, the incentive to learn the fundamentals of art, design, photography, etc., may reduce. Also, creative originality might suffer.

• Ethical/legal repercussions: Misuse could lead to defamation, misuse of someone’s image, legal suits over copyright, trademarks, privacy rights.

Impact on human creativity

Both positive and negative. Here’s a breakdown:

Positive impact:

• Democratisation of creative tools: Even users without technical skills or art training can produce visually appealing content. Increases participation in creative expression.

• Speed & iteration: Rapid prototyping, ability to try many styles/designs quickly. Helps in brainstorming. Useful especially in design, marketing, etc.

• Inspiration & hybrid creativity: AI outputs can serve as stimulus, prompt creativity, lead to new ideas by remixing styles or by giving examples that human creators build upon.

• New Forms & Aesthetic Trends: Tools like Nano Banana shape new visual cultures — figurines, collectibles, packaged toy aesthetics. These become part of popular culture.

Negative impact:

• Creative fixation/reduced originality: Studies show that when people use AI generated examples, they may be more fixated on those examples and generate fewer novel ideas.

• Loss of skill development: If people skip learning drawing, design, composition, lighting, etc., because the tool “does it for you”, foundational skills may erode.

• Homogenisation of visual styles: Because many people will use similar prompts/styles (trends), a lot of content may start looking similar. The variety might reduce over time.

• Ethics of attribution & ownership: Who owns the creativity? If AI does much of the “work”, what is the human’s contribution? Legal frameworks are still catching up.

Arguments for & against

Here are structured arguments, as might be needed for an essay or debate.

Arguments for	Arguments against
Low barrier to entry: anyone can create quality visuals.	Risk of misuse: likeness use, defamation, deepfakes.
More democratic creative expression; empowerment of non-professionals.	Undermining of professional artists & creatives; loss of livelihood.
Speeds up creativity and ideation; enhances innovation.	Overreliance may degrade human skill and originality.
Engaging and fun; social media virality helps cultural expression.	Privacy, data protection, IP, copyright issues unresolved.
Tools like watermarks (SynthID), user consent mitigate risks.	Watermarks may be removed/misleading; or may not fully protect identity or misuse.
Can foster cross-disciplinary and hybrid art forms; open new aesthetic directions.	Potential cultural bias, misrepresentation; possible psychological impacts.

Precautions & regulations (What should be done/what to keep in mind)

For the individual, creators, companies and policymakers, these are the measures to handle risks:

1. User awareness & consent

• Users should be informed clearly—as part of the UI / terms & conditions—how their image, likeness will be used, whether for AI model training, sharing, etc.

• If images of others are used (third party), obtain consent, especially in private situations.

2. Transparent policies

• Google and similar platforms should publish clear policies on data retention, human review, sharing, usage for training, etc.

•Visibility of watermarks/labels (AI generated content) to avoid misleading viewers.

3. Privacy settings and data protection

• Controls to delete uploaded images, auto delete histories.

• Limit access to sensitive data.

• Strong privacy safeguards, encryption, minimal data retention rights.

4. Copyright & Intellectual Property law

• Policies/regulations to address training data: whether copyrighted images used during training have permission.

• Rights of artists: attribution, compensation, preventing unauthorised mimicry especially of known artists’ styles.

5. Ethical guidelines/oversight

• Ethical guidelines around use of likeness (especially minors, private persons).

• Oversight bodies/regulatory frameworks to monitor misuse (deepfakes, defamation, privacy violations).

6. Regulating AI in media/social media

• Mandating labelings of AI-generated content on social media or public platforms.

• Possible restrictions or guidelines for commercial use of such images.

7. Support to creative workers

• Training, reskilling of artists/designers to work with AI tools rather than being displaced.

• Legal protections, perhaps licensing regimes, or adoption of AI-creativity co-working schemes.

UPSC perspective: Relevance and key dimensions

From a UPSC syllabus point of view (esp. GS Paper 3 – Technology and Ethics, GS Paper 2 – Polity & Governance, and Ethics paper), here is how this fits:

• Governance & Policy: Need for regulatory framework around generative AI, privacy law, intellectual property rights, data protection laws. India’s existing legal framework (IT Act, PDP Bill if ever passed) may need to cover such trends.

• Ethics in technology: Consent, privacy, dignity, authenticity. Ethical questions around AI’s role in altering images, misrepresentation.

• Economics/development: Effect on creative industries, employment. Balancing innovation with protecting livelihoods of artists/designers.

• Social & cultural aspects: Cultural representation, bias, effect on values, social norms. Potential identity issues.

• Security and privacy: Data leaks, misuse, identity theft. How AI tools could be misused in misinformation, deepfakes.

• Technology dynamics: Role of AI in transforming industries, creative fields; emergent trends, importance of informed regulation.

Summary: Overall harms vs benefits

• Benefits are many: democratising art, speeding up design, giving everyone a chance to take part in visual culture, generating aesthetic pleasure, social media engagement, potential for new forms of cultural expression.

• Harms revolve around misuse of likeness, privacy, IP, erosion of skills and originality, displacement of artists, misrepresentation and biases, legal ethical risks, psychological impacts.

If this were a UPSC essay, some possible thesis statement could be:

“While the Nano Banana trend exemplifies how generative AI can democratise creative expression and forge new aesthetic paths, it also brings to the fore critical challenges of privacy, intellectual property, authenticity and the very essence of human creativity. Effective regulation, ethical practice, and awareness are key to ensuring that such technological trends serve society rather than diminish our individual and collective rights.”

The Nano Banana trend: A double-edged sword of AI-generated art

Ravneet Kaur

Tribune News Service

Live Matches

The Nano Banana trend: A double-edged sword of AI-generated art

Ravneet Kaur

Tribune News Service

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Live Matches