To AI or Not to AI

Yep, that's the question these days. Especially when it comes to cover art for my books.

Will I ever use AI for writing a book? No, because it kind of defeats the purpose of writing. For me, writing is almost the same as reading. I'm often surprised by what my Imagination can come up with.

Like the zombie Andean condor forcing down a plane in Blood Sacrifice.

But for cover art, I've been reluctant to use AI. There's more than a few ongoing lawsuits in regards to training the AIs with copyrighted material and no permission from or recompense to the artists.

At the same time, the US Copyright Office has deemed AI-generated items as non-copyrightable since they were produced by a non-human. Kind of like the Monkey Selfie or the paintings of elephants, chimpanzees, and gorillas. On the other hand, the EU says that AI-generated art is copyrightable because it's generation is directed by a human's instructions.

 However, the Bern Convention currently fails to address who owns the copyright to an AI generated image because the treaty is massively behind the times.

In an effort to make people comfortable with using their AI, Adobe offers indemnification. Does this indemnification hold up in court? It hasn't been tested yet, so only the Creator and the Supreme Court knows if the indemnification will hold up.

And I can guarantee if Adobe loses its first lawsuit over the matter, it'll rip that clause out of its Terms and Conditions and hang its users out to dry.

I've talked to the cover artists I've used about the matter. Frankly, none of us quite know which way to jump, but one thing was glaringly obvious. AI is not going away.

Even Alexa on my Echo Dot agrees.

Products by an Artificial Intelligence Are Not Copyrightable

Note: We're not even getting into the issues of theft for training here. It violates our copyright, and it pisses me off. No to mention, it's an entire blog topic on its own.

The issue is fairly simple. Anything "created" by AI is not copyrightable. Last week, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell upheld the March determination by the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created was not copyrightable.

This isn't a surprise to me or anyone who paid any attention to Naruto v. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018), i.e. the notorious Monkey Selfie case. When the liberal 9th Court of Appeals leans into such a conservative opinion, it's highly unlikely, they, much less any other court will change its collective mind.

The basis of copyright law is to protect the rights of humans who create. Not animals, not computers, not anything that doesn't have some kind of human intervention.

This is the reason I've avoided AI for both writing, book covers, and miscellaneous swag. I've paid extended licensing fees to humans for the use of their art for my covers and swag. I've also had a couple of long talks to my  cover designers/artists about whether or not they use AI. I had a feeling it was only a matter of time before the judicial system came down against the copyright of such an AI use.

It doesn't mean con artists aren't already using AI to rip off people. And the publishing industry is already up in arms. Hell, so is Hollywood. The big studios were planning on using AI to screw over writer and actors. Hence, the ongoing strikes of the SAG/AFTRA and WGA. This case is a major blow to the corporate plans.

But in the long run, the decision is a boon for all artists, no matter our medium. If we put the work in, we deserve the copyright and the money that comes from our work.

Back to Writing (and Recording?)

I've been writing my butt off over the weekend in an effort to finish Demons Run at Halloween. It's the last bonus story to complete from my Soccer Moms Kickstarter campaign. It's also the only bonus story that will be available to the general public. Yep, y'all will have the opportunity to buy and read at, well, Halloween. LOL The preorder for the e-book will be available as soon as it's finished, edited, and formatted.

I also promised to do audiobooks of the three bonus stories. Unfortunately, the gentleman I wanted to read Analyze Me had to drop out due to personal issues. So, I'll use the opportunity to test a text-to-speech tool I recently purchased.

That doesn't mean I'm not mindful of the ongoing SAG-AFTRA and WGA strikes. In fact, I thought long and hard about using an AI tool for one of the audiobooks. It comes down to the fact that I cannot currently afford quality voice talent. I'm doing the voice work for Demons Run at Halloween, and I bartered with a friend to do the voice work for Apocalypse? Not Now!

What I am paying for is an artist I like and respect for a HUGE job. She agreed to tackle a special project for the tenth anniversary of the Justice series. I can't say much more than that at this point. I'm hoping everything will come together as planned.

Besides, I think the Universe seriously owes me one after the cards she dealt me in 2022.

AI Law

Even though I haven't practiced law in over a decade, friends like to send me legal article. Especially if the article deals with the rapid changes in the publishing industry.

My friend Angie sent this article from TechDirt:

Sanctions Hearing for ChatGPT-Using Lawyers Did Not Go Well

*facepalm*

There's a lot of people using ChatGPT. I get it. It makes a lovely shortcut on a lot of different projects. But ChatGPT is not foolproof. That's why I don't recommend using it for drafting fiction, non-fiction, or covers.

I definitely wouldn't use it for practicing law! That's what Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw is for.

If I were the judge, I'd probably recommend disbarment for both attorneys. This kind of crap was inexcusable. As I've said before the legal profession MUST be held to a higher standard. The strength of our judicial system relies on everyone doing their job properly.

Don't get me wrong, folks. I love technology. Angry Sheep Publishing wouldn't exist without it. But it needs to be used responsibly and ethically. Luckily, no one's life depended on these two yahoos using tech correctly.

But what if it was your attorney using ChatGPT to argue cases using fake cites?

The AI Revolution

I was hoping to write down my thoughts on the whole AI kerfluffle, but read these two blog posts by Kris Rusch instead. She says thing much more succinctly than I could right now.

AI, Copyright, and Writers

AI and Mediocre Work

The Legal Mess of AI Art

AI-generated art has been a major topic of discussion among my friends lately. The topics have ranged from books to Tarot cards to wall art. The biggest worry is the lack of specific precedent in United States' legal structure. It's yet another case where tech is outstripping any rules for its use.

Shutterstock's CEO acknowledged the tip of the problematic iceberg in the company newsletter. It's not only a matter of creation, but a matter of licensing. In current legal theory, the producer of the art owns the copyright and can license it.

But who's the producer in the case of AI-generated art? The person who created the program? The person who used the software?

What few decisions that have come so far are things like the Monkey Selfie case. The U.S. Copyright Office subsequently came down with the decision that if a human wasn't substantially involved in the creation of the art, then they cannot own the copyright. They added that non-humans cannot own a copyright.

It's a freaking mess. Right now, I would suggest you be very careful with the cover artists you may use for your book covers. Because money follows success, and if your book is super-successful, then you may be courting potential legal trouble when everyone wants a slice of your pie.