AI Theft Settlement

[NOTE: Everything below is opinion, NOT LEGAL ADVICE. I am not licensed to practice law.]

I don't know how many of you have been following the Bartz V. Anthropic case, but last week a tentative settlement had been reached.

Anthropic is an AI modeling firm. The problem is they've downloaded tons of pirated books to train their AI models. (The biggest irony in all this? Amazon is one of Anthropic's investors.)

William Alsup, the judge in the case recently declared that Anthropic's use of copyrighted works were a fair use, but he deemed their use of pirated copies to be illegal.

[DISCLOSURE: Five of my own pirated books were used by Anthropic.]

So what does this all mean?

First of all, find out if your books are listed in LibGen, one of the pirate sites used. The Atlantic put together a search engine to use. The other known pirate site is Pirate Library Mirror.

If any of your books are on the LibGen list, contact the law firm representing the plaintiffs here and fill out the contact form.

Your books MUST BE registered with the  U.S. Copyright Office to be accepted in the planitiffs' class action suit!

And here's where most writers get confused. There's a HUGE difference in damages from a copyright infringement and a REGISTERED copyright infringement. If you don't understand the difference, I strongly recommend The Copyright Handbook by Stephen Fishman. Or talk to an IP attorney who specializes in copyright. Yes, the IP attorney will charge you for a consultation, but if you understand your rights and responsibilities as a creator, it will be totally worth the money!

Things a getting uglier as the billionaires steal our sweat. We little people need to look out for ourselves and each other.

Now, Magazines Are Adopting Egregious Contract Terms

In February of 2025, several popular genre magazines were purchased by a company called 1Paragraph, Inc., which in tun is owned by an investment group called Assemble Media. They bought five magazines from the former owner Penny Press: Analog, Asimov's Science Fiction, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, Ellery Queen, and Alfred Hitchcock Presents.

The stories I've been hearing from writers that have dealt with 1 Paragraph over the last four months is nothing short of appalling. The rights' grabs includes merchandising, performance rights, and moral rights.

If you don't know what any of these are and you're a writer, please PLEASE get a copy of The Copyright Handbook by Stephen Fishman, J.D. You don't need a legal degree to understand it. It's written is plain English and easily understandable.

For me, the biggest problem in the contract is the moral rights. Moral rights last for the term of copyright, but what does "moral rights" mean? It means the writer has the right to have their work attributed to them, the right to object to derogatory treatment of the work, the right not to be identified as the author of someone else's work, and the right to privacy.

Moral rights can be confusing, so let's break them down with examples:

1) The right to have the work attributed - It means if a third-party publishes A Question of Balance, my name (or pseudonym) needs to be listed as the author. The third-party publisher cannot say Stephen King wrote A Question of Balance.

2) The right to object to derogatory treatment of the work - A third-party publisher cannot alter, remove, add, or adapt the work. For example, suppose the third-party publisher objects to any mention of the LGBT+ community. They cannot go through A Question of Balance and remove any references to berda or change Sister Dragonfly of Love to anything but a trans woman character.

Or perhaps, the publisher doesn't like the fact that Anthea and Luc's sex scenes fade to black, and they decide to add sex scenes that put Debbie Does Dallas to shame. Nope, nope, nopity-nope. They cannot do that.

3)  The right not to be identified as the author of someone else's work - This is basically the opposite of the first term. Say that third-party publisher tries to publish A Question of Balance under Stephen King's name because they think it will sell more copies. (It won't because Stephen King fans aren't that fucking stupid, but that's a story for another day.) Stephen King has every right to, and probably will. sue the crap out of the publisher.

4) The right to privacy -  No, that doesn't mean you can hide who you are as a writer. (Well, you can, but that's a whole 'nuther blog post.) What this means is if I write a Justice story just for my friend Angie, it doesn't mean I HAVE to publish for the rest of the world to read.

(Not that I'd ever do something like that to my readers. However, I have written private erotic for my husband that will never see the light of day because it was just for the two of us.)

The EU covers moral rights more thoroughly in their legislation, but moral rights exist in the U.S. as well. They cannot be transferred or assigned, but they can be waived. The problem is you have no idea of how someone will use your work.

 Say it with me, kids! MAKE SURE YOU READ YOUR CONTRACT!! If you don't understand it, hire someone who does to explain it to you!

Did I plan to submit to one of these magazines? Yes. Will I now? Not until they get a new owner because I don't trust these idiots.

 Which brings me to another point, all five magazines are still up for sale. In other words, the new owners don't have a vested interest in making these magazines work. So what's the point in submitting anyway?

Still More AI Thoughts Mixed with Estate Planning

After I posted Monday's blog, I went to an appointment with my attorney. I'm in the process of changing my business's structure from a sole proprietorship to a limited liability company (AKA an LLC).

Why? Because I'm putting my estate in order to make it easier on DH and GK when I pass.

Don't worry, folks. Nothing's wrong. At least not wronger than my usual stuff. LOL

Once upon a time, I used to be an estate planning and probate attorney. Having your ducks lined up isn't about being morbid. Nor will estate planning bring about your death just because you thought about it.

(Good Goddess, you wouldn't believe how many times I've heard that one!)

The idea is to make things as easy as possible for my loved ones.

By the way, there's nothing wrong with your estate going through probate per se. But it means delays for your family in getting their property. And if your joint bank accounts are tied up, how is your spouse going to pay for food? Probating my mom's estate took fifteen months even though all she had left was her SUV and her checking account.

Back to Monday. While going through the paperwork and signing various documents, my attorney asked if I used AI in my writing. I firmly denied doing so. As I pointed out, I can't copyright AI-generated text.

Needless to say, we then had an interesting conversation about art and the law. Basically, we both agreed tech had grown light-years behind developments in the law, and that was going to cause bigger problems until some this gets sorted.

Ironically, when I got up this morning, I saw an online article where an artist was pissed about people stealing "his" art online. His lawsuit was kicked out of court. Why? Because he "created" his art using the AI program Midjourney.

The federal courts have been pretty consistent that any art created by a non-human cannot be copyrighted. Not the paintings done by elephants. Not the photo selfies taken by monkeys. And not a damn story written by AI.

The whole point of my appointments with my attorney is to protect my work. Copyright is for the artist's lifetime plus seventy years. My family could conceivable benefit from my stories and character into the 22nd century.

And this is why you want to line up your damn ducks now.

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.

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.

I'm Moving....Sort Of

One of my major projects for 2019 was moving all of my books under the same publishing umbrella. As in, the company would own the publishing accounts for the various retailers rather than have them under my personal e-mail addresses.

Why? Why the hell do all that work when I'm so behind in my writing?

Because my cancer diagnosis clashed with the common sense former probate attorney. The one who told her clients to be prepared before the worst can happen.

Now that GK is legally an adult, he could, in theory, take over the publishing aspect. In fact, we've had a couple of talks already about passive income and copyright.

GK: So let's say you live to eighty-four like Nana. The extra seventy years on a copyright doesn't kick in until then.

Me: Yep.

GK: I'd be over a hundred before it was done!

Me: Yep.

GK (with a gleam in his eye): How many books do you think you'll have published by the time you die?

Yeah, he's already doing the income calculations in his head. LOL

The point is I want to make the transition for DH and GK as seamless as possible should I die sooner rather than later. They know where my account list and passwords are. I just want to make it easier for them, and for me.

I'd planned on starting the process of consolidation during the fall dead time in publishing, but a badly behaving model forced me to start the process now.

That's not necessarily a bad time. I just need to pay close attention to my writing production and juggle the tasks as efficiently as I can.

Breaking Down Copyrights

After our conversation about my literary estate earlier this week, Genius Kid came home from work Wednesday evening, plopped down on his dad's recliner after getting a snack and a drink, and quizzed me about copyright with the intensity of a law school professor.

Apparently, he'd taken my concerns about handling my literary estate to heart. He came up with a lot more questions and scenarios than most of my fellow writers. It had never occurred to him I was working instead of just messing around on my computer.

Or that people wanted to pay for and read my work. Like Leslie, our apartment complex manager, who is currently reading Blood Magick and claims she's loving it.

So he asked about all the different breakdowns of rights. How there may be rights that don't exist yet. Why movie and television rights were two different things and not interchangeable. What happens if someone tries to grab more rights than what I have licensed to them. How George Lucas earned hundreds of millions of dollars by holding onto licensing for Star Wars toys, comics, t-shirts, etc.

Coincidentally, Kris Rusch posted about Copyright Savvy a few hours later. She went even further in depth about how Jimmy Buffet turned "Margaritaville" into a lifestyle and vacation brand.

There are a lot of folks who say indies can't or won't exploit their IP. Except that same statement also applies to agents and trad publishing. They sit on rights, don't pursue any licensing, and ignore many potential offers  unless they think it's worth their time.

I want to exploit my rights. And if GK is interested in the family business, this could be an excellent entrepreneurial experience for both of us.

Copyright - Playing in Someone Else's Sandbox

There was an interesting discussion over at The Passive Voice regarding Amazon's new Kindle Worlds Store.

For  those who may not know, Amazon has licenses with several copyright holders where freelance writers can submit stories based on the copyright holders' properties. If those stories are accepted, the freelance writer gets 35% of the net revenue for stories 10,000 words or higher. In return, the freelance writer gives up all other rights to the story for the life of the copyright.

Now, the inital stories have been done by some excellent writers, including one of my mentors, Colleen Thompson. Colleen is an award-winning romantic thriller author. She wrote The Jersey Devil Made Me Do It for the Pretty Little Liars series.

The established writers in the inital program, like Colleen, J.R. Rain and Scott Nicholson, were approached by Amazon for the project. Make no mistake that their contract terms are not the same as Joe Shmoe off the street.

The official Terms and Conditions haven't been posted yet, but here's Amazon's rough breakdown.

One thing you have to remember--if you participate in Kindle Worlds, you are essential playing in someone else's sandbox. What this means is that Alloy Entertainment still owns the copyright to its characters. (No, Sara Shepard, the author of the Pretty Little Liars books does not. Alloy Entertainment hired her on a work-for-hire basis.) Basically, Alloy is having you all try out for them.

Why do I suspect is that Alloy Entertainment approached Amazon about this "opportunity"? They recently fired L.J. Smith of Vampire Diaries fame because the execs want Elena to end up with Stefan and L.J. wanted Elena to have her HEA with Damon. So what better way to find docile, compliant little writers, willing to accept non-negotiable terms than through a KDP clone, who will think this is a great idea?

Despite my snark, is this really a bad idea? Maybe, maybe not. A lot of it depends on what your career goals are. On one hand, writing for one of these series could expose you to a whole new audience. (There's a reason why Amazon would approach a top romantic thriller author to write a YA mystery story.) On the other, that's a lot of writing time to give up, especially if you write a novel for one of these "worlds."

Why do I call this whole thing playing in someone else's sandbox? It reminds me of little kids.

Billy invites Jimmy over to play trucks in Billy's sandbox. Jimmy builds a sandcastle with Billy's sand and truck. Can he take it home? No, the sand and the truck are Billy's. Billy gave Jimmy permission to play with his toys for the duration of the visit.

Translation: The holder of the copyright has control over the intellectual property. He may permit you to use his characters, settings or situations (i.e. his "world"), but he OWNS it. If I wanted to write a short story set in Harry Dresden's Chicago using former police officer Karrin Murphy, then I need Jim Butcher's permission. How each of us is compensated for this short story needs to be negotiated between Jim and me. Well, actually, "our people" will do it.

In the case of Kindle Worlds, there's no wiggle room to negotiate. You take or leave it.

Some folks at The Passive Voice are very upset by Amazon's (aka Alloy Entertainment's) stance. But this isn't the iron chokehold traditional publishers had on writers. We can make a very good living without relying on hand-outs from Alloy.

Clara invites Jennifer over to play dolls in her new doll house. Jennifer brings her own doll with her. Clara does not own Jennifer's doll just because it was in the dollhouse. Jennifer does not own the doll house just because her doll was in it. Clara gave permission to Jennifer to place her doll inside the house for the duration of the playtime.

Translation: If you create a new character for the copyright holder's setting, then you own that character, but not much else. A perfect real-life example is the legal battle between Neil Gaiman and Todd MacFarlane. Todd invited Neil to write a issue or two of Todd's Spawn. Neil invented Angela, Spawn's heavenly counterpart. Afterwards, Todd used Angela whenever he felt like it and didn't pay Neil a dime. In this case, Neil DID NOT give up his rights to Angela when he signed the contract with Todd.

So is this really a bad contract with Kindle World? That's something you have to decide for yourself.

When you consider you're writing for someone else's copyrighted world, not really. Many people are referring to this as monetizing fanfic. After seeing what happened with Fifty Shades of Grey, they are probably correct. (For those not in the know, FoSG started life as a Twilight-fanfic novel called Master of the Universe.) To me, it's really work-for-hire on spec. (And if you don't know what that term means, you REALLY should not be submitting to Kindle Worlds!)

If you feel it's unfair, then walk away. No one's going to give you crap if you do.

But what you have to look at is the entire compensation package, not just the money.Could the fan spill-over to your own work be worth giving up your claims to that little story? If you think you can use it to your advantage, then check out the program.

But most of all, know your copyright! Kris Rusch constantly pushes The Copyright Handbook, and I highly suggest you buy yourself a copy. Know what you can and cannot do with your intellectual property as well as someone else's.

And for the love of Murphy, don't EVER sign a contract you do not thoroughly understand. L.J. Smith learned this lesson the hard way.

50 Shades - The FanFic Hypothesis

When I talked about Why Fifty Shades of Grey Matters last week, it was an innocent commentary on a customer's view of the book.

One of my regular commenters, author Angie Benedetti, mentioned a fascinating post about the id in the writer's mind by Maculategiraffe. Go read it; I'll wait.

***

Did James hit something in the Twilight fans' collective id that made them say, "Oh yeah, I want that!"?

All this made me start digging. Someone had posted a cached copy of the original version of Fifty Shades, called Master of the Universe. (So sorry! I thought I bookmarked it, but now I can't find it.) Anyway, other than the names, descriptions and a few personality quirks of Edward and Bella, James's story had nothing to do with the Twilight universe. I wouldn't consider it even an Alternate Universe.

I'd like to point out I never said E.L. James violated Stephenie Meyer's copyright. It would take very little editing to make Master of the Universe a totally separate animal, which I believe James has done. The only reason it's even mentioned in the same breath as Twilight is because it started life on a Twilight fan fic website.

Here's Stephanie's thoughts on Fifty Shades in her own words:

Get More: Movie Trailers, Movies Blog

I've heard a lot of people ranting about E.L. James's grammar, or lack thereof. So, last Sunday, I flipped through the book while at Barnes & Noble, reading the first chapter, then a few pages here and there. To me, it's not as spectacularly bad as some people make it out to be on the technical front.

I have to agree with Angie's comment. Someone's ability to tell a story overrides grammar pecadillos. I LOVED the Harry Potter series! I don't give a flip what anyone says about J.K. Rowling's craft abilities. She captured my attention. The same with many authors on my keeper shelf.

My problem with a story occurs when the author does something so illogical that it rips me out of my suspension of disbelief. Unfortunately, that's what happened to me while reading the first chapter and a few other excerpts of 50 Shades of Grey. I'll post my thoughts on why my suspension of disbelief collapsed on Monday.

Copyrights Regurgitated

On my original post about copyrights, Tess mentioned in comments that eCO (the Copyright Office's online form) could take up to five documents and that she had filed three of them for the single $35 fee.  However, I take Circular 1, Copyright Basics, Registration Procedures on page 7-8 in particular, to read that mutliple items can be registered together if they are part of one publication.

If anyone has questions about this, I seriously suggest they contact a qualified intellectual property attorney.

I discussed the matter with another friend R__, who's also pursuing the indie-publication route.  Her view of copyright registration is why bother wasting the time and money.  The people you have to worry about violating copyrights are the hackers who feed the Torrent sites, and the headaches of catching and stopping them aren't worth the $35 for registration.

OPINION: I probably will register my novels with the Copyright Office, more for the thrill of knowing my books are filed with the Library of Congress.  Everybody has a different measure of validation, and I freely admit this is mine.

Anybody else want to offer an opinion as to copyrights or pirates?

The Incredible, Edible Copyright

Ah, copyrights.  Something that a legitimate publisher would normally file for their author.

And the subject that has the most BS on the internet in terms of enticing naive writers to part with their limited funds.

WARNING:  The following is my opinion and DOES NOT IN ANYWAY CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE.  If you need a copyright attorney, I recommend Elaine English or contact Authors Guild.


FALLACY #1:  You have to register with the U.S. Copyright Office in order to claim a copyright.

ANSWER:  No, you don't.  You hold the copyright to a work from the moment the work is in a recorded, readable form.  HOWEVER, to avail yourself of certain legal protections, it's a good idea.  For example, if someone copies J.K. Rowling's first book, but calls it Henry Porter and the Magick Pebble, Rowling's copyright registration stands as prima facie proof that she created the work.*


FALLACY #2:  You can mail your manuscript to yourself to prove the date of its creation.

ANSWER:  Absolutely false!  There's nothing in U.S. Copyright law that states this method protects the creator of the work.  Seriously, folks, save your money.


FALLACY #3:  It's really expensive to file for a copyright.

ANSWER:  It's expensive only if you go through a third party who charges you for filing paperwork you can freakin' file yourself.

U. S. Copyright Office now allows you to file your registration electronically for only $35.  If you do file electronically, check the list of acceptable formats.  If you have only an e-edition of your book, in addition to the electronic copy you file with your application, you will need to send a CD-ROM copy to the Library of Congress.  Otherwise, send the paper copy.  Also the Copyright Office says to send the CD-ROM via box, instead of an envelope, to protect the CD from damage.

Seriously, folks, why pay some bozo  couple of hundred dollars when you can do it yourself for the registration fee, a box, and some postage?


* Prima facie is Latin for 'on the face of.'  It means the truth is assumed unless the opposite party can prove the facts otherwise.