I'm not going to argue that the introduction of AI-generated material has changed how we view things. From copyright to the quality of images and writing, systems like ChatGPT and Midjourney have been a game-changer. I'm not going to even talk about the ethics that revolve around using such systems. No, that is a discussion for another day.

But the technology, or more appropriately the lack of understanding of the technology, has led to some ludicrous statements.

How would you react if someone tried to tell you that because your covers used images found in a stock photography website catalog that your covers were AI-generated? That because the fonts used on your covers were in a catalog on the internet that your covers were AI-generated? Oh, and because the graphic designer used Adobe Photoshop to create the cover makes that cover AI-generated?

Well, if you were me during that conversation, you would have had a field day.

Let me set the stage.

A conversation about AI with a supposed copyright lawyer

On social media, I frequently find myself in the oddest of conversations. A few months back, I was in a conversation about AI technology and its uses within writing. Yeah, hello, I'm a writer and AI is a game-changer here. Of course, I'll find myself in the occasional conversation about that.

Well, in the conversation, I said that I wouldn't use AI to generate my own books, because why would I deny myself the fun in the creation process? "We'll ignore the copyright mess."

My comment was met by someone asking how I would feel about my work being used to train an AI after my copyrights have expired (i.e., 70 years after I died). My response: "After my copyright has expired, my material becomes available in the public domain. At which point, my heirs have no say. So… whatever. But I still won't use [AI] myself, because why should I deny myself that part of the process that I enjoy the most?"

I tried to reiterate the same point again and again, saying that I wouldn't use AI for the creative process. And it was like the person at the other end was trying to catch me out.

"Have you written a book?"

I think all of you can guess what my answer was to that. (BTW, I did correct the punctuation to make the comments from this person legible here. Strictly speaking, when quoting a person, I shouldn't have done that.)

"Who created the covers of your books? And your profile photo?"

Well, in case you don't know this, my author profile picture (the one with my smiley face) was actually a photo I took myself. (I do know how to use the trigger-delay function on my DSLR camera.) And my covers were created by graphic designers I found by way of recommendation of friends. But my covers were generated by humans—proudly so.

And that is where the conversation devolved into the idiocy and ignorance.

"But these humans would have used a computerized platform, like Photoshop or Paint, and these are AI-generated systems. If you cover is part of your book, then you have used AI-generated in your creation process."

Oh, lordy… And it got worse.

"At the end of the day, if you use any platform on a computer, your book is generated by some form of AI usage."

And a long dance around the drain (digging the ignorance hole deeper), they went on.

"If you have used any software on a computer to complete your book, your book has AI in it. If you want a purely 100% non-AI book, you need to write with a pen or pencil on a piece of paper you[r] book. Then you need to proceed to drawing by hand your cover without any system. Then you take it to the print[er]. This would be the truest form of non-AI. Anything else from this, you are using AI on your book."

And they decided to dig that hole even deeper.

"Your cover on your book is AI-generated. The font and object on your book are already in a catalogue on the internet, which means they are AI-generated."

And the icing on the cake:

"I have done 8 years in university, and completed three Master's degrees specialising in Artificial Intelligence, Big Data Technology and Business. Written a vast amount of academic papers on AI technology. I think I have read enough and done a vast amount of years in school to be very educated in this field, thank you very much!"

And this person, whoever they were (and they shall remain nameless) tried to convince me that they were an international copyright lawyer.

(Did you know that the concave of your palm fits perfectly against your forehead?)

Debunking the misinformation being given by ignorant fools

As soon as that conversation finished online, I quickly went into my various "professional" groups and told all the graphic designers that they now have an issue on their hands, because this was a minefield filled with misinformation.

And I've always worked on the premise that where there is one, there is always at least another five others.

Let me spell this out to you point by point.

1) Just because you have used a program on your computer like Photoshop or Paint does NOT make your cover AI-generated.

Yes, programs like Adobe Photoshop now have AI tools built into the system, but the core program still requires human intervention to do anything. Without the human at the controls, the program just sits there… and is nothing but a blank page.

2) Using a software program on your computer in the creation of your book does NOT make your book AI-generated.

Unless you deliberately used AI-generative tools during the creation of your book, then your book was NOT AI-generated.

Seriously, peeps, telling a graphic designer that because they use Adobe Photoshop in their work means that their work is AI-generated is just like telling a writer who used MS Word to write their story that their story was AI-generated.

Copyright legislation makes the distinction between a human using computer software to assist in the creative process versus AI-generated. And the distinction: AI-generated requires only a prompt of the idea, but the final result was created without the involvement of a human during the creation process.

But any ignorant fool who honestly believes that using a software program on your computer makes your work AI-generated won't be convinced by commonsense.

3) Using fonts on your cover from an internet-based catalog does NOT make your book AI-generated.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know what coders have to do to create those font files, but people have been creating fonts for years… longer than AI has been around. And ALL fonts that you might get for your computer can be found in an internet-based catalog somewhere.

Seriously, where is the commonsense?

I do want to quickly point out that you can't just use any old font you want on your covers. Times New Roman, for example, is a common font that most people have on their computers. However, Times New Roman is not a commercially free font. If you want to use Times New Roman in your books (interior or on the cover), you need a commercial license, which is in the order of US$350, or something like that.

Depending on the font that you have used, your cover might be in breach of copyright law (using the font without the correct license), but it WON'T be AI-generated just because of the font.

4) Using images from a stock photography catalog does NOT necessarily mean your book was AI-generated.

This one requires a bit of a clarifier. In general, the use of stock photography does not make your covers AI-generated. BUT some stock photography sites have started carrying AI-generated images.

In communication with several graphic designers that I know who specialize in covers, stock photography sites require that all images that are AI-generated must be listed as such. This way, graphic designers know which elements of a cover are to be classified as AI-generated, and which elements are not. But all graphic designers working in this area (i.e., cover design) will sometimes use stock photography in their designs. Just because they have used stock photography doesn't mean your cover was AI-generated.

A side note about copyright and protecting yourself: Be sure that you know exactly what elements were used in your covers and from where those images were sourced. For stock images, purchase licenses of your own for each element—and get the license that says that you can use the image for commercial purposes in a modified form. This includes any background images that might have been used.

As a reference, the full cover (front, back, and spine) for my book Hidden Traps of the Internet used four (4) images from DepositPhotos in a modified form: the background texture image and three (3) figurine images in different poses. My license allows me to use those images in a modified format on up to 500,000 units of printed material, but unlimited for electronic use. To be blunt, if I'm getting to the point where I'm getting close to 500,000 copies of my book (plus related printed materials), then I'm likely making enough money that I can afford the extended license that grants unlimited printed copies.

Copyright and AI-generation are two different things

Yes, AI-generation has been making the circuit when it comes to copyright conversations. Two points have been repeatedly coming up: 1) Was the AI tool illegally trained using materials that were protected under copyright law? 2) Can AI-generated materials be copyrighted?

I don't want to go into any great detail on those questions in this post, but quickly…

Are there ethical uses of AI-generation? I think there are. And regarding its copyrightable status… Well, that one currently depends on the country in which you live. (FYI, under New Zealand copyright law, yes, AI-generated works are copyrightable.)

But a supposed copyright lawyer telling someone who knows the ins and outs of a computer that just because a computer was involved at some point during the creation of the book that the book was AI-generated as a result…?

Ugh… My head hurts now. Why is the world filled with such idiocy?