Make Sure You Know This if You're Using AI Art

SubrosaGames

Immortal Empires RPG for Mature Players
Publisher
Recently, I had to make a paperback version of our hardcover rulebooks. So, I went through the process, as usual (we use IngramSpark/LightningSource). But I didn't pay close enough attention to one of the button toggles when quickly filling out the metadata tags for a work I had already published (and btw, you DO need a separate ISBN for a softcover version).

I accidentally pressed YES, This manuscript has AI Art (in fact the manuscript had been published years earlier before AI Art was a thing). And then the proverbial SHITE hit the fan.

Ingram Spark refused to distribute the new release on all normal channels, only providing support for you to sell it directly from their store or you could order dozens of copies and sell them yourself. Distribution centers like amazon, B&N, libraries, and European markets were NOT any longer an option.

Upset, I contacted support and discovered the reason no normal distribution channels were available is because I mistakenly checked AI Art; and once that particular piece of metadata is "saved" it cannot be changed, even with a re-upload of the manuscript or a delete-and-start-over, because it's saved to the ISBN.

The good news is that Ingram Spark reset it so that I could start over. And what a lesson! So, my other publisher friends out there, bottom line: DO NOT proclaim AI Art was used (or even helped write any text, unless, of course you did use AI); just know that if you do, you will not be able to use distribution services offered by Ingram Spark / Lightning Source. I do not know about Amazon Kindle's rules but they do have an AI toggle as well. If anyone does know about Amazon Kindle's policy, please comment...

Apparently, this is due to Copyright questions, even though copyright law is not settled when it comes to AI-anything. In fact, most AI services (chatgpt, openart.ai, etc.) provide up front that you, the creator, owns the copyright. However, Ingram Spark doesn't care. They are siding with the artists in the fight against people going the cheap way for art instead of paying a professional artist for their book covers and other illustrations. Whether that is right or wrong is a debate outside the scope of this thread.

In any case, I thought I'd pass this on to y'all. Happy publishing, and I wish every author and publisher in our gaming community prosperity and success with their products!
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad



SubrosaGames

Immortal Empires RPG for Mature Players
Publisher
Are you suggesting that publishers/creators using AI should represent themselves as not using AI? And that Ingram supporting visual artists is...bad? Because it really does read that way.
I believe I said that discussion was beyond the scope of this thread. But no, I am not suggesting that people should misrepresent themselves. Only that people should be aware of the repercussions of using AI in their publications. [EDIT: I edited the sentence in question. Hopefully that is clearer now. Thank you for bringing that to my attention!]
 
Last edited:



SubrosaGames

Immortal Empires RPG for Mature Players
Publisher
For what it's worth, the Copywrite Office just posted Part 1 of their report on generative AI review
Thank you for this. Although the first part is only about AI-generated voice and appearance likenesses (deepfakes) of people, it looks like they will be addressing AI-generative art issues in upcoming reports:

"The first Part addresses the topic of digital replicas -- the use of digital technology to realistically replicate an individual's voice or appearance. Subsequent Parts will turn to other issues raised in the NOI, including the copyrightability of works created using generative AI, training of AI models on copyrighted works, licensing considerations, and allocation of any potential liability."​
 

fettpett

Explorer
Thank you for this. Although the first part is only about AI-generated voice and appearance likenesses (deepfakes) of people, it looks like they will be addressing AI-generative art issues in upcoming reports:

"The first Part addresses the topic of digital replicas -- the use of digital technology to realistically replicate an individual's voice or appearance. Subsequent Parts will turn to other issues raised in the NOI, including the copyrightability of works created using generative AI, training of AI models on copyrighted works, licensing considerations, and allocation of any potential liability."​
No problem, yeah it's a continuing process atm. Honestly probably going to take Congress to pass a law to really fix the issues with generative AI and copywritten material.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top