There is no doubt that many creators recognize the competition from GenAI as an existential threat. In the U.K., a survey released in January 2026 by the Society of Authors, the Association of Illustrators and other creator organizations found that around a third of illustrators and literary translators, and more than half of photographers, had lost commissions to GenAI. Among the authors, more than 85 percent reported decreased earnings and feared that GenAI could imitate their style. Also in January, the French division of Harlequin, which is part of publisher HarperCollins, announced a trial with an AI translation company. According to the Association of Literary Translators of France, the trial saw translators’ contracts being terminated and replaced with lower-paid work editing AI-generated translations.
The current landscape is particularly difficult for emerging authors, Eli Keren, a literary agent and chair of the U.K. Association of Authors’ Agents sub-committee on AI in publishing, told me. It’s difficult to break out when magazines, competitions, literary agents and online retail platforms are flooded with AI-generated work. This year’s Commonwealth Short Story Prize became mired in controversy after speculation that one of the winning entries, Jamir Nazir’s “The Serpent in the Grove,” contained AI-generated text. (After an investigation, the Commonwealth Prize decided it was satisfied that AI was not used to write Nazir’s story.) More established writers are affected too: Bad actors are releasing copycat AI-generated books on the same day as highly anticipated novels and biographies, Keren explained, to trick readers and steal book sales that they have not earned and do not deserve.
Earlier this year, Grammarly, a platform that claims to improve people’s writing, launched a short-lived GenAI tool that provided editorial feedback in the style of famous authors, including writer Stephen King, historian David Abulafia and journalist Julia Angwin. Angwin is now leading a class-action lawsuit against Superhuman, the owner of Grammarly, in the Southern District of New York. “I have worked for decades honing my skills as a writer and editor,” Angwin said, speaking about the case. “I am distressed to discover that a tech company is selling an imposter version of my hard-earned expertise.” But Angwin’s case is not based on copyright infringement. This is likely because an author’s literary style is not generally protectable under copyright law, despite it being the essence of what makes their works unique. Instead, Angwin claims that Grammarly infringed the privacy and publicity rights of her and many other authors by appropriating their names and identities for commercial purposes without consent. But not all jurisdictions offer these so-called personality rights, meaning protection of this nature for authors is patchy.
If these forms of market dilution, which result from the mass theft of creators’ works, are not recognized under copyright law, this raises urgent questions about the purpose of copyright in the age of AI, what it can protect and the future of creative labor.
Faced with these gaps in protection, some creators and legal experts argue that copyright law is no longer fit for purpose and needs to be reformed. Yet there’s no guarantee that reform will make things better for creators.
You must log in or register to comment.
- 1 day
Copyright hasn’t benefitted creators in centuries, it’s for publishers who then gatekeep the money from the vast majority of creators.
But even then it was never really meant to be a “welfare system” for creators, but a way to incentivize creators to keep creating by allowing them a short term boost in income while they create the next thing. Create one popular thing and never have to create again as well as your kids and grandkids never having to contribute to society was never meant to be the point.
- 2 days
Copyright (and IP laws in general) is a means to capture parts of the market and is antithetical to producing a rich and vibrant culture. It artificially sequesters ideas away preventing a communal refinement and growth of those ideas. It’s commodifying nature corrupts creativity in pursuit of fiat.
I don’t like AI as a tool. It’s got a lot of problems, including it’s extortion of society’s creatives in pursuit of a diluted simulation of creativity–one which, as of yet, cannot produce something intrinsically new.
The solution to both of these is to remove the capitalist incentive and reprioritize society’s interests in the needs of the people. When creatives don’t have to rely on artificial limits of the market in order to stay alive and we can move to a system where creatives are free to create, not merely eek out moments of creativity between employ then they will be free to actually create–all of them, not just the lucky few. When the machines are decoupled from their own need to make money and are turned away from the simulacra factory toward covering essential, but boring tasks (and we’ve addressed the ecological disadvantages) then people will be further empowered to pursue creative interests.
Creativity should be bountiful and belong to society as a whole. It should not be a job–in part because we should build a future where jobs are optional. It should not be siloed into one mind for life plus 4 generations or trapped in an organization only to be checked out temporarily to boost profits.
2 daysActual artists have been fucked over by copyright since its invention. Copyright, patents, and intellectual rights were created under the false pretense that it “protects the little person”, but these are lies told by the rich and powerful to keep themselves rich and powerful. Time and time again, we have seen how broken the patent system is, how it is impossible to not step on musical copyright, how Mark Twain, Sonny Bono, and Disney has extended copyrights to forever, and how the megacorporations have way more money than everybody else to defend those copyrights and patents. These people are not your friend, and their legal protections are not for you.
All content is remixed and remastered, so I don’t really see a point to copyrights at all. Anything that relies on copyright are a part of incredibly incredibly oversaturated industries, so people should just make what they are passionate about, and not worry about whether some dude decides to rip it off to create some other thing. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all. Jazz musicians certainly don’t give a shit, and people have been stealing the Amen Break for decades.
People are too damn concerned over trying to be rich and famous from whatever idea they foolishly think is unique. Every melody has essentially already been created, and if it hasn’t, then AI and LLMs will take care of the rest. Create art because you like to create art.
If the rich end up dismantling their own IP shield that has existed to enrich themselves for centuries in the name of AI progress, I’m going to call that a win.
The problem is not AI. It’s the work-to-live death spiral. Install UBI and abolish copyright.
- Melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish2 days
The fucked up thing about AI right now is that AI companies get to act like we’re in a post-copyright world, pirating from literally everyone, while the rest of us are still stuck in copyright hell.
I think intellectual property as a concept is bad, but I think that as long as it still exists companies need to be held to task when they flagrantly violate it. It needs to be enforced universally, or not at all. I don’t think it’s realistic that the rich will dismantle IP in the name of AI progress, I think we’re just seeing what we’ve always known which is that money lets you get away with anything.
The fucked up thing about AI right now is that AI companies get to act like we’re in a post-copyright world, pirating from literally everyone, while the rest of us are still stuck in copyright hell.
That’s the double-standard that they always upheld. Two large companies play by the rules. A small artist always plays by the rules when faced with a large company’s copyright. But, one large company stealing against a small artist? The company steals anything they want, as long as they can get away with it.
Marathon vs. Antireal is a prime example. They steal her artwork and style, put it in the game, and get away with it. The only reason they settled and paid her was because:
- They got caught
- The evidence was obvious
- The bad PR was affecting their sales
If any of those weren’t true, they would have gotten away with it, stolen it outright, and not paid her at all.
No AI involved in any of that. No need when corporations already held the power for centuries.
I don’t think it’s realistic that the rich will dismantle IP in the name of AI progress
I think they’ll accidentally do so, by creating so much from AI and a judge declares that it can’t be copyrighted because X% is AI generated, and existing precedent already required human input for copyrighted material.
- 2 days
You may be interested in the 4 part series “Everything is a remix” by Kirby Ferguson.
- Zedstrian@sopuli.xyzEnglish2 days
While I already didn’t like CGP Grey for multi-striking a reaction channel, monetizing the ability to comment on his videos, and exploiting the algorithm with clickbait title and thumbnail changes, locking old videos behind a paid membership is astounding.
Well, that’s a damn shame. I guess I’ll have to find a different source for the history of copyright.
- Zedstrian@sopuli.xyzEnglish2 days
Someone has at least archived Grey’s video here, though Grey’s actions have put me off watching any of his content.
I replaced it with a Patricia Taxxon video, so fuck Grey. He seemed to not get the point of his own damn video.
- 2 days
They say it might not be good for authors. It definitely won’t be good for readers.
