Is This THE END Of A.I. For Publishing Books On Amazon KDP? Watch This Before Making Books With A.I.

Baloney! AI just has become public. There's no telling how companies and government has been using AI up to this point.

Amazon kdp is a dictator. They do as they want. And don't explain their actions.

Great video thank you. I would I've to know more about this topic.i published a book and really been disappointed by what the publisher house promised and the end result. Soo I would live to learn about this further. Any advice??

This is getting creepy. Woman just posted about fake book under her name and it stole her data.

I don't mind if AI assists creative people, but too many get rich quick schemes encourage people to rely on AI to do all or most of the work for them. That's a lot of trash being uploaded to Amazon, that consumers need to wade through to get to the quality, human thought out, skilled content.

An original work is an original work: Nothing can replace an original work.

They are clearly using copyrighted works to train their LLMs. You can get Midjourney to recreate Disney and Marvel characters. Let's not pretend it's not using copyrighted materials and doing it blatantly. The founders of these companies belong in prison.

I found that these days Amazon KDP is already asking if a book was written with AI. It says either AI written or AI assisted. If a book is only AI assisted you are not obliged to tell Amazon, but if it is written, even in parts, with AI, you‘re obliged to tick the relevant box. What happens then, I don’t know, I‘ve just seen it. By the way, I‘m talking about Germany, no clue what it’s like elsewhere.

I've said it before but using AI to generate stuff for profit is like potential fraud. Surely there must be tons of similar stuff being sold online. I think it will come back to bite us in the arse. I'd possibly use AI to help me with my ideas but it will be my own work.

Thank you for this very thoughtful commentary. I think you make good points. Cheers.

I was one of the artists who supplied pictures for Shutterstock. And then they started screwing us. Payed less and less. Other stock sellers followed when they saw how much less was possible. Now prices for stockphotos are bottom deep. I don't do stockphotos any longer. So, no, Shutterstock is not the good guy. It just wants to protect its financial interests.

I hope AI art creation fails

It seems that it is not AI thats the problem but the lack of good prompts that inserts the human part.

Why have AI-generated movies and games not been in violation of copyrights? Why only AI-generated books?

You don't know what you're talking about.

It doesn't seem like any of the people who sued won their cases!

I guess for people who want to use AI generators, they’ll have to realise that their going to end up ‘cannibalising’ each others work, when prompts yield indistinguishable results, or the recipe for a perfect prompt / generated work, will be widely distributed

Affordable? Because it's stealing other author's ideas, words and phrases. I'm here for all the lawsuits. And btw the books on Smashwords 100% are published and are copyrighted. And the books aren't all free....in fact, most are not free. And yeah...authors did NOT give permission for their work to be scraped. At the very least, books should be labeled AI generated or Human generated.

I tell you what will happen. The people suing might win in the sense that courts might rule they used the content for training. Those suing might get a small payout (by small I mean in the big picture sense). And the companies might get a fine. If they are lucky. But more likely it will be ruled as fair use

Copyright laws have gotten out of hand with the internet age. Images, blocks of texts should all be made public domain, with uniqueness added in the overall composite work which is copyrighted. Otherwise it will become a morass of lawsuits left and right, and really no one wins (except lawyers), with creativity shot to hell. Using mages and text scraped from the internet should be considered fair use, as long as a new synthetic work is generated.

One way to possibly avoid watermarks and copyrighted images in AI generated images and art is to 1. use your own sketches and photographs as image input and 2. specify that generated images must not use any other existing images and 3. inspect the generated images for exceptions.

AI has the potential to make authors obsolete. Go bye writing for anyone and KDP.

Si se paga la suscripción de una IA que dibuje ya con eso se entiende que pagas los derechos....ellos deberían resolver eso no los crean un producto final o posterior al usar las IA

i hope amazon begin terminating users that upload AI coloring books. only saturating the market with mistakes and low quality work.

AI is here to stay. What it becomes is up to us.

Really enjoying your content. I have recently started my KDP journey. I too am based in Australia and finding that I cant publish in full colour in Australia. Is this correct or am I missing something. Thanks in advance.

As a newbie self published women’s fiction author, I appreciate your research and time into this! Can’t wait to watch your other videos!😊

Their cases will fail because AI did not publish the books to make money. What is web scraping, it is burglarizing a website for its content. I say burgling, but it is not illegal.

What can they prove, that OpenAI went into a locked vault and stole private data, or did it use data that was in open space on the digital net. Copyright allies to physical books, there is nothing physical about AI, It is all digital and there is no digital law covering information retrieved online. Where did AI get the information? Did the digital information contain embedded copyright disallowing digital copyrighting, NO?

Book reviews can come from anywhere and so you are suing because AI efficiently goes out and finds all reviews that have been written and then organizes and presents to the person asking and that is a violation of the copyright? In that case, the whole internet is a violation of the copyright because this did not just start.

As far as unpublished information, not officially copyrighted, and that matters, what can they complain of, their works don't actually exist, and no one knows the material or the author, so the site was web scraped, so what? Where is the law broken? No law was broken.
Regarding images and all other copying going on. AI training is simply copying material and nothing of its composition. It is one of the millions or even billion used to train AI.

Text-to-image is a primary use. I input a few words and a picture is made. If you want the picture to look like Rembrandt you input that and the picture comes out looking like some Rembrandt might have painted, but here is the key point, Rembrandt did not make the picture, it is an original piece. The Getty case is unusual, /as I said web scraping is not illegal, no one pays anyone to allow them to web scrape, because a person can web scrape regardless of what the web scraped site desires. Now, how has Getty been harmed? Have any web-scraped materials been sold for commercial gain? Very doubtful that would be illegal.

I must admit as a user it has become clear to me that I am seeing signatures on creations I make.

Before hearing you, I figured it was some crazy writing part of the output. What is stunning, I input text of my own thoughts and get some crazy-looking thing out and it has a signature, so I now think this belongs to someone? No way! My words just created this.

However, as I think, I use models and the models pull from the material of the AI and put together that response according to my request. There is nothing illegal, civil or criminal, they are wasting money.
I am not an attorney I have studied Copyright Law I am a user of ChatGPT and am currently studying ChatGPT formally.

I am firmly on the side of AI not being the problem. As usual, it's people who should be feared.

No one has to pay to copy. No one has to pay to copy a style. Art is like dancing. Everyone dances and everyone is doing the same dance, they are copying that dance, and they put their flourishes on it and no one pays the person who invented the dance. I do not agree with your proposition.

Copyright protects original works, period. If someone comes up with something similarly written unless it is completely plagiarised, then it is dissimilar and no harm has happened to the original art.

TikTok is not a reference, they are a Chinese company, and their ability to follow the law is questionable.

TikTok Lost a lawsuit does not make them the seminal case on the subject, or we'd have to ban tape recorders, tapes, and all recording devices for people not making recordings for sales.

Well, now it's clear you are against using AI to assist in writing. That is your right, what is not your right is to say it is wrong for people to pursue their happiness. OK. I'll write a book, use AI, and sell it myself to my audience, and if they like it, they like it.

Do I have an obligation to tell them AI assisted in writing this book and may have stepped on toes? No, I do not have that obligation. My obligation is to my audience and to make them happy, that is my primary concern, they don't care if AI is part of the book, no matter whose spirit was violated.

Quick story and then I am done. From a child, I have always liked the name Leo Tolstoy. I have never read anything he has written. So, when ChatGPT came out, it was said you can write in the voice of a famous author.

So, I write a lot of political stuff, as you see, so I did one comment and put it to GPT to give it the voice of Tolstoy. I read what I wrote in Tolstoy's voice and my mind was blown, the words seemed to come alive, to pop, to have more meaning, in other words, my voice was small compared to Tolstoy's.

Now, these are my words, but the program arranged to have it said in a way Tolstoy would say. Well, they took that away. I could no longer get Tolstoy's voice, but I learned a lot about what goes on inside ChatGPT.

Microsoft gave them a billion dollars earlier this year investing in the technology so, despite protestation ChatGPT is here to stay. And based on what I have heard from you today, you haven't a minuscule idea of how huge this AI industry is.

Start-ups galore. Tons of AI companies and I know this because I have a list, after surfing for an hour I still didn't get further than the surface of the companies out there. Like you said this actually isn't new, and a lot of people were ready to do it when the ChatGPT phenom broke out.

I personally do not have an issue with AI. Ive only dabbled with bard just to see the hype. On the other hand..I feel it's necessary to have some sort of regulation around this due to abuse and the potential of AI taking over corporate structures. Just realize with this technology and ease of creating things that normally take weeks or months to create and the appeal of "I want it now" and easy money...should realize that nothing comes this easy that doesn't come at a cost later down the road.

I agree to use original content. In my opinion, I believe AI is dangerous and unethical on many grounds. It will replace so many jobs and so many people will suffer due to AI.

I can't wait to make big money out of this before it is over. I am being denied opportunities in what I studied for on skin color. I need to make a lot from AI.

I see so many gatekeeping video these days

I can Use AI to help me write a book , that expresses my opinion about something.
You are going to say I can’t do that?
I can’t use Ai for ideas, structure, arguments,suggestions , and conclusions ?
Why not?
Because I was no previously a writer?
Isn’t that like saying you can’t take pictures of Landscapes, because landscape depictions were started in early painting.
So if you are not a painter , you shouldn’t be able to sell landscape prints on the art gallery?
Thanks to technology I am a artist photographer, a Illustrator, a Accountant, and now a book publisher.
Why are people so angry when this things are democratized by technology,?
All artists copy from somewhere or someone.
They are not devine creators.
Every style has some of this author and some from that author.
Are you paying the people that inspired you?
Well you should!

I hear you, but the AI is not copying copyrighted works. Copyright applies to an individual work. You cannot copyright a style. The laws need to catch up with the tech.

It needs to die. It used by lazy no talent people and it’s making all our hard work f ing pointless

I think first we need to work on generating OG work, and then train A.I on our created work & style. I this gives some sort of solution for copyright problem.

What the heck is up with this video???? Are YOU AI generated???? Freaky as hell!

Bravo. AI also scrapes original ideas and plot paths.

I don't think you could have possibly made a video that misses the mark more, So what about the new Adobe Firefly and Photoshop using AI with generative fill for example are you going to deem these generators as part of the same group, Lets face it the AI ship has sailed, The horse has bolted, Pandora's box has been opened there is no going back. All this fighting progress is just wasted energy as long as the AI output has changed to an extent to meet copyright criteria then there is honestly no issue and it's the responsibility of the end user to check, Remember AI art generators are only a very small niche within the AI world everyone seems to be shouting into the abyss. The World is not the same as it was even 12 months ago.

The thing is how is this different from writers , artists and photographers copying styles forever. I went to the art institute back in the 90’s. You are taught others techniques as part of the curriculum. Working as a freelancer, almost every artist I know, says give me an example or examples of a style you had in mind or a combination of styles. Then the artist references said images and mixes in their style , and that’s how most including me developed our own style. I certainly know people are frustrated as am I as freelancing is way down, because it’s become so easy to create works that will do the job for you, I just don’t see how now that Pandora’s box has been open, they can close it again. I actually enjoy creating art and writing as well, but I’ve always leaned on someone more talented to help give insights to improve and I think there are two ways of viewing art. On one hand I enjoy the process and the struggle is a part of that and what makes it rewarding. I also enjoy going to a museum and studying to see how did the do that. If AI has killed anything for me it’s the latter. People that solely use AI aren’t artists, their opportunists, looking solely to profit and I don’t care how carefully written your prompt is, you wouldn’t be able to paint like Michael Angelo. So that is annoying. Yes. Any person that trained for years to improve at any craft, and then had it become the push of a button would be upset. It’s certainly interesting, I’m more interested now to see how they will say they can tell it was made in AI. It’s like antivirus software and viruses. Viruses are always a step ahead. I certainly don’t condone it and learned for many years off of that old school way and still do. Interesting conversation for sure and good points.

For me you should only be in this industry if you have a passion for writing / art and want to publish your own work. Losing your imagination is disastrous for humans. Use it or lose it. I write and illustrate my own picture books and there is no way AI could produce the level of detail in my imagination.

I think a big problem is also that you can't really charge for AI content as it is not copyrightable and as soon as you upload it, anyone can take it and use it to their own means.

In my opinion AI should NOT be allowed to make books. The problem with this is because AI works by searching out other things and then meshing them. Therefore its doing 'adaptive copying'. That's for sure going to have problems. So its going to come up, the question of 'how adaptive and changed from the original is OK, and how much isn't?'

Great content as always! Thanks for sharing!

I come from the children's literature/art world. I steer clear, and I'm glad many of my peers are engaging in lawsuits (Sarah Silverman is suing as is a host of others, some as a class action) One of the people I follow, knowledgeable on the subject is Susan Kaye Quinn. She's a former NASA scientist who writes in the Hope punk genre, and is quite informed on the subject. Thank you for this post.

One thing that I do to help with this, even before finding out AI's were getting sued, was I would always take any AI-generated writing or image and edit them. I feel personally that if you do this it would lower your chances of getting in trouble. Thank you for your info.

Thank you for talking about this❤

One statement you made is not accurate:

"In terms of media and art, it's not just about blatently copying someone's work. Even if you are wanting to create something 'in the style' of someone else's work, or a particular artist, you are actually required to pay a commission to that person or license an image from that person."

Legally there is a difference between derivative and transformational works. This means you are allowed to create new works which even bear some resemblance to a specific copyrighted work. Creating a work 'in the style of' a particular artist or author would not be considered copyright infringement unless it could be proved that the new work was a sufficiently unmodified version of an already copyrighted work.

"Embodied in Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act are four elements courts must consider when determining whether fair use is an adequate and applicable defense: (1) the purpose and character of the work (i.e. the extent to which the work is transformative, not merely derivative of a earlier work), (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." (cdas.com)

In a written work this can be much easier to determine, because you can examine the words used and compare them to the original. You can come to a very accurate conclusion as to the amount of deviation. You can even do an analysis based on the structure of the work, for example a chapter-by-chapter or story plot comparison. With something like a digital image or a painting, this comparison can be much more difficult.

This doesn't mean that no AI Art can be deemed as copyright infringement. It most certainly can be if it is sufficiently close to a copyrighted work. But just the fact that data from multiple existing copyrighted works was used in the creation of a new work would not alone hold up to the legal definition of a derivative work.

"Courts have distinguished infringing derivative works from transforming fair use by requiring that the new work must “supersede the objects of the original creation…altering the first [work] with new expression, meaning or message.” A derivative work is one that merely 'recasts, transforms, or adapts an original work into a new mode of presentation.' " (cdas.com)

Great research. Thanks for sharing ❤ I think we could use AI for ideas but we should always use our own work. ✍️
Please continue sharing which companies are like Shutterstock. It’s nice that they respect copyright material.

Thanks so much for your input and sound advice. Much appreciated 👌