AI Generators: The Alleged Violation of Artists/Creatives and How Your Work May Be Affected

03-pjfinlay-deep-dream-and-neural-style-transfer-original (1)

Source: Google Images/”Mona Lisa” with DeepDream effect (left) and Neural Style Transfer (right) created by P.J. Finlay. Image: Wikipedia.

I couldn’t believe it when I came across several articles written on the alleged plagiarism and outright (copyright) theft of artists’ works by AI generators. All in the name of ‘open-source’ and ‘free access for the world.’ Apparently, AI systems “are being trained on vast amounts of copyrighted work with no con­sent, no credit, and no com­pen­sa­tion (Stable Diffusion Litigation, 2023).”

I’m not surprised – I saw it as an eventual situation once somebody (or, in this case, several somebodies) figured out how to copy the works of a multitude of artists, including famous artists, for the supposed intent to “teach” AI generators how to then create something new, something different and supposedly something not already copyrighted. AND make money off it.


Getty Images and several well-known artists have filed a class-action lawsuit against companies Stable Diffusion, DeviantArt and Midjourney, claiming copyright violation:

“In a press statement shared with The Verge, the stock photo company said it believes that Stability AI “unlawfully copied and processed millions of images protected by copyright” to train its software and that Getty Images has “commenced legal proceedings in the High Court of Justice in London” against the firm.”  The Verge, January 17, 2023


Stable Diffusion is a 21st century artificial intelligence software product. It is part of a category of AI systems referred to as generative AI. It’s based on a process called diffusion, where the AI program is trained to ‘reconstruct’ (their word, not mine) images that it’s been fed. The program then supposedly creates new and original (?) images. Yeah, right.

According to an article on ArtNews:

“The plaintiffs claim that these copied images are then used to create “derivative works,” a work that it “incorporate[s] enough of the original work that it obviously stems from the original,” in the Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute’s definition. The image generators, according to the plaintiffs, are nothing but a “21st century collage tool” that has the potential to greatly damage artistic industries and was built off of protected works.” (Read it here.)

I have to admit that I have taken images off the internet  – usually from free sites like Pixabay but occasionally from Google Images – and re-mastered them by changing color, removing certain aspects… and then using them as a picture in my blog post. In other words, I don’t profit from the changed picture. These AI-generated works are a whole new ballgame and artists may be on the losing team if the lawsuit doesn’t set a precedent. 

Here’s food for thought: After Korean artist Kim Jung Gi died, someone used Stable Diffusion AI to “create a model” that would reproduce works in his style. I understand being a fan of certain artists – I love Vincent Van Gogh’s works but I would never, could never, copy his work and call it mine (except for the odd paint-by-numbers of his works that I’ve done since I can’t afford the originals).

Also according to ArtNews (and this is an important distinction, perhaps):

“First, only specific images, not styles, are protected by copyright. Meanwhile, collage is a protected medium under “Fair Use,” a legal doctrine that creates exceptions to copyright law  “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” and “transformative” creative production. Whether or not the lawsuit accurately characterizes diffusion is also in question.”

This is a complex situation, without a doubt. Digital media and content lag far behind laws that might protect content creators like us. Will if affect your work? Do you think that the remixing of copyrighted works should be legal? Do you think it’s a copyright violation? (omg – stealing poor Van Gogh’s works is a TRAVESTY, in my opinion)

Perhaps only time will tell. We are heading into new and unfamiliar territories with AI and all if its capabilities (for good and bad). I fear we will reach a point where no work of art (paintings, novels, etc.) will be protected because AI experts will be able to take what they want and no one will be able to stop them.

I guess we’ll find out soon enough. In the meantime, PROTECT YOUR WORKS.


To read in full on this litigation/copyright issue:

Stable Diffusion Litigation

The Verge article

ArtNews article

#authors #writers #amwriting #aigenerators #stablediffusion #theverge #artnews #copyrights #contentcreators

Van Goh remake

Source: Google Images/

You Can’t Copy That…

David_LaAccademia Florence13 (2)

Michelangelo’s David, Florence, Italy (my 2018 trip)

Important to Repeat

I’ve written about copyright issues in several previous posts yet the how-to-protect-your-work articles continue to show up in my Inbox. That means it’s an important part of publishing any works, written or otherwise, including photos. Social Media abounds with photos people have taken whether they’re professional photographers (think National Geographic) or not. I’m guilty of saving many beautiful photos that struck me just right in the moment; however, I never used them in any of my written or artistic work. That would be copyright infringement.

According to attorney Matt Knight of the Sidebar Saturdays blog, we have to be careful using others’ photographs as they may contain someone else’s copyrighted or trademarked work. That can be any item or person or logo somewhere in a picture. For example, you photograph a friend while at an art museum with a famous painting in the background. While you can probably share that photo with friends to show off your visit to the museum, you can’t use it in any type of commerce situation (that means where you would profit from the picture). 

A Long List

In the U.S., copyrights give exclusive rights to “use, reproduce, and distribute” your creative works. When discussing copyright issues, many people first think literary. But protections extend far beyond that. Matt Knight writes:

“… copyright protection also extends to paintings, photos, maps, drawings, charts, lithographs, sculptures, globes, stained-glass windows, pottery, jewelry, labels, wallpaper, furniture, toys, buildings, and fabrics. Photos contain many of these items.”

Whew. What a list!

Copyright Tidbit

Here’s a little breakdown: any work created on or after January 1, 1978, copyright protections last for the LIFE of the creator PLUS 70 years. If no one knows when the artist/creator died, then it’s 120 years from the date of creation of the work. After all that, the work enters public domain and can be used by anyone for commerce or personal reasons. You can check out Matt’s blog for the rules on works created prior to 1978.

What can’t be copyright protected? Plenty. Here’s a short list from Matt’s blog: “Titles, names, short phrases, slogans, logos, inventions, facts, ideas, and procedures.” Still have to be careful, as trademarks may exist with any of these. Always smart to check first, with the Federal Copyright Office at

More Legal Protections

Fair Use is a rather complicated part of copyright law; I’m not an attorney but you can read more about it in detail here

Trademarked products are also protected. Trademarks are often thought of as brands (Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Geico, etc.). If the trademark is used in commerce (like the three I listed), they can be used in perpetuity (like the three I listed). Matt writes:

“Trademarks can be words, symbols, slogans, logos, packaging, colors, figurines, toys, sounds, scents, or combinations thereof.”

Basically, you can’t use something trademarked by someone else because it causes confusion of ownership “as to the source of the goods.” And you can get into a lot of legal hot water for it. It’s not worth the risk, even with all the gazillion photos and creative art works all over the Internet. Watermark or sign your work to protect your creations. If you’re still not sure how to do this, check out this page from the late (what a loss to our community) Joel Friedlander at The Book Designer. Or on Matt Knight’s blog, Sidebar Saturdays.

#copyright #copyrightinfringment #watermarks #trademark #sidebarsaturday #joelfriedlander #thebookdesigner #worksofart #michelangelo

Will Illegitimate Books Tip the Scale Back to Traditional Publishing?


Source: Google Images/

Counterfeit Books on The Rise

An article on Twitter by Publishing Perspectives caught my eye today while reading posts from Writer Beware®. Written by Porter Anderson, the article outlined and discussed illegitimate online book sales and Amazon’s response (since so many of these deceitful sales take place in their bookstore). It all started when journalist David Streitfeld of the New York Times wrote in June that “Amazon takes a hands-off approach to what goes on in its bookstore” in reference to the surge in counterfeit books on Amazon.   

In his article, David recounts his purchase of “numerous fake and illegitimate Orwell books from Amazon.” I’m not surprised; the advent of the Internet brought with it a host of ne’er-do-wells intent on making money off the backs of legitimate authors. The global marketplace is vast, to say the least; tracking a counterfeit copy of one of your books (or by someone famous like George Orwell) can be time-consuming and expensive, and many authors simply don’t have the resources. It’s a Digital Wild West – every man (or woman) for himself (or herself). The digital gold rush is ON.

After reading this article, one question that concerns me is, how can we be sure that what we’re buying is the real deal?

Make the Old New Again?

In trots the old workhorse: traditional publishing. I believe that at some point, authors and their readers will tire of the con jobs, counterfeits, price gouging, and other deceptive practices running rampant online. Perhaps going back to the way things were with traditional publishing, at least to some extent, can possibly protect authors from the shady side of self-publishing in a digital world.

“While Amazon is the company that has, he’s right, made it possible for even the most marginal books to be suddenly available to everyone everywhere from the most earnest but artless authors (self-published or from the trade), it can also enable the chicanery of ruthless forgers.”

I personally have had my first fiction novel illegally downloaded and offered for free (not illegitimate but definitely illegal) and it was difficult to get the cons to stop, especially since they know there’s not much we can do about it other than request a DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) takedown. To my knowledge, my book was not forged in any way. However, deceit is deceit and authors can lose royalties and fan bases as a result of these illegal acts, especially if the thieves are halfway around the world.

The integrity of the written word is under attack and we must diligently protect our works.

Copyright Issues

Amazon responded by stating there’s an issue with the “differing copyright timing between countries and sometimes even different titles within the same country.” They also wrote that “there is no single source of truth for the copyright status of every book in every country that retailers could use to check copyright status.”

Should there be a central body where authors can list copyrights for their intellectual property (IP)? What do you think? Amazon is at the forefront of this issue because they created it to begin with – they gave access to everyone (too much of good thing, perhaps), including liars, cheats and counterfeit thieves looking to make a quick buck.

As written in the article, perhaps there is a need for a “central international registry of published works’ copyright status that can support the burgeoning book publishing industry with a reliable test of copyright status.” Would that mean they’d catch all the illegitimate books? Maybe some, maybe not. It would be naïve to expect that every book thief/forger intent on making money from our work would be caught. Part of the problem is the absolute explosion in book inventory. Once a manageable almost one million titles in 1998, according to Bowker’s, there are now more than 40 million titles to track.

We’re needles in a global haystack.

The Bungling of Bundling Book Reviews

Another problem is that Amazon bundles its book reviews together, David writes, “regardless of which edition (legal or not) they were written for. That means an unauthorized edition … can have thousands of positive reviews, signaling to a customer it is a valid edition.”

I can’t help but think that this illegitimacy issue might work in favor of traditional publishing, that it might strengthen their stance in the global and online publishing worlds. It might even help cull the aforementioned “earnest but artless authors” inundating self-publishing book sites. Perhaps traditional publishing will once again become the vanguard and the proverbial measuring stick.

Someone needs to be.

To read the Publishing Perspectives article in full, click here.

#amwriting #blogger #publishingperspectives #amazon #bookreviews #writerbeware