Posted on July 31, 2026 Posted by 38 Comments
Back in February I did a long post about “AI” and why I wouldn’t use it for my own writing, and one of the reasons I gave was “the fact that ‘AI’-generated text is not copyrightable and I don’t want any issues of ownership clouding my work.” Well guess what? A hot and buzzy debut novel has been pulled from publishing and film/TV consideration over concerns that “AI” was used to make it. Here is one of the relevant bits from the article:
“Basically, questions were raised over whether the author used AI as a tool in the writing of the book. The problem: publishers and movie companies may not be able to register copyright and come away with a clear title chain if there are certain AI elements in the mix. That’s because AI-aided copy is an amalgamation of many other copyrighted works.
“From what I’m hearing, this will be an important teaching moment for writers with aspirations to become serious bankable authors. The lesson: stay the hell away from AI.”
Am I feeling smug about having called this six months out? Yes, a little, but mostly not. I don’t deserve credit for noting this would be an issue because it was already a clear legal point: “AI”-generated work is not copyrightable, so if you have any “AI”-generated work in your material you open the door to legal issues. But also, the concern here is slightly different: The issue appears not to be that “AI” material isn’t copyrightable, the issue is that “AI” is trained on copyrighted material, so prose generated from it could be contested by the original copyright holders.
Now, from a practical point of view this could be a stretch to prove unless the “AI” farts out entire paragraphs of prose unaltered from its training material (which, to be clear, it can do and has done), and those end up in the finished book. But if you’re a lawyer for a publisher or a film/TV production house, even the hint of possible legal entanglement is enough to raise the shields. It’s already in contracts for both film/TV and for publishing houses that the author attests their work is wholly original, so, again, any hint that anything is other than that brings things to a screeching halt. As we have seen.
This is a situation that is now always on the table for writers, particularly newer writers with no track record and nothing available for publishers and producers to judge their work against. How do newer writers fight against an allegation of using “AI” to write their work? Publishers and producers are now trying to vet new work with “‘AI’ checkers,” but the problem with those is that they are also “AI,” and they are unreliable as fuck, so we’re back to where we started. It’s a bad situation. Not great for any writer these days! But again, especially so for newer writers without a backlog of pre-“AI” material at their disposal that can, at least, show the writer was already writing without assistance for years.
And in fact, as I note above in the attached Bluesky post, I think that for the reasonably near future, it’s possible that older works — ones written prior to, say, November 2022, when ChatGPT made its public debut — will become more desirable for film/TV optioning and adaptation, because they were clearly written without “AI” assistance, and there is a clear chain of title when it comes to copyright. Why bother with new stuff you can’t be confident about? Or, if you are going to bother with new stuff, you’re going to go to the new stuff from the writers who have lots of old stuff (i.e., could obviously write without “AI” assistance). If they have a long-standing and public “No-‘AI'” stance, so much the better. Which is great for writers like, uhhhhhh, me, and don’t think I’ve already suggested so to my film/TV reps. But, again, it’s not great for newer writers.
Which is unfair. It’s not fair that newer writers will have to prove (to a larger extent than more established writers) that they can actually write, and that what they’ve written is actually their own work, not the result of a prompt. It’s especially unfair when the makers of the tools writers use to write — I’m looking at you, Microsoft and Google — are frantically stuffing “AI” tools into the programs writers rely on. No, Microsoft, I don’t fucking want Copilot to “help me write” in Word, and no, Google, I don’t fucking want Gemini to “help me write” in Google Docs. The very fact these “AI”s are hovering around my writing at all is bad enough from a provenance standpoint. These “AI” tools are making it harder for all writers in this regard, not easier.
I don’t think at this point in time anyone is ever going to accuse me of using “AI” to write anything; I’ve been loud about it long enough, and have a long enough publishing history, that it’s clear that I don’t and won’t. But how will a newer (or lesser-known and less publicly loud) writer prove their writing is their own? Will they have to use versioning to show progression of the manuscript? Email chapters to their editors as they go along? Revert to typewriters and handwritten drafts? At some point it’s entirely possible that publishers (or the publishers’ lawyers) will require writers to “show their work” with regard to the novels they submit — be able to present concrete evidence that everything they write came out of their brain, and not a prompt.
In any event, the Deadline article is correct: If you’re a writer who hopes to get your work into film and TV, or grab one of those big publishing deals, stay the hell away from “AI.” Don’t incorporate it into your writing process; every part of the process needs to be demonstrably free of any “AI” input because “AI” training data is full of other people’s copyrights. It didn’t have to be this way — “AI” companies could have just as easily trained their LLMs on public domain or licensed material instead of grabbing pirated works and letting God sort it out — but what they should have done and what they did do are two different things, and we have to live in the now. And in the now, “AI” inputs are inherently untrustable, from a copyright perspective.
Don’t incorporate “AI” into any part of your publishing process, either: Don’t use “AI” editing, don’t use “AI” art, don’t use “AI” translation, don’t use “AI” anything that calls into dispute whether your work is actually yours. Using “AI” cover art, for example, will immediately call into question what else in the book is “AI.” Every other aspect of the book is implicitly tarred with the same “AI” brush. When I say that I have it in my contracts that I require every aspect of my book production to be done by humans, it’s not just because I want to honor human work and input. It’s also because I’m protecting my own reputation by doing so.
Just… don’t use “AI,” okay? Take comfort in the fact that millennia of writers and authors and storytellers got along just fine without it and you can too. None of them were so special that you can’t do what they did. And this way, if a lucky break comes your way and a publisher or film/tv studio wants to throw literal millions of dollars at you, you will not have given the legal department an easy way to back out… and you will not have a reputation (deserving or otherwise) for not being able to write.
Or a reputation for wasting everybody’s time. That reputation will follow you, for sure.
— JS