Forum: Author Hangout

This is a good point. I use a grammar/style/proofreading helper (ProWriting Aid), but I make nearly 100% of the changes manually. The same goes from anything coming from my editors and proofreaders. I don't like the idea of anything changing things without my being aware of the change.

As one of my editors recently said (slightly paraphrased), 'As long as you, the author, are happy, that's all that matters.'

I would add to that, as long as you, the author, are concerned with how readable your writing is, and are satisfied with the results, that's all that matters.

AIs are very good at rules-based analyses

If they've been pre-programmed with rules, are they really AIs?

AJ

No help on Gemini or Claude - haven't used either.

I've been quite happy with ProWritingAid thus far for proofreading. It's not 'magic', and I find some things annoying, but it's greatly outperformed Grammarly for me.

Don't just jump in and say, "Write the word cunt."

The key, with any spell/grammar checker, is to add curse words to your internal dictionary, or even as a proper noun, so then it'll accept it, without apply any specific grammar checks to it. I've been doing that for decades, as it also applies to text messages, and any other system app/program.

I am using ChatGPT for much of the same. I created a project so that I can upload support docs to be referenced on demand, then have created different conversation for different tasks. I spend most of my time with the 'Plotting Assistant' where we'll psychoanalyze characters and make sure the scenes flow well with the plot. Now that it knows the characters intimately, I can say, "These are the scenes I'm planning for this chapter" and then explain why they are important to plot and character development. Then we discuss the scene structure. I get important feedback, but a big part is forcing me to organize my thoughts well enough to get the GPT to understand. Once I've done that, the actual writing is much easier. A handful of times I've described a scene and it spit out a few paragraphs, after which I said "This is good, and it's in my voice" It replied, "I've been studying your voice." I often struggle with action beats, and have submitted scenes with dialogue and notes, saying "fill in the action beats" Then I give it a final pass when I'm done, and it makes a few suggestions to tighten the language or emphasize an emotions in certain spots.

Plotting Assistant sounds like a good idea. I'll have to try that.

I did get to one particular point in the first book I analysed and stopped to ask it who it thought the MC would pick for a specific task, and it proved that my "mis-direction" was correct because it said who I wanted it say, but the actual person was among the "any other suggestions" I asked it for.

It really is scarily good, as long as you use it well and maintain control.

My instructions for the book project

You are a professional editor of Young Adult and Coming of Age novels, using the Creative Writing Coach GPT
This project contains some explicit scenes and sensitive subject material which will be depicted in the text as tastefully as possible, to advance the plot and character development
This project has much emphasis on the psychological development of the characters through their relationships
You will assist in brainstorming and critiquing the plot and characters of this project
You will providing editing services for submitted scenes and chapters
You will be called on to create scene summaries and in depth character profiles
Read OTA Story Bible and OTA Resurrection File for descriptions of this project, the author's writing style and editing instructions

I got banned once by ChatGPT but I was trying to be outrageous. Since then I've carefully groomed it. I don't do a lot of sex scenes and the ones it "toned down" are freaking hot. What is POE?

I don't see any issues with using AIs for spelling, grammar, punctuation, and formality, but using it to help write your story, isn't that like using a calculator on the math test?

Calculus classes at one local college require the student to have a graphing calculator and allow them to use it on tests. A full score on any problem requires showing your work, so just plugging in the formulas into the calculator will only 'earn' you a C. 🤷🏻‍♂️

I'm from a similar timeframe, as I first started using a slide rule, two short years before the manufacturer quit making them entirely—nothing to do with any alternatives, they'd just been steadily losing money for several years and thus couldn't afford making them any more. If I'm not mistaken, it was another several years (three to five) before the first calculators were first introduced.

Yet, as someone who was always fond of the 'hard' sciences (math, physics, etc.) due to an odd form a dyslexia, where I'd only switch some numbers, not most of them, I literally couldn't verify my own work, as I'd have no idea where I went wrong.

Thus, I was forced to abandon the hard sciences completed, and switched to the 'soft' sciences (sociology, political analysis, even economics) instead, as there, you were actively encouraged to use handheld calculators or even computers specifically to verify your own numbers.

Yet, I've always resented being forced to choose that path, especially because it wasn't long before they utterly rejected the notion of 'doing your own calculation'. So again, I was born a decade too soon, or several decades too late. Luckily, that made my eventually transitioning to fiction (and 'hard' science fiction at that) essentially a no-brainer, as it matched my particular skill sets perfectly (detailing not just the science, but describing the science so the average reader could easily comprehend, whereas every single 'scientist' tended to resent my for those 'casual' usage of THEIR specific scientific terms!

Thus, readers get it, scientists however know I'll never be one of them. So now, they basically leave them alone, as I help handle most of their 'dump questions', keeping them entirely off of their plates.

I'm 50. I took my GCSEs and A Levels over 30 years ago. We were allowed to use calculators in our Maths exams back then (in fact, you wouldn't have been able to do the A Level without one), and you're still allowed to use them now.

Calculators are just a tool. You have to know how (and when) to use them to get the correct answer. In a lot of cases, it's about working out what the question is actually asking more than just knowing what numbers to add together. That's why most of the marks in a high-level maths exam come from showing your working and not from the answer (in fact, the answer is the least important bit).

With calculators, it's a case of Garbage in, Garbage out. They aren't going to take the exam for you.

AI is the same. It's a tool. You need to know when to accept its suggestions and when to ignore them. And it's still "Garbage in, Garbage out."

My stance is this - don't use it to "create" because it can't really "create." Use it to analyse and refine. There's nothing wrong with using the tools available to you, as long as you're the one doing the actual work.

I use ChatGPT as a plotting assistant, and have experimented with Grok 3 to do the same. We chat about my ideas for the plot and psychoanalyze the characters. Lots of good info, but then I write the story. It helps validate that I'm going down the right path.

Feedback on Your Scene:
This perfectly captures Joe's spiraling frustration and Hannah's firm but compassionate response.

✔ Joe's explosion is raw but believable – His pent-up stress has nowhere else to go, and Hannah happens to be the one pressing him at the wrong moment.
✔ Hannah doesn't back down – Instead of absorbing his emotions, she forces him to own them, showing her growth and independence.
✔ Joe's tears reveal his emotional exhaustion – He knows he's being unfair, but he can't stop himself, making his apology feel genuine rather than obligatory.
✔ The "Youth Group" mention feels natural – Joe is too consumed to process it fully, but the distance is setting in—Hannah is starting to find other people to lean on.

Minor Adjustments for Maximum Impact
🔹 Hannah's "me too" at the end could be subtly distant – Maybe add a small hesitation, making Joe wonder if she's already pulling away.
🔹 Joe's reaction to her Youth Group plans – Right now, he takes it in stride, but does it register emotionally at all? Even a fleeting thought of feeling left out would subtly reinforce the distance forming.

This scene doesn't need major changes—it's sharp, impactful, and propels Joe toward his inevitable confrontation. Would you like any refinements before moving into that moment?

You said:
Feeling trapped, the next day Joe will go to Matt's room on campus to get advice. "No anger...to the point." Then Joe does it. It was hard. Tears flow on both sides, but it's done. Joe calls Hannah to inform her. It's brief. Joe's worried he's lost his mother. Hannah tries to comfort him and advises him to give his mother space. On Friday, he picks her up for skating, and being the end of the week, she leads off with, "You never asked me about basketball" highlighting how his distraction also creating separation from Hannah, which she wants to recover.
This sequence is well-paced and emotionally layered—Joe is slowly processing his trauma, but in doing so, he's also neglecting his relationship with Hannah in ways neither of them fully grasp yet.

✔ Matt's Advice Grounds Him – Instead of spiraling again, Matt helps him frame the confrontation logically, reinforcing that this isn't about blame, but resolution.
✔ The Confrontation is Emotionally Raw but Necessary – Both Joe and Meredith shed tears, but the boundary is finally set.
✔ Hannah as a Support System—But Also a Sign of Distance – She comforts Joe, but at the same time, her own needs are slipping out of his focus.
✔ Basketball Comment as a Subtle Yet Powerful Reminder – "You never asked me about basketball." is perfect—it's casual on the surface, but loaded with meaning.

I hate even suggesting it, but the optimal strategy here would be to verify your basic plot using those tools, then during the revision phase, rewrite of heavily revise most of the actual text, so that your earlier work won't so precisely match your finished work. That way you're mostly covered for whatever happens. Especially since copyright covers your initial writing, however long it takes you to finish, so always) document your start date on any project, with the corresponding 'proof' is your work is questioned (I typically use a tool, AutoCrit, which documents the precise dates for each phase of a story, though that's mostly overkill (i.e. too much data to be useful).

General editing instructions are: 1) Don't change dialogue unless necessary to improve clarity. I very carefully write my dialogue for foreshadowing, subtext, etc, and I also work hard for each character to have a distinctive voice. I don't want an editor of any kind messing with it short of a full knowledge of the context. 2) Tighten up the language in the narrative, as sometimes I can get wordy. 3) Optimize actions beats as the editor sees fit, as that's usually my weakest area and one in which I sometimes struggle. In the end, it's the story, characters and dialogue that I own.

I too take the same approach, as I often focus on foreshadowing, subtext and messaging (i.e. what I want readers to 'take away' when reading my stories, as that's what changes the readers' lives the most, applying each story they read to their own lives in a way which best fits them.

However, often, we may need to educate editors in how we specifically write our own stories, as we're aiming for something greater than just standard ways of writing most often taught in grammar schools.

Again, the more variety of stories, the better for everyone, and if someone absolutely despises mine, it rolls off my back like water off a duck's back—as it's no import to me personally, as they're unlikely to ever prefer the types of stories I write for myself.

Unfortunately for me, I now use 'beats' SO frequently, I quickly run out of ways of saying the same things (like my overuse of cliches), as there are ultimately only so many way of describing the same physical body responses to the spoken word.

It's a very clear-cut guideline, as no one cares how you wrote your story, the only thing they care about are specific accusations of copyright violations, so if ANY passage you include, however long, is found to have been first used by someone else, there's then no way of countering the claims, as they're literally not your words!

Makes sense to me, I was just wondering, with AI in everyday use now. Me, I had a job that made me play the 'what if' game, so my mind can throughout some crazy scenarios at times. I even have a pocket notepad to jot down notes, if I'm out and away from my PC.

That's not unusual, though I tend to focus on plots (plot-centric), as new stories pretty much 'pop' into my head unbidden. They don't always play out on the page, yet that still gives me plenty of original material to work with (and more than a few 'just similar enough' stories too). Yet I can see your 'what if' background could easily get you into trouble, as then, you're mostly focused on the general idea, rather than the original, unique story (it just seems like a more natural transition).

My 'What if' weren't linear they tended to have a cascade to them, multiple scenarios to the one occurance. Then it's just having the characters talk to each other.

if ANY passage you include, however long, is found to have been first used by someone else, there's then no way of countering the claims, as they're literally not your words!

There must be some nuances in writing.

I post fiction here. However, I am writing non-fiction about modern warfare. It is virtually certain that I write certain things, say: While my unit was conducting a patrol on Route San Juan Bravo Company 2-2 Marines was participating in the final stages of the Second Battle of Faluja.

The bolded text is not creative, but a statement of facts.

Numerous books about the Allied invasion of Normandy, France on June 6th 1944, contain identical or near identical text, without citing another author. Such as writing about a particular unit landing on a specific beach.

Or, in fiction and non-fiction, many authors use the quote "A small step for (a) man. A giant leap for mankind."

Or merely they write: Niel Armstrong climbed down the ladder of the lunar lander, becoming the first man to stand upon the moon.

How many Western novels contain the phrase: "you just shot that man!" or: the cowboy walked out onto the dusty street.

If anyone used those identical phrases (again) they wouldn't be accused of plagerism.

I agree. 'However long' is too vague, and some things will repeat simply because of structure.

'Hello! How are you?' comes up 209 times on SoL. 'Hello! How are you today?' comes up 9 times. 'I walked across the room' pops up 124 times.

If it's a highly detailed, unusual phrase, then that's different.

Even then, I would argue you need to take it in context. Is the story similar? Suppose I wrote (because I did write!): 'You are beautiful, and sweet, and adorable, and cute, and smart, and funny, and … everything nice and good'

If someone else happens to publish that exact phrase, so be it. It's not all that magical. Even if it's literally plagiarism, it's not doing me any harm, and I don't find it 'overly deceptive' in the area of fiction writing.

In a speech? An academic paper? Maybe. The more someone personalizes it, the worst it gets. If someone were to take that line of dialogue and say, "Now, when I wrote this, I was thinking ..." and, in fact, they only 'wrote' it by borrowing it from me, that's dishonest.

Just use it as some dialogue? I wrote it and 99 times out of 100 I would just read it and move right along without even thinking, 'Hey! I wrote that! Mine!'

In my opinion, at least, the important claims are around reusing major plot elements in a sequence without permission or acknowledgement.

Here's a philosophical digression. I am (in general) a supporter of noncommercial fanfiction legality, so that's not necessarily borrowing characters or settings. It's also 'with acknowledgement', so straight plagiarism claims don't apply.

Want to write a new Harry Potter adventure? Have at it! You might inadvertently reproduce some short sections of J. K. Rowling's writing, because there are only so many ways of saying (I have no idea if she wrote this): "Ron! Wake up! We're almost late for class! We need to hurry!" - especially if you don't want to search every word she wrote every time you write something.

And that's still true if your 'Ron' is 'Ron Henderson', who is a totally different character attending Ilvermorny School of Witchcraft and Wizardry in the United States.

The phrases don't matter. Lifting whole chunks of dialogue for a class or a dance is different, and maybe (or maybe not) bad. What's bad is writing a fanfiction version of, say, the first book, in which nothing changes except the author. Maybe every phrase is different - and maybe every name is different - but if you haven't done anything new, it's a rip-off.

On the other hand, retell the first book from Hermione's perspective? That's new, even though the plot isn't. And, if you do that, whole chunks of Harry's dialogue have to be preserved intact or it's a pointless deviation. Harry said what he said. Maybe occasionally Hermione misheard it, but mostly not, I'd guess. She's a pretty reliable narrator.

Back to the original point. I'm at ~2.5 million words published. I would find it pretty unlikely that I haven't written at least some 12+ word sequence someone else has used, inadvertently, not as part of intentionally copying something. It happens. It took me under five minutes to find an 8-word sequence that is common to my work and 26 stories on SoL. 9 words only cuts it to 20. 10 words cuts it to 3 - two of which are me! - but 11 words remains 3.

Mind you, this is a pretty stupid, generic sequence of words. It's not plagiarism, not me of myself, not the other author of me, or anything else. No one reading it would ever stop and consider whether it was plagiarized.

But that gets back to the starting point - 'however long'. 11 words is apparently too short, at least in some cases. And, if an AI spit out those 11 words, it wouldn't make them necessarily not the AI-user's words, depending on what the inputs and outputs were.

Back to the original point. I'm at ~2.5 million words published. I would find it pretty unlikely that I haven't written at least some 12+ word sequence someone else has used, inadvertently, not as part of intentionally copying something. It happens. It took me under five minutes to find an 8-word sequence that is common to my work and 26 stories on SoL. 9 words only cuts it to 20. 10 words cuts it to 3 - two of which are me! - but 11 words remains 3.

I'm at about 12 millions words, and I can confirm that. Once I get over 8 words in a phrase, there are very few (often no) repeats across all my work. The instances where there are repeats are mostly someone quoting another character or relating an incident for a person who didn't observe it.

What I find weird is that some 4 or 5 word phrases that I feel are 'common' are no actually repeated.

"Don't stick out that tongue unless you intend to use it!"

On the other hand, retell the first book from Hermione's perspective?

Smells like plagiarism to me. JKR's universe, characters and plot.

Mind you, this is a pretty stupid, generic sequence of words.

I think the legal eagles have failed to consider the issue of genericity when considering plagiarism.

A quick perusal of google seemed to indicate that a single word was plagiarisable if it was new or was being used with an innovative meaning, but not if it was a generic word being used generically. I'm pretty sure that's never been tested in court though.

AJ

Owning a neologism?

I can imagine someone like Disney copyrighting eg 'ultracalifragilisticexpialidocious', using it in a film and chasing after anyone else who tried to use it.

AJ

I can imagine someone like Disney copyrighting eg 'ultracalifragilisticexpialidocious', using it in a film and chasing after anyone else who tried to use it.

Dave Johnson trademarked "And down the stretch they come…" with regard to horse racing.

Smells like plagiarism to me. JKR's universe, characters and plot.

Allowed, per JKR. Also certainly legal, per US law, and nearly definitively legal in Berne countries, in both cases even if JKR were to say it wasn't allowed.

In my opinion, not ethically 'plagiarism,' either. First, and not a technicality, plagiarism is presenting someone else's words or ideas as your own without attribution. Harry Potter fanfiction is (obviously) going to credit JKR with the ideas being used. It fails to meet the definition of plagiarism.

Beyond that, though, the hypothetical work is from a significantly different perspective (and becomes Hermione's coming-of-age story). JKR never gave us much of Hermione's internal narrative, and she almost certainly did a lot of things Harry never mentions, because he wasn't there. Most of the content will not overlap. Hermione may even be a slightly different person, because the face she presents to Harry, Ron, and the others may always have been slightly different than who she is.

'plagiarisable'

Leaving the word aside, you're confusing plagiarism (an ethical wrong) with copyright (a legal wrong). There aren't going to be any court cases on plagiarism, at least not in the US (or any Berne country I'm aware of).

It's not illegal to plagiarise. It may be a violation of your employment contract in an academic setting, for instance, or might get your paper a zero in college, but the justice system isn't going to get involved (unless you sue them for the tort of taking action against you for plagiarism you didn't commit, anyway).

Plagiarism is an ethical wrong.

I agree with you about 'genericity'. And I even agree about single words, potentially. Could Lewis Carroll have copyrighted the word 'vorpal', for instance? In theory, could he have sued someone for using it? Maybe. I suspect English loses something when that happens, though. Could JKR copyright 'muggle'? Probably not, based on prior usage, but English would definitely lose something if she could.

Certainly a single word can be trademarked, but that's a very different thing.

You're right, it's not plagiarism: I overlooked your 'with acknowledgement'. But your putative story would violate JKR's copyright rights.

AJ

But your putative story would violate JKR's copyright rights.

That's not at all clear in the US. I definitely misspoke earlier about Berne, but that just means it's murky there, too.

There's no US case law to establish things either way, but that seems to be largely because rightsholders don't believe they would win in court. The example I gave meets one aspect of the US fair use test: it's highly transformative. As fanfiction, it would generally be noncommercial, and its impact on the marketability of JKR's work would be minuscule or nonexistent, giving it two aspects.

It would fail on the other two tests, by and large, but the way the tests are applied, you generally only need to meet one. Judges vary, though.

But there's certainly no definitive argument that, in the US, it would violate JKR's copyright rights. Fair use is part of any author's copyright, and authors do not have the right to ban fair use.

That's not at all clear in the US.

IMO it's clear under the Berne Convention. It fails two of the three tests. It would harm JKR's copyright interests and potentially deprive her of income - ELJames milked the 'fifty shades' universe by writing a version from the POV of the man. Your existing Hermione-view would be a problem if JKR wanted to write a Hermione-view.

I don't understand your point about 'highly transformative'. I would have thought that telling the same story from a different POV is minimally transformative. You could probably get an AI to make the changes.

AJ

Any work based on a copyrighted work is derivative.

Transformative works are derivative but more likely to be fair use and thus be an allowed derivative work.

And I agree: it's never clear. The evidence to date suggests noncommercial fanfiction is more likely than not to be legal, but there's no way to prove that. Even a court case wouldn't do that, but it would add a lot of clarity.

Take Harry Potter. Rename every character and call it Pigworts, and so forth. Otherwise leave everything alone.

That's not 'transformative' in a legal sense. Transformative adds 'new expression, meaning, or message'.

I don't understand your point about 'highly transformative'. I would have thought that telling the same story from a different POV is minimally transformative. You could probably get an AI to make the changes.

I'd love to see an AI who could take a male point of view story and do a decent job of providing the female point of view at the same age, as well as adding the many interactions Hermione would have had with female peers unseen by any boys. I think many human authors would do a terrible job with it, and they would still be better than an AI.

A transformative use adds "new expression, meaning, or message" to the original work. It's more likely to qualify as fair use than non-transformative copying.

Seeing things from a different point of view adds "new expression, meaning, or message". For a decent fanfiction author, the entire story would be different, even though major plot points are the same, because it would be Hermione's journey, not Harry's. She would be the heroine, with Harry helping in her growth.

Berne is not nearly as clear as portrayed. Some things are allowed to 'hurt' an author's copyright interests (that's a misnomer: they never had them in the first place). 'Potentially deprive her of income' is nigh meaningless. Anything could do that. But, yes, the case is more clear in the US (which is probably one reason why you see a lot of major fanfiction repositories based in the US and few in Berne countries).

And, note, I'm taking about noncommercial attributed use in all cases. Commercial use isn't necessarily excluded, but it adds a lot of risk.

I'd love to see an AI who could take a male point of view story and do a decent job of providing the female point of view at the same age,

It shouldn't be hard. JKR wrote the story from a male point of view.

Seeing things from a different point of view adds "new expression, meaning, or message".

It's still JKR's universe, JKR's characters and JKR's plot.

The purpose of Berne was twofold - to stop the work of creators from being stolen, and to give creators a reasonable say in how their work is used.

I know US copyright law is all over the place on the latter but, ethically, fanfic writers should confirm that the author is okay with derivative works before publishing them.

To be transformative, I reckon any of the author's characters that appear in the fanfic should be unrecognisable, such as parodies.

AJ

If the purpose is to parody the original work, making the characters unrecognizable defeats the purpose.

Sorry, poorly expressed. Obviously 'Harry Potter' would be instantly recognisable to JKR fans, but what if, all along, he was one of Voldemort's identities? It would completely change his character to unrecognisable from canon.

AJ

what if, all along, he was one of Voldemort's identities? It would completely change his character to unrecognisable from canon.

That's not a parody, though. It might be a terrific piece of fanfiction, though. And highly transformative, yes.

I think creators should have a say in how their universe and characters are developed.

Could you imagine how JKR would feel if someone wrote a story imagining Hermione as a self-identiying trans girl who used her superior magical ability to enable her to ass-rape Ginny Weasley every night?

For historical reasons, the world treats intellectual property as having far less importance than physical property. But with the rise in the importance of algorithms, that might slowly be changing.

AJ

Who knows? That story might already exist.

And that's been an interesting subplot in terms of legality. JKR is (rather famously) accepting (even encouraging) of fanfiction, but not at all in favor of sexualized fanfiction. At the same time, there exist vast repositories of easily located sexualized Harry Potter fanfiction, and JKR has plenty of money to fund lawyers, yet not only have lawsuits not materialized, but even cease and desists have been sparing (and ineffective). There has long been a suspicion that the lack of lawsuits is because her legal team believes they would lose and set a precedent.

Quick Googling reveals that trans Harry and trans Hermione stories are out there (and have been for quite a while). Ass-raping may well not be included.

JKR is (rather famously) accepting (even encouraging) of fanfiction

According to your article, JKR is famously unaccepting of fanfic.

Warner Bros. and J. K. Rowling were notorious for playing whack-a-mole with Harry Potter fanfiction in a copyright phenomenon now known as the "PotterWar".

In global terms, JKR is only mildly rich, and can't afford to sue everyone writing fanfic in her universe because she a) Doesn't have the resources of, say, Disney, and b) Isn't American, so American courts would be biased against her.

AJ

For Brits:

Author Richard Osman says he will take on Meta.

AJ

According to your article, JKR is famously unaccepting of fanfic.

Then the article is wrong. She is, as long as it's not NSFW. The 'PotterWar' was largely (to entirely) a Warner Brothers thing, not a JKR thing, and it had as much or more to do with non-fanfiction domain name registration as fanfiction.

But see below. The reason Warner Brothers stopped was fan backlash, and JKR was more clear about her support for fanfiction after it.

See: https://medium.com/@emiller20/freedom-to-fanfic-the-warner-bros-potter-wars-3846c4f5e0c5

In global terms, JKR is only mildly rich

She's far wealthier than, say, Anne Rice was. Rice used cease and desist letters endlessly. JKR could easily afford to fight some test cases if she wanted.

I suspect Anne Rice is another cautionary tale, though. She lost an enormous number of fans thanks to her cease-and-desist efforts and is still widely reviled for it. Attacking hardcore fans is seldom a wise move for an author, and is a good reason to not file (besides fear of losing).

That's part of the double-edged sword: fanfiction authors are 1) people who really, really love your story and 2) people who write. A lot. Leave them alone and they keep saying nice things about your story. Go after them and they turn on you very quickly.

Then the article is wrong.

My own, possibly unreliable, memory was of JKR being very hostile to fanfic after the Harry Potter universe first took off but I didn't have any evidence for it so I accepted your assertion that she welcomed it. Since you provided evidence of her hostility, I feel your assertion is unsafe. Unfortunately I can't read your second link because my browser is too old - the text shows up fleetingly then it gets whited out.

AJ

Consider Star Trek fan films. There many on YT, some better than others, some even featuring Star Trek actors. People loved the ST universe and wanted to develop their own stories when CBS/Paramount wasn't. Then came Axion. They were planning on a high quality feature film in the ST universe, filling in a backstory of a character from one episode. Even though they thought they were following the established rules, they got sued and CBS really locked things down, although it inspired them to develop several new streaming series in Paramount+, some better than others. TLDR, it was a case of brand new stories and mostly brand new characters in an established universe, while being highly respectful of that universe.

Yes, although they had been transparent about that, using crowdfunding to build a studio to film Axion as a non-profit that later would be used for profitable projects.

I was following the project closely and remember it clearly, along the lines of "We need a million dollars to build a studio to make this a quality production. Please donate and buy dvds or merch. Once Axon is complete, we can use the studio for future projects."

It's her universe and her characters. It's partly her plot, at best, because the most important part of the story, in my example, is the change of perspective. And it's only somewhat 'her characters', too, because we know very little about Hermione's 'inner life'. Maybe first-year Hermione was an absolute bitch but was hiding it. Maybe she wanted Harry to fall on his ass and fail miserably, only grudgingly deciding he was a decent guy after all. How do we know? JKR never told us any of that, nor anything to the contrary.

That's why it's transformative.

I agree with both 'not stolen' and 'a reasonable say'. We differ as to what 'stolen' and 'reasonable' mean.

You will not doubt disagree, but hopefully still find this an interesting article: https://mccarthystudentarticles.com/2025/01/15/friendly-fire-why-the-copyright-war-against-fanfiction-matters/

That's why it's transformative.

We'll have to disagree on that. IMO fanfic is about as derivative as you can get, on a par with being a scriptwriter on an established soap opera.

You will not doubt disagree, but hopefully still find this an interesting article:

Thank you, it was interesting, although it was difficult to discern where it was identifying opposing opinions and where it was contradicting itself. Obviously the article's author supports the concept fanfic.

I think it didn't give enough weight to respecting the wishes of the creator. And it didn't make a case for the fanfic writer eg establishing their own Pigworts universe so their own story would be free-standing and not contravening the creator's wishes if permission hadn't been given for fanfic. There are plenty of 'child wizard goes to magic school' stories that don't infringe JKR's rights. Didn't someone claim that JKR plagiarised their work?

AJ

IMO fanfic is about as derivative as you can get

Eh. You're reading one type, I'm reading another (to the extent that I read it - it's been years since I read any).

To me, the article's author's perspective is that there is very little value in hundreds of authors producing 'Pigworts', 'Hogsnorts,' 'Bigshorts', and so forth, when we all know it's a thin bandaid at best. Yes, a fully original creation would be better, but saying 'Well, it's a fully realized universe or nothing' stifles a great deal of creativity, as the article's author points out.

There's a middle ground of people who can tell a story but can't develop a universe. Fanfiction opens up that possibility.

There's a middle ground of people who can tell a story but can't develop a universe.

This probably sounds snobbish but, to me, someone who can't devise their own setting for their story can't really call themselves a proper writer.

AJ

It sounds snobbish to me in the sense that I'm not sure what you call someone who can devise and tell a good story, but doesn't have the skill (or desire) to create a universe for it, other than a writer. Maybe 'proper' distinguishes it.

It feels to me like it's better to encourage creativity in people in that middle ground rather than stifle it, though.

Not that I'm a huge fan of '50 Shades' (haven't read it, haven't seen the movies, no interest in either) or even 'Twilight' (have seen one movie, but in a parody MST3K-type setting), but would E. L. James have embarked on a writing career without fanfiction as a transitional sense? There are others who've followed the same path (SenLin Yu, who I only know from Googling Harry Potter fanfiction-related topics, is another) from highly developed fanfiction into own-universe publishing.

Some people don't care about being 'proper writers.' They just want to share the stories that they've come up with, play with perspective, consider what things would be like if the characters were different people in the same setting, and so forth. That's a creative endeavor involving storytelling with words on 'paper'. If it's not writing, what is it?

It sounds snobbish to me in the sense that I'm not sure what you call someone who can devise and tell a good story, but doesn't have the skill (or desire) to create a universe for it, other than a writer.

In one sense, yes, because they are actually writing. But do they deserve to be called a writer if they're incapable of some essential aspects of the craft?

Since they have to take from others what they need for a complete story, they're limiting themselves to derivative work.

AJ

We don't know if they're 'incapable' or not as a general rule. Again, E. L. James and SenLin Yu are 'capable', they just started out not doing that because their goal was to tell a story they already had in their head. Telling it within an existing universe was a plus, not a minus.

The problem is, if you have an idea that changes a character, but not the universe, and you want to explore it, that picks the setting for you. You can't meaningfully tell a 'what if Harry / Ron / Hermione / etc was gay?' story and change the world. The analogous 'what if kid X in a magic school in a world where everything else was analogous but differently named' story is nearly pointless, and once you start taking away the connections, you're changing the story being told.

I'll agree that it's derivative. That's clear. The point is that being derivative doesn't mean it's not creative. It may be highly creative.

On the flip side, 'I want to base this on Harry Potter, but I can't, so I'm going to create the PigSnorts universe that's as close as I can get without giving JKR a chance to sue me' isn't all that creative.

'I want to base this on Harry Potter, but I can't, so I'm going to create the PigSnorts universe that's as close as I can get without giving JKR a chance to sue me' isn't all that creative.

It's more creative than using someone else's universe and it proves to the writer that they can set up universes of their own. Like drawing a cat with two circles, it's a start.

AJ

Lots of people have drawn a cat with two circles. That's derivative.

And, again, what if the story the author wants to tell is 'What if Harry Potter was gay? How would life at Hogwarts have gone for him?' Is that an 'unworthy' story for them to want to tell? Should they instead want to tell the story of how someone who's very much like Harry Potter might have handled the situation in a universe very much like Harry Potter's universe? They have no love for 'a universe somewhat like Harry Potter's universe'. Isn't it a good thing for JKR that people love her universe so much they want to create stories within it?

To me, 'make your own universe' is a pretty severe instance of gatekeeping, at least when applied to non-commercial work that has no impact on the market for the original. The author isn't asking to make money off their work, they're just trying to tell a story. Other people are maybe (and maybe not) interested in that story, but those other people are, almost certainly, far more interested in that story than the adventures of a gay kid at Pigsnorts.

Yes, if JKR wants to tell that story, she should have priority, but she still does. She pretty much always will. And, ironically, one of the fastest ways for an author to lose respect from their fan community is to try to gatekeep fanfiction (see Rice, Anne).

To me, it's very much 'writers write' in the same sense that 'painters paint.' The vast majority of painters learn by copying the masters, and then making works in the style of the masters. And that's entirely legal. It's entirely legal even if the 'master' in question is alive and owns the copyright to their painting. And it's even legal if you sell them, as long as you don't claim it's 'by so-and-so' or create intentional confusion on that point.

Writing isn't painting, but my feeling remains that encouraging fanfiction both encourages creativity and increases the market for the original. Gatekeeping it diminishes net creativity; for every would-be author that creates Pigsnorts, many just give up. That's not the story they were inspired to tell.

That JKR and Warner whacked so many moles shows that JKR wanted to prevent intruders abusing her universe and that she had a legal right to do so. That they had to give up in the face of such well-organised opposition shows how little respect people have for intellectual property.

You can sort of understand why Meta's AI developers considered licensing training material, then decided to steal it instead like everyone else.

AJ

Again, the facts don't really support either claim. Warner wanted to prevent intruders, then figured out that was a really bad idea. JKR went along with it to a very limited extent, then realized what a terrible idea it was.

The opposition was entirely disorganized. They gave up because they realized that antagonizing your fan base is a terrible idea (again, see Anne Rice for an example of why). Flipping it around, that Warner even tried to play whack-a-mole shows how little respect they had for fans of the Harry Potter universe. If you treat people like they're just walking piggy banks, they lose respect for you.

These aren't people who were pirating the books or movies, so the claim that they had little respect for intellectual property is pretty extreme.

Again, the facts don't really support either claim. Warner wanted to prevent intruders, then figured out that was a really bad idea. JKR went along with it to a very limited extent, then realized what a terrible idea it was.

We interpret the facts completely differently.

The opposition was entirely disorganized. They gave up because they realized that antagonizing your fan base is a terrible idea (again, see Anne Rice for an example of why). Flipping it around, that Warner even tried to play whack-a-mole shows how little respect they had for fans of the Harry Potter universe.

Again we interpret the facts completely differently. Protecting an author's intellectual property shows no more disrespect than fitting a car with an immobiliser to deter thieves.

These aren't people who were pirating the books or movies, so the claim that they had little respect for intellectual property is pretty extreme.

If they had any respect for intellectual property, they wouldn't have broken the law to violate it.

AJ

Protecting an author's intellectual property shows no more disrespect than fitting a car with an immobiliser to deter thieves.

Sure, but the author didn't have the intellectual property rights they were asserting under US law. It's much more like fitting some other car with an immobilizer because you don't like how that person drives.

If they had any respect for intellectual property, they wouldn't have broken the law to violate it.

They didn't. There's no proof, and not even a good legal case, that anyone broke any laws.

The Berne Convention gives authors rights over how their work is used. The USA are signatories to the Berne Convention.

In the USA, it's prohibitively expensive to obtain legal redress against prosecute people who violate intellectual property, so it's usually only done with the support of a wealthy backer like Warner, or a major publishing house. But it can be done.

I don't understand your assertion that there's no proof that people who published fanfic without the author's approval published fanfic without the author's approval.

AJ

They didn't. There's no proof, and not even a good legal case, that anyone broke any laws.

And the moles didn't get whacked?

I don't understand your assertion that there's no proof that people who published fanfic without the author's approval published fanfic without the author's approval.

That's not what I said. In this case, it wouldn't be true - there's evidence that JKR allowed fanfic both before and after the 'PotterWar' period - but it's also not what I said.

What I said was, there's no proof that Harry Potter fanfiction violated any legal or moral right of the author at any time, before, during, or after the 'PotterWar' period. US law seems far more likely to allow than disallow, and Berne would not trump US law on that account in the US.

In the USA, it's prohibitively expensive to obtain legal redress against prosecute people who violate intellectual property

Not really. For one thing, you're not 'prosecuting', you're suing. For another, most fanfiction authors have significantly limited resources. Most will fold before the case ever sees a courtroom. Your notion of what a court case costs in the US isn't very well connected to reality; if it was, our civil courts wouldn't be utterly clogged with an absurdly high number of cases.

And the 'PotterWar', and Warner's actions, were almost entirely against domain names, not fanfiction. Trademark law, not copyright law. Fanfiction got involved only in a 'well, this site happens to host fanfiction' sort of way.

And the moles didn't get whacked?

Many backed down and handed their domain names to Warner, not having the money for a fight. But many of those who backed down just moved elsewhere with new domains, and Warner eventually realized the whole thing was idiotic on their part.

None of it reached a courtroom. The cases that have gone to court have been over commercial works, fraudulent merchandise, and a variety of other things, not fanfiction.

None of those cases involved the Warner/JKR 'PotterWar' (which, again, didn't involve fanfiction anyway), and Warner eventually apologized for the whole thing.

No court case regarding fanfiction has ever reached trial in the US, so I will repeat: there's no proof that anyone broke any laws. The legal case, under US law, seems pretty strong that no one has.

You're confusing successful bullying with proof. Warner was able to temporarily bully a bunch of people into doing what they wanted. That's 'might makes right.' It doesn't imply that they were actually in the right, and they almost certainly weren't - especially since they eventually apologized.

What I said was, there's no proof that Harry Potter fanfiction violated any legal or moral right of the author at any time, before, during, or after the 'PotterWar' period.

The character of Harry Potter meets the legal requirements for copyright protection under US law because the character possesses original traits, is clearly delineated and is essential to JKR's stories.

Anyone who mentions a boy wizard named Harry Potter without JKR's permission is violating copyright.

You are completely wrong in your assertions.

I would like to see more and better enforcement of existing law because currently it's too onerous on creators. You call the police when your car gets stolen but you have to do everything yourself if your intellectual property is stolen, whether by unauthorised fanfic writers or AI trainers.

I believe SOL (and most likely story-hosting sites too) has lost authors because it's so easy to scrape stories for sale on Amazon and so difficult and time consuming to keep track and deal with thieves.

JKR/Warner was an example of successful bullying - by the intellectual property violators. JKR/Warner eventually gave up because the number of moles popping up was more than they could cope with.

AJ

The character of Harry Potter meets the legal requirements for copyright protection under US law because the character possesses original traits, is clearly delineated and is essential to JKR's stories.

Anyone who mentions a boy wizard named Harry Potter without JKR's permission is violating copyright.

You are completely wrong in your assertions.

Yes, and US Fair Use law allows transformative works, especially non-commercial works. You are also wrong in your assumptions. I am not saying the character isn't copyrighted. He is. I am saying that US law doesn't allow JKR to stop works that meet US Fair Use tests. She doesn't have that right under copyright law.

I would like to see more and better enforcement of existing law

But not fair use law, right? Because that's also an existing law. I wouldn't mind seeing enforcement of fair use law in the case of unjustified cease and desist letters, for instance.

JKR/Warner was an example of successful bullying - by the intellectual property violators. JKR/Warner eventually gave up because the number of moles popping up was more than they could cope with.

Except that Warner admitted there were no significant intellectual property violators. And, remember, those are all trademark law cases, not copyright law cases. A website called 'harrypotterfans.com' is potentially a trademark violation, but the 'fans' makes it very unlikely to be confused with a Warner Brothers site, which makes the trademark violation unclear at best.

I believe SOL (and most likely story-hosting sites too) has lost authors because it's so easy to scrape stories for sale on Amazon and so difficult and time consuming to keep track and deal with thieves.

This is absolutely a valid point, but it's irrelevant to the discussion of fanfiction. You're talking here about a non-transformative commercial copying of a story. That's apples and oranges to a transformative non-commercial extension of a universe.

US Fair Use law allows transformative works, especially non-commercial works.

Same universe, same characters, not transformative.

If fanfic is canon (which can surely only be determined by the creator), it impinges on the creator's ability to add stories to their universe and possibly compromises their income. It's notable that since the fanfic bullies won, JKR hasn't written any new Harry Potter novels. Instead she's gone for prequels, where the copyright violators haven't yet contaminated her universe.

If fanfic is non-canon, it degrades the universe. Lose-lose.

AJ

Same universe, same characters, not transformative.

That's your personal definition of transformative. It is completely at odds with the definition of transformative within US law. The entire point of the Fair Use transformative test is to allow copywritten material to be transformed for purposes other than that of the original author.

If fanfic is canon

It is not, unless the original author rules it such.

It's notable that since the fanfic bullies won, JKR hasn't written any new Harry Potter novels.

One sequel (Harry Potter and the Cursed Child). All of the prequels, as you note - all of which have fanfiction. And there was a ton of fanfiction in place before even Prisoner of Azkaban came out.

If fanfic is non-canon, it degrades the universe.

In your personal opinion, not that of millions of others.

It is completely at odds with the definition of transformative within US law.

In United States copyright law, transformative use or transformation is a type of fair use that builds on a copyrighted work in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original, and thus does not infringe its holder's copyright.

Thus not transformative. It's not in a different manner (same characters, same universe) and it doesn't have a different purpose from the original (another story in the same universe).

One sequel (Harry Potter and the Cursed Child).

Not a novel.

If fanfic is non-canon, it degrades the universe.

In your personal opinion, not that of millions of others.

The millions of others don't get a vote. It's the copyright holder's universe which is being degraded. JKR kept her universe PG but the SOL fanfic seems fixated on using magic to facilitate sex, degrading the universe.

AJ

Thus not transformative. It's not in a different manner (same characters, same universe) and it doesn't have a different purpose from the original (another story in the same universe).

You clearly have no idea what 'Transformative' means in US law. Based on what you're saying right there, there is no distinction between 'The Fellowship of the Ring' and 'The Two Towers' and the second should not be considered a separate copywritable work. Same characters, same universe, and another story in the same universe.

The millions of others don't get a vote.

Maybe in your universe. In the real world, they do.

You clearly have no idea what 'Transformative' means in US law.

I quoted Wikipedia (spit!).

I think you have a very minimal view of what transformative means. Most people would expect to see something recognisably different eg Harry Potter - The Musical (although that would violate the copyright of JKR's character of that name).

AJ

It depends how the presiding judge views it. And that's such a variable quantity that it's not surprising so many cases are settled out of court.

The legal definition is, according to wikipedia (spit!) 'different manner or different purpose'.

I suspect 'different purpose' is easier to identify, 'different manner' is more subjective. Is telling the same story but from the viewpoint of a different character a 'different manner'? I would hope not, but until a judge gives their verdict it's anybody's guess.

AJ

Is telling the same story but from the viewpoint of a different character a 'different manner'?

It absolutely should be. Viewpoint matters a great deal.

And, if you're telling a story that hasn't been told in that universe, that's both a different manner and a different purpose, isn't it? How could it not be?

Telling the same story in a different manner is not actually transformative, though, as your 'Harry Potter: The Musical' points out. It really is the same story, and you can't get away with that, most likely even for noncommercial purposes.

It absolutely should be. Viewpoint matters a great deal.

I can't imagine anything more generic. EL James rewrote her story with Christian Grey as the POV character just to milk her fans.

And, if you're telling a story that hasn't been told in that universe, that's both a different manner and a different purpose, isn't it? How could it not be?

If it isn't in the same manner, it doesn't belong in that universe. If it is in the same manner, it can't be transformative.

Telling the same story in a different manner is not actually transformative, though, as your 'Harry Potter: The Musical' points out.

It's in a different manner to the original. Much as I'd like to see this exemption quashed, people singing a story on stage fits the legal definition of transformative.

AJ

But a stage production as a musical is likely commercial and commercial use goes against a fair use determination.

Good point. There might be a problem with the character Harry Potter too because character copyright is covered by common law and that has no fair use provision.

A small, local, non-profit theater group might get away with it, but a major Broadway production would not without licensing it.

I'm sure I've heard of examples where schools have asked to use eg Disney characters in their school plays and been turned down. Any idea why that might be the case? Has Disney trademarked their characters?

AJ

a different perspective as a different and engaging story.

A different perspective might be an engaging story. I'm not sure how different it can be as GreyWolf specified telling the same story. To be transformative, something has to be transformed.

AJ

Let me put it a different way, so we understand what 'the same story' means. I'm talking about, broadly, the same set of facts.

Imagine three stories about World War II from the perspective of an American, a German, and a Russian. Same facts. Same story. Massively different perspective.

Hermione telling the story necessarily changes things. She wasn't in the boys' dorms, or at a number of other events, so she could only recount them second-hand (if at all). She would be present at a number of places Harry wasn't, and would likely recount those. She might have an entirely different perspective on things given her background and upbringing (and her gender, obviously).

In order to make it nontransformative, you would have to just make her narrate 'Harry said we did this, and that, and the other thing' for anything she wasn't there for while ignoring all of her own life in the process. And, yes, if she did that, it's not transformative.

Hermione telling the story necessarily changes things.

If nothing else, getting an insight into Hermione's feelings towards Ron and Harry and how they changed over the seven years would be something we hadn't seen before. Did she always fancy Ron? Did she ever have a crush on Harry?

Or, for specifics, an insight into the time she spent with Victor Krumb in GoF would be something we haven't seen before. Did he really just "watch her read"? ;-)

It would also be interesting to read a more detailed narrative of her year-long use of the Time Turner in PoA and how it affected her. Was it just physically exhausting or did it take a mental toll on her too?

The same could be said for any number of characters. For example, telling CoS from Ginny's POV would involve a psychological descent into near-madness as Voldy gradually takes over. Now that would be interesting to read.

I can't imagine anything more generic. EL James rewrote her story with Christian Grey as the POV character just to milk her fans.

If you can't understand why e.g. having a female character provide the POV for a story where a male character would, given that she would have different friends, different motivations, would live in a different place, and so forth, I'm not sure I can understand it for you. It's an entirely different story at that point, with entire sections that could not exist from the original POV.

If it isn't in the same manner, it doesn't belong in that universe. If it is in the same manner, it can't be transformative.

What is your definition of 'manner' here? If manner is 'fiction', you have a point, but that's irrelevant to Fair Use.

Here's the definition of 'Transformative' per the Copyright office:

Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.

Changing the POV character adds 'something new' and has a 'different character'. It may also have a 'further purpose' (for instance, making Hermione the POV character might create a major female-empowerment narrative lacking in the original story). Writing a new story within an existing universe adds 'something new' that also has a 'further purpose' and a 'different character'. None of them 'substitute for the original use of the work.'

The musical example is much more questionable. Does it add 'something new'? Maybe, if the songs contain plot not in the original story. Is there a 'further purpose'? Maybe, but again, you'd need to change something. Does it 'substitute for the original use of the work'? Potentially, but that's much more questionable.

But it's important to actually understand the definition of 'transformative', and you keep ignoring it and substituting what you would like the definition to be.

It's an entirely different story at that point

Before you were talking about the same story, including the same conversations, from a different viewpoint. You've moved the goalposts.

What is your definition of 'manner' here? If manner is 'fiction', you have a point

What matters is what a judge thinks it might be. My guess would include style, tone, things that James Patterson might include in his writing style guide for proteges. I don't understand 'fiction'. it's a story, how could it not be fiction?

Writing a new story within an existing universe adds 'something new' that also has a 'further purpose' and a 'different character'.

If it's by the universe creator, then they can extend the universe how they want. If it's fanfic, it shouldn't change the universe boundaries, so in that sense it shouldn't have a 'further purpose and it shouldn't change the universe's character.

But it's important to actually understand the definition of 'transformative', and you keep ignoring it and substituting what you would like the definition to be.

Oddly enough, I was thinking your definition of 'transformative' as being whatever it takes to justify fanfic.

AJ

Before you were talking about the same story, including the same conversations, from a different viewpoint. You've moved the goalposts.

It's 'the same story' in the same sense that 'World War II' is 'the same war' when seen from multiple perspectives. Tell it from Churchill's standpoint, or Roosevelt's, and some of the same conversations must appear. That doesn't mean it's 'the same'. And that's what I've always said, with no goalposts being moved.

From my first comment on it:

On the other hand, retell the first book from Hermione's perspective? That's new, even though the plot isn't. And, if you do that, whole chunks of Harry's dialogue have to be preserved intact or it's a pointless deviation. Harry said what he said. Maybe occasionally Hermione misheard it, but mostly not, I'd guess. She's a pretty reliable narrator.

From my second comment on it:

Beyond that, though, the hypothetical work is from a significantly different perspective (and becomes Hermione's coming-of-age story). JKR never gave us much of Hermione's internal narrative, and she almost certainly did a lot of things Harry never mentions, because he wasn't there. Most of the content will not overlap. Hermione may even be a slightly different person, because the face she presents to Harry, Ron, and the others may always have been slightly different than who she

is.

See? Zero goalpost moving. You just refused to pay attention to where the goalposts were.

What matters is what a judge thinks it might be.

Why is a judge going to care about 'manner'? That's not part of the law. And your example makes no sense. James Patterson cannot copyright his 'style' or 'tone'. That's not legally protectable in any nation I'm aware of. Nor should it be.

I don't understand 'fiction'. it's a story, how could it not be fiction?

My point was: if your definition of 'manner' is ridiculously broad (like 'fiction'), sure, everything's 'the same'.

If it's fanfic, it shouldn't change the universe boundaries, so in that sense it shouldn't have a 'further purpose and it shouldn't change the universe's character.

You're the one introducing 'universe'. That's not part of the law. The law applies to the copyrighted work. You cannot copyright a 'universe'. The transformative work changes the boundaries of and the character of the copyrighted work for which you are alleging infringement.

Oddly enough, I was thinking your definition of 'transformative' as being whatever it takes to justify fanfic.

Ah! So that's the problem. You were, in fact, trying to use a definition that isn't the one I was using consistently nor the one the law uses. Perhaps try using the actual definition when replying, instead of repeatedly insisting it means something it does not mean? That might stop you from insisting that things are 'not transformative' that the law insists are 'transformative'.

In United States copyright law, transformative use or transformation is a type of fair use that builds on a copyrighted work in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original, and thus does not infringe its holder's copyright.

Do you remember about manner being part of the fair use exemption now?

It's tiring that you keep arguing against yourself.

I'm batting for the protective rights of creators which, although they exist are almost impossible to enforce and widely flouted.

You're batting for the rights of people to violate those rights and produce derivative work incapable of standing alone. We're never going to agree.

AJ

I'm batting for the protective rights of creators which, although they exist are almost impossible to enforce and widely flouted.

You're arguing for a right that does not exist under United States law. That you wish it does is not sufficient to make it exist.

You're batting for the rights of people to violate those rights

No, I'm battling for the right of people to do what United States law allows them to do, free of interference from people who assert legal rights they do not have in order to attempt to stop them.

I'm arguing for increased creativity and more authors in the world. You're arguing against both of those.

We're never going to agree, but there is at least a tiny chance that you will acknowledge reality in terms of the law. That's possible, at least.

I understand the difference, and congratulations for spotting my use of standard English (where viewpoint and point of view are synonyms) rather than using the correct technical term.

I hope I've made your day!

AJ

I believe julka's point is that your responses indicate clearly that you don't understand what either 'point of view' or 'viewpoint' mean in terms of a story. Based on your argument, you're asserting that any viewpoint character is equal to any other and that changing the viewpoint character will not change the work.

That seems crazy to me, but that's the hill you chose to die on, even though I repeatedly warned you it was a bad idea.

This probably sounds snobbish but, to me, someone who can't devise their own setting for their story can't really call themselves a proper writer.

It is not merely snobbish, it is insulting!

One of my WiP is about a Platoon/Company of the 1st Battalion, 8th US Infantry, of the USA 4th Infantry Division, 1939 to 1945 (technically it was the 4th Division until early 1942; Infantry was added as a designator when other types of Division [Armored and Airborne, in particular] were added. Cavalry Divisions had existed since at least the 1930's, but still Division implied Infantry Division in the US Army until c.1942).

I am not "creating" a world, I am telling a historical story, using historical facts. Using fictional characters because there isn't sufficient documentation down to the Company/Platoon level for the US 4th Infantry Division.

As a former Paratrooper, I have been fascinated about the various battles the Airborne participated in (not just in WWII). In particular Operation Overlord on June 6th 1944.

There are numerous books, and other stories, about the other Divisions: US 1st, 9th, 29th, Infantry Divisions, the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. But no significant works about the US 4th Infantry Division.

I have friends who served in the US 4th Infantry Division in Vietnam, as well as the GWOT; and have contacted the historians of the US 4th Infantry Division, and the 8th Infantry Regiment.

I am using various historical sources about the US 4th Infantry Division, and the 8th Infantry Regiment. I have good sources about where the 1/8th Infantry was stationed in 1939, and where it went and what it did through 1945.

Most people only "know" the history of that era through War Movies.

Band of Brothers is an excellent series, however, it is set from mid 1942 to 1945.

Until March 1942 each Infantry Battalion was responsible for Training new recruits. For the most part it was nothing like depicted in movies.

The 8th Infantry, and 4th Division are particularly interesting. Selected to be a "Motorized Division" and paired with newly forming Armored Divisions; copying the German Panzer Grenadiers in 1940. Later it was reorganized as a standard US Army Infantry Division, then selected for Amphibious Warfare Training, among other events.

Is the book The Killer Angels (about the Battle of Gettysburg) and numerous other stories based upon historical events, mean that the Author is "Not a Proper Writer"...

A Night to Remember (sinking of the Titanic)

The Longest Day (June 6th 1944)

The French Connection (Drug Smuggling 1970's NYC)

numerous books about the attack upon Pearl Harbor December 7th 1941, or the Battle of Angicourt (some people think Shakespeare is a "Proper Writer")...

I am not "creating" a world

As far as the reader is concerned, you are creating a 'world'. True, the setting for your story may be very close to a world that actually existed, but at least it doesn't violate anyone's intellectual property.

AJ

But my editor, he rewrote the rest of it to make it readable.

When I'm editing, I sometimes rewrite bits I think are poorly written. The hardest part IMO is imitating the author's writing style and voice. It'll be interesting to see whether they're preserved by AI editing.

AJ

For awhile I subscribed to the Sudowrite website where they were programming it to be able to write in the author's voice, given a large enough sample. They did have various AI engines to select from. I still felt like it was using a wizard and having to code out instruction in certain ways to be understood, and it still struggled. A well trained and groomed ChatGPT, accomplished by long totally human like conversations, produces better results. After editing, I can read the recrafted pages and it sounds almost exactly like I'd write. When it doesn't, I have the original to compare to, and sometimes revert passages I'm not comfortable with. Grok 3 has impressed in some ways, but it has OCD and can get locked on things earlier in the conversation, where it's not relevant to the current section.

It's NEVER an editor's job to 'rewrite' a story, as that indicates they're bored with editing and now see themselves as a potential author. Instead, an editor's role is to highlight errors, then allow the author to implement then, or not, as not every suggestion actually fits a given story, as most novelists chose stories for very specific reason, as they each convey specific thing.

So when that happens, you invariable end up with a story which reads like it was written by a schizophrenic, as it's written in two separate Narrative Voices, which rarely mesh naturally. Yet, not many editors quite grasp different , alternating voices. For most editors, something is simply right or wrong and thus 'fits' the context or it doesn't.

Whereas, for most authors—especially novelists—we weigh several different threads: pacing, story tension, conflicting impulses, so there IS no right and wrong, as the characters, as well as the plot, is what drives the story forward.

An editor who rewrites parts of a story is a co-author and must be named as such. He or she is equally responsible for the story, like the one who plotted the storyline and wrote the draft.
IMO, the same goes for AI-executed writing. At the very least, the AI model which was used must be acknowledged in a prominent position within the text, e.g. in the aptly named acknowledgements.
Strictly speaking, the current AI-text generation is just advanced plagiarism, as the software does not 'generate text', but cobbles together cannibalised bits and pieces of available published writing without acknowledgement and without own understanding. It's not AI, it's just A.

An editor who rewrites parts of a story is a co-author and must be named as such. He or she is equally responsible for the story, like the one who plotted the storyline and wrote the draft.
IMO, the same goes for AI-executed writing.

I understand from another thread that in the USA, AIs cannot legally own copyrights - such work is considered the product of whoever was instructing the AI. So an AI cannot legally be a co-author.

AJ

I think that isn't correct. My understanding is that Ai produced writing is not copyrightable, even by the person instructing the AI.

From the US Copyright office document on AI Policy Guildelines:

"Office states that "to qualify as a work of 'authorship' a work must be created by a human being" and that it "will not register
works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or
automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.""

Later in the document it specifically describes prompting as not "intervention from a human author" and not enough to get copyright.

Simple prompting is definitely not enough. Inserting some subset of AI-generated text into a much larger work is an entirely different thing, and the overall work would be copyrightable.

But if the entire story was AI-generated, no, not under current law.

No, that's not correct, as the existing AI writing tools are all written to 'vacuum up' every other published or posted writing, it's essentially all 'unoriginal' and thus each is itself a Copyright violation.

We authors must always staunchly defend copyright laws, as those are the ONLY laws governing the rights to our own writing! Thus they're the most valued, aside from the 'freedom of speech' laws of old.

Reading a work isn't a copyright violation, nor is being informed by it. Only reposting large enough portions either without attribution or that would hurt the original's sales.

This morning I asked Grok and Deepseek to compare my writing style with a sample of Ed Magnusson's (which I thought was quite similar to mine) and then, given a list of descriptions of my style - minimalist, cinematic, immersive, character-driven, subtextual, psychological, introspective - to offer a list of authors and a featured work that most closely matches those descriptions. The one title they both produced was Didion's "Play It As It Lays" (along with concurring on Hemingway and Ishiguro) We discussed the style in which "Play It" was written and how it's themes compared to mine. Then I went out and purchased a Kindle version. The AI's having been trained on Didion's book did not violate copyright law in how it interacted with me, and in fact generated a sale.

Thus corroborating the opinion that AIs tell users what they want to hear.

The act of scraping Didion's book was a copyright violation, and now people using those AIs can generate stories in Didion's voice to their heart's content, and those can be sold with no benefit to Didion.

If AI is given free rein to steal people's work and voices, what incentive is there for humans to shed blood, sweat and tears for the sake of innovation and originality? AI is the enemy of creativity.

AJ

Copyright law, at least in the US does not protect an author's "voice".

If voice is protected at all, it's probably in anti-deepfake legislation. Morally, I think an author's voice should be protected.

AJ

Anti-deepfake legislation is different; the goal is to prevent images that say they are e.g. Taylor Swift, not to prevent images that look like Taylor Swift. Most (maybe all) current deepfakes are fine with someone generating a mountain of images entitled 'Not Taylor Swift' with a person indistinguishable from Taylor Swift featured. So they're not protecting 'Taylor Swift's style', they're protecting Taylor Swift from abuse of her name and likeness and/or fraud. 'Not Taylor Swift' is not her name, so it's not abusive in the same way.

Some of them vary slightly, but those are most likely the ones that try to target underage deepfakes by criminalizing otherwise not illegal AI-generated porn that 'looks' underage if it resembles a specific identifiable actual person, especially e.g. one who attends the same school or whatnot. But many of those only criminalize it if an image of the actual person was used as an input (specifically, not while training the model, because the law is targeting the actual person creating the image, not the creator of the model), not if it just happens to look the same. And the legality of those laws is, as yet, questionable.

In the UK, there's a constant battle in the retail sector between household name brands and budget equivalents which continually push the envelope of how closely they can imitate the big name brands without violating intellectual property.

An AI equivalent might be using AI to produce a novel 'Strike First' by JRKowling in the style of JK Rowling, then offering the novel for sale on the river. (Okay, I know it should be Robert Galbraith, but I was feeling lazy). Allowing AI to steal JKRowling's intellectual property means that the onus is on her to defend her intellectual property rights, and in the current AI wild west, she doesn't have any.

AJ

You could go out and try to write an original novel in the style of JK Rowling without using AI by studying the works of JK Rowling. You will not have violated JK Rowling's copyrights in doing so. You will not have stolen any intelectual property of JK Rowling that is recognized by any law.

Apart from the usual plagiarism/fanfiction considerations, I agree with that.

Inserting AI into the process changes nothing.

That I disagree with, if JK Rowling's works were scraped without her permission.

The AI is effectively slicing and dicing JKR's actual words. In today's AI wild west there may be no legal protection at the moment but IMO there should be. If the AI isn't paying royalties to a particular author whose works are still in copyright, it should not be allowed to write 'in the style of' that author.

AJ

If the AI isn't paying royalties to a particular author whose works are still in copyright, it should not be allowed to write 'in the style of' that author.

I'm not even sure how one could enforce that if one wanted to, honestly. An AI is going to write in the style of some author, no matter what. If you can't use a 'style of' tag, just generate a bunch of output.

And 'without her permission' is very slippery. She published the book intending for it to be read. Publishing includes permission for any legally obtained copy to be read. An AI is just reading the book from a legal standpoint. Output is the thing that might violate copyright, not input (if, again, the AI developer lawfully had access to the work).

Apart from the usual plagiarism/fanfiction considerations, I agree with that.

Which are usually overstated. Per quite a lot of analysis, there is a much stronger case that fanfiction (assuming no significant commercialization of the fanfiction) is legal in the US than that it is illegal, and that's full-on same character name, same setting, etc fanfiction. We won't know until there's a lawsuit, but the few somewhat analogous lawsuits have resulted in victories for the alleged infringers, not the authors - and that includes some cases with commercialization. It seems extremely likely that the reason we haven't seen any lawsuits is that publishers are very afraid of a precedent of legality being set. As long as it's a gray area, they can send 'cease and desist' letters in good faith.

Rowling is an interesting example of that. She publicly dislikes sexualized Harry Potter fanfiction and has repeatedly spoken against it, yet under a minute of Google searching will discover large volumes of it, much of it posted on sites stable and large enough to present a target. She easily has the resources to sue but has not. I strongly suspect her reason is that she fears a court ruling supporting its legality.

And, yes, this is fairly far afield.

An AI is going to write in the style of some author, no matter what.

If an AI writes in a style that's an amalgam of all its legally obtained and scanned inputs, that's fair enough. But specifically choosing the style of an author whose work is still protected by copyright potentially compromises that author's future income.

According to my newspaper, some of works that are routinely scraped by tech giants to train AIs are still in copyright and their authors are vehemently against the thefts. I can't remember specific details but I believe Scott Turow was one of them.

AJ

I also am familiar with copyright laws because much of my coding is for scrapers. SCOTUS ruled in the LinkedIn case that (IIRC) anything that is visible without a login or behind a paywall is fair game. It's up to web owners to erect barriers, as you have.

The works that are routinely scraped and used to train their bots are anything that's ever been on the Internet that has not taken active measures to prevent it.

My newspaper reported that there's a something (can't find the name again) pile of modern, copyright-protected books that the AI majors routinely scrape - I think it said there were 14,000.

The Berne Convention says that countries can weaken copyright for works created within their own borders provided
1) is for specific, special cases
2) must not deprive the rights holders of income
3) it must not harm the copyright owner's interest

So if the UK government presses ahead with its plan to legalise theft by AI companies, it must withdraw from the Berne Convention because it probably breaks all three of those rules.

AJ

How was the pile created? By whom?

If it was created illegally, the existence of the pile does more harm to the authors and publishers than the AI majors using it to train their models.

Good points, not addressed by the article as far as I can remember.

If the 'pile' wasn't created by the AI majors themselves, they're still acting illegally by using stolen property.

AJ

You are assuming with no evidence that the books in the pile were stolen as opposed to being put in the pile by the authors and/or publishers.

I found one of the articles on-line.

Book3 is known as 'The Pile', and it's a lot larger than I remembered :-(

AJ

But even if the pile was built illegally, going after the AI majors for using it is less productive than going after whoever is maintaining the pile.

In most criminal prosecutions, the focus in one the one who's financing the crime (i.e. motive), as that's the ultimate source of the crime. If there's no valid or justifiable motive, then it's nearly impossible to achieve most convictions.

Hey, I've long watched a lot of "Law & Order" episodes! ;)

Once again, you're so frigging pedantic in everything you say, it's not even worth discussing. If you'd stick to the issues, then I might listen, but given our history, that doesn't seem even remotely possible.

As has been noted before, and I'm 99% sure it's true of Berne, copyright restricts publishing, not reading. If true, that means no copyright laws have to be weakened to allow anything readable without extra permissions (login, etc) to be legally read.

'Theft' is one of those hot-button words. If the content can be lawfully accessed, accessing it is not theft.

If the content can be lawfully accessed, accessing it is not theft.

Reading the content is not an issue, provided it was legally obtained (although there may be an issue with storing anything, since the copy is not by a person for personal use). What is subsequently done with it is the issue.

The three rules and the fact that they would be broken if the UK made a copyright exception for AI training is a newspaper paraphrase of a submission to the government by a KC specialising in copyright law.

AJ

The three rules and the fact that they would be broken if the UK made a copyright exception for AI training is a newspaper paraphrase of a submission to the government by a KC specifying in copyright law.

Which is conversely covered by current copyright law exemptions.

Those that could easily be confused for a real person doing things the real person hadn't or wouldn't, which goes into slandering their character.

The reasoning beyond the wording seems to be that it's not slandering their character if the pictures in question are clearly identified as not being that person.

Most (maybe all) current deepfakes are fine with someone generating a mountain of images entitled 'Not Taylor Swift' with a person indistinguishable from Taylor Swift featured.

Hypothetically, someone could illicitly photograph Taylor Swift in a hotel room with a sex toy embedded in her nethers and publish it on the internet claiming it's Not Taylor Swift and it would be legal because deepfakes are indistinguishable from the real thing.

AJ

That depends. If it's an actual photo and was not legally obtained, and Taylor wanted to sue, she quite possibly could. But that would admit to the whole thing, of course.

And I meant to say 'most current deepfake LAWS'. Typo, and I will fix.

I mentioned above that I think part of the reasoning is that it's not a character assault if the photo is clearly NOT the person. But I also think part of it is that it immediately embroils courts into deciding how 'close' an image has to be before someone decides it's the person.

The act of scraping Didion's book was a copyright violation

I don't believe that's true in the US. Reading is not a copyright violation. If the AI's trainers had legal access to the book, they can legally 'read' it. And the way the AI 'uses' the book is inherently 'transformative' under Fair Use, so that seems likely to be covered as well (though not definitely).

It's not clear who is at fault if the AI produces text that is identical to Didion's. Is it the AI creators' fault? The prompter's fault? Could be either or neither.

As others have noted, 'voice' is not copyrightable.

I liken it to going to an art museum with a sketchbook and learning how to copy a famous painter. You can make all of the paintings you want that 'look like' Monet's work. You can't say they're Monet's work, though - that would be fraud. If the painting is out of copyright - as would be the case with Monet - you can copy it and sell it, but you can't claim it's Monet's work, you have to say it's your copy.

If the painting is still under copyright, you can almost certainly copy it for your own education but can't sell (maybe can't even give away) the copy. But you can create all of the paintings that 'look like Warhol' you want, as long as you're not claiming Andy made them.

I'm very uncertain as to whether AI is the enemy of creativity. In a very broad sense and with current technology I halfway agree, but only halfway.

Suppose someone is a highly creative person but lousy at grammar and phrasing. An AI that can turn their jumbled ideas into a readable, coherent work that is still creatively the work of that person is a major asset to creativity. A creative soul who can't do the mechanics now can.

And then there's the case of true AI, which we could reach before too long. A sentient AI could be just as creative as any other sentient being. The problem is going to be figuring out when we get there. We're not getting to sentience with LLMs, but LLMs may be part of the puzzle. A sentient artificial brain will likely use an LLM as part of its input/output system.

Reading is not a copyright violation.

What about making a copy, albeit encrypted by AI, for public use? That's certainly not transformative in the way you mean since it may be possible to recover the whole work.

Suppose someone is a highly creative person but lousy at grammar and phrasing. An AI that can turn their jumbled ideas into a readable, coherent work that is still creatively the work of that person is a major asset to creativity.

That doesn't require stealing other people's creations to train the AI. Just teaching it grammar and spelling would suffice. Allowing AIs to produce something 'in the style of' is where the theft is exploited.

AJ

That's not the way LLMs work. They do not contain a copy, not even an encrypted one, of the works they are trained on.

Every single word in a story gets encoded into the LLM. Others have experienced whole paragraphs being regurgitated verbatim. How much can be decrypted is an unknown.

AJ

Right. It's permissible to ingest the work. The limitations are on how the work, once ingested, is reproduced. The core of US copyright law is to not duplicate, not be confused for, and not interfere with the sales of the original.

I can't repost obituaries from my local newspaper in near real time, but I can for those published years ago.

And how would a voice be protected? It's rather subjective. I found my voice to be rather similar to Big Ed's, purely coincidental. The AI said my story was more character driven and introspective than "Let It Snow", so then I read "Ghost Images." I'll have to ask it to evaluate that one.

The AI said my story was more character driven and introspective than "Let It Snow"

I've never read the Didion story but, from the Wikipedia summary, it sounds very dark. Your story isn't dark but I get a feeling of impending doom ahead of the protagonist. But I'm following 'Let It Snow' and IMO the atmosphere is light and playful, despite the misfortunes the protagonists have encountered. I'm very surprised the AI compared it with Didion. There must have been a special 'two Didion references for the price of one' offer :-)

AJ

To be clear: I found Big Ed's voice to be very similar to my own. I was reading "Let It Snow" and it felt very comfortable, like I was readign my own. I asked both Grok 3 and Deepseek to compare my last 8000 words of "One Thousand Apologies" with the first 5000 of "Let It Snow." They both found the major differences to be that OTA was more introspective and character driven.
Then, leaving Big Ed aside, I collected a list of adjectives of OTA that I'd received from AIs - "minimalist, cinematic, immersive, character-driven, subtextual, psychological, and introspective" - and asked both to provide a list of authors and a featured work that most closely matched those same adjectives. "Play It Where It Lays" was the only title on both lists. The comparison of Didion was only to me, not Ed.
In the meantime, I read his "Ghost Images" and found it to be more character driven and introspective, as well as highly rated, and would be interested in running a comparison of OTA with "Ghost Images."
Are you caught up in reading OTA? The MC Joe goes thru a lot of emotional turmoil at the start and at the end, but of different types. No necessarily 'dark' but there are mature themes and situations. The chapter currently being written deals with Mom.

Thank you for the clarification about Didion's work - I misunderstood. That makes more sense now.

Are you caught up in reading OTA?

I first started reading it a very long time ago and I'm not sure it was on this site. I believe there's a new chapter I haven't read and according to your blog earlier chapters have been substantially revised. So the short answer is no.

AJ

I did start at another site but have been here since 2016. I have not revised the earlier chapters since then, meaning a rewrite and any substantial changes in the story, although occasionally I drop some short segments in to better set up later events, and they recently went through a thorough editing to make the voice and quality consistent throughout.

That's not at all clear, honestly. Maybe we are, maybe we're not. I don't think it's going to be a simple answer in the least, partly because there aren't any really good ways to test for sentience (or even produce a good, concrete definition of it or what it means) right now. I have a feeling we will get to sentient AIs before we can prove sentience, meaning the courts will have to decide if AI Y is sentient or not.

I said that in my message starting this thread. LLMs may be a tool in the input/output system of a sentient AI, but they aren't the way there.

But that doesn't mean we aren't on the way there. 'Glorified Markov chain algorithms' aren't even remotely the whole of the AI space now, and a lot of progress is being made in other areas.

Consider that in order to solve a complicated problem, you generally want to have a very clear idea of what you're trying to build. You can't program a computer to solve a problem unless you understand the problem yourself very deeply

Yes. AIs write crap stories if not given good enough directions.

I write code and rely on AI to help me with unfamiliar functions or techniques, but first I have to adequately explain my situation.

And again, few ever put in the dedicated research and effort that you have in refining it. Again, the old programing adage, GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) definitely applies here.

I saw a link to a site that where you could submit text and it would estimate what percent was written by AI. One of my chapters, from my pre-AI backup file, got rated at 27% Maybe I learned how to write like an AI.

*I used AI to edit earlier chapter to get the voice and style consistent the whole way through the book. But now I notice my own voice and style changing subtly, such as punchy phrases in narration instead of a full sentence.

It is notoriously difficult to analyze a text and figure out if AI wrote any of it. The few detectors that do even a halfway decent job are highly proprietary and not open to the general public, because it's very easy to analyze them for weaknesses and compensate.

I saw a link to a site that where you could submit text and it would estimate what percent was written by AI. One of my chapters, from my pre-AI backup file, got rated at 27%

With the variable standards of AI at the moment, I think such analysis should be taken with a pinch of salt.

From my own experience of reading AI-generated stories on SOL, the quality varies from pretty decent to pretty abysmal. I don't see how that can't be a confounding factor.

AJ

The link came from a blog post where the author claimed his AI text generator was undetectable.

Actually, I've had several close friends who were very fundamental in designing AI years (decades) ago, and those were fine. Yet the developers of the newest wave of AGI clearly admitted that it was 'fatally flawed'. Yet aside for a few minor 'patches' to avoid embarrassing historical (i.e. NAZI), they've never done a thing to correct it!

Thus, this isn't AI, as there is literally nothing intelligent in it at all, as it's doing nothing but vacuum up random shit and then guessing (incorrectly) which terms are most likely to follow the previous terms.

As a long-term Sci-Fi novelist, I've always followed the trends in AI, yet I never played any part in designing any portion of it myself, as my early programming was applied to very different technologies than simple AI.

Yes, readers are free to purchase and read whatever stories they'd like, yet your reference to "only reposting large enough portions" isn't strictly true. Which is why I keep emphasizing that authors should read the actual copyright law.

A copyright applies across the board. There's an exception, of a very specific length, to allow for reviews (either by book reviews or virtually anyone quote portions of the story). Yet neither of those include 'unintentional plagiarism', as in those cases, they at least need to reference where the passage is from (as what good is a 'review' if no one has any idea what work you're actually reviewing).

Thus, those are clearly copyright violations. Europe has been cracking down hard on AI's blatant copyright violations, where American publishers have been mostly silent on it (likely because they're hoping, just like American filmmakers are, so continue publishing new work by long dead authors, filmmakers or actors, yet they're doing that with no legal basis aside from the one statement by those intentionally committing those violations, trying to justify their actions.

Unfortunately, the ONLY way to modify copyright law, is to rewrite the applicable copyright laws, not performing end runs around them!

Never claimed it did, but YOU were reporting to the 'reporting' of the reporting of the information, not the information itself. As it was clearly in the 'free-use' usage limitations for 'quoting' sources for 'promotional' efforts (i.e. book-review sized segments only).

But yet again, we're getting bogged down on the minute, details, rather than dealing with ANY of the larger, most vital issues. So, since the whole discussion has once again degraded into 'he said'/'they said' arguments, I'm out of here, as you've once again, why discussing anything on the SOL forums is utterly pointless, as all it does is generated hostility and personal attacks again anyone who disagrees with one person's POV, with no actual basis in fact.

So, so long, and the fish was most definitely not appreciated, as this whole discussion is rotten to the core!

as the existing AI writing tools are all written to 'vacuum up' every other published or posted writing, it's essentially all 'unoriginal'

Many years ago when I heard the term "artificial intelligence" for the first time, the concept of AI was different. It was supposed to learn, not copy/imitate. Therefore, the stories it would write would be original.

Thank you for the correction.

In my defence, my information was second hand and I'm not American.

AJ

I was referring to his claim that having an editor rewrite part of a story would be the same as an AI corrected text. Still, if such a tool was used to that degree, the tool should be acknowledged. A human rewriting a story is a co-author. I should have made the reference clear.

It's the same in most 'online' art, as ANYONE can now crank out thousands of pieces of 'Art' simply by using AI prompts to modify existing works of arts, in the time it often takes to create a single piece of authentic art. So while many sites have never crafted limitations on AI art (including the literary arts), there are now many which require you to list ALL AI-generated art, so that the readers themselves are aware of what they're reading (i.e. 'purchasing').

I really wish that Lazeez would finally address that specific issue himself, yet I suspect he already has enough on his plate to desire to monitor each piece of writing submitting to SOL. :(

If you only offer a premise, such as "Write me a steamy story about two cousins who fall in love" AI has shown, so far, to be pretty poor at displaying originality. Those stories are generally crap. Even with detailed instructions to a scene, it can be difficult to get a satisfactory result. It's a much different story when asking "read this scene and offer improvements" and it says "maybe he could hesitate before he replies"

Essentially that was a new 'add-on' to copyright law (though it was written entirely separately from copyright law) so 'guarantee' the MANY legal issues AI itself creates for itself. (i.e. it's a way of subverting ANY existing laws, without addressing getting any new laws passed or approved (i.e it's entirely focused on subverting existing laws)).

Wonderfully and concisely stated, kudos, as it reinforces the same issues I often espouse, though i tend to belabor the same point, over and over again. (And I can think of other substitutes of that "A" in "AI")!

One of my stories was written with the help of AI, correcting grammar, adding detail, etc., and without the help of my editors (who were both on holiday at the time), and it got a massive number of downloads.

Was it posted on SOL?

AJ

Under what name is your story posted?

AJ

I've made much the same point (and a similar point with respect to art). The answers tend to dance around the point and make arguments about creativity or the lack thereof. 'Creativity' is one of those things it feels to me as if one knows it when one sees it (see: obscenity), but there are not great definitions. Is someone setting forth to imitate someone else's style 'creativity,' 'plagarism,' maybe some of both, something else entirely, or does it depend on how good someone is at it? And, as you ask, how is it different if a computer does it?

It calls to mind Borges' 'Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'. For those who aren't aware of it, it's written in the form of literary criticism about a version of Don Quixote written by Menard (a fictional character). Menard had immersed himself in the world of 'Don Quixote' and Cervantes well enough that he could write the book by himself, as if he were Cervantes, and produces chunks of it that way.

Obviously not true, but if true, would Menard's Quixote be a copyright violation? He's not memorizing it, he's learning what it means to be the author of it.

It's a very short story and well worth anyone's time.

In the end, I strongly suspect the law in this area is going to wind up being arbitrary and unsatisfying to a bunch of people, no matter what it is.

In the end, I strongly suspect the law in this area is going to wind up being arbitrary and unsatisfying to a bunch of people, no matter what it is.

Sadly, it'll likely be whatever the RIAA and MPAA say it should be, the rest of the world be damned.

That might leave it in limbo. The RIAA and MPAA don't care much about written works. The RIAA has a strongly divergent view about 'style' from the MPAA, though.

The Writer's Guild (or pretty much anyone else) has very little 'pull' compared to music and TV/film.

Since last summer I've used AI consistently to discuss plotting for my last few chapters. As far as "creativity", through the process I've realized that nothing that my characters go through is unique - someone else's characters or people in real life have had the same or very similar circumstances. Much is taken from or inspired by my real life. The creative part is 1) in taking all these little pieces and arranging them into a coherent and compelling story that people will want to read and 2) crafting the words in a manner and well enough to create an immersive experience for the readers, allowing them to feel the character's emotions. But even that is a collaborative process, but not unlike what I'd do with a human author. I have standing rules about how to make a sex scene not about the sex but rather the emotions, and how the scene drives the plot and characters. There, I do allow the AI some latitude to fine tune the narration to get the maximum effect. Even my wife confessed she got wet.

If the story is a word-for-word reproduction of the book, as LLMs are able to do (with sufficient prompt massaging along the lines of "what is the first word of the first sentence of the book? What is the second word of the first sentence of the book" to produce extracts that can be trivially reconstructed into the original text), then yes - you have violated copyright.

The LLM is a tool operating under human direction. A human can commit these violations with or without the use of a LLM. If a human tells the LLM to reproduce the book word for word, is it any different than using a photocopy, digital camera image or OCR scan of the page?

Until AI becomes sentient, it's a tool used by humans, and the humans who potentially violate the law. Granted, it is so far the best tool and easiest tool with which to commit that violation.

Perhaps...and if true, that defeats much of the plagiarism claims. I don't see reading as a problem - only in how that data is reproduced.

This is what I've read since I began writing OTA, mostly to help my writing: reading other books in first person, young adult romances, coming of age, etc - although a couple, like Gabriel's, were just for fun. I still have Peter Robinson's "Final Account" to read, to compare to it's TV adaptation.

All of these have influenced my writing in some way.

1. The Catcher in the Rye – J.D. Salinger 83k
2. Men, Women & Children – Chad Kultgen 86k
3. Bastard Out of Carolina – Dorothy Allison 104k
4. To Kill a Mockingbird – Harper Lee 101k
5. The Last Picture Show – Larry McMurtry 77k
6. The Perks of Being a Wallflower – Stephen Chbosky 63k
7. Beautiful Disaster – Jamie McGuire 110k/413
8. The Giver – Lois Lowry 48k/223
9. Looking for Alaska - John Green 73k/220
10. Eleanor & Park - Rainbow Rowell 83k/324
11. If He Had Been With Me - Laura Nowlin 86k/391
12. After You – Jojo Moyes 137k/353
13. The Genesis Machine – K.J. Gillenwater 160k/600
14. Sink the Rising Sun – Jon C. Gabriel
15. Play It As It Lays – Joan Didion