I mean it probably depends on how you use it. If you're just having ChatGPT spit out some text to see different scenarios of where your story can go for inspiration, but you write the text in your book yourself, that's not plagiarism. Most any plot a writer comes up with has been done hundreds of times before. I could write a story about 3 witches. It doesn't mean I'm plagiarizing Charmed or committing copyright infringement. It's when it's word for word the same that I could see issues.
If I use original content from my novel and input it into chatgpt and ask them to vary the sentence structure without changing the words, would I be able to publish it later? Alternatively, if I were to show the chatgpt my content and ask for its opinion, and it suggests minor revisions such as adding a few commas or breaking up a sentence, would I be able to publish the revised version?
Using ChatGPT to restructure your book will remove your copyright. It’s also horrific at editing (line or developmental) It is essential and required that you hire a professional editor to edit your book.
Very cool. Now every book ever written that is you spellcheck that’s automatically change the word, whether it be for Microsoft Word, Apple, android, Grammarly, or any other of the so-called spell checkers grammar checkers are no longer copyrighted. Awesome that’s just about every book written in the last 40 years.
just as a test I asked chatGPT to quote me the first sentence of a random chapter of Brandon Sanderson's "The Way of Kings". It can quote me the first sentence of just about any chapter, does that prove that chatGPT has access to copyrighted works and thus might use them to write fiction if asked?
I just tested this, it's only giving the first sentence of the first chapter because that's publicly on the internet and it's insisting it doesn't have access to copyrighted works and it's knowledge only extends to before 2021 (nothing newer) However, several authors have brought a lawsuit against OpenAI (creators of chatGPT) claiming their manuscripts where used to train the AI and the company is calming they were open source, not copyrighted. It is not something we as the public have access to at the moment as it will be in court for a long time. Yes, AI has to be trained on manuscripts. They're claiming it's only open source. We know that some AI is in trouble for using things they should (ex: leaving Getty image watermarks in artist renderings of things) but right now it's all a legal battle to determine what was used improperly and what will be done about it. As discussed, we can't legally use AI to write a book. It can't be copyrighted even if we tweak what it wrote. We know Amazon and other companies are taking a stand against allowing AI generated content. We know the lawsuits against AI companies and people using them to create and sell things will be ongoing and likely brutal and could result in some serious trouble for authors trying to use AI to write novels. All of this is ongoing and we continue to keep you updated here in the playlist as court cases continue to roll out.
@@KMRobinsonBooks thanks, I'm sure down the road we'll see someone invent a way to identify AI written works, and then amazon will ban AI written content from KDP. Other than that, I visualize someone using Sudowrite or ChatGPT to write their entire novel, it somehow becomes a best seller, and they will be in interviews or posting youtube videos boasting about writing it with AI. Or there will be a best selling author who claims to have written novels themselves, but it's later found out they were all written by AI, and then this person would be the modern day equivalent of the Milli Vanilli scandal
@@KMRobinsonBooks just another note, I also got it to quote the first sentence of chapter 5 and chapter 7, but when I asked for sentence #1 of chapter 20 it was not able to quote it, so it seems some things are there but not all, I wonder if it just uses quotes that someone has quoted somewhere in a public place on the internet in a blog post , podcast, or video?
AI legally isn’t the same as ghost writing and cannot be considered work for hire, nor qualify for copyright protection. Here’s a lawyer explaining- ruclips.net/video/3qqTZu44SmE/видео.html
Why would people be able to use it in their business but we couldn’t claim the writing from it? Seems a little hypocritical. They aren’t employing it and their taking credit (wealth) from the ai as well.
They can't use it in their business and have any copyright protection. It's very clearly spelled out by the court cases. I encourage you to watch through the Legal Side of Publishing playlist here on the channel as we have many videos addressing all of this, discussions on where the AI is getting it's information to create these pieces of writing and how that can be copyright infringement, etc. Lots of great educational info!
ProWritingAid and Grammarly are assistive, not generative ai. Here's a video explaining the difference: ruclips.net/video/0SWegLoVz5s/видео.html Here's a video clearly explaining KDP's stance on generative vs assistive ai: ruclips.net/video/8YKZ-2XZiC0/видео.html Here's a lawyer also further discussing it: ruclips.net/video/Rko_7BVG4IE/видео.html
Thank you very much, this is an interesting video! I'm currently curious in how AI can help with research for university papers etc. I haven't tried it yet but what happens when you ask an AI like GTP to cite it's sources?
At absolute best, something like this should only be used to help outline the sections of a paper. It certainly can't be trusted to find or cite sources and should never be used to actually write a paper. It's highly likely anything created by a program like this will get flagged for plagiarism because they're grabbing information from sources and cobbling it together. There's a very good chance we're going to start to see people making poor decision using something like this instead of doing the work and they'll get kicked out of their universities for it. AI also won't cite sources because it's pulling from data pools it's not actually allowed to use (they can and are currently getting sued by certain companies that were clearly stolen from) and they'd just be outing themselves if they started giving you citations.
To me AI should be used more as a beefed up grammarly and composition editing of whatan author alreasy wrote. It should not be used to write a large majority of the book.
Yes, using ai like Grammarly or ProWritingAid to spell check means you keep your legal protections on the book. Using it to write any of the book removes all of those protections so it's wise not to use it that way (and because the book community will crucify anyone who writes with ai lol)
with all that being said what happened to the old rule of as long as you dont use direct copy of material and change at least 30% of the concept causes it to be a brand new item? i could see those who abuse AI to run into those issues BUT if a writter is creating all their content their own and their just using AI to order things around....it would be insane to think someone will try to sue. I mean its one thing to see a literal mark on a product that shows owner ship vs someone saying well in part of your book there was a scene with a bully and their fight and just feels like harry potter so we will sue. I mean if you think about it that only means George Lucas should actually sue JK Rowling since his Jedi academy is to similar to hogwarts in training its chosen students to use their powers. The good side teaches not to abuse the force and stay away from certain technique where as in harry potter there are the forbidden curses, there are force wielders and people who cant its something your born with, in harry potter magic is the same way, in starwars its also a very politcal driven story about the darkside wanting to reform society and govenrment into its own version of what it sees as a good society which is the exact same view as voldermort. The main characters are luke han and leiha where in harry potter its harry ron and hermoine. The list goes on and on with TONS not just 1 thing that line up to close and i havent really heard about george lucas suing the crap out of her yet seeing as his works predate harry potter by a long shot. Art is one thing but writting, unless you just straight up copy someone i see it to be a little dumb to sue based off of vague similarities as in this day and age there is no such thing as a 100% original concept as we pull our original ideas from inspiration of other things which you will always see that influence. Just makes this all even more hard to follow or understand.
I see we have a lot of misinformation to correct here. There is no “changing 30% rule.” It’s copyright infringement, it’s plagiarism, it’s theft. That was never a rule or acceptable. Don’t listen to anything the person that told you that says, they’re making it up. The next thing you’re talking about are tropes (a.k.a similar themes) Themes/tropes are not copyright protected. Ideas aren’t copyright protected. Titles of things aren’t copyright protected. And having similar tropes is NOT an infringement and has nothing to do this conversation of using AI with novels. Here’s a lawyer explaining tropes-ruclips.net/video/8tdNhAQQ8ds/видео.html There’s an episode that we recently filmed that releases in a few days on the channel about someone who stole Lord of the Rings and published it. This will also be a very value episode to watch to get all of these concepts sorted out for you. We also have many episodes on public domain and when you can or can’t use someone else’s work (again, not speaking of tropes because that has nothing to do with the conversation) The next thing we need to address is how AI actually works in connection to publishing. Here’s an episode from my main channel on Generative vs Assistive AI: ruclips.net/video/0SWegLoVz5s/видео.html That’s important to know because they’re wildly different things and this will correct a lot of the misinformation you’ve discussed here ;) Additionally, you’ll want to learn more about how AI works on the legal, ethical, and creative side of this. There are far too many episodes to list, so here’s the playlist you most definitely want to go through to have a good understanding of how this actually works: ruclips.net/p/PLuCHOUEv909c3ixpCzG_mP2ueH5BnzaHZ And here’s the full legal playlist with our lawyer breaking down a lot of information on copyright and all things associated with it: ruclips.net/p/PLuCHOUEv909fxDdDdD_hErkDLfmppL_QO
I guess thats what confused me when he mentioned AI potentionally taking "ideas" from other things and could get you in trouble...when i hear this i dont think "female wizard named hermoine" as an idea cause that would be blatantly dumb lol. I was taking it as if you have a school that teaches kids magic then you could be sued just off of that concept which i just couldnt see. But where i got the rule of 30% was old documentary from animators talking about making pariodys with out getting sued and they all meantioned as long as you use no direct conent and change 30% of the content it causes it to bea new thing freeing you to make the parody legaly...such as putting a guy in the same red and blue suit but putting a F instead of an S making him Fartman and naming him Flark Flent. They were talking about how over the years this is how so many parodies are made following the 30% rule because none of them asked permission to make fun of their creation. So i guess that also is what got me confused cause these were animatored from marvel, disney, and the people doin south park. But ill look at you other videos more. I work and study with AI so know about AI...just not the specifics and legalities of the writing world. My intentions werent to correct you or state you were wrong im basically just asking questions trying to learn more. It gets confusing when alot of people who are involved in the industry say opposite then the other or give different opposite advice...makes things very confusing for those of us who want to finally publish our things lol @@KMRobinsonBooks
Watch the episodes on fair use and parodies on both channels. That is something drastically different than everything else we're discussing ;) The law is very straightforward on all this. You're struggling because you're taking different concepts and rules from very different areas and trying to apply it to everything. Most of the things you've mentioned are wildly different topics and regulations and you can't apply the rules for one thing to another. It's not contradicting each other...they're just different ;)
Here's a break down of generative vs assistive ai over on my main channel-ruclips.net/video/0SWegLoVz5s/видео.html Keep in mind that ai suckkkkks at most things right now including and especially grammar. You should be using ProWritingAid and Grammarly for your self edits and then a professional editor after.
@@KMRobinsonBooks Okay, thank you Miss Robinson, I really appreciate your positive feedback. One last question, is it okay if I use an AI character just fun?
You mean art of a character? You remove your copyright protection if it's AI generated, so definitely not for book covers, book art, etc. You "can" if you're just doing it for yourself, but remember a lot of the ai companies prohibit commercial use so showing it in any way could violate that, and if they allow it, people can still use it however they like because you have no ownership or protection over it meaning they can basically steal your character art and use it for themselves, etc and it's a "too bad so sad" situation for you. So it's best to hire artists to make art for you.
Oh, to make up your character, no absolutely not. Here's an entire playlist on what you can and can't do and we address all these things- ruclips.net/p/PLuCHOUEv909c3ixpCzG_mP2ueH5BnzaHZ
Only if it's functioning like Grammarly or ProWritingAid and fixing typos and making a few suggestions on run on sentences, etc. And at that point, just use the programs specifically designed to make your writing stronger.
You can use Grammarly or ProWritingAid to fix grammar, but if you use AI to change dialogue in any way, as the law is right now, it removes your copyright protection.
I know people who used AI to generate a book they self published, personally I think it's cheating to publish a work that is not their own to generate money off of it. It is morally wrong IMO.
And we discuss the legal ramifications in this video, so even if people don't see the ethic side of things, the legal side sure better get their attention...because they could be in some serious hot water if they use AI with their books.
@@KMRobinsonBooks Yes I watched the video, it's informative and have passed on the information to a couple of people I know that are using the Chat gpt AI to generate their "books", one has already self published and it's on the market. I think in the future it will become a real issue as these get out there and works get recognized.
It’s not morally wrong. If it’s their idea, their storyline & they want to use something to bring it to life what’s the problem? Who cares? It doesn’t affect me. U got people out there with great ideas & imagination but maybe don’t know how to write it or bring it to life. If the book is good then the book is good. People too worried bout other people instead of themselves. If the AI book is trash then it won’t sell if it’s good then people will enjoy reading it. Idk why people are so upset about it.
@@mercenarygang4800Understood, BUT, the AI might be pulling the info from 100 other different (already published by a human) stories to creat a chapter, scene, etc. Therein, lies the problem. If you’ve never read any of the books it pulled from, you’d be none the wiser and believe the AI was making it up from thin air. (I thought that, too, actually!)
.....the point is that you can't copyright protect it. You do not own anything you use AI to help create. Beyond that it's in incredibly poor taste, unprofessional, and icky.
In the fractured landscape of the U.S. literary bazaar and beyond its borders, if you've wrenched your narrative through the crucible of transformation until it's unrecognizable, you're on solid ground. The shadowy overlords of intellectual property can't pin you to the wall with accusations of AI collusion if you’ve mutated the work until it stands as a fierce, untraceable original.g.
What if your u have your own words and sentenses but you use chatgbt to enhance your sentence by making it more descriptive its still your words though.
Those are no longer your own words. The second you use AI, it's no longer yours, and it removes all copyright protection. The book community is adamant you do your own work and will permanently blacklist you for not doing your own work completely by yourself. But legally, even if an AI rearranges your sentences, it's no longer eligible for copyright protection.
I mean it probably depends on how you use it. If you're just having ChatGPT spit out some text to see different scenarios of where your story can go for inspiration, but you write the text in your book yourself, that's not plagiarism. Most any plot a writer comes up with has been done hundreds of times before. I could write a story about 3 witches. It doesn't mean I'm plagiarizing Charmed or committing copyright infringement. It's when it's word for word the same that I could see issues.
Maybe take another listen, we covered all that ;)
If I use original content from my novel and input it into chatgpt and ask them to vary the sentence structure without changing the words, would I be able to publish it later? Alternatively, if I were to show the chatgpt my content and ask for its opinion, and it suggests minor revisions such as adding a few commas or breaking up a sentence, would I be able to publish the revised version?
Using ChatGPT to restructure your book will remove your copyright. It’s also horrific at editing (line or developmental) It is essential and required that you hire a professional editor to edit your book.
Very cool. Now every book ever written that is you spellcheck that’s automatically change the word, whether it be for Microsoft Word, Apple, android, Grammarly, or any other of the so-called spell checkers grammar checkers are no longer copyrighted. Awesome that’s just about every book written in the last 40 years.
just as a test I asked chatGPT to quote me the first sentence of a random chapter of Brandon Sanderson's "The Way of Kings". It can quote me the first sentence of just about any chapter, does that prove that chatGPT has access to copyrighted works and thus might use them to write fiction if asked?
I just tested this, it's only giving the first sentence of the first chapter because that's publicly on the internet and it's insisting it doesn't have access to copyrighted works and it's knowledge only extends to before 2021 (nothing newer) However, several authors have brought a lawsuit against OpenAI (creators of chatGPT) claiming their manuscripts where used to train the AI and the company is calming they were open source, not copyrighted. It is not something we as the public have access to at the moment as it will be in court for a long time.
Yes, AI has to be trained on manuscripts. They're claiming it's only open source. We know that some AI is in trouble for using things they should (ex: leaving Getty image watermarks in artist renderings of things) but right now it's all a legal battle to determine what was used improperly and what will be done about it.
As discussed, we can't legally use AI to write a book. It can't be copyrighted even if we tweak what it wrote. We know Amazon and other companies are taking a stand against allowing AI generated content. We know the lawsuits against AI companies and people using them to create and sell things will be ongoing and likely brutal and could result in some serious trouble for authors trying to use AI to write novels.
All of this is ongoing and we continue to keep you updated here in the playlist as court cases continue to roll out.
@@KMRobinsonBooks thanks, I'm sure down the road we'll see someone invent a way to identify AI written works, and then amazon will ban AI written content from KDP. Other than that, I visualize someone using Sudowrite or ChatGPT to write their entire novel, it somehow becomes a best seller, and they will be in interviews or posting youtube videos boasting about writing it with AI. Or there will be a best selling author who claims to have written novels themselves, but it's later found out they were all written by AI, and then this person would be the modern day equivalent of the Milli Vanilli scandal
@@KMRobinsonBooks just another note, I also got it to quote the first sentence of chapter 5 and chapter 7, but when I asked for sentence #1 of chapter 20 it was not able to quote it, so it seems some things are there but not all, I wonder if it just uses quotes that someone has quoted somewhere in a public place on the internet in a blog post , podcast, or video?
Ever hear of "ghost writers"?
John Grisham?
AI legally isn’t the same as ghost writing and cannot be considered work for hire, nor qualify for copyright protection. Here’s a lawyer explaining-
ruclips.net/video/3qqTZu44SmE/видео.html
AI isn’t human. Humans are.
Why would people be able to use it in their business but we couldn’t claim the writing from it? Seems a little hypocritical. They aren’t employing it and their taking credit (wealth) from the ai as well.
They can't use it in their business and have any copyright protection. It's very clearly spelled out by the court cases.
I encourage you to watch through the Legal Side of Publishing playlist here on the channel as we have many videos addressing all of this, discussions on where the AI is getting it's information to create these pieces of writing and how that can be copyright infringement, etc. Lots of great educational info!
Is pro writing aid safe ?
ProWritingAid and Grammarly are assistive, not generative ai.
Here's a video explaining the difference:
ruclips.net/video/0SWegLoVz5s/видео.html
Here's a video clearly explaining KDP's stance on generative vs assistive ai:
ruclips.net/video/8YKZ-2XZiC0/видео.html
Here's a lawyer also further discussing it: ruclips.net/video/Rko_7BVG4IE/видео.html
Thank you very much, this is an interesting video! I'm currently curious in how AI can help with research for university papers etc. I haven't tried it yet but what happens when you ask an AI like GTP to cite it's sources?
At absolute best, something like this should only be used to help outline the sections of a paper. It certainly can't be trusted to find or cite sources and should never be used to actually write a paper. It's highly likely anything created by a program like this will get flagged for plagiarism because they're grabbing information from sources and cobbling it together. There's a very good chance we're going to start to see people making poor decision using something like this instead of doing the work and they'll get kicked out of their universities for it.
AI also won't cite sources because it's pulling from data pools it's not actually allowed to use (they can and are currently getting sued by certain companies that were clearly stolen from) and they'd just be outing themselves if they started giving you citations.
@@KMRobinsonBooks Thank you for your reply. The problem is quite clear.
To me AI should be used more as a beefed up grammarly and composition editing of whatan author alreasy wrote. It should not be used to write a large majority of the book.
Yes, using ai like Grammarly or ProWritingAid to spell check means you keep your legal protections on the book. Using it to write any of the book removes all of those protections so it's wise not to use it that way (and because the book community will crucify anyone who writes with ai lol)
with all that being said what happened to the old rule of as long as you dont use direct copy of material and change at least 30% of the concept causes it to be a brand new item? i could see those who abuse AI to run into those issues BUT if a writter is creating all their content their own and their just using AI to order things around....it would be insane to think someone will try to sue. I mean its one thing to see a literal mark on a product that shows owner ship vs someone saying well in part of your book there was a scene with a bully and their fight and just feels like harry potter so we will sue. I mean if you think about it that only means George Lucas should actually sue JK Rowling since his Jedi academy is to similar to hogwarts in training its chosen students to use their powers. The good side teaches not to abuse the force and stay away from certain technique where as in harry potter there are the forbidden curses, there are force wielders and people who cant its something your born with, in harry potter magic is the same way, in starwars its also a very politcal driven story about the darkside wanting to reform society and govenrment into its own version of what it sees as a good society which is the exact same view as voldermort. The main characters are luke han and leiha where in harry potter its harry ron and hermoine. The list goes on and on with TONS not just 1 thing that line up to close and i havent really heard about george lucas suing the crap out of her yet seeing as his works predate harry potter by a long shot. Art is one thing but writting, unless you just straight up copy someone i see it to be a little dumb to sue based off of vague similarities as in this day and age there is no such thing as a 100% original concept as we pull our original ideas from inspiration of other things which you will always see that influence. Just makes this all even more hard to follow or understand.
I see we have a lot of misinformation to correct here.
There is no “changing 30% rule.” It’s copyright infringement, it’s plagiarism, it’s theft. That was never a rule or acceptable. Don’t listen to anything the person that told you that says, they’re making it up.
The next thing you’re talking about are tropes (a.k.a similar themes) Themes/tropes are not copyright protected. Ideas aren’t copyright protected. Titles of things aren’t copyright protected. And having similar tropes is NOT an infringement and has nothing to do this conversation of using AI with novels.
Here’s a lawyer explaining tropes-ruclips.net/video/8tdNhAQQ8ds/видео.html
There’s an episode that we recently filmed that releases in a few days on the channel about someone who stole Lord of the Rings and published it. This will also be a very value episode to watch to get all of these concepts sorted out for you.
We also have many episodes on public domain and when you can or can’t use someone else’s work (again, not speaking of tropes because that has nothing to do with the conversation)
The next thing we need to address is how AI actually works in connection to publishing.
Here’s an episode from my main channel on Generative vs Assistive AI: ruclips.net/video/0SWegLoVz5s/видео.html
That’s important to know because they’re wildly different things and this will correct a lot of the misinformation you’ve discussed here ;)
Additionally, you’ll want to learn more about how AI works on the legal, ethical, and creative side of this. There are far too many episodes to list, so here’s the playlist you most definitely want to go through to have a good understanding of how this actually works: ruclips.net/p/PLuCHOUEv909c3ixpCzG_mP2ueH5BnzaHZ And here’s the full legal playlist with our lawyer breaking down a lot of information on copyright and all things associated with it: ruclips.net/p/PLuCHOUEv909fxDdDdD_hErkDLfmppL_QO
I guess thats what confused me when he mentioned AI potentionally taking "ideas" from other things and could get you in trouble...when i hear this i dont think "female wizard named hermoine" as an idea cause that would be blatantly dumb lol. I was taking it as if you have a school that teaches kids magic then you could be sued just off of that concept which i just couldnt see. But where i got the rule of 30% was old documentary from animators talking about making pariodys with out getting sued and they all meantioned as long as you use no direct conent and change 30% of the content it causes it to bea new thing freeing you to make the parody legaly...such as putting a guy in the same red and blue suit but putting a F instead of an S making him Fartman and naming him Flark Flent. They were talking about how over the years this is how so many parodies are made following the 30% rule because none of them asked permission to make fun of their creation. So i guess that also is what got me confused cause these were animatored from marvel, disney, and the people doin south park. But ill look at you other videos more. I work and study with AI so know about AI...just not the specifics and legalities of the writing world. My intentions werent to correct you or state you were wrong im basically just asking questions trying to learn more. It gets confusing when alot of people who are involved in the industry say opposite then the other or give different opposite advice...makes things very confusing for those of us who want to finally publish our things lol
@@KMRobinsonBooks
Watch the episodes on fair use and parodies on both channels. That is something drastically different than everything else we're discussing ;)
The law is very straightforward on all this. You're struggling because you're taking different concepts and rules from very different areas and trying to apply it to everything. Most of the things you've mentioned are wildly different topics and regulations and you can't apply the rules for one thing to another. It's not contradicting each other...they're just different ;)
So, is it okay for me to write a story, have the AI help check for my grammar, and use certain words for certain places?
Here's a break down of generative vs assistive ai over on my main channel-ruclips.net/video/0SWegLoVz5s/видео.html
Keep in mind that ai suckkkkks at most things right now including and especially grammar. You should be using ProWritingAid and Grammarly for your self edits and then a professional editor after.
@@KMRobinsonBooks Okay, thank you Miss Robinson, I really appreciate your positive feedback. One last question, is it okay if I use an AI character just fun?
You mean art of a character? You remove your copyright protection if it's AI generated, so definitely not for book covers, book art, etc. You "can" if you're just doing it for yourself, but remember a lot of the ai companies prohibit commercial use so showing it in any way could violate that, and if they allow it, people can still use it however they like because you have no ownership or protection over it meaning they can basically steal your character art and use it for themselves, etc and it's a "too bad so sad" situation for you. So it's best to hire artists to make art for you.
@@KMRobinsonBooks No, make a character up myself, and have an AI represent your character for your story.
Oh, to make up your character, no absolutely not. Here's an entire playlist on what you can and can't do and we address all these things-
ruclips.net/p/PLuCHOUEv909c3ixpCzG_mP2ueH5BnzaHZ
What if I write the story and give it what I wrote to rewrite it better. Is that legal?
Only if it's functioning like Grammarly or ProWritingAid and fixing typos and making a few suggestions on run on sentences, etc. And at that point, just use the programs specifically designed to make your writing stronger.
My question is how are you going to prove grammarly or pro writing aid usage?
Or any AI usage?
@@BonnieDragonKat Wow, this was from a year ago. xD It was for fanfiction mainly, but I decided against using AI a while back.
idk i just use ai to fix my novel bad graamrs and dialouges because somtimes im bad on it but i keep my plot and characters authentic to me
You can use Grammarly or ProWritingAid to fix grammar, but if you use AI to change dialogue in any way, as the law is right now, it removes your copyright protection.
I know people who used AI to generate a book they self published, personally I think it's cheating to publish a work that is not their own to generate money off of it. It is morally wrong IMO.
And we discuss the legal ramifications in this video, so even if people don't see the ethic side of things, the legal side sure better get their attention...because they could be in some serious hot water if they use AI with their books.
@@KMRobinsonBooks Yes I watched the video, it's informative and have passed on the information to a couple of people I know that are using the Chat gpt AI to generate their "books", one has already self published and it's on the market. I think in the future it will become a real issue as these get out there and works get recognized.
It’s not morally wrong. If it’s their idea, their storyline & they want to use something to bring it to life what’s the problem? Who cares? It doesn’t affect me. U got people out there with great ideas & imagination but maybe don’t know how to write it or bring it to life. If the book is good then the book is good. People too worried bout other people instead of themselves. If the AI book is trash then it won’t sell if it’s good then people will enjoy reading it. Idk why people are so upset about it.
@@mercenarygang4800Understood, BUT, the AI might be pulling the info from 100 other different (already published by a human) stories to creat a chapter, scene, etc. Therein, lies the problem. If you’ve never read any of the books it pulled from, you’d be none the wiser and believe the AI was making it up from thin air. (I thought that, too, actually!)
Can't you just use a plagiarism detector?
.....the point is that you can't copyright protect it. You do not own anything you use AI to help create. Beyond that it's in incredibly poor taste, unprofessional, and icky.
In the fractured landscape of the U.S. literary bazaar and beyond its borders, if you've wrenched your narrative through the crucible of transformation until it's unrecognizable, you're on solid ground. The shadowy overlords of intellectual property can't pin you to the wall with accusations of AI collusion if you’ve mutated the work until it stands as a fierce, untraceable original.g.
Currently, if I know a writer uses AI my respect drops. I will not buy the book. It's that simple. I would rather look for authors who remain organic.
If you need ai to help you write plots and names for a novel then you shouldn’t be writing. Writing comes from the mind and body not computer.
And more specifically, your own mind and body, not a ghostwriter’s that you pretend is your own😉
What if your u have your own words and sentenses but you use chatgbt to enhance your sentence by making it more descriptive its still your words though.
Those are no longer your own words. The second you use AI, it's no longer yours, and it removes all copyright protection. The book community is adamant you do your own work and will permanently blacklist you for not doing your own work completely by yourself. But legally, even if an AI rearranges your sentences, it's no longer eligible for copyright protection.