Take A.I. for instance.
There’s a rising trend, where lately some indie authors appear to be trying to generate a bias against other indie authors, specifically when it comes to making use of paid services. Those who make use of the paid services are implied to provide “better quality” products to their respective markets than those who make use of free services – and in turn, those who make use of free services are slighted and implied to provide inferior products. The latter are even claimed to be a poor reflection on the rest of the indie author community.
I find this attack on authors who more closely represent the core values and identity of what it means to be indie – a level playing field and creative freedom, incongruous at best. In fact, it’s a glaring paradox.
Incidentally, this is the second article I’ve written on this subject – you can find the first one here.
Indie writers are a diverse lot, but generally we tend to be everyday people who work the grind, and who write and self-publish on the side. Seemingly very few indie authors are rich or able to give up their jobs to sit at home and write full time. Most of us have to turn our pennies over several times before pouring money into marketing or design projects when it could be more useful in our daily lives. For those of us living in third-world countries like South Africa – unlike those in first-world countries, where the sting of paying for services or products is considerably less – this identity trope is even more applicable because of the horrific devaluation of our currency in exchange value against the USD.
That’s why it makes no sense to me when I see members of the indie author/publishing community – and worse, from within the same third-world environment in South Africa – advocating and inciting hostility against other indie’s specifically for not making use of paid services because they opted to make use of a free service instead. Writers should be working to lighten each other’s loads, not to make them harder to bear.
Specifically in this case, I refer to cover design or cover art creation mills. According to one critic this past week, it costs “only” R200 for a license to use an image from a paid service on your cover. It’s “really not that much”. Well, I beg to differ. That depends greatly on your income and expenses – and how in (or out of) touch with reality you are. After all, if you’re in the fortunate position to not have to worry about money, then you really shouldn’t sit in judgement of those who do.
R200 is really not much is it? It certainly doesn’t buy as much as it used to at Spar a few months ago – but it’s a lot when you don’t have it, or can’t afford to waste money on unnecessary expenses. After all, that’s money I could rather put in my fuel tank or grocery bill. Let’s take an example: If I have 40 books and had to pay R200 per image to a paid image mill to do a makeover of those books, it would cost me R8000. That’s not small change – except maybe in dollars for the rich first-worlders. I have a wife, 4 cats and a car payment to support – to me, that’s more important than wasting money on frivolities just to impress other writers by supporting a paid art habit.
The argument against the use of AI-generated cover images makes no sense to me – except in the light of a grudge-match against authors who don’t cough up a “license fee” to make use of an image obtained from a stock image website. Being a writer, I have a vivid imagination – and I can imagine a cluster of old fogies camping out on a porch commenting about passersby going about their business in their neighborhood. “Why, back in my day…”, “These young whippersnappers…” etc. they might comment, as old fogies generally do – only in this case, it would be: “How dare those low-class struggling authors use free services to equal the results of our paid efforts?”, “Oh, the cheek…”, “Here comes the riff-raff, there goes the neighborhood…”, “We better show ’em who’s boss and put them back in their place…”
Feeling upstaged, are you? Feeling …jealous?
Well, apparently, according to one of these authors, my covers look “atrocious” – but not for any faults they could pick out this time. I’ll be the first to admit, AI-generated images are often far from perfect – that’s why you need to be picky about which images you choose for your covers, and that’s probably why they’re free – but this time it was because they now knew their origin. You see, everything A.I. is inherently evil. It’s the new hot topic. It’s why, as I mentioned in the previous article on the topic, some author/book group admins on social media have taken to banning any authors who dare to promote books with covers which THEY decide were created with AI tools.
As I mentioned before in that article, I used to be quite opposed to all forms of AI until recently, until I educated myself more about the subject – and frankly, I think a lot of these critics could use a little mind-opening themselves. Unfortunately, I doubt crowbars come in sizes big enough for some people.
I can quite understand the objections to people using AI chatbots to build manuscripts to submit to publishers as their own work – that objection makes sense and I absolutely agree – for obvious reasons. What I don’t understand is the application of THAT argument to the use of AI-generated images – especially by authors, specifically for book covers.
The difference lies in the application. Let me explain:
a) With text generation, people (note I didn’t say “authors”) pass off generated text as their own (or someone else’s) work and profit from it through sales and etc.
b) Some authors use AI-generated cover art to beautify their own original books to make them more attractive to buyers, in order to be more competitive – and this is especially advantageous to authors who don’t have the $$$ to splash out on sub-contractors. These images are 100% free, free to use, f-r-e-e… gratis.
I can’t see any sense in SOME authors complaining about OTHER authors using AI generated images for book covers. It looks nonsensical. There – I said it.
Firstly, what harm does it do to THEM? If you don’t like AI images, don’t use them – simple. Nobody’s forcing you to. Not everyone can afford to buy images that don’t quite match up what they want just so they can say they don’t support AI. As indie authors, we work within our means – and if some of us need to use free services, then who is anyone else – who is just sitting there in the peanut gallery – to decide we can’t? Who died and put them in charge of MY indie publishing projects? I sure as fuck didn’t get that memo. But aside from the obvious, blinding arrogance of some of these people, their attacks on creative freedom stink of an effort to gentrify the indie writing/publishing industry (and I’ll explain why shortly).
Secondly, it seems more like people are whinging about AI covers because they’re against people using chatbots to cheat at writing by submitting AI-created manuscripts – two totally separate things entirely. There is no comparison between these two tropes. That’s like saying you’re against cheese because you’re against bananas. But apparently, cheese and bananas are exactly the same thing as far as they’re concerned – go figure.
What’s even worse is that many of these authors are so against the use of AI images (which doesn’t affect them at all in any demonstrable way) that they’re also attacking and inciting hostility against those who do use it with increasing boldness and openness.
That seems awfully a lot like Sam telling his neighbor Joe that Joe can’t do a, b, c because Sam’s religion forbids it – which oddly enough, begins to describe exactly the disconfuckulated condition of the Disunited States of America at present.
Thirdly, critics often claim that AI image generation is “plagiarism-based”, “the AI was trained on the WORK of actual artists, without their consent” they say. But… WHO is it that put all their images and artworks on the internet for “exposure” to begin with? If you’ve been around the web as long as I have and don’t already know that everything accessible in a simple Google search is fair game, and has been for many years, then you’re a special kind of naïve.
Okay, let’s play that game, shall we? Millions of artists over the centuries have been trained on the art of other artists – and without their consent, living or dead – would they like to call them plagiarists too? How about the apprentices of the great masters – if their own styles were influenced by their mentors, couldn’t it be argued that they too are plagiarists? I trust that the absurdity of this notion is clear enough. After all, just because AI has been “trained on” existing art doesn’t mean it’s going to DUPLICATE it exactly – or that it’s products will suddenly be accepted by the art world as genuine art from whatever artist’s style it’s similar to. Also, in what way does essentially creating images which are BASED ON or INSPIRED BY artist X’s work impact that artist financially? Answer: It doesn’t – and not just because some of them have been dead for centuries. This is because it’s still not that artist’s work and could or should never be marketed AS their work. Even though Amazon might not care if someone did that, I’m pretty certain that some law enforcement office, broadly and internationally speaking, should.
Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly of all, if someone like me – who was NEVER going to pay anyone a fee to use an image on my book cover – or to design book covers for me, in the first place – opts to use a free AI-generated image, in what way does this affect paid image mills like Shutterstock, or an artist with their own following, or a cover design agency with their own customer base?
It simply doesn’t – or… or perhaps this is simply about making them look bad… less appealing by comparison. I mean, who REALLY wants to pay for something if they can get it for free? There’s only one sort of person I know who would opt for the most expensive option over more affordable alternatives – and their self-worth can be measured in currency.
Sure, the guy who snidely referred to the cover of “Demonspawn” as “atrocious” might have been laughing – but ultimately, deep-down, I think he’s actually scared.
Struggling indie authors are SAVING money by using a free alternative – and I suppose in some cases, some authors will probably stop using images from paid image mills on their covers – and in that case the only people I can grasp having some kind of issue with AI-generated images, is the paid image mills and their contributing artists and photographers etc.
“Artists have been on the lower rungs of society since forever – apart from the few who are celebrated in their lifetimes.” I was told, as part of the argument that my using AI-generated covers somehow steals the food right out of their mouths. Well sure, many artists have struggled historically speaking, but so have many writers. The modern art industry (that’s right, it’s an industry) is a cut-throat, cliquey nightmare, where people with real talent often take a back seat to untalented hacks with fine arts degrees in their pockets and “art critics” who swoon at the sight of a canvas sprayed with yellow paint. Here’s some news, sweethearts, the writing industry isn’t much better. It’s not about how good you are, it’s about who you know in the business. It’s why indie authors exist at all – and it’s why most of us continue to struggle even after we get ourselves published. What then, I wonder, have modern artists ever done for me as a writer that I should care about their profit margins?
Nevertheless, according to the authors leading the charge against AI-generated covers, apparently we indie authors and artists should all stand together against “the techbros” – who are working to take away ownership of all our creative works. That’s right – the techbros are coming. Booga-booga. Better grab your lantern and hit that saddle – giddyap, horsy! Gotta go spread the hysteria.
Basically, according to what I’m being told, I should stand with the same people who want to prevent me from succeeding as an author – by pushing for an exclusive model that I can’t afford to participate in. How does that even make sense? It’s about solidarity, they say. Solidarity… really?
Where were artists’ “solidarity” and “team spirit” every time I approached one of them for payment terms, royalty-sharing agreements or other proposals for covers over the last 30+ years – while I plodded on, working it all out for myself? All I ever got from them was snide snubs and snotty remarks. Why couldn’t I afford to pay their fees? After all, aren’t all the good authors supposedly wealthy and successful – just like good artists?
Now that authors finally have a viable free alternative to being dependent on their services, the world is ending and they need my solidarity? Is that right?
Yes, I should definitely stand with the people undermining my own best interests by making life harder for me, and shoot myself in the foot (or budget as the case may be).
But I digress.
For some time, I failed to understand what this drama really is about – but then, I figured it out. As one fellow Souf Efrikin detractor said “Jirre, you’re a special kind of dense.” LMAO. Seemingly, bullies find me a bit vexing – that’s not really news. Excuse me while I cry real soft. Well, what can I say? I aim to please.
Suffice to say, I actually do understand what this is all about… Surprise, surprise. Here – let me explain it to you.
Those shouting the loudest about authors using AI-generated images in their covers perceive some sort of threat against their vested interests, that’s what I think. I can’t imagine that those who profit from the sale of stock images and the design of covers for authors who don’t do these things themselves, would be very pleased that authors are now able to use free AI-generated images on their covers instead, could you? Naturally, these people have supporters – they’re quite influential within their own circles after all. Hence why daring to differ with them publicly comes with inherent risks: the chickens, they are restless.
Hence we come to how this hostility towards authors seeking cheaper or free options to pricey paid services appears to form part of an effort to gentrify the indie author field.
What is gentrification?
“Gentrification: noun; the process whereby the character of a poor urban area is changed by wealthier people moving in, improving housing, and attracting new businesses, often displacing current inhabitants in the process.”
There are many forms gentrification can take – from municipalities raising the rates and taxes on properties in certain areas to ensure that only people above a certain income level can afford to live there, to guilds and other social groupings imposing unrealistic expectations and membership fees etc. that must be met in order to become members of that group. In its crudest, most basic definition, gentrification is a process of exclusion and discrimination, limiting the enjoyment of something to those more favored and “deserving”. It is in effect, elitism, eugenics and snobbery, and I find that detestable.
When all is said and done, this isn’t about other people’s copyright – it’s about what’s paid, and what’s free – and who can afford to be part of the ‘club’. Ultimately, it’s about wealthier indies thinning out the competition to get to, or stay on top.
The gentrification I refer to in this case is the efforts being made to limit indie authors to using paid services rather than free services, and using this idea of shame and guilt to hen-peck them into line by criticizing the quality of their books, covers, content – and then also their personal standing, morals and ethics and what have you. Those who stand out face hammering down, death by a thousand pecks, as the chicken said – and should we all just shut up and use paid services like the vocal minority of Karens agitates for – then the indie author profession will become a game wholly dominated by the wealthier among us, wherein only those with more money to spend on paid services can succeed, while the rest are denied the use of anything that would equalize their struggle, forcing them to endure all manner of artificially-created obstructions and obstacles designed to render us uncompetitive.
In short, it’s an effort geared towards keeping the little guys down.
As Always, Follow The Money
Even more simple than that, I could easily say it’s about protecting profits. You see, some of these same authors are also artists on the side, and they might think they’ll lose out financially if they don’t speak up and agitate other authors to take up their cause. Rather than pretending that there is some kind of shared interest between indie authors and artists at play here, I’d say they should uncross their wires and try to separate their various identities and interests. This realization serves to clarify the muddy waters somewhat – but regardless of their particular bias, their behavior can still only be described as bullying.
One of the ways this bullying manifests that I’ve noticed, is the apparent reluctance among indie authors to admit that they use AI-generated images in their cover art – or even for illustrations of their content. This reluctance, apparently, results from the negative way in which they may be perceived (or portrayed) by their peers, and that they may also be on the receiving end of hostility – hostility which has been incited and stirred up by those working to ostracize the poorer, more struggling indie authors in the field. Basically, you already know what to expect if you decide to speak out – you would be drawing their fire and might just as well paint a target on your chest. And don’t for a minute think they’ll hold back. Those chickens are raring to go.
To close, I really don’t like the way some of my peers in the writing community seem to delight in bullying other writers – inciting resentment and stirring up dissent against them, and working to exclude them from marketing groups on social media and writing contests by scaring up paranoia about the origins of people’s cover images. Worse yet, they misrepresent their zealotry as being “for the common good”. As fucking if.
It’s despicable.
That must be the most egotistical entitled drivel I’ve ever read in my life. Stop being an apologist and stand up for the rights of the creative industry. You are only hurting yourself and adding to the problem. If you think your books are having a hard time standing out now, why do you think embracing AI like any other hack is going to make that better?
Oh dear – someone’s got sour grapes XD. I must’ve struck a nerve. If you read the article and still don’t understand why AI-generated imagery is good for indie authors, perhaps you need to question your motives?
I did read the article. It is pretty clear you have no understanding of how AI images are put together. Your perspective is pretty child-like and would be adorable if you were not so proud of hurting other creatives.
If you’ve read my article and you still won’t understand simple logic, that’s on you. The only thing that’s pretty clear is that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
As I’ve already clarified in the article, the only entities the use of AI-generated cover art could possibly affect negatively, is for-payment cover design services, paid image mills, and people charging money to create cover art for authors. Otherwise, the suggestion that I – a person who would never use a paid service anyway am hurting anyone by using free AI-generated cover images, is pure fantasy.
But please do go on, this level of narcissistic outrage is amusing.
Yeah, keep ripping off artists and using shoddy AI images which look awful anyway. At least the cover will be on par with the writing now.
Oh dear, oh dear – someone who’s never even read one of my books thinks my writing is “shoddy” – my writing career is over! LMAO. You sure you’re not a bot? Because for someone who hates AI as much as you do, you argue just like one.