According to critics of indie authors (strangely enough, from some within the indie author “community”) the use of free AI-generated cover images is “ripping off” artists who would otherwise receive payment for creating those covers.
Even if the said authors would never have made use of those artists paid services at all. 
I’ve been giving this subject a lot of thought lately, and if anything, my interaction with several of those leading the attack against the very soul of what it means to be an indie author, has led me to a number of stark realizations.
(This is my third article on the subject of a witch-hunt within the indie author community against authors using free services to create competitive covers for their books. You can view the previous two here: 1, 2.)
If we follow the “logic” of their argument, then by the same reasoning, everyone who walks or bicycles to work is “ripping off” taxi companies and public transport. Those thumbing lifts from passing traffic, or from colleagues in lift-clubs would be “ripping off” the oil companies – and those stingy little scrooges ought to buy their own cars and pay for their own fuel. 
And, if like me, the illogic of this bizarre sort of reasoning were to give you a headache – and you were to self-medicate by taking an aspirin, the same line of thought would accuse you of “ripping off” doctors, nurses or the medical aid companies by not making use of their services instead. Further, if you were clued up on traditional medicines and were to grind up strips of willow bark from the tree in your yard and take that instead, you would be accused of “ripping off” the pharmaceutical companies. Added to that, imagine receiving some free home-grown tomatoes from your neighbor over the fence and being accused of “ripping off” Spar – or the entire farming industry as a whole.
Bizarre, right? 
One of the tenets of a free market economy is the right of buyers to choose whose products they will buy, or which services they will make use of. Regardless of their reasons for doing so, they may prefer to buy a Chevrolet instead of a Ford, or choose to shop at a Walmart instead of wherever else advertisers tell them to spend their money – but I think this example is sufficient to make the point. Nobody – and certainly not any authority – would really take anyone seriously if they launched attacks on motorcycle owners for “ripping off” Ford by not buying Fords instead of motorcycles.
In less free societies, it follows that there is less choice – where buyers only have one or two options to choose from – and this I believe, is called a “captive market” – or a monopoly, where one or two companies essentially control the entire market in their particular field. This could be illustrated by, say, Volkswagen buying up the majority (or all) of other car companies and marques in a geographic location, and no matter what type of car you bought, it would still ultimately be made by VW and they would profit directly from every sale. This means that no matter what you want to choose, or how dissatisfied you are with the available option(s) presented, you only have essentially two choices – take it, or leave it.
Okay, now let’s look at the potential consequences or outcomes of such a line of thought – by that I mean, what if the bullies donning the mantle of “neighborhood watch” patrollers managed to get their way?
The core message I see in the attack on indie authors using free AI-generated cover images is, essentially, that people with absolutely no authority to enforce their bias, are pushing the message that you’re “not allowed” to do so – you “have to” make use of paid services instead – even though these free services are openly and legally available to you.
Should this minority voice rise to any position of influence within the indie community and/or the broader publishing industry itself, it would result in something which, in summation, would look very much like a captive market.
Not only might authors be forced to choose between using expensive paid services and the outright failure of their careers, but in such a scenario the paranoia about where Joe Soap, author, got his cover image and where it was designed, and who by, would pervade the publishing, marketing and selling process from stem to stern.
Again, as I’ve said before, this outcome would gentrify the indie publishing industry so that only those with more funds to invest in covers and other paid services would really be able to succeed, while those with less dosh to chuck about on frivolities would be disadvantaged by being forced to use less attractive covers, or be banned from publishing altogether – all, supposedly, in the name of “solidarity” with paid services and *cough* “fairness to all”.
Does that make any sense?
Supposedly, according to what I’m being led to believe, we as indie authors – for some unfathomable reason – OWE our loyalty (and our money) to those providing paid services – but seemingly only according to those with conflicts of interest in the debate – which is where these people really tip their hands for all to see. That is, if anyone were to actually look.
If you’re an author, why not do yourself a favor and just think for a moment why anyone would encourage you to oppose a free, useful service that benefits YOU as an author? I wonder what they would gain from suppressing that freedom for others? Could it be that they themselves have some vested interests in the continued profitability and support for those paid services? Or would they stand to benefit from suppressing the less wealthy competition?
Limiting the freedom of choice of indie authors as to where they get their cover images from, would appear to suit the cover image design service providers, stock image mills and other corporate interests who have profited on the backs of indie authors for many years, wouldn’t it? Killing off any free alternatives (i.e. competition) has been a mainstay of business practice for generations – hence I could also grasp why someone who sells art or photographs to indie authors might object to some other service coming along and offering their customers a free alternative.
Here’s some more food for thought:
It’s called competition, sweetheart – perhaps you’ve heard of it before?
It’s what happens when businesses don’t have a monopoly.
If you’re doing art for art’s sake, be it painting, digital art, sketching, sculpture, poetry, writing, photography etc. – whatever form it took, it would be art. But the moment you do it directly for profit i.e. to sell it, it becomes a product, and you become a business.
That said, everyone else in the same line, producing similar products, can be viewed as competition. How does (or should) a business deal with competition? Either produce better products yourself, or “sweeten the deal” with extras and incentives for your clients or customers – or… maybe… drop your pricing to offer a cheaper, more attractive alternative to buyers? Offer payment terms? Another alternative – one which in this case appears to have directly occurred to critics in this case – is to simply kill off the competition, to the detriment of the target market, which includes indie authors, and yes, even them.
“Why would an artist drop their pricing?” “Sacrilege!” “How dare you expect me to drop my prices?” Insert further impotent outrage here. “*Gasp* It’s art after all!”
No. No, it’s not – it’s a book cover image. You’re charging me for a book cover image – that’s a product and a service. And, according to the principles of free enterprise, as a customer I’m entitled to look elsewhere for cheaper or even free alternatives that suit me, whatever my reasons may be.
This is not the Middle Ages, where guilds rule the roost and decide that someone who makes arrows is not allowed to make bows.
In closing, I find myself wondering why else would anyone – specifically fellow indies themselves – promote the notion that someone who had never and would never use a paid service, is – in using a free alternative – “ripping off” the paid service? Why this rising animosity? Of course, they like to throw words about like “theft”, “rip-off”, “plagiarism-based”, “inferior quality” – because those are words that sting and raise eyebrows and cast the recipients in a doubtful light. They’re words that make any honest author cringe, and today – like it or not, we live in a world where words have consequences, often dire ones.
Nevertheless, it’s the “logic” employed in the justification for their attacks which eludes me – but not their motives.
Apparently, an indie author who would never have used paid services to design a cover anyway, going on to use a free AI alternative instead, equates to depriving the cover design companies, graphic designers and artists of income they would never have had to begin with. Go figure.
Also, again, none of these detractors seem willing to differentiate between frauds making up whole books of AI content – and actual authors saving money by using free AI designed images on their covers.
The sheer, staggering incapability of some people to understand the glaring flaw in their reasoning here has literally given me a headache.
So I’ll just take an aspirin instead of paying to see a doctor, if that’s okay with you. 
Y’all have a wonderful weekend!
Cheers!
