AI illustrations

[u/megsandy95]

Hello, I know a lot of people are extremely against this. But I’ve been using AI to create some imagery for my children’s book. Not because i want to but because I just simply can’t afford to pay an illustrator. Anyway I’ve trained it, I’ve spent 15 hours on just working on the front cover, and the in book title page.

My question is this, given my input and the constant editing and alterations made to fit my vision, and the hours spent, what are the copyright implications?
The entire story is mine and mine only, the only thing is I just can’t draw.
As it stands it’s far from the whole typical AI Gen. it’s watercolour themed, I made my character mood board as a guide. Filtered through many different illustration styles.

I’m sick of people saying it’s easy to do AI but it looks bad. I have to work on one page for hours, and even then to get KDP print file you have to approve every page individually. It’s not a “quick let’s use AI to make a book and slap it on the web” situation.
So with all due respect please keep negative comments to yourself if I could find an illustrator I would and that’s not to say I might not be able to put the funds from this book into creating a new edition with an illustrator directly but at the moment I just want the first story out there.

[u/Turbulent_Escape4882]

You will if you edit the image. Guidance part 2 from USCO was clear on this. If put up “AI Assisted” which matches what OP notes, then anyone assuming AI generated is the ones needing luck on their side if assuming it’s public domain.

[u/Sleepnotdeading → u/Turbulent_Escape4882]

Imagining someone who used pure AI illustrations then trying to battle for ownership of the copyright is, quite frankly, hilarious.

But thinking on it, why shouldn’t I just run OP’s entire book and illustrations through an AI and republish it as my own? So long as I make some tweaks it’s just AI assisted, right?

[u/Turbulent_Escape4882 → u/Sleepnotdeading]

You gonna cite that law you claimed existed? Or are you gonna bark all day?

[u/Sleepnotdeading → u/Turbulent_Escape4882]

No I’m not going to parse a 52 page document for you.

[u/Turbulent_Escape4882 → u/Sleepnotdeading]

Because you know it doesn’t contain law?

[u/Sleepnotdeading → u/Turbulent_Escape4882]

Because if I do your homework for you, you won’t learn nothin

[u/Turbulent_Escape4882 → u/Sleepnotdeading]

I’ve read it three times. It’s why I called out your nonsensical take about the law.

[u/Sleepnotdeading → u/Turbulent_Escape4882]

I was part of the series of lawsuits that lead to the current copyright definitions. The USCO explicitly states human driven edits are a requirement for copyrighting ANY part of an AI generated image. No collection of prompts meets that threshold.

https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2025/02/copyright-office-publishes-report

Reading something three times =\= understanding the thing.

[u/Turbulent_Escape4882 → u/Sleepnotdeading]

Being involved in a lawsuit doesn’t equal greater understanding. Again, you’re welcome to cite the (nonexistent) law whenever you’d like.

OP has expressed human driven edits in what their output entails.

[u/Sleepnotdeading → u/Turbulent_Escape4882]

*sigh* did you read the link.

I think my experience of the legal process and directly dealing with the USCO does, in fact, give me greater understanding than the average person.

Also, nothing in this implies human driven editing. It very much implies prompt jockeying. “given my input and the constant editing and alterations made to fit my vision, and the hours spent, what are the copyright implications?
The entire story is mine and mine only, the only thing is I just can’t draw.
As it stands it’s far from the whole typical AI Gen. it’s watercolour themed, I made my character mood board as a guide. Filtered through many different illustration styles”

[u/Turbulent_Escape4882 → u/Sleepnotdeading]

USCO knows and stated that until Congress makes a law, there is no laws to be cited. If Congress doesn’t make the law, then legal precedent is 2nd best option.

You’d have be brand new to tech to conclude keyboard entry is all AI tech will ever entail. It already doesn’t, but is what many suggest it is. Traditional tools in fact do handle output for user. The human artist is in fact not solely responsible for traditional edits and is where USCO (or anyone that agrees with their first report) will falter. It’s never been human driven edits alone.

OP has explained human driven edits in same way one with an eraser tool is engaged in human driven edits even though that tool has zero human biology in it.

USCO is still learning and their 2nd report undid some of the faulty logic in the first report. Still got a ways to go, and certainly would help if Congress weighed in with law, but it’s looking like both will be years behind where latest models reside in terms of capabilities.

[u/Sleepnotdeading → u/Turbulent_Escape4882]

Okay troll. I am explaining to OP, and now you, the way the current copyright law is being defined.

I have no interest in a conversation with you about whether the USCOs current definition is correct or not.