AI book cover

[pmmg]

Im sorry, but you attach that word AI to your art and i have no interest. For me, i will avoid.

 

[Fyri]

I usually use AI generator to make portraits or scenes for my book, better than contacting a bunch of artist to do that, of course all the pictures that will be in the book will be either made in Inkarnate pro mode or by artist, but some AI photos are good so maybe I will include them.

Do what you want, but I would really stress against using AI images in something that you then sell. Beyond copyright dangers, it hurts the artists that the AI likely stole work from to provide you with free images.

It is similar to if someone started getting money off a book, but when you read the book you find out some of the scenes were paraphrased exactly from a book that you spent years perfecting. And the person selling this new book barely spent less than a day shifting through AI responses to get that scene rewritten in a way they liked. And people are saying that new book is really cool and how they love those scenes and don't even know you or your book exists. The person selling this book doesn't even know you, but the AI they used does.

These images can look amazing and original, but I don't know of a single AI program out there that is capable of being original. It is paraphrasing/editing usually copyrighted images it found online or that the programmers used from online to train it. Using them for inspiration is great, but don't include them in the actual product.

On another note, have you guys checked out Fiverr for artists? There are so many artists on there that love making art and working with storytellers! I'd recommend finding one that you love and jive with and then sticking with them. After showing some loyalty, they may even offer you a discount down the road. Finding a bunch of artists sounds exhausting and a little unnecessary.

 

[Devor]

On another note, have you guys checked out Fiverr for artists? There are so many artists on there that love making art and working with storytellers! I'd recommend finding one that you love and jive with and then sticking with them. After showing some loyalty, they may even offer you a discount down the road. Finding a bunch of artists sounds exhausting and a little unnecessary.

I've worked with Fiverr for artists and had some great experiences (and a couple not-so-great). The last time I checked Fiverr, though, it was swamped with artists who were offering to create the best AI art and fix it up for you. The number of people offering regular art has gone way down, and their prices have gone way up.

 

[Finchbearer]

I've worked with Fiverr for artists and had some great experiences (and a couple not-so-great). The last time I checked Fiverr, though, it was swamped with artists who were offering to create the best AI art and fix it up for you. The number of people offering regular art has gone way down, and their prices have gone way up.

Maybe they’re now charging more than a fiver…

 

[Devor]

Maybe they’re now charging more than a fiver…

The phoenix in my avatar cost me $40, including tip, ten years ago. Today it would be about $120-150.

 

[_Michael_]

It is in my opinion that should anyone choose to use AI generated ‘art’ for their work, then it does risk losing something more important that copyright infringement - credibility. The cheapening of art and design was inevitable, but with the rise and rise of AI, there will be a clear distinction between the wheat and the chaff. Try creating original work. You will thank your future self.

For gaming, for recreational use and for fun, AI is fine, but as an ‘art’ it is a non entity.

Not everyone can afford $1,000 commissions, or know how to navigate the contractual paperwork. Nor does everyone have the ability to make passable artwork for their books. I can't do organic drawing for crap. Faces and bodies elude me. I'm much better at maps and floorpans, so that's what I stick with. But I can't just stick maps and floorplans throughout the book as filler art because it wouldn't make sense to do.

If the material is good enough, the art doesn't matter. I present Strange Girl the comic series as direct evidence of this.

Im sorry, but you attach that word AI to your art and i have no interest. For me, i will avoid.

If that is all that it takes to turn you off of some material, it's your loss. I've seen AI artists on dA that spend weeks generating, tweaking, layering, and generating some more art, bashing it into an amazing whole. They use AI as a tool, with each variable like a different color added to the palette. Some of the images use dozens of variables in a single prompt. But that effort and ability to prompt engineer is apparently derailed with a single, "AI sucks," comment. Inb4 you say, "That's not what I said," let me ask you what the implication is, then, that you avoid it? You only avoid something you find distasteful.

Do what you want, but I would really stress against using AI images in something that you then sell. Beyond copyright dangers, it hurts the artists that the AI likely stole work from to provide you with free images.

It is similar to if someone started getting money off a book, but when you read the book you find out some of the scenes were paraphrased exactly from a book that you spent years perfecting. And the person selling this new book barely spent less than a day shifting through AI responses to get that scene rewritten in a way they liked. And people are saying that new book is really cool and how they love those scenes and don't even know you or your book exists. The person selling this book doesn't even know you, but the AI they used does.

These images can look amazing and original, but I don't know of a single AI program out there that is capable of being original. It is paraphrasing/editing usually copyrighted images it found online or that the programmers used from online to train it. Using them for inspiration is great, but don't include them in the actual product.

On another note, have you guys checked out Fiverr for artists? There are so many artists on there that love making art and working with storytellers! I'd recommend finding one that you love and jive with and then sticking with them. After showing some loyalty, they may even offer you a discount down the road. Finding a bunch of artists sounds exhausting and a little unnecessary.

Again, not everyone can afford $1,000 commissions. Especially not multiple ones to build the rapport you are suggesting. Even if we assume the commissions are only $100 a piece, there are hundreds of illustrations in a book like the Player's Handbook. That equals tens of thousands that most people do not have the luxury of affording.

 

[Finchbearer]

Not everyone can afford $1,000 commissions, or know how to navigate the contractual paperwork. Nor does everyone have the ability to make passable artwork for their books. I can't do organic drawing for crap. Faces and bodies elude me. I'm much better at maps and floorpans, so that's what I stick with. But I can't just stick maps and floorplans throughout the book as filler art because it wouldn't make sense to do.

If the material is good enough, the art doesn't matter. I present Strange Girl the comic series as direct evidence of this.

If that is all that it takes to turn you off of some material, it's your loss. I've seen AI artists on dA that spend weeks generating, tweaking, layering, and generating some more art, bashing it into an amazing whole. They use AI as a tool, with each variable like a different color added to the palette. Some of the images use dozens of variables in a single prompt. But that effort and ability to prompt engineer is apparently derailed with a single, "AI sucks," comment. Inb4 you say, "That's not what I said," let me ask you what the implication is, then, that you avoid it? You only avoid something you find distasteful.

Again, not everyone can afford $1,000 commissions. Especially not multiple ones to build the rapport you are suggesting. Even if we assume the commissions are only $100 a piece, there are hundreds of illustrations in a book like the Player's Handbook. That equals tens of thousands that most people do not have the luxury of affording.

There are plenty of book cover templates on Canva (for example) but that are available to use specifically as commercial books covers costing £0 upwards and are royalty free. As Fyri was pointing out, should you choose AI ‘art’ as a background for your book cover, then you would need to check on the copyright laws, which are no doubt subject to change over the next few years in the advent of all this new tech. So it would hurt you more than it would an AI company. If your book cover image gets tied to the specific generator that you pulled the image from, it could be that they decide that you now owe them money for using their intellectual property - the jury is out on how this will evolve.

Not all book covers need cost as much as £750 / $1000 - if you were serious about publishing your book then I’d implore you to save up and find designers that are charging around £100 - £300 per book cover. This is only applicable if you’re self publishing anyway, and remember that you don’t need a detailed book cover with an illustrated main character on the front - simple can be just as impactful. The typography is more of what matters anyway seeing as that is what is communicating what the book is called.

Plus…all I will go back to all AI has a sort of wonky off-kilter look to it that will not age well. You don’t want your book cover to look like the era it was made in in years to come. Every single self published AI fantasy book cover looks like this:

And

 

[Finchbearer]

The phoenix in my avatar cost me $40, including tip, ten years ago. Today it would be about $120-150.

The name needs a re-brand!

 

[_Michael_]

There are plenty of book cover templates on Canva (for example) but that are available to use specifically as commercial books covers costing £0 upwards and are royalty free. As Fyri was pointing out, should you choose AI ‘art’ as a background for your book cover, then you would need to check on the copyright laws, which are no doubt subject to change over the next few years in the advent of all this new tech. So it would hurt you more than it would an AI company. If your book cover image gets tied to the specific generator that you pulled the image from, it could be that they decide that you now owe them money for using their intellectual property - the jury is out on how this will evolve.

Not all book covers need cost as much as £750 / $1000 - if you were serious about publishing your book then I’d implore you to save up and find designers that are charging around £100 - £300 per book cover. This is only applicable if you’re self publishing anyway, and remember that you don’t need a detailed book cover with an illustrated main character on the front - simple can be just as impactful. The typography is more of what matters anyway seeing as that is what is communicating what the book is called.

Plus…all I will go back to all AI has a sort of wonky off-kilter look to it that will not age well. You don’t want your book cover to look like the era it was made in in years to come. Every single self published AI fantasy book cover looks like this:

And

Book covers are one thing. Also, those are the covers they chose. I can prompt engineer better covers than that, and I'm an amateur. Also, I'm pretty sure that Bing Image Creator and others grant a free use license in their ToS as the prompt is your own. The engine is simply a tool. Saying that the AI generator owners having a stake in your copyright because you used their engine is like saying Microsoft has a stake in your royalties because you typed it on Word. Any court would immediately reject such a spurious argument on its face. As always, read the ToS.

However, again, what about those who publish 350+ tomes like Player's Handbooks for their own systems? You expect people to be able to afford thousands in commission fees to put in images of dwarves and elves and castles? Psh. License-free artwork suffers overall from a lack of quality or specific subject matter that you may need. Hence, why I say go to dA and look at some of the artists who actually run their own engines offline and build their material in layers over the course of weeks. The amount of effort they put in is just as labor intensive as people using digital tools such as a Wacom.

 

[Finchbearer]

Book covers are one thing. Also, those are the covers they chose. I can prompt engineer better covers than that, and I'm an amateur. Also, I'm pretty sure that Bing Image Creator and others grant a free use license in their ToS as the prompt is your own. The engine is simply a tool. Saying that the AI generator owners having a stake in your copyright because you used their engine is like saying Microsoft has a stake in your royalties because you typed it on Word. Any court would immediately reject such a spurious argument on its face. As always, read the ToS.

However, again, what about those who publish 350+ tomes like Player's Handbooks for their own systems? You expect people to be able to afford thousands in commission fees to put in images of dwarves and elves and castles? Psh. License-free artwork suffers overall from a lack of quality or specific subject matter that you may need. Hence, why I say go to dA and look at some of the artists who actually run their own engines offline and build their material in layers over the course of weeks. The amount of effort they put in is just as labor intensive as people using digital tools such as a Wacom.

*coughs* then these ‘designers’ should be able to come up with an original image if they’re so damn good.

Either way, do what you want to do, but I think that AI has a certain look right now that will not age well, and I also think the copyright laws are murky at best. We are not talking about such a well established institution as typefaces you can use royalty free. Typefaces such as Georgia and Garamond are royalty free because they are public domain - these typefaces were designed well over 100 years ago when they were made into tiny lead letterpress pieces and used with a printing press.

 

[_Michael_]

How does that defeat the affirmative defense that offering your AI engine for free does not automatically grant you royalties or a stake in someone's profits that uses it? Just imagine Ford trying to tell people that because they use their Econoline vans, Ford is entitled to a small percentage of profits. lmao It would be laughed out of court.

And you're right--they should generate their own. Stop relying upon pre-generated ones and learn to prompt-engineer. Use CorelDraw and layer it with text. I barely afforded my Corel, and right now, I couldn't even afford a $20 commission. For the growing majority of Americans, that is the reality under a 25% inflation rate (non-CPI metric) and a weaponized IRS.

Typefaces, however, are in fact protected by copyrights because certain custom ones require a license to use, and people using them agree to that. No such license requirements exist for AI art unless it specifically states that in the ToS (and Bing and Catbird and Perchance do not have such clauses, to my knowledge).

 

[Fyri]

I've worked with Fiverr for artists and had some great experiences (and a couple not-so-great). The last time I checked Fiverr, though, it was swamped with artists who were offering to create the best AI art and fix it up for you. The number of people offering regular art has gone way down, and their prices have gone way up.

Yikes. I know why their prices have likely gone up too. It's really unfortunate for all humans involved.

The engine is simply a tool. Saying that the AI generator owners having a stake in your copyright because you used their engine is like saying Microsoft has a stake in your royalties because you typed it on Word. Any court would immediately reject such a spurious argument on its face. As always, read the ToS.

Did... did you look at the link I provided? Did I fail to provide that link?

You expect people to be able to afford thousands in commission fees to put in images of dwarves and elves and castles?

No... I just expect people to not carelessly, knowingly steal from artists who worked hard to master their craft and need to make a living somehow. Art is already under attack by the government and education systems since before 2009. Underfunded. Underappreciated. Many underpaid. Yet, everyone loves art and wants it to be immaculate and fulfilling. STEM is more important than STEAM and that bugs me.

AI is fun, but also harmfully under-regulated—for now.

 

[Dankolisic]

Not everyone can afford $1,000 commissions, or know how to navigate the contractual paperwork. Nor does everyone have the ability to make passable artwork for their books. I can't do organic drawing for crap. Faces and bodies elude me. I'm much better at maps and floorpans, so that's what I stick with. But I can't just stick maps and floorplans throughout the book as filler art because it wouldn't make sense to do.

If the material is good enough, the art doesn't matter. I present Strange Girl the comic series as direct evidence of this.

If that is all that it takes to turn you off of some material, it's your loss. I've seen AI artists on dA that spend weeks generating, tweaking, layering, and generating some more art, bashing it into an amazing whole. They use AI as a tool, with each variable like a different color added to the palette. Some of the images use dozens of variables in a single prompt. But that effort and ability to prompt engineer is apparently derailed with a single, "AI sucks," comment. Inb4 you say, "That's not what I said," let me ask you what the implication is, then, that you avoid it? You only avoid something you find distasteful.

Again, not everyone can afford $1,000 commissions. Especially not multiple ones to build the rapport you are suggesting. Even if we assume the commissions are only $100 a piece, there are hundreds of illustrations in a book like the Player's Handbook. That equals tens of thousands that most people do not have the luxury of affording.

I agree. I would love to include a picture on every page in my book, but I simply don't have the money. The cover is finally finished ( I'm posting it here and in a new thread - would love to hear your opinion) and it was fnished by an artist I know. Well, when i make AI porttraits it's more to make my imagination better on how someone views the characters.
Like I said, the book will contain a map that I made in Inkarnate pro mode, the cover made by an artist and a couple of pictures made also by artists.

 

[Finchbearer]

AI is and will always be regurgitated impressions of what we as human beings have already created. It’s like peering into someone’s fever dream. There is no new originality, but a human made thing is fundamentally not the same thing as an AI made thing.

I always reference Tolkien cause the man was so dedicated - sure he was talented, could draw, write, knew a lot of stuff, but how have we gone from something that someone truly made, to this pile of regurgitated garbage? It makes me sad.

I’d rather pick up a book with a home made cover than one that has clearly been made with AI. That CGI look is an instant turn off for me. Some book cover designers charge extortionate amounts. That’s all I’ll say on that. And all I am trying to say is that even if your AI image was ‘free’ for you to take and use as you wish, I do not think it gives you the same copyright law as something that isn’t AI generated.

 

[Dankolisic]

Here is the finally done hand-drawn book cover ( in a new thread I will publish the translated summary on the back)
Hope you like it

 

[_Michael_]

Yikes. I know why their prices have likely gone up too. It's really unfortunate for all humans involved.


Did... did you look at the link I provided? Did I fail to provide that link?


No... I just expect people to not carelessly, knowingly steal from artists who worked hard to master their craft and need to make a living somehow. Art is already under attack by the government and education systems since before 2009. Underfunded. Underappreciated. Many underpaid. Yet, everyone loves art and wants it to be immaculate and fulfilling. STEM is more important than STEAM and that bugs me.

AI is fun, but also harmfully under-regulated—for now.

You posted the link. It's not a solid legal argument and one even I could easily defeat in court. Why? Because while the engine is not considered a human for the purposes of being an "author" recognized by the Copyright office, the person engineering the prompt most assuredly is human. Therefore, it's no different than someone programming a computer using a tool like Basic+. Do the owners of Basic+ have copyright claims to all the programs made with it? Absolutely not. The idea is patently absurd.

Engineering a prompt is easy. Engineering a prompt well takes a lot of patience and talent as anyone who has used ChatGPT or the others can testify to--the machines are idiots and require repeated jostling to get things just so. The truly revolutionary AI artists do this for weeks. Dozens of variables in a prompt, arranged in careful order, are the same thing as the base code of software that tells the CPU engine how to execute the commands. It would be nothing to demonstrate to a court that this is so. The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because none of the AI generator owners are interested in attempting that...for a reason. Their lawyers would be ripping their hair out-- "You wanna do what??" would be a common refrain.

AI is and will always be regurgitated impressions of what we as human beings have already created. It’s like peering into someone’s fever dream. There is no new originality, but a human made thing is fundamentally not the same thing as an AI made thing.

I always reference Tolkien cause the man was so dedicated - sure he was talented, could draw, write, knew a lot of stuff, but how have we gone from something that someone truly made, to this pile of regurgitated garbage? It makes me sad.

I’d rather pick up a book with a home made cover than one that has clearly been made with AI. That CGI look is an instant turn off for me. Some book cover designers charge extortionate amounts. That’s all I’ll say on that. And all I am trying to say is that even if your AI image was ‘free’ for you to take and use as you wish, I do not think it gives you the same copyright law as something that isn’t AI generated.

Nothing is new under the sun. Every art form descends from something else. AI is just the next iteration. Every idea has been done to death, artistically and otherwise. So the argument that it's just recycling pre-existing stuff is not a strong one. Most people are inspired to be artists based on other people's stuff, and many artists try to emulate other artists' styles until they find their own artistic "voice." AI is no different; it's just not at the stage where it's found its "voice" yet.

 

[Fyri]

Here is the finally done hand-drawn book cover ( in a new thread I will publish the translated summary on the back)
Hope you like it

Nice! To me, it looks gorgeous!

It also reminds me of something I like about cover art. I always like to wonder about the artist/model/photographer. I love to imagine what it was like and what they were thinking when they posed for a shot or shaded a part of the cover. I enjoy seeing the love and labor and unique touch of each part of a book. If I found out an image were AI generated, it would feel hollow. :/

 

[_Michael_]

Nice! To me, it looks gorgeous!

It also reminds me of something I like about cover art. I always like to wonder about the artist/model/photographer. I love to imagine what it was like and what they were thinking when they posed for a shot or shaded a part of the cover. I enjoy seeing the love and labor and unique touch of each part of a book. If I found out an image were AI generated, it would feel hollow. :/

Psst. It's AI-generated.

 

[Fyri]

You posted the link. It's not a solid legal argument and one even I could easily defeat in court. Why? Because while the engine is not considered a human for the purposes of being an "author" recognized by the Copyright office, the person engineering the prompt most assuredly is human. Therefore, it's no different than someone programming a computer using a tool like Basic+. Do the owners of Basic+ have copyright claims to all the programs made with it? Absolutely not. The idea is patently absurd.

Engineering a prompt is easy. Engineering a prompt well takes a lot of patience and talent as anyone who has used ChatGPT or the others can testify to--the machines are idiots and require repeated jostling to get things just so. The truly revolutionary AI artists do this for weeks. Dozens of variables in a prompt, arranged in careful order, are the same thing as the base code of software that tells the CPU engine how to execute the commands. It would be nothing to demonstrate to a court that this is so. The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because none of the AI generator owners are interested in attempting that...for a reason. Their lawyers would be ripping their hair out-- "You wanna do what??" would be a common refrain.

What I mean is that the courts don't have this figured out yet. It would not be easy or an instant "laugh in your face" deal. It is a issue that is currently being studied and lots will likely be changing because of it. People have rights that are being messed with. A decision on how to deal with that has not yet been made. It is not an easy debate.

 

[Finchbearer]

Nothing is new under the sun. Every art form descends from something else. AI is just the next iteration. Every idea has been done to death, artistically and otherwise. So the argument that it's just recycling pre-existing stuff is not a strong one. Most people are inspired to be artists based on other people's stuff, and many artists try to emulate other artists' styles until they find their own artistic "voice." AI is no different; it's just not at the stage where it's found its "voice" yet.

Err, yes that’s what I’m saying… we live in a post-post-modern era - what I was saying about AI is that it is regurgitated impressions of human created content - that is not the same thing as human made art and design, it’s an artificial imitation. The clue is the word artificial.