Just as VIP Brands Ltd., Comica and the Lakes International Comic Art Festival launched this year’s Sophie Castille Award – English” for Comics in Translation comes grim news in the results of this year’s Society of Authors survey of writers, illustrators and translators, run throughout January, on the impact of generative AI on creative careers.
The survey on generative AI highlights the growing impact of new technologies on creative careers, and an urgent need for ethical development that works within copyright laws.
Throughout January 2024, the Society of Authors (SoA) ran a survey of its 12,500 members and other authors, receiving nearly 800 responses on respondents’ experiences of generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems, and their views and concerns about the future impact on creative careers.
The findings demonstrate not only the deep uncertainty about the future role of generative AI in the profession, but also the impact it is already having on careers and livelihoods.
Use of generative AI by creators
While some respondents are starting to use generative AI as a tool in their work out of choice, others – specifically some translators and illustrators – are now being asked to use it by publishers and commissioning organisations.
• Approximately 1 in 5 respondents (22%) said they had used generative AI in their work
• This included 1 in 10 illustrators (12%), a third of translators (37%), a fifth of fiction writers (20%) and around a quarter of non-fiction writers (25%).
• Around 3 in 10 illustrators and writers (31%) said they have used generative AI for brainstorming ideas.
• Around 1 in 10 translators (8%) and a smaller proportion of illustrators (5%) said they have used generative AI in their work because their publisher or commissioning organisation asked them to.
Creators’ livelihoods at risk
Concerns about the impact of generative AI on creative careers included groups of authors who are already experiencing loss of work, or the devaluation of their work, as a direct result of new technologies.
• A quarter of illustrators (26%) and over a third of translators (36%) have already lost work due to generative AI.
• Over a third of illustrators (37%) and over 4 in 10 translators (43%) say the income from their work has decreased in value because of generative AI.
• Almost two-thirds of writers of fiction (65%) and over half of non-fiction writers (57%) believe that generative AI will negatively impact future income from their creative work, with this rising to over three quarters of translators (77%) and illustrators (78%).
• More than 8 in 10 respondents (86%) said they are concerned about their style, voice and likeness being mimicked or reproduced in generative AI output.
• More than 8 in 10 respondents (86%) are concerned that the use of generative AI devalues human-made creative work.
• Some respondents expressed concerns that generative AI could replace human creators, particularly in areas like copywriting and content creation. They raised concerns that this will lead to a decline in quality and diversity within the creative industries.
• Even those respondents who were more optimistic that generative AI systems can be used ethically (for instance, as tools to improve efficiency and accessibility) reiterated that ethical concerns are a primary reason to avoid the use of generative AI systems at this stage.
The need for regulation and consent
There was an almost unanimous consensus among respondents about the need for regulation of generative AI: to ensure that consent is sought from copyright holders before their work is used to develop systems, that credit and compensation are given, and that the outputs of generative AI systems are labelled as such.
• Almost all of respondents (94%) want credit and compensation and to be asked for consent (95%) when their work is used to develop generative AI systems or to enable AI-generated output.
• Almost all respondents (95%) call for Government to introduce safeguards and regulation to ensure compliance with these measures of consent, compensation and transparency.
• In a clear message to publishers and other organisations about the importance of transparency in all uses of AI software, the overwhelming majority of respondents (over 9 in 10) believe that publishers and other organisations should state prominently when generative AI has been used to assist with audio, video, covers and illustrations, decision-making, editing and translation.
• Respondents also expressed ethical concerns about generative AI systems, with many highlighting biases and inaccuracies in AI-generated content, worries about copyright infringement, misuse of personal data, and the exploitation of fellow creators’ works without consent or remuneration.
• Almost all respondents (97%) believe consumers deserve transparency and should be made aware when generative AI systems have generated all or a portion of what they are reading, viewing or hearing.
The SoA response
The survey findings highlight that while generative AI has the potential to be useful to some creators, there is an urgent need for action, and commitment to consent, remuneration and transparency measures, with an unambiguous message to developers, government and industry to respect the rights of human creators when developing, using and regulating for these tools.
• The developers of generative AI systems must commit to transparency and ethical development, and engage with rightsholders’ – collectively and individually – about consent, credit and remuneration.
• There is an urgent need for Government regulation of generative AI systems to ensure these systems are developed and used ethically and lawfully – with requirements for transparency, consent, credit, labelling and remuneration.
• The Government needs to uphold copyright laws in the UK and strengthen enforcement mechanisms.
• We reiterate our call for AI developers to engage with the creative industries to develop models for remunerating authors for past infringement and future use, including by way of collective licensing models.
• Publishing and the creative industries must commit to protecting human creativity and authorship.
• We urge all SoA members to vote in our upcoming Extraordinary General Meeting (2 May 2024) to assert that they do not consent to the use of their works to develop AI systems.
Commenting on the survey findings, chair of the Creators’ Rights Alliance and outgoing SoA chief executive Nicola Solomon said:
The generative AI landscape has evolved fast. Two years ago, these were niche systems but they have quickly become global, mass-market products. We raised concerns then about the possible future impact on creative careers. Today, that impact is already felt acutely by more and more creators – from translators and illustrators to journalists and educational writers. No one expects generative AI to be un-invented, and we all know its potential to be a powerful and useful tool. But it is not too late to ensure that it is developed and used ethically, and within existing copyright frameworks. Once the world moves beyond the wow factor of each new system release, generative AI must remain a tool to support and enhance human-made creative work, not a cheap alternative to replace it.
About the survey
Throughout January 2024, the SoA ran a survey of its 12,500 members and other authors, and received 787 responses.
The respondents included writers of fiction and non-fiction, scriptwriters, poets and journalists, as well as illustrators and translators – many well-established, others early in their careers, and both traditionally and self-published.
Regardless of type of author and career stage, almost all respondents called for transparency from developers, safeguards introduced by Government, credit and compensation when work is used, and ethical approaches both to the development of generative AI systems and in practice when they are used by industry.
Many thanks to everyone who shared their views and experience in the survey. The information will be invaluable as we continue to lobby Government and industry.
What can authors do?
• Register now to vote and take part in the Society of Authors upcoming EGM on 2 May 2024
• Read the SoA’s Practical steps for authors
• Read the SoA position statement: Where we stand on artificial intelligence
Don’t hesitate to get in touch with any contract queries or to share your experience and feedback: info@societyofauthors.org
The founder of downthetubes, which he established in 1998. John works as a comics and magazine editor, writer, and on promotional work for the Lakes International Comic Art Festival. He is currently editor of Star Trek Explorer, published by Titan – his third tour of duty on the title originally titled Star Trek Magazine.
Working in British comics publishing since the 1980s, his credits include editor of titles such as Doctor Who Magazine, Babylon 5 Magazine, and more. He also edited the comics anthology STRIP Magazine and edited several audio comics for ROK Comics. He has also edited several comic collections, including volumes of “Charley’s War” and “Dan Dare”.
He’s the writer of “Pilgrim: Secrets and Lies” for B7 Comics; “Crucible”, a creator-owned project with 2000AD artist Smuzz; and “Death Duty” and “Skow Dogs” with Dave Hailwood.
Categories: downthetubes News
Related Articles
-
Cartoonist Tom Richmond among award nominees from National Cartoonists Society
-
In Pictures and In Review: “Heroes” exhibition at the Cartoon Museum
-
Coming Soon: The Dunfermline Story comic reveals city’s proud history
-
Rebellion ramps up its first crowdfunding campaign, for a brand new romance comic – Roxy!
There’s a lot of detail here, but I’m wondering (perhaps naively) why publishers and commissioning organisations are ASKING these creatives to use AI. Is this something that the commissioning party then uses as a sales point, like “Look, this is AI!”? Or just for speed?
I can see it may speed up translations, but presumably only as a starting point if you’re still employing someone and telling them to use AI.
What may be telling here is the kind of writing that this survey encompasses, and what aspects of that writing do and don’t “require” AI. (forgive my shorthanded use of “require”, there’s no malicious intent) Originals novels? Online articles? Comics?
I presented a paper on the possible use of AI Neural Machine Translation for comics translation at Wondercon last year. Due to the nature of the medium, comics are still a significant challenge to AI. Automatic text-image recognition is part of the problem – as no AI is likely to be able to work out which character is speaking at any given moment, nor the context in which they are speaking. This makes translating voice, tone, and tension almost impossible. Therefore, human translation is currently the only option for any publisher serious about selling books. Five years from now, however….