The emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in creating book covers has sparked significant debate online with some making threats to authors who use them and essentially telling them that they’re blacklisted for ever doing so.
Thanks for clearly stating your stance on this. I wish more people were more tolerant. I make my own covers but I've studied art since I was a child, a good 65 years ago. I've studied with master artists who encourage their students to emulate their styles. I use AI because I want a certain look for my books that I haven't found any book cover artists around do. I would paint them myself except an oil painting doesn't carry that vivid color that digital art has and would fall flat as a cover. If I did hire an artist who can paint impressionistic realism, the style I paint and create with AI, it wold cost me way more than my books would ever bring in, like you say. It's kind of oppressive when you think about it. Artists want top dollar and readers want free. We're kind of in a rock and a hard spot. Anyway, being an artist myself, I'm fussy about what my covers look like. Last cover I hired someone to make for me, I paid him to copy an AI piece that I created.
While covers can cost a lot of money, there are lots of good, non genAI covers available for reasonable prices from artists and cover designers. I know the struggle of having very little money only too well. I work hard on producing the best book I possibly can, including getting the best cover I can afford from designers who don’t use genAI.
There are lots of tools that can be used without resorting to genAI.
I understand seeking affordable options, and for some this is plenty adequate, but for me there's a deeper issue here. My story means something to me. I want more than a generic premade cover to represent it. I want it to be a visual representation of the spirit of the story.
If I'm working with an artist, I want someone who has read my book and can put forth a visual that captures that spirit. That level of custom work costs serious money and cannot be achieved with a 15$ Canva subscription or a $150 premade seal on a bedsheet cover image. As the creator who knows my story's heart, I can work with AI to achieve that authentic representation myself.
It's not about cutting corners, it's about having the tools to bring my complete creative vision to life without compromising due to budget constraints.
This was exactly my thoughts too. Canva is an excellent resource to make your own covers (for free or $15/month with pro) as well as Fiverr and other websites. Heck, even the bartering system is good!
They also failed to mention the environmental impact of AI. These "computer generated images" are only adding more fuel to the fire regarding climate change. Not to mention taking jobs away from artists/designers as well!
It took me 14 months to find an artist to work with for my Pulp-Punk sci fi series of what I'd consider professional quality that didn't just make anime knockoffs. Till then I had to use AI and photoshop compositing to generate the covers. Why didn't I find an artist before then?
1. Flaked out and vanished
2. Overpriced
3. Refused to respond to requests.
AI is no different than photobashing clip art. Even more ironic is how many of those artists are doing just that, modifying other artist's assets, without credit or compensation... you know the same thing they claim AI is doing.
For me, ultimately that killed my sympathy for those raging loudest against AI. Sorry guys, often you were the ones who refused my business, and my only option was AI and I was forced to replace you with something I can count on.
I used AI to help craft all my covers. When I was struggling a bit getting a good image for my 4th book I thought "Hey why not see if I can find a cover artist to help!" So I made my listing on Upwork for exactly what I wanted and waited... I GOT 300!!! responses. I looked at each one. 50% were using AI - just not as well as me. The rest were anime artists, objectively NOT GOOD, did nice work but in an art style that did not fit, or were WAY out of my budget. I gave up and went back to working on those generations until I had one I was happy with.
Completely understand. I would rather have not had to spend over a year of time learning how to prompt, inpaint, outpaint, iterative generate, sift through thousands of LORAs/Lycoris, embeddings, services and everything else till I have the setup I have now. I've gained enough training that I can do covers for other people and am starting to do that on the side as well as looking to re-cover all my books with the new technology and run tests of what works best.
Would it have been better to have found an artist I could have afforded? Absolutely. I would have been much better off focusing on writing. But, it is what it is.
So artists, keep that in mind. Most of we writers would rather hand that off to someone with the artistic talent, but you have to be affordable to indies as well as produce a style they want... not just stuff that looks like bad manga or has worse AI skills than authors who have been struggling to make it happen on their own and have gotten decent with the tech.
"not just stuff that looks like bad manga or has worse AI skills than authors who have been struggling to make it happen on their own and have gotten decent with the tech"
Yep. If you can develop your artistic skills like drawing or digital painting, you jump up many magnitudes above those who can't.
Anatomy is so critical for artists, it's not funny, but too many do not evolve past trying to copy their favorite manga or anime style. There's a place for that, but it's very limiting.
For me it isn't money that's the problem - it's spending more time and effort on one ultimately optional picture than the entire book behind it. And my standards are no pronouns in the bio and give me what I want without drama and bullshit. This isn't a problem in any other field (some individuals might try it and get replaced).
I'm not gonna spend months on that and the only thing preventing me from going ahead is that the one weak point of AI that still hasn't been entirely fixed is it does not do complex pieces well, only one character looking at viewer (which is 95% of book art... but not mine).
The whole bashing over use of AI is severely misguided and ultimately immature. They use a layer of “reasonable empathy” for creators as a mask for their disingenuous talking points.
It’s like boycotting artists who use photoshop as opposed to a physical canvas.
There's a lot of nuance herein this well-written essay. I really must commend you for it, I myself prefer to use regular artists for my covers, but for Royal Road and Substack thumbnails I don't mind using AI art or google-art instead.
That said if other writers prefer to use AI art, more power to them it isn't my problem. I don't meddle in the affairs of others and don't want to meddle in their art or work, it is why I refuse to really gate-keep other writers but instead point them towards the resources and means by which they might improve their works.
Ten years ago, everyone was using DAZ3D to create 3D bodies and then photoshopping human faces on them. The backgrounds were also 3D renders. They looked horrible, like low budget videogame screenshots. And every fantasy cover had them! Same set of cheap dragons, too. And I can't tell you how many truly horrible photobashes I've seen. Meanwhile, AI covers are pretty, the elements blend harmoniously, and most of the time capture the genre quite well. (I've been reading litRPG and there's a lot of very pretty AI covers in there. I'd love to know what AI they're using!)
In the end, the book cover is there to market the book's genre and mood. If it gets us away from tired old 3D models and the photobashes of the girl with the wolf and the hot man chest, I am here for it.
I appreciate this article because my cover, I think, might be AI generated. I paid someone on Fiverr to make it and it came out looking great but I think people just assume that it's just a load of crap.
As a student of history, I notice that every complaint like the current complaints against using an AI have soon been trampled underfoot by history.
My prediction is: either the courts will find that the AIs stoll IP and make them redo their work or the objections will be entirely forgotten within five to ten years.
As an author who uses AI, thank you. I actually put in a LOT of work into my current wips, it's just a better process. And anyone willing to get to know us authors who use AI, will be surprised at how much we put into the making of these stories. And every writer is different, which is the same with writers who don't use AI. I'm cool with any writer, as so long as they don't bully me for using AI. I don't take well being bullied, and I have by several authors, some I have looked up to for years, even have several of their books.
To each their own, but for the people who wish to demonize us AI users, you're only going to start a fight. I want to get along with everyone, but I won't be disrespected, and treated like dog poop. Hate AI? Fine, move along. Plenty of readers out there who don't care. And for some authors, they are finding this out to be true, as they are doing pretty good at selling books. You can use AI and still crank out a good quality product.
Eventually, I want to have a contest for the AI haters. I want to do an anthology, where have the stories are written by AI, and the other half are not. Anyone who can guess 100 percent correctly wins a hundred bucks on which is which. Why? To prove a point, as many will not guess correctly. No matter if you use AI, or don't, you still need to make sure your books are published with the best quality possible. This is how it is, regardless of the tools you use.
Waiting for a reader to make these same exact arguments for why they should have AI write them a free fantasy novel instead of shelling out $20 for an indie's book.
I'm in a position to afford an artist for my covers. But for my digital-only, free short stories, I am thinking about using AI covers as it isn't for profit. I wouldn't use AI for text generation, though.
I appreciate your willingness to take a controversial stance. One of the biggest arguments I hear is that using AI is taking work away from a human artist or designer. But, to your point about author economics, that's not always the case. I've designed all of my own covers because I don't have the budget to pay someone else for them. I paid for the software and used images for free with the permission of very gracious and kind photographers, and I did the work myself. A LOT of work. I haven't used AI for a book cover, but if I did it wouldn't be taking work from an artist or designer I'm already not paying. I wouldn't be getting something for free that I'm paying for today. It would simply save me DAYS of effort that I could be writing instead.
That scenario may not be true for all authors. But it's good to see that not everyone has the immediate bias against an AI cover, assuming something unethical or untoward has been done.
Thank you for this supportive take for indie authors. It's a ridiculous standard that people have regarding AI to compel authors who are financially unable to hire artists.
If people have such a problem with AI art, they should make a movement to make human artwork more accessible.
If artists have a problem with people using AI, they should consider making royalty deals with a minimal - no down payment. It's already a risk for us to publish our works, and we don't need to add more risk financially if we cannot afford to. Artists should risk their time and labor to see through something if they wish to complain about others who leverage AI when its the only feasible option.
Most artists don’t have several hundred to over a thousand dollars to spend on a book cover.
Anybody who thinks that’s expensive doesn’t understand how long it takes to draw a detailed cover, nor is it factored in that the artist needs to be told it’s a book cover and will likely want a licensing fee for said book cover usage.
If I had books to publish and the money to spend on cover art I’d gladly spend at least that much. Covers are huge for books.
In another five years, AI art will be normal, people will stop pointing fingers, and many of those same people will be using AI themselves. It’s just a matter of time because one thing is for sure—AI art isn’t going anywhere. Love it or hate it, it’s something everybody will eventually get used to. 🤷♀️
Thanks for clearly stating your stance on this. I wish more people were more tolerant. I make my own covers but I've studied art since I was a child, a good 65 years ago. I've studied with master artists who encourage their students to emulate their styles. I use AI because I want a certain look for my books that I haven't found any book cover artists around do. I would paint them myself except an oil painting doesn't carry that vivid color that digital art has and would fall flat as a cover. If I did hire an artist who can paint impressionistic realism, the style I paint and create with AI, it wold cost me way more than my books would ever bring in, like you say. It's kind of oppressive when you think about it. Artists want top dollar and readers want free. We're kind of in a rock and a hard spot. Anyway, being an artist myself, I'm fussy about what my covers look like. Last cover I hired someone to make for me, I paid him to copy an AI piece that I created.
While covers can cost a lot of money, there are lots of good, non genAI covers available for reasonable prices from artists and cover designers. I know the struggle of having very little money only too well. I work hard on producing the best book I possibly can, including getting the best cover I can afford from designers who don’t use genAI.
There are lots of tools that can be used without resorting to genAI.
I understand seeking affordable options, and for some this is plenty adequate, but for me there's a deeper issue here. My story means something to me. I want more than a generic premade cover to represent it. I want it to be a visual representation of the spirit of the story.
If I'm working with an artist, I want someone who has read my book and can put forth a visual that captures that spirit. That level of custom work costs serious money and cannot be achieved with a 15$ Canva subscription or a $150 premade seal on a bedsheet cover image. As the creator who knows my story's heart, I can work with AI to achieve that authentic representation myself.
It's not about cutting corners, it's about having the tools to bring my complete creative vision to life without compromising due to budget constraints.
This was exactly my thoughts too. Canva is an excellent resource to make your own covers (for free or $15/month with pro) as well as Fiverr and other websites. Heck, even the bartering system is good!
They also failed to mention the environmental impact of AI. These "computer generated images" are only adding more fuel to the fire regarding climate change. Not to mention taking jobs away from artists/designers as well!
Yeah, I don’t understand the point of using AI when it’s so simple to use Canva. $15 for pro last month got me six months worth of short story covers.
Canva and most art programs use AI assistants.
I know that Adobe does, and Canva, as do most of the book cover design websites.
It took me 14 months to find an artist to work with for my Pulp-Punk sci fi series of what I'd consider professional quality that didn't just make anime knockoffs. Till then I had to use AI and photoshop compositing to generate the covers. Why didn't I find an artist before then?
1. Flaked out and vanished
2. Overpriced
3. Refused to respond to requests.
AI is no different than photobashing clip art. Even more ironic is how many of those artists are doing just that, modifying other artist's assets, without credit or compensation... you know the same thing they claim AI is doing.
For me, ultimately that killed my sympathy for those raging loudest against AI. Sorry guys, often you were the ones who refused my business, and my only option was AI and I was forced to replace you with something I can count on.
I used AI to help craft all my covers. When I was struggling a bit getting a good image for my 4th book I thought "Hey why not see if I can find a cover artist to help!" So I made my listing on Upwork for exactly what I wanted and waited... I GOT 300!!! responses. I looked at each one. 50% were using AI - just not as well as me. The rest were anime artists, objectively NOT GOOD, did nice work but in an art style that did not fit, or were WAY out of my budget. I gave up and went back to working on those generations until I had one I was happy with.
Completely understand. I would rather have not had to spend over a year of time learning how to prompt, inpaint, outpaint, iterative generate, sift through thousands of LORAs/Lycoris, embeddings, services and everything else till I have the setup I have now. I've gained enough training that I can do covers for other people and am starting to do that on the side as well as looking to re-cover all my books with the new technology and run tests of what works best.
Would it have been better to have found an artist I could have afforded? Absolutely. I would have been much better off focusing on writing. But, it is what it is.
So artists, keep that in mind. Most of we writers would rather hand that off to someone with the artistic talent, but you have to be affordable to indies as well as produce a style they want... not just stuff that looks like bad manga or has worse AI skills than authors who have been struggling to make it happen on their own and have gotten decent with the tech.
"not just stuff that looks like bad manga or has worse AI skills than authors who have been struggling to make it happen on their own and have gotten decent with the tech"
-And by all means, learn anatomy.
Yep. If you can develop your artistic skills like drawing or digital painting, you jump up many magnitudes above those who can't.
Anatomy is so critical for artists, it's not funny, but too many do not evolve past trying to copy their favorite manga or anime style. There's a place for that, but it's very limiting.
This.
For me it isn't money that's the problem - it's spending more time and effort on one ultimately optional picture than the entire book behind it. And my standards are no pronouns in the bio and give me what I want without drama and bullshit. This isn't a problem in any other field (some individuals might try it and get replaced).
I'm not gonna spend months on that and the only thing preventing me from going ahead is that the one weak point of AI that still hasn't been entirely fixed is it does not do complex pieces well, only one character looking at viewer (which is 95% of book art... but not mine).
The whole bashing over use of AI is severely misguided and ultimately immature. They use a layer of “reasonable empathy” for creators as a mask for their disingenuous talking points.
It’s like boycotting artists who use photoshop as opposed to a physical canvas.
There's a lot of nuance herein this well-written essay. I really must commend you for it, I myself prefer to use regular artists for my covers, but for Royal Road and Substack thumbnails I don't mind using AI art or google-art instead.
That said if other writers prefer to use AI art, more power to them it isn't my problem. I don't meddle in the affairs of others and don't want to meddle in their art or work, it is why I refuse to really gate-keep other writers but instead point them towards the resources and means by which they might improve their works.
Ten years ago, everyone was using DAZ3D to create 3D bodies and then photoshopping human faces on them. The backgrounds were also 3D renders. They looked horrible, like low budget videogame screenshots. And every fantasy cover had them! Same set of cheap dragons, too. And I can't tell you how many truly horrible photobashes I've seen. Meanwhile, AI covers are pretty, the elements blend harmoniously, and most of the time capture the genre quite well. (I've been reading litRPG and there's a lot of very pretty AI covers in there. I'd love to know what AI they're using!)
In the end, the book cover is there to market the book's genre and mood. If it gets us away from tired old 3D models and the photobashes of the girl with the wolf and the hot man chest, I am here for it.
If I were to use an AI cover, I'm absolutely going to be generating the story as well with AI. Mixing and matching feels like false advertising.
I appreciate this article because my cover, I think, might be AI generated. I paid someone on Fiverr to make it and it came out looking great but I think people just assume that it's just a load of crap.
As a student of history, I notice that every complaint like the current complaints against using an AI have soon been trampled underfoot by history.
My prediction is: either the courts will find that the AIs stoll IP and make them redo their work or the objections will be entirely forgotten within five to ten years.
As an author who uses AI, thank you. I actually put in a LOT of work into my current wips, it's just a better process. And anyone willing to get to know us authors who use AI, will be surprised at how much we put into the making of these stories. And every writer is different, which is the same with writers who don't use AI. I'm cool with any writer, as so long as they don't bully me for using AI. I don't take well being bullied, and I have by several authors, some I have looked up to for years, even have several of their books.
To each their own, but for the people who wish to demonize us AI users, you're only going to start a fight. I want to get along with everyone, but I won't be disrespected, and treated like dog poop. Hate AI? Fine, move along. Plenty of readers out there who don't care. And for some authors, they are finding this out to be true, as they are doing pretty good at selling books. You can use AI and still crank out a good quality product.
Eventually, I want to have a contest for the AI haters. I want to do an anthology, where have the stories are written by AI, and the other half are not. Anyone who can guess 100 percent correctly wins a hundred bucks on which is which. Why? To prove a point, as many will not guess correctly. No matter if you use AI, or don't, you still need to make sure your books are published with the best quality possible. This is how it is, regardless of the tools you use.
Waiting for a reader to make these same exact arguments for why they should have AI write them a free fantasy novel instead of shelling out $20 for an indie's book.
I don't know any indies who sell ebooks for that price. 🤔
I mean my indie novels' regular eBook price is $3.99 with most copies going out the door for free or $.99
Why not? I wouldn't care.
I'm in a position to afford an artist for my covers. But for my digital-only, free short stories, I am thinking about using AI covers as it isn't for profit. I wouldn't use AI for text generation, though.
I appreciate your willingness to take a controversial stance. One of the biggest arguments I hear is that using AI is taking work away from a human artist or designer. But, to your point about author economics, that's not always the case. I've designed all of my own covers because I don't have the budget to pay someone else for them. I paid for the software and used images for free with the permission of very gracious and kind photographers, and I did the work myself. A LOT of work. I haven't used AI for a book cover, but if I did it wouldn't be taking work from an artist or designer I'm already not paying. I wouldn't be getting something for free that I'm paying for today. It would simply save me DAYS of effort that I could be writing instead.
That scenario may not be true for all authors. But it's good to see that not everyone has the immediate bias against an AI cover, assuming something unethical or untoward has been done.
Yessss!
Thank you for this supportive take for indie authors. It's a ridiculous standard that people have regarding AI to compel authors who are financially unable to hire artists.
If people have such a problem with AI art, they should make a movement to make human artwork more accessible.
If artists have a problem with people using AI, they should consider making royalty deals with a minimal - no down payment. It's already a risk for us to publish our works, and we don't need to add more risk financially if we cannot afford to. Artists should risk their time and labor to see through something if they wish to complain about others who leverage AI when its the only feasible option.
Most artists don’t have several hundred to over a thousand dollars to spend on a book cover.
Anybody who thinks that’s expensive doesn’t understand how long it takes to draw a detailed cover, nor is it factored in that the artist needs to be told it’s a book cover and will likely want a licensing fee for said book cover usage.
If I had books to publish and the money to spend on cover art I’d gladly spend at least that much. Covers are huge for books.
In another five years, AI art will be normal, people will stop pointing fingers, and many of those same people will be using AI themselves. It’s just a matter of time because one thing is for sure—AI art isn’t going anywhere. Love it or hate it, it’s something everybody will eventually get used to. 🤷♀️