You may have noticed that AI is back in the news in a big way, with new discussions about what it means to create “human authored” work. And while I am not, strictly speaking, writing a column about DeepSeek, the entry of another hugely competent and vastly hyped generative AI platform into the fray clearly has implications for us all—not least of which is the demonstration of the vulnerability of whole marketplaces to activities in a single tech sector. As if we needed reminding after the whole FTX debacle and many others before it.

ALLi News Editor, Dan Holloway
Human Authored Certification
There are two AI-related stories I wanted to bring you that are directly related to our corner of the business world. The first is the Authors Guild’s launch of its Human Authored certification. The Guild states this is about transparency and allowing readers the assurance of knowing where their books come from (rather like a lot of the schemes we are used to with our groceries).
As Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger puts it, “The Human Authored initiative isn’t about rejecting technology—it’s about creating transparency, acknowledging the reader’s desire for human connection, and celebrating the uniquely human elements of storytelling.”
At present, the scheme—which involves submitting book details and getting a unique identifier that acts as a certificate—is only open to Authors Guild members, but their press release states that the intention is to expand the scheme to non-members.
Copyright Office AI Report
In other news, the US Copyright Office has published the next installment in its epic trilogy on AI, entitled Copyrightability. The 52-page report draws on more than 10,000 comments from writers, publishers, and libraries. The recommendations in the executive summary are listed below.
These reflect what the Copyright Office feels is the legal position on copyright and AI, particularly regarding the use of assistive AI in creating work. The second of these, relating to tools, seems to follow the trend recognized by the Grammys, for example, and opens the way to the use of AI in prize-winning work.
The penultimate point is also of note because it seems to address those tricky “in the style of” prompts.
- Questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law, without the need for legislative change.
- The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output.
- Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material.
- Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
- Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
- Based on the functioning of current, generally available technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient control.
- Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs, or creative modifications of the outputs.
- The case has not been made for additional copyright or sui generis protection for AI-generated content.
You might also be interested in ALLi’s Matty Dalrymple’s explainer video on this report.
Thoughts or further questions on this post or any self-publishing issue?
If you’re an ALLi member, head over to the SelfPubConnect forum for support from our experienced community of indie authors, advisors, and our own ALLi team. Simply create an account (if you haven’t already) to request to join the forum and get going.
Non-members looking for more information can search our extensive archive of blog posts and podcast episodes packed with tips and advice at ALLi's Self-Publishing Advice Center.