top of page
Search

AI and Authorship: The Week Trust Became the Story | 25 October 2026

Writer: Rob Frankson
Rob Frankson
2 days ago
3 min read

AI and authorship: the week trust became the story

Sunday roundup | 19–25 October 2026

This week has been a reminder that the argument over AI and writing is not simply about whether an author has used a tool. It is about consent, transparency and who gets to decide what counts as authorship. Three developments make that especially clear.



1. The Society of Authors steps away from its own AI charter

On 21 October, the UK's Society of Authors announced that it was withdrawing from the Charter of Ethical AI Use in the Creative Industries after members raised concerns. The charter had been launched only the previous week. The organisation says the issue will be discussed at its 19 November AGM.

I think this matters because it exposes a real division within the writing community. Some authors want standards for using AI responsibly. Others believe the training and consent questions must be settled before any use can be described as ethical. Neither concern disappears simply because we put the word 'ethical' on a document.

Source: Society of Authors, 21 October 2026 — https://societyofauthors.org/content-control/news/

2. Australian authors push back against weaker copyright protection

In Australia, prominent writers including Anna Funder, Charlotte Wood and Markus Zusak spoke out during parliamentary scrutiny of AI and copyright. Their concern is familiar to authors elsewhere: creative work should not become an uncompensated input to commercial AI systems merely because it can be accessed digitally.

This is not just a technical copyright debate. For a working author, rights are part of the business model. They determine who can reproduce, adapt, license and profit from the work. If the rules change, authors need a meaningful voice in that decision.

3. A novelist's AI controversy shows why evidence matters

The dispute surrounding novelist Thélyson Orélien took another turn this week when his Quebec publisher ended its relationship with him after reviewing earlier manuscript files. Orélien has denied using AI to write the novel and has acknowledged using it for historical research. Reporting describes claims involving metadata and earlier drafts; those details should not be confused with a universal test for whether a novel was written by AI.

The wider issue is uncomfortable. Authors deserve fair scrutiny when contractual promises are questioned, but accusations based on opaque detection tools can also damage reputations. The Authors Guild's new guidance for publishers, highlighted on 19 October, argues for written AI policies and warns against treating detector results as conclusive proof.

Sources: Publishers Lunch, 22 October — https://lunch.publishersmarketplace.com/category/ai/

Authors Guild news, 19 October — https://authorsguild.org/news/

The line I draw as a working author

For me, there is a fundamental difference between asking a machine to write the story and using technology to support the business around a story I have written. I can use AI to explore a visual concept, organise research, plan a marketing campaign or prepare an administrative first pass without handing over the characters, decisions and narrative voice that make the fiction mine.

But that distinction only means something if I am clear about it. Research needs checking. Images need rights review. Material AI-written passages deserve a different level of disclosure from routine proofreading or planning. And an author should never claim to have personally written text that a system substantially generated.

What I would do this week

First, write down a simple personal AI-use policy: what I will use, what I will not use, and what I will disclose. Second, keep working drafts and revision history for important manuscripts. Third, review any publisher, editor or contractor agreement for clauses covering AI tools, manuscript uploads and confidentiality. None of this settles the global argument, but it gives an individual author a defensible position.

Quick shortcuts and further reading

AI and publishing reference guide by Jane Friedman — https://janefriedman.com/ai-and-publishing-faq-for-writers/

More from 121 Minutes — https://121minutes.com/

A question for the writing community

Where would you draw the line: is the important distinction whether AI touched a project at all, or whether the author remained responsible for the actual creative work? I'd be interested to hear where other writers stand.

About the author

Rob Frankson writes science fiction and explores the practical relationship between artificial intelligence, creativity and independent authorship through 121 Minutes and the Near Galaxy Saga.

For more AI & The Author articles and updates, visit 121 Minutes: https://121minutes.com/

AI & Editorial Transparency

AI & The Author is edited and published by Rob Frankson. Artificial intelligence is used to assist with news research, initial drafting, content organisation and supporting imagery. All articles are reviewed and, where necessary, edited by Rob Frankson before publication. The opinions, editorial position and final decision to publish remain the author's.

Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet
Add a rating
bottom of page