For one brief and shining moment Cedar Sanderson’s cover for Goblin Market was a 2024 Dragon Awards finalist in the Best Illustrative Book Cover category. Then it suddenly wasn’t. Sanderson appeared on the originally released version of the ballot. Hours later she was missing.
Her publisher demanded to know why. Jonna Hayden, Production Manager for Raconteur Press shared with her newsletter subscribers the complete text of her letter to the awards administrators: “Concerning the Dragon Awards”:
“I am the Production Manager for Raconteur Press, and our Lead Designer is Cedar Sanderson. Cedar was nominated for a Dragon Award for her work on our book “Goblin Market” and achieved a place on the final ballot in the category “Best Illustrative Cover” for 2024. Or so we thought. Several hours after the final ballot was announced (and we proudly shared the information) Cedar’s name was removed.
“We were surprised by this removal–there has been no explanation, no replacement name added to the list, and no comment of any kind from the Dragon Awards as to the reason behind it. Cedar has not been contacted, and multiple emails from many, many fans have gone unanswered.
“In their frustration, her fans have been emailing, messaging, and calling us, to see if we have any communication or information as to the ‘why’ of this. We are, unfortunately, equally in the dark. We’ve been referring them to the contact form on the Awards page, but no information has been forthcoming. The lack of any comment on the Dragon Awards’ part is now beginning to lead to speculation as to the integrity of the awards as a whole. In light of the recent Hugo issues at the China Worldcon, I would think your organization would be striving to maintain the utmost transparency.
“Is there any plan whatsoever to address this? Will there be a statement of any kind as to the reasons? I would like to return to my regular job of publishing great short fiction, and not be fielding the frustrated and angry messages of fans who nominated her in good faith.
“I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation, and sharing it will help.
“Please let us know what the the plan for this is going forward.
“Thank you.”
There was immediate speculation that the cover’s use of AI art had something to do with the disqualification. Cedar Sanderson has openly defended the use of Midjourney and AI generally as an art tool in her work in posts like “The Mythos of AI” at Mad Genius Club. And in February 2024 Dragon Con announced a policy banning AI art from their art show – although added no comparable policy to the awards rules. Why they would not have identified an ineligible finalist up front if they had such a policy is a good question. Or did they only act in response to a complaint? That has proven to be the case.
THE OFFICIAL ANSWER. Today Dragon Con Co-Chair Dave Cody confirmed that Sanderson’s use of AI was the problem in a message posted by Raconteur Press: “Dragon Con Responds to our Inquiry”. Here is his response:
After posting the nominee list for the 2024 Dragon Awards on the Dragon Awards website, we were alerted to the fact that Cedar Sanderson’s entry in the Best Illustrative Cover category had been created in part using Artificial Intelligence tools. As a consequence, we removed her cover for The Goblin Market from consideration because we don’t allow AI in our Art Show, Comic and Pop Artist Alley, Vendor Halls or the Awards.
Though Sanderson’s nomination was included on the website for a short time, none of the ballots emailed to prospective voters included it.
Our intent with Dragon Awards is to provide a great list of books to read across eight categories, television shows and movies to watch, comic books to read and both tabletop and video games to play. And, in a category we added last year, admire the best artist work on book covers.
We recognize the AI is a new tool with enormous potential and society will eventually come to a consensus about how it should be used and how much content can be can be created using AI while still crediting a human for the work, at which time, we will consider changing our policy. Until then, however, we want the Dragon Awards to offer a fans an opportunity to recognize the humans who create the works that fans love best.We apologize for the disruption this has caused and it was completely our fault for not catching that The Goblin Market cover was created with AI tools. We will be implementing process changes so that this does not happen again in the future.
Sincerely,
Dave Cody
Co-chair Dragon Con
Other competitions have had to pull finalists for using AI art which was not recognized in advance of the announcement. For example, it happened to the Self-Published Fantasy Blog-Off: “SPFBO Cover Contest Killed After Discovery That 2023 Winner Was Produced by AI”.
As to Dragon Con’s policy, Raconteur Press’s response pointed out the flaws in their explanation.
David—
Thank you for your response.
While we’ve never hidden the fact that Cedar uses AI tools, and we have no issue with you choosing the standards for your award, we are a bit surprised that you removed her from the nomination based on a notification from someone without bothering to conduct due diligence by contacting either her or her publisher for clarification.
We note, as have many other people, that your stated rules for entry on the Dragon Awards site do not mention, in any way, shape, or form, that the artist’s use of AI tools in the work is not allowed for that nomination. Indeed, this is the only requirement listed:
“What is the best illustrative book cover for a qualifying work of Science Fiction, Fantasy, Young Adult, Alternate History, or Horror Novel first released in print or electronic format during the last half of a year, July 1st and later, and the first half of a year, January 1st to June 30th.”
Unless we are missing something — and please correct us if we are — nowhere on the Dragon Awards page does it say “no use of AI tools.”
This is clearly causing a lot of confusion with the nominations and the voting. If there was to be no AI tool use allowed, that should have been stated on the Awards page from the beginning of the nomination process. Sudden removal of a finalist, with no explanation and no direct contact, for a standard not listed as a disqualifying factor from the beginning of the nomination period, reduces the trust in the process substantially.
It would be remiss of us if we did not point out that many people have noted several other nominations in this category appear to have used AI processes. We will trust that after being notified about Cedar’s use of AI, you chose to verify with all the finalists that they didn’t use any AI tools in the production of their work, as it now will become a point of interest for those nominations disenfranchised by this lack of clarity.
Going forward, we would suggest that after this year’s confusion, that your organization take the necessary steps to make the requirements for a valid nomination in this category clear and precise, and that these clear and concise standards be applied consistently. What specific AI tools and processes are forbidden? Photoshop, for example, has built-in AI (Firefly). Does it disqualify an artist if they use it?
Again, we thank you for your response.
Raconteur Press
PUBLIC OPINION. Cedar Sanderson’s colleague at the Mad Genius Club blog, Sarah A. Hoyt, has had a few choice things to say: “Dragon Dragon, Quite Contrary!”
…Now, never assume malice when it might be — and probably is — rank stupidity. Or strange clumsiness.
What’s weird in all this, Cedar isn’t even in any sense one of the troublemakers, except for hanging out in this corner with the scum and villainy that is us. Surely no one could be so petty as to blacklist her just because she posts at MGC, right?
So I thought to myself, I thought… I’m sure they have an excellent explanation. A completely fair and aboveboard one….
…Who had “stupidity” on their bingo card? Apparently they disqualified Cedar for “The use of AI tools.” (Because “someone told them” she used them. Note they didn’t even verify.)
Is anyone going to tell them that practically everyone is using those for covers now, and that they won’t actually be able to tell if people use AI, if they’re competent artists who do post-processing and integrating properly? No? Yeah, I say no. Let’s leave them the fun of finding it out. And what fun it will be. I look forward to their demanding nominated artists PROVE they didn’t use AI.
And in further compounding of stupidity, of course there is nothing in the rules about AI. Because of course there isn’t….
Amanda S. Green, another Mad Genius Club veteran, also criticized how Dragon Con handled things: “Another Award Fail”.
…Now, I wouldn’t have a problem with this if—and this is a big if—the policy was made known before nominations went out. Or if those making the nominations (you know, the fans) were informed of the prohibition beforehand. Or if the voters were told. But no, no where could I find any such prohibition being made public.
So what happened?
We may never know. I can speculate, but I won’t. I will say that if Dragon, and other awards, are going to limit eligibility to art or any other work that doesn’t take advantage of AI tools, they will find the pool of potential winners seriously diminished. Think about it. If you use a word processing program or app, you are using AI. From predictive text to spell check and grammar check, to some of the new review tools, these programs are filled with AI. Photoshop and similar programs also utilize aspects of AI as well.
Are we going to require artists to prove they hand drew and then colored in the art used on a cover? Are we going to require writers to enter their hand-written drafts?
Or are we going to act like adults and simply make sure AI is used as a tool and not as the creator?
The Dragon Awards are free to prohibit the use of AI in artwork going forward. But they dropped the ball big time here. For the sake of the awards, they need to be transparent now. Did they require the artists who did make it onto the ballot to prove they did not use AI? What did they do to determine if AI was used on Cedar’s cover and did they do the same with the other covers?
Or are they going to admit what some of us already suspect: that they bent to the outraged will of one or two vocal folks and removed Cedar’s cover from consideration simply because she has made no secret of the fact she uses AI as a tool and isn’t always a “pure” artist?
M.C.A. Hogarth commented at X.com:
COMPETING FOR THE BENJAMINS REWARD. Meanwhile, Raconteur Press has not missed this golden opportunity to do outrage marketing: “WARNING: You are not allowed to enjoy this cover!”
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, and children of all ages!
Step right up! Step right up!
SEE the book with the AI cover so DANGEROUS that it was quietly stricken from the Dragon Awards!
EXPERIENCE artwork only wrong fans are capable of appreciating!
Gaze upon the FREAKISHLY GROTESQUE figures desecrating the cover.
DARE to look within its pages at the subversive interior art!
EXPLORE the dark alleys and forbidden deals found only in the Goblin Market!
Available now on Amazon, another gutter sump of iniquity and evil! Run for your lives!
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Dragon Awards certainly handled this badly, but MidJourney is “trained” by scraping real artists without permission. The whiners and outrage marketers can cry me a river
Raconteur Press can’t possibly have missed all the times that AI has been banned from literary contests. The argument that AI submissions must be allowed because they weren’t forbidden in the rules is not persuasive. The Dragon Awards were faced with a new problem and exercised their discretion to resolve it by removing a work created using AI.
I can’t find a rule in the awards forbidding plagiarism. Would Raconteur demand that the Dragon Awards keep a finalist on the ballot that plagiarized?
Maybe the Award folks shot Midjourney a prompt letting it know the work was being removed from the ballot.
@Lis Carey
Oh, you made the mistake of reading the comments on that post, too? 😉 Now, people who don’t like AI art are “puritans.” Yeah, riiiight.
The fact remains that the rules didn’t expressly forbid the use of AI, so this ex post facto ruling is not good. The US doesn’t allow that for actual crimes (all the way back to the Constitution), which has made people leery of that even in minor situations like this.
And telling everyone she was a finalist, then taking it back the next day, yet still taking more time to say why makes the Dragons look incompetent, stupid, and callous. Particularly when some of the ones left are probably also using AI elements, which adds a top note of selective enforcement, even if that wasn’t actually the case.
I hate to agree with the MGC on some parts of anything — but this be no way to run a choo-choo, DC.
Although as opaque as the Dragons always have been, no one will ever know.
@rcade. Plagiarism is illegal and prohibiting it need not be included in the rules, just as prohibitions against traveling back in time to murder your competition would not need to be expressly excluded.
Using AI is not illegal.
I can easily imagine potential nominees noticing the lack and submitting their works for eligibility on that basis alone.
And its not as if it were hidden.
The mistake(s) were not including the rule, not contacting Cedar beforehand, and pulling only one work from a list that probably has several other “violators “.
They should have let things go and made changes and offered explanations after the fact.
Boooooo.
“Plagiarism is illegal”
It is?
On what basis do you make this assumption? Cover artists and authors commissioning covers are avoiding the use of AI because it is a potential PR disaster and even a legal risk. As Lis Carey noted, MidJourney’s model is trained on plagiarized content. It can produce work that is clear and obvious infringement of existing images, sometimes without a user knowing depending on the prompt they used.
Without the artist directly saying so (as Sanderson had) there will always be a degree of doubt but of the finalists, there is one that has multiple signs of using generative AI and potentially some in three of the others.
@Total–
Yes. US federal law, national law in almost every country except China, and international treaties and conventions signed by most countries except China.
As a quick follow up … so I’ve been dealing wrongly with the students of mine who plagiarize their research papers? I should call the police, have them prosecuted, and thrown in jail? Really?
Lis, I would think you knew better.
@Total–
Don’t be stupid.
There are different levels of “illegal,” and different potential penalties.
There’s plagiarism that rises to the level of a criminal violation, for which imprisonment is a potential penalty.
There’s also plagiarism that’s only a civil offense. It’s still illegal. For civil plagiarism offenses, you have to be able to prove actual damages for it to be worth pursuing–but yes, it’s still illegal.
In the cases you refer to in hopes of getting a rise out of me, neither Michelle Obama, nor the British MP in Biden’s case, had anything to actually gain by pursuing it beyond pointing out, “hey, that was mine!” Really not worth it for either of them.
But yes, it was illegal, in both cases.
In the case of your students–it’s seriously unlikely any of them have succeeded in committing criminal plagiarism on a scale that prosecution would be at all plausible.
And they’re students; you’re supposed to be educating them. That includes teaching them what copyright and plagiarism are, and why they shouldn’t plagiarize. It’s not just bad manners; it really is illegal.
What you write (or paint, draw, carve, whatever) is copyright to you from the moment it’s in fixed form. And yes, a computer file is “fixed form.” No one can legally copy or distribute it without your permission.
Even if they can get away with it, they’ve still done something illegal.
But I’m forgetting. You’re probably the type who believes that if you’re not going to go to jail for it, it’s not really illegal.
It is, though. A pedestrian in Boston, due to our stret layout and long-standing local custom, has to do something really aggressively stupid and dangerous to get arrested or even ticketed for jaywalking. But it is still illegal, and if you do it in an aggressively stupid and dangerous, you’ll find out that the police and the traffic court are still ready to enforce it when it’s in the public interest to do so.
No, it really wasn’t. You’re conflating copyright and plagiarism. If the plagiarism rises to the level where it impinges the author’s intellectual property, then the copyright infringement can be illegal. But plagiarism that doesn’t rise to that level? No.
Absolutely — that’s copyright infringement. The definition of plagiarism is much broader than massive direct copying, however, which is why by itself plagiarism is not illegal.
As pointed out last night in a panel, products of AI tools are also not copyrightable.
Also, that cover won an award?
@Total–
You’re confusing plagiarism and fair use, genius.
I’m really not. If we want to go to outside sources, I’m happy to pull in Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute:
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plagiarism#:~:text=Plagiarism%20is%20not%20illegal%20in,a%20person's%20school%20or%20workplace.)
Emphasis mine.
So, no, plagiarism is not illegal on its own.
There’s all sorts of plagiarism that isn’t illegal. For example, I’ve written many technical reports as a government employee. Government work product isn’t copyrightable, so someone could plagiarise it without it being illegal. Likewise, you could plagiarise the works of Edgar Allan Poe, which are old enough that they are in the public domain. Doing so would not be illegal.
@bill
Good point! There are lots of examples like this — someone taking an idea from someone else’s work and putting it in their own words but presenting it as their own idea would not be illegal (as it’s not copyright infringement) but it would be plagiarism.
Lis Carey’s argument would be more convincing if she could point to anyone who has ever been charged and convicted of a crime for plagiarizing, or more than a token amount of people who won a judgement in civil court for what we generally recognize as plagiarism (Joe Biden’s speeches, MLK’s dissertation, anyone who cribbed a college or high school paper, any comedian who has taken the jokes of another, etc.)
Plagiarism is common, but legal repercussions for it are very scarce.
Pingback: 2024 Dragon Awards: John Scalzi and Rebecca Yarros Are Winners While AI Art Loses - WWAC %