r/PubTips • u/Plenty_Sky_7682 • 17h ago
[Discussion] Bloomsbury AI Policy for Authors
bloomsbury.comThis came to my attention when listening to TSNOTYAW this week, where they discussed Bloomsbury's (newish / updated? Couldn't find the exact pub date) AI policy. I couldn't find past discussion in r/PubTips, but please link if I missed it. This was my first hearing of an actual, detailed policy, so I wanted to discuss.
To my knowledge, Bloomsbury's AI Policy for Authors and Illustrators is the first concrete policy direction provided by a major publisher, and may be indicative of other publisher policies in development. I've linked, and their summary is copy/pasted below.
On reading the full policy, I have questions on how authors can succeed under the current version. I think there are important considerations for Bloomsbury's future policy edits/clarifications, as well as future policies yet to be released by other publishers.
Would love to hear others' thoughts, or receive updated information if the questions I've raised have already been debated / decided.
Disclaimer: My background is public policy, NOT publishing.
--
Bloomsbury’s AI Policy for Authors and Illustrators – A summary:
Using AI as an assistive tool:
✓ You may use AI tools for research and brainstorming
✓ You may use AI tools to assist in the editing of text and in the preparation of certain associated text items, provided you use a private AI system
✓ You may use AI tools to edit or enhance images, as long as the editing is carried out using Adobe Creative Cloud, and the images being edited are your own original work
Using AI as a generative tool:
✗ You may not submit any AI-generated content (including text, translations, or images) to Bloomsbury for publication
✗ You may not use AI tools to generate or create images or other illustrative materials
Privacy and disclosure:
✗ You may not input your work, or sections of your work, to any publicly accessible AI system
✓ You must disclose any use of AI tools – beyond the research and brainstorming stage – to your point of contact at Bloomsbury
✓ Ask your point of contact at Bloomsbury if unsure about any of the above.
---
Bloomsbury defines a "publicly accessible AI system" as:
A “private AI system” means an AI tool, application, or system deployed on infrastructure fully owned or controlled by an organisation you are part of, and which your organisation has explicitly confirmed safeguards submitted user data and does not train its algorithm on user-submitted prompts and content. This includes instances such as an enterprise-hosted version of ChatGPT provided by a university or company. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not include paid-for, “private mode” or “incognito mode” use of publicly accessible tools and websites such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT.
---
Questions / concerns that came to mind from all of the above:
- The policy does not differentiate between LLMs and other types of AI models, which means more tools than may be obvious technically fall within the definition. For example, Microsoft Word and Google Docs both use some form of AI for their spell checks, and do not meet Bloomsbury's definition of a private AI system. My understanding is that historically, spell checks have been exempt from "AI Assisted" publication labels, but Bloomsbury explicitly states editing of text isn't exempt.
This also likely means that simply by writing using these programs, you've given AI access to your manuscript. As a Google Docs user, ironically using this method because of automatic backups to refute AI usage, this concerns me. Sure, there are ways to turn off most AI features on Word, but I think it's fair to assume many, many authors will inadvertently give AI access to their writing.
- If private and incognito modes don't meet the definition of a private system, this means that LLM (and other AI) use will only be accessible to people at specific universities and companies that have invested in completely closed systems. Is allowed LLM use for research, brainstorming, and editing an unfair advantage? Maybe? Does this mean that Raytheon employees will now make up a disproportionate percentage of published authors? Probably not -- but I do think equity and access to tools should be considered.
Also, incognito mode use can't be proven or disproven, so I'm not sure how an author would refute AI use claims here, or how a publisher would actually be able to enforce this standard if an author didn't self-report.
- This makes trustworthy beta readers even more important. If a beta reader gives AI access to your work intentionally or unintentionally, this violates the policy. (As has been discussed previously on r/PubTips.)
---
Questions / Considerations for the future:
Bloomsbury should communicate standards for policy violations. Do any and all violations result in no / revoked contract? Are there tiers of consequence? (For example, needing to rewrite any chapters that were uploaded to AI vs automatic no contract).
Is there any grace for inadvertent policy violations, or violations by a third party? Do they actually care if Google Doc's AI integrations have access to your writing? Will they reject your manuscript if you tell them a Beta reader you met online clearly gave you ChatGPT feedback?
Bloomsbury should develop clear procedures for monitoring. What is the due diligence process for monitoring author AI use? Are there standard records / evidence authors need to keep or expect to provide as a standard part of the process? Where does the burden of proof lie?
How does Bloomsbury apply due diligence internally? Do they commit to not running author works through AI to detect AI? How will they audit internal AI usage?
---
I know some of these questions and points have been raised generally on other posts, but does anyone have insight into the implementation / consequences of this policy specifically, or other policies in development?