Image description: a chocolate brown background with the Cozy the Day Away Sale logo on top, with the following text underneath it in list format.
“The Cozy the Day Away values, as it pertains to AI and the intersection with self-published books participating in the sale, is as follows:
- Cozy the Day Away does not allow AI-generated OR pirated long-form written content, whether that’s books, novellas, short stories, scripts, or screenplays.
- Cozy the Day Away does acknowledge that some short forms of content is created by authors such as marketing tag lines, synopsis sentences, or back jacket book descriptions. This is considered the author’s decision.
- Cozy the Day Away does not police book cover imagery as this is the author’s decision, and the reader’s decision whether or not to buy.
- Cozy the Day Away has employed a human graphic designer to create the logo by hand for the ongoing sale. This artist is not using AI-generated imagery.
- Cozy the Day Away does acknowledge that when creating marketing materials such as videos or still images, we will do our best to research original artists and credit them for their photography, designs, memes, songs, illustrations, paintings, and other such art, but also acknowledge that some AI-generated imagery may still slip into these posts.”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
There was a recent discussion in the Discord server (April 2025) regarding the management’s perspective of the Cozy the Day Away Sale and the topic of generative-AI. This is specifically regarding book covers. I thought I would elaborate on my decision-making in this.
First, I will reiterate a couple of points:
- I do have two volunteer moderators, and I do not speak for them. This statement is not reflective of their values as my volunteers, or of them as authors. If someone takes issue with the following, it should lie solely with me.
- My views are posted here as an event organizer, not as an author. My views as an author are more stringently anti-AI, especially when it comes to my own published works. If a reader is interested in hearing more about that, they can go to my own website for details at www.promisepress.org
The question in summary was this: If CDAS is not allowing authors to submit pirated long-form written content, why not also restrict/ban generative AI covers?
Let’s step back and take a look at why the line is drawn where it is. Pirated long-form content is easier to detect in 2025 than it was even a few years ago. This is not my opinion; this is a fact. The technology has had more time to develop, and it’s been out in society for long enough that there’s been time for more sophisticated detection tools to develop (footnote 1). Additionally, readers have a feel and experience in detecting AI written content, and can immediately notify CDAS moderators so we can take action, which allows for an interactive relationship between authors, readers, and moderators.
Next, we move on to the arenas outside the long-form content. This includes everything else that goes into making a book. For the sake of brevity, I will give a short, non-inclusive list of those elements here:
- Developmental editing
- Copy editing
- Line editing
- Interior formatting such as chapter heading art, chapter text, footnotes, interior art such as stylized handwriting
- Sensitivity reading
- Front, spine, back book covers
- Page edging
- Front data such as dedications, pronunciations, reviews, maps, copyright, prologues, historical notes and more (this is totally separate from the manuscript!)
- Back data such as bonus content, epilogues, discussion questions, acknowledgements, sneak peeks, author bios, and more (also separate from the manuscript)
- Character art
- Inserts
- Promo material such as bookmarks, postcards, flyers, posters, banners, table runners
- Merchandise
There are two reasons why I draw the line at not policing book covers.
One is that the logistics of it are a nightmare at this point. Last year, 2024, was the opportunity to fold in new processes and systems, to make sure the website functioned in a way that reflected both author, reader, and moderator demands. Because this wasn’t a topic of concern brought up, it was not integrated to the process as a whole. Just to give a snapshot of the logistical issues… let’s say for a moment that I was willing to start policing book covers.
How would I go about identifying them? The ability to detect AI images and art is fledgling still, and only a few are about 50% reliable. And the speed at which generative AI is becoming nearly impossible to detect is so fast that it’s entirely possible it will outstrip detection within the year.
How do I handle the 145 books that are currently enrolled? There’s no way to force those authors to re-submit or to add something to their book description.
Do I only police the new books that are coming in? This raises an interesting point about transparency, but I will come back to that later on.
If I did identify it, and the author denied it, what do I do then?
If I did identify it, and the author asked their illustrator and the illustrator denied it (but lied), what then?
If I cannot identify it, and a reader identifies it and confronts an author and they deny it (but lied), what then?
The second reason is that I am not here to judge how authors conduct their publishing decisions.
As you can see from even the abbreviated list above, it’s a mountain of decisions. Each artist is having to grapple with emerging technology, how it is or isn’t legislated, and is making decisions based on what they are comfortable with at every breaking news update. If I begin a path of judgement about how/why authors choose what they do, then why stop at covers? Shouldn’t I be judging their editing, too? Or their character art? What about their promo designs and marketing? Should every choice they make be scrutinized under one person’s opinion, just because I’m the event coordinator?
I am not here to judge. I am providing a free space for authors and readers to gather, to see if they want to trade, barter, or exchange money for books. I am not their publishing house, their agent, their representative. I am their colleague and peer. It’s not my personal opinion that matters. It’s for the reader to judge and decide. And I leave the privilege of that up to the reader.
I will say that this conversation has brought something to light that I do think CDAS could do as a proactive step. I have added a few required questions to the Submit a Book form for authors to fill out for their new submissions. I hope to capture as many new submissions as possible before the May 2025 sale. Those new required questions will say:
- Have you used AI in any of your written content? Yes/No
- Have used AI in any of your images, whether that’s your cover, character art, marketing, or promotions? Yes/No
For the authors who have already submitted books, I will request that they disclose this in their book description somewhere. I think transparency is a valuable aspect that this sale can try to offer, and I will do my best to encourage the authors to represent themselves honestly. But my value about non-judgement stands.
If a reader or author does not align with these values or its reasoning, they are free to leave the promotion.
Footnote 1 – https://www.zdnet.com/article/i-tested-10-ai-content-detectors-and-these-3-correctly-identified-ai-text-every-time/