Your AI Disclosure Policy: What to Tell Readers, Retailers and Freelancers

Sooner or later someone asks you directly. A reader emails to ask whether you wrote the book yourself. A reviewer says the cover looks AI-generated. A retailer's upload form asks you to declare AI-generated content and you are not certain which box is true, because you used a grammar checker, a brainstorming session, and a stock image that may or may not have been synthesised.

Most authors answer these moments improvisationally, and it goes badly in a predictable way: an answer that sounds defensive, an answer that contradicts something said six months earlier, or a discovery that a freelancer used tools you would not have approved. The fix is to decide your position once, write it down, and apply it consistently everywhere.

This guide is about that document and the decisions behind it. For the broader question of where AI genuinely helps in writing and publishing, and how the copyright position works, see our guide to using AI tools responsibly and our copyright basics. This one picks up where those leave off: what you tell readers, what you require of the people you hire, and how to keep your answers straight.

Why a written policy, rather than just good intentions

Three reasons, and the third is the one that actually bites.

Consistency. You will be asked about this in a retailer form, in a reader email, in a podcast interview, on a submission to a review outlet, and possibly in a contract. Those answers need to match, and they will not if you are composing each one from scratch under mild pressure.

Speed. A policy converts an awkward conversation into a link. "Here's my policy on this" is a complete, confident answer that takes no emotional energy to give.

Supply chain. This is the real one. You are not the only person touching your book. A cover designer, an editor, a formatter, a translator and a narrator may each be using tools, and unless you have said otherwise, they are using whatever they normally use. Authors have been caught out by a synthesised element in a commissioned cover, or a "proofread" that was a model pass. If you have not set a rule, you have not set a rule, and it is your name on the book.

Decide where your line is

The unhelpful framing is "do you use AI or not", because almost every author uses something on that spectrum, including spellcheck. The useful exercise is to place your own line on a ladder of uses, from clearly innocuous to clearly not-yours, and see where your discomfort starts.

• Spelling and grammar checking
• Style suggestions on sentences you wrote
• Research and fact-finding, verified elsewhere
• Brainstorming: titles, character names, plot options
• Structural feedback on a completed draft
• Summarising your own chapters for a synopsis or blurb
• Generating marketing copy: descriptions, ad variants, social posts
• Generating metadata: keywords, categories
• Rewriting your paragraphs for flow
• Drafting passages from your outline, which you then rewrite
• Generating prose that reaches the page substantially unchanged
• Generating cover art
• Generating narration for the audiobook

Most authors find their line is somewhere between "rewriting your paragraphs" and "drafting passages", and that their line for marketing copy sits much further along than their line for the book. That distinction is legitimate and worth stating plainly: readers broadly accept that an ad variant is not literature, and they care a great deal more about the prose they paid for.

Write your line down as two or three sentences. That is the core of the policy; everything else is application.

What retailers require, in principle

Platform rules change, so treat this as the shape of the requirement rather than a current rulebook, and check the retailer's own help pages at upload. Our AI tools guide covers the specifics in more detail.

The durable distinction across platforms is between AI-generated and AI-assisted content. Generated means the tool produced the text or image and you kept it substantially as it came. Assisted means you created the work and used tools on it: editing, refining, checking. Assisted material generally does not require declaration. Generated material generally does.

Two practical notes. Declaration is usually made to the retailer at upload rather than printed in the book, and declaring it does not normally affect whether the book is accepted. And the declaration covers text, images and translation separately, so a hand-written novel with a generated cover still has something to declare.

Because the rules move, build the check into your process rather than your memory: a line on your pre-upload checklist that says "re-read the current AI declaration guidance" costs nothing and prevents a stale answer.

Putting it in your contracts

This is the section most authors skip and the one with the most practical value. Every freelancer you hire should know your position before they start, in writing, in the brief.

A workable clause does four things: states what is permitted, states what is not, requires disclosure of anything uncertain, and says what happens if the rule is broken. You do not need legal language. You need clarity.

For a cover designer

Be specific, because "AI" covers several different things here. Say whether generative image creation is permitted at all; whether AI-assisted editing of a licensed photograph (background removal, upscaling, generative fill) is acceptable, which many authors permit and some do not; and require that every element be either licensed, original, or disclosed. Ask for the source files and the licence records, which you should be getting anyway. Our guide to hiring a cover designer covers what else belongs in that brief.

For an editor or proofreader

The concern is different: not authorship but confidentiality and rigour. Say whether your manuscript may be put into a third-party tool at all, since for an unpublished manuscript that is a confidentiality question before it is anything else. Many professional editors use software assistance for consistency checking, which is uncontroversial, and the thing to rule out is a model pass substituting for a human read.

For a ghostwriter or co-writer

The most important one, and the place to be most explicit. State your position on drafting, require that deliverables be their own work to the standard you have set, and consider asking for a short written statement of tools used on delivery. If you are paying for a human writer, say so in the contract, because otherwise you are relying on a shared assumption that may not be shared.

For a narrator or translator

For narration, the question is whether a human voice is required, and if so whether synthesised correction of a human performance is acceptable. For translation, whether machine translation with human editing is acceptable or whether you require a human translator working from the source. Both are legitimate choices; both need stating, because the market offers all of them at very different prices.

What to tell readers, and where

Publish the policy somewhere stable, usually a page on your website, and link to it rather than restating it. Three principles make a policy readers respect.

Be specific rather than absolute. "I don't use AI" is a claim that collapses the moment someone points out your word processor's grammar checker. "The prose in my novels is written by me. I use software for spelling and grammar, and I use AI tools for some marketing copy and keyword research. My covers are made by a named human designer" is a claim you can actually defend, and it reads as considered rather than defensive.

Cover the whole book, not just the text. Readers ask about covers and audiobooks as often as prose. A policy that addresses only the writing invites the follow-up question.

Date it, and update it. "Last updated March 2026" signals that this is a live position rather than a slogan, and it protects you when your practice changes. Changing your policy is normal. Quietly contradicting an old one is what damages trust.

On placement: a website page is the right home. A line in the book's back matter is optional and some authors like it. What you should avoid is making it a marketing claim on the cover or in the blurb, which reads as positioning rather than transparency and ages badly.

Five places authors get caught out

Not hypotheticals. These are the recurring ones, and each has a cheap preventive measure.

Stock images that were synthesised. Several large stock libraries now carry generated images alongside photographs, sometimes labelled inconsistently. A designer sourcing "a stock photo" may hand you one. If your policy rules out generated art, your brief has to say that it applies to licensed stock too, and you should ask for the specific asset ID and licence.

The cheap proofread. Proofreading is the service most vulnerable to quiet substitution, because the deliverable of a model pass looks superficially like the deliverable of a human one. The tell is usually that it catches spelling and misses sense: a correctly spelled wrong word, a consistent style error left in place. If a proofreading quote is dramatically below market, ask what the process is.

Translation sold as human. Machine translation with light human editing is a legitimate, inexpensive service, and it is not the same product as a human literary translation. Both are sold, sometimes with similar descriptions. Ask directly which you are buying.

Your own back-catalogue. Your policy is dated today, but you published four books before you wrote it. If your practice was different then, either say so or do not make claims that reach backwards. "My current practice" is an honest and sufficient framing.

The interview answer. Asked live on a podcast, most people over-claim in the direction of purity because it is the comfortable answer in the moment. Then it is recorded. Know your two sentences well enough to say them under mild pressure, which is the entire point of writing them down.

The questions you will actually be asked

Worth rehearsing, because the wording of the question is often designed to produce a yes-or-no answer that does not fit.

"Did you write this yourself?"

Answer the question they mean, which is about authorship, not software. "Yes. I wrote every sentence. I use a grammar checker like most writers, and I've written up exactly where I draw the line here" with a link. Short, direct, no hedging.

"Is your cover AI?"

Name the human if there is one, because a name is a verifiable answer and a denial is not. "It was designed by [name], and here's their portfolio." If you did use generative art, say so plainly rather than evasively; readers punish the evasion considerably more than the practice.

"Why does the retailer say your book has AI content?"

Only relevant if you declared something. Explain what you declared and why, in one sentence. A declaration made honestly is not an admission of anything, and treating it as one is what makes it look like one.

"Would you use AI to write a book?"

An opinion question dressed as a policy question. You are allowed to answer it as an opinion, briefly, and return to what you actually do. Long philosophical answers get clipped and quoted.

"Can you prove it?"

"I have dated drafts and revision history going back to the first outline." Then decide separately, and privately, whether this particular person is owed a demonstration. Usually they are not, and the answer above is enough for everyone watching.

Handling the accusation

At some point someone will assert publicly that your book is AI-generated when it is not. AI detection tools are unreliable, particularly on clean, edited prose, and a confident-sounding percentage from one of them persuades people who do not know that.

What helps, in order of usefulness:

• Your drafting history. Dated drafts, revision history, and notes are the strongest evidence there is, and they exist automatically if you write in one place rather than in a scatter of files. This is a quiet argument for keeping your manuscript somewhere with a version history.
• Your policy, already published and dated. A position you took before the accusation is worth far more than one you state afterwards.
• A calm, specific reply. Answer once, factually, and link to the policy. Do not argue at length in public, and do not attack the person: onlookers remember the tone, not the detail.
• Not submitting to detector results. You are not obliged to prove a negative on the basis of a tool with a known false-positive rate. Saying so plainly is reasonable.

Reviewing it, and changing your mind

A policy written once and never revisited becomes inaccurate without anyone noticing, usually because your practice drifted rather than because you made a decision. Put a yearly review in the same place you keep your other annual admin, and ask three questions.

Has my actual practice moved? Tools get embedded in software you already use, and a feature you would have declined as a standalone product arrives inside your word processor. Notice it, and decide deliberately whether it sits inside your line or outside it.

Have the platform rules changed? They have been revised repeatedly and will be again. Your declaration needs to match the current definitions, not the ones in force when you last uploaded.

Do my freelance briefs still say the right thing? If your position has moved, the template you send designers and editors has to move with it, or you will be enforcing a rule you no longer hold.

Changing your position is completely legitimate, and saying so is better than being caught having changed it silently. "I've updated this. Previously I did X; from March 2026 I do Y, because Z" is a perfectly good thing to publish, and it reads as a person thinking rather than a brand managing. What damages trust is a policy that contradicts something you said last year with no acknowledgement that anything moved.

A template you can adapt

Four short sections, written in your own voice. Keep it under 300 words.

• The prose. Who writes the words in your books, and what software assistance you use on them.
• The art. Who makes your covers and interior images, and whether generative tools are involved at any stage.
• Audio and translation. Whether narration and translation are human, and to what standard.
• Everything else. Marketing copy, metadata, research and admin, where most authors are more permissive and should say so rather than leaving a gap for someone to find.

Then a date, and a note that you will update it if your practice changes.

The short version

Decide your line once, write it in two or three sentences, and apply it everywhere: the retailer declaration, your website, your interviews and your contracts. Distinguish the book from the marketing copy, because readers do. Put your position in every freelancer brief, especially for covers, ghostwriting and narration, since an unstated rule is no rule and it is your name on the finished thing. Publish a specific, dated policy rather than an absolute claim you cannot defend. And keep your drafting history, because the day someone runs your prose through a detector, dated drafts are worth more than any argument you can make.