{"id":139628,"date":"2026-08-14T03:48:44","date_gmt":"2026-08-14T03:48:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/139628\/"},"modified":"2026-08-14T03:48:44","modified_gmt":"2026-08-14T03:48:44","slug":"after-editing-two-ai-assisted-manuscripts-i-rewrote-my-client-agreement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/139628\/","title":{"rendered":"After Editing Two AI-Assisted Manuscripts, I Rewrote My Client Agreement"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Image:Photo by Google DeepMind<\/a><\/p>\n

Today\u2019s guest post is by editor Mary Kole<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Having worked on thousands of manuscripts as a freelance editor, I\u2019ve developed a pretty reliable instinct for what makes a project difficult to edit. That said, I have never priced my services according to a manuscript\u2019s overall perceived \u201cquality\u201d or the level of \u201ceffort\u201d required to offer feedback (as these judgments are extremely subjective). <\/p>\n

Recently, AI-generated writing has entered my inbox, and this has made me rethink what editors are being asked to do, how, and how to charge for operating in this new world.<\/p>\n

Earlier this year, I unknowingly accepted two AI-assisted novels back-to-back. Why? Well, I didn\u2019t ask \u2026 and the clients didn\u2019t disclose their chatbot use. Now, this article isn\u2019t an ethical argument about AI. Writers will make their own decisions about where and whether these tools belong in their creative process, as will the industry at large. This is, however, an article about how editors should protect themselves accordingly from AI \u201cscope creep\u201d with new contracts and even fee schedules.<\/p>\n

The two projects in question weren\u2019t bad by any means. At first glance, both looked very polished. But the more I read, the more I realized I wasn\u2019t performing the same kind of editorial work I usually do. My goal is always to understand a client\u2019s intentions, then offer feedback and craft teaching to help them execute their vision in the most marketable way possible, depending on their overall publishing goals.<\/p>\n

Instead of having an editorial conversation with a human creator in these cases, though, I was trying to find the humanity in work generated by AI, which added a new layer of nuance and complexity. And I was still being paid the same, though the rules had changed.<\/p>\n

Editing versus humanizing or outright revision<\/p>\n

Most editors price services around a fairly consistent assumption: a client has written a manuscript, and they have approached a professional with the belief that it can be improved. But inherent in this assumption is the idea that the underlying material belongs to the author. AI-assisted manuscripts complicate this premise.<\/p>\n

Josh Bernoff, who recently proposed<\/a> AI guidelines for ghostwriters and editors, says:<\/p>\n

Authors think the job of writing is to create a logical, neat, error-free manuscript. In fact, the job is to express your views cogently in a way that is unique to you. AI can\u2019t do that. AI-generated manuscripts are clean, free of grammatical errors, and smooth and easy to read. They are also soulless. A good editor attempts to allow the author\u2019s voice and ideas to shine through by fixing writing problems. In this case, there is no author\u2019s voice. This makes it very hard for the editor to do the job\u2014we have no evidence of what the author truly believes or how they express themselves.<\/p>\n

The two projects I was asked to simply \u201cedit\u201d took me far longer because I was also forced to make hundreds of creative decisions that ordinarily belong to the originating writer. In essence, the clients who\u2019d hired me had outsourced their creative expression first to AI, and then to me, the human implicitly tasked with bridging the gap. Instead of simply evaluating execution, I found myself making authorial decisions: reshaping emotional arcs, deepening characterization, stripping back thematic overstatements, and rebuilding character interiority so it sounded like a distinct voice rather than a statistically probable Everyman.<\/p>\n

This is authorship work, not editorial. Messy, human first drafts from organic brains with something to say frequently reveal a writer\u2019s instincts before they reveal their underlying grasp of craft. The bot-written manuscripts I encountered actually inverted that equation. The craft was polished \u2026 but the humanity was difficult to find.<\/p>\n

Bernoff has responded by treating AI-assisted manuscripts as their own category of work, which approaches ghost revision or outright ghostwriting. He says:<\/p>\n

It\u2019s become clear to me that \u2018editing\u2019 AI generated text sits in a middle ground between ghostwriting and ordinary editing. It is easier than ghostwriting, since the source material is already there and neatly organized. It is harder than normal editing since it requires a complete rewrite.<\/p>\n

Editors who also ghostwrite or ghost revise will immediately recognize the difference. Stepping into a writer\u2019s shoes entails a different investment of engagement, responsibility, and time. As such, Bernoff suggests editors charge a 50% premium for editing AI-generated material, and argues:<\/p>\n

As a human editor, I cannot concentrate for as long on the mind-numbing soulless prose generated by AI. Worse yet, I need to rewrite every word of AI-generated text to ensure that the result is eligible for copyright. That\u2019s at least 50% more work than editing a human-generated manuscript. It\u2019s also a signal to clients that there is a cost to their cutting corners with AI. If everyone in the editorial business charged 50% extra like I do, clients would rapidly realize that they\u2019re not going to save time and money by substituting AI for their own writing.<\/p>\n

I wholeheartedly agree and have included this premium in my client agreement, though I haven\u2019t actually had to invoke the upcharge yet. I have no doubt I will.<\/p>\n

Questions of disclosure and detection<\/p>\n

After enacting my own AI-generated writing policies, I\u2019m less interested in whether writers are using AI and more interested in whether they are forthcoming about it. Disclosure isn\u2019t about catching someone \u201ccheating\u201d or playing AI Police. It\u2019s about accurately defining the project before editorial work begins. I don\u2019t think most clients are actively trying to deceive editors, literary agents, or publishers\u2014in fact, I suspect many genuinely believe that generative AI use has made their manuscript \u201cbetter.\u201d<\/p>\n

But Bernoff puts it bluntly when asked whether editors should require disclosure about AI use: \u201cAny client who\u2019s been paying attention knows that they\u2019ve created a problem for the editor in helping to craft a publishable manuscript.\u201d For those still confused about the broad principles, Bernoff points them to the Gotham Ghostwriters AI Guidelines for Ghostwriting<\/a>, which he authored.<\/p>\n

Disclosure of AI-generated writing in a manuscript should change the scope of the editorial engagement. If I know that substantial portions of a project are non-human-created before I send a proposal, I can set expectations and account for my time accordingly.<\/p>\n

Of course, disclosure only works if clients are willing to disclose. This naturally raises another question: Should editors attempt to verify AI use themselves? Well, the current generation of tools at our disposal remains controversial.<\/p>\n

Derek Newton, founder of Verify My Writing<\/a>, an AI-detection tool (full disclosure: I have used this and believe it\u2019s very effective), acknowledges that not all software is trustworthy. \u201cMost AI detection services are scams \u2026 But there are three or four really good technology products that work.\u201d He also adds, about his firm, \u201cWe think of detection kind of upside-down\u2014not as catching AI, but as recognizing and rewarding human work and storytelling.\u201d<\/p>\n

Whether editors choose to use detection software is almost beside the point. Even Newton is careful about what these tools, including his, actually measure. A detector can estimate whether text is likely to have been generated by AI. It cannot tell you whether the writing succeeds creatively. He adds: \u201cAI detection can tell if a robot painted a painting. It cannot tell if the painting is any good.\u201d<\/p>\n

This brings me back to how editors interface with projects. In our role, we\u2019re already evaluating manuscripts. We don\u2019t need software to tell us whether a scene feels emotionally flat or whether a reconciliation between rivals feels earned. What\u2019s left is for us to enact clearer workflows and boundaries around our time for dealing with suspected, assumed, or proven projects in this space, no matter how we arrive at this conclusion.<\/p>\n

Policy, not judgment<\/p>\n

The new AI addendum in my client agreement isn\u2019t a moral statement but a scope-of-work one. It requires disclosure, defines \u201cAI-Generated Content,\u201d and explains why AI-assisted manuscripts require additional time and a different pricing structure. It also clarifies where my editorial responsibility begins and ends.<\/p>\n

Whether or not editors adopt a similar framework, I think our industry needs to rethink how we estimate projects, define deliverables, discuss revision, and approach contractual liability. Bernoff\u2019s advice is practical: \u201cProtect yourself legally \u2026 write into your contract that you are not responsible for factual errors, AI-generated uncopyrightable text in the source material, or inaccurate quotes \u2026 And block off more time.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even in this new landscape\u2014especially in this new landscape\u2014I also believe human editors are becoming more important than ever. The value of the editorial profession has never rested on our ability to identify weak grammar. Spell check and Grammarly can help you there. It has instead hinged on our ability to recognize authentic communication \u2026 and help writers achieve more of it.<\/p>\n

Bernoff has this to say:<\/p>\n

Our job is to help human writers express themselves in a unique and powerful way. That\u2019s even more important in a world flooded by soulless inhuman slop. We are on the front lines of the battle to preserve the unique qualities of the human voice, and like all front-line soldiers, our job is crucially important.<\/p>\n

My new clauses don\u2019t keep AI out of my business. They attempt to ensure that my pricing and policies accurately reflect the effort needed to do my job to the same standard I\u2019ve always applied to human-created work. For your consideration and use, I\u2019m sharing the language I developed and added, using Bernoff\u2019s original blog post as a springboard. (This phrasing retains some conventions specific to my client agreement. You are welcome to adapt it to your needs and style.)<\/p>\n

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND AI-GENERATED CONTENT ADDENDUM<\/p>\n

This section and its sub-sections are part of the Editorial Service Agreement (\u201cAgreement\u201d) by and between the Client and the Company. This section remains consistent for all Engagements. Please note that absolutely no proposed amendments to this section of the Agreement will be considered or accepted.<\/p>\n

1. COMPANY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DISCLOSURE. All deliverables created or provided under this Agreement are original works performed by human professionals. The use of generative artificial intelligence, LLMs, or similar automated tools to create, manipulate, or substantively contribute to the deliverables in this Engagement is strictly prohibited unless expressly disclosed and approved by the Client in writing. The Company represents and warrants that no AI technology was used to produce the final deliverables.<\/p>\n

2. DEFINITION OF AI-GENERATED CONTENT IN CLIENT MANUSCRIPTS. \u201cAI-Generated Content\u201d as understood in this Agreement means any text, images, or other materials produced in whole or in part by a machine learning, LLM, or artificial intelligence system (including, but not limited to, systems such as ChatGPT or similar tools), whether created from user prompts, training data, or automated processes, and not solely authored by a human individual without such assistance.<\/p>\n

3. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DETECTION. For the avoidance of doubt, the Company reserves the right, at their sole discretion, to submit a limited portion of the Project (not to exceed 1,500 words) to artificial intelligence detection software of the Company\u2019s choosing for the purpose of assessing whether the material may constitute AI-Generated Content, as defined herein. The Client and Company acknowledge that current AI detection tools are inherently imperfect and that any assessment regarding AI-Generated Content is not definitive, and while the Company makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or conclusiveness of such tools, the Company will make best-faith efforts to arrive at a conclusion about a Client\u2019s generative AI use. The Company\u2019s determination is final.<\/p>\n

4. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PREMIUM. Should the Project include any AI-Generated Content, the Company reserves the right to apply a premium of fifty percent (50%) to the applicable fees for editorial services, reflecting the additional time and labor required to review, revise, and substantively adapt such material to publishing industry standards.<\/p>\n

5. FACTUAL ERROR AND HALLUCINATION WARRANTY. The Client acknowledges and agrees that the Company does not and cannot warrant the factual accuracy of the Project and shall have no responsibility or liability for identifying, verifying, or correcting any factual errors, inaccuracies, or omissions therein, including, without limitation, any such errors introduced through the Client\u2019s use of artificial intelligence or machine learning tools.<\/p>\n

6. COPYRIGHT PROTECTION WARRANTY. The Client acknowledges and agrees that, to the extent the Project incorporates any AI-Generated Content, the Company makes no representations or warranties regarding the Project\u2019s eligibility for copyright protection, and shall have no responsibility or liability for ensuring that the Project, in whole or in part, qualifies for or retains such protection. The Client acknowledges that editorial services are not intended to transform AI-Generated Content into fully original, publication-ready, copyright-eligible material, and no such outcome is guaranteed.<\/p>\n

7. CLIENT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DISCLOSURE. The Client represents and warrants that they have fully disclosed to the Company whether any portion of the Project includes AI-Generated Content. To the extent such content has been used, the Client must provide a clear description of the nature and extent of such use, including, without limitation, the tools utilized and the manner in which the content was generated or incorporated into the Project.<\/p>\n

8. RENEGOTIATION AND TERMINATION. If, at any point during the Engagement, the Company determines that the extent of AI-Generated Content materially exceeds what was disclosed, or renders the Project unsuitable for the agreed-upon Scope of Work, the Company reserves the right to pause work and renegotiate scope, timeline, and fees, or terminate the Agreement. (The Termination clause is defined elsewhere.)<\/p>\n

The Client\u2019s representations and warranties regarding AI-Generated Content shall survive the completion or termination of this Agreement.<\/p>\n

Was Artificial Intelligence used to generate any text in the Project?<\/p>\n

[YES\/NO]<\/p>\n

If Yes, what is the nature of AI usage (including the name of the program(s) used, degree of AI-Generated Content, elements of the Project created using artificial intelligence, etc.)?<\/p>\n

[TEXT FIELD FOR RESPONSE]<\/p>\n

By entering their initials below, the Client represents and warrants that the information provided regarding the use (or non-use) of AI-Generated Content in the Project is true, complete, and accurate to the best of their knowledge. The Client further acknowledges and agrees that, if any portion of the Project includes AI-Generated Content (whether disclosed at the outset of the Engagement or identified at any time during the Engagement), a surcharge of fifty percent (50%) shall apply to the Company\u2019s applicable fees for editorial services.<\/p>\n

[TEXT FIELD FOR INITIALS]<\/p>\n

\"Mary<\/p>\n

Former literary agent Mary Kole founded Mary Kole Editorial in 2013 and provides consulting and developmental editing services to writers of all categories and genres, working on children\u2019s book projects from picture book to young adult, and all kinds of trade market literature, including fantasy, sci-fi, romance and memoir. She founded Good Story Company in 2019 with the aim of providing valuable content\u2014like the Good Story Podcast and Crit Collective writing forum\u2014to writers of all categories and ability levels.<\/p>\n

She holds an MFA in Creative Writing and has worked at Chronicle Books, the Andrea Brown Literary Agency, and Movable Type Management. She has been blogging at Kidlit.com since 2009. Her book, Writing Irresistible Kidlit, a writing reference guide for middle grade and young adult writers, is available from Writer\u2019s Digest Books.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Photo by Google DeepMind Today\u2019s guest post is by editor Mary Kole. Having worked on thousands of manuscripts…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":139629,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[24,25,7010],"class_list":["post-139628","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-ai","tag-ai","tag-artificial-intelligence","tag-free"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139628","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=139628"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139628\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/139629"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=139628"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=139628"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=139628"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}