When I first began reporting on the aggressive AI-driven email scams that have been plaguing the Inboxes of authors everywhere for well over a year now, they were limited to marketing scams offering supposedly expert “visibility” for writers and their books.

In the year-plus since then, the scams have adapted and expanded in response to writers’ reactions and increasingly widespread reporting and discussion. In addition to marketing offers, they now include book club and review scams and a wide variety of impersonation scams, where the goal of initial contact is to steer writers through one or more referrals into paid editing or marketing arrangements. They’ve impersonated well-known writers, literary agents, editors at publishing houses, book festivals (with fake invites), and radio stations and hosts (with fake interview requests).

The one thing the scammers haven’t changed or adapted is the set of markers that have characterized the scams from the start: hyper-personalization coupled with lavish praise (thanks to generative AI) that makes it seem the sender has actual knowledge of the writer’s book; the almost universal use of Gmail addresses; banking/payment information that traces to scammers overseas; and extreme aggressiveness that paradoxically undercuts effectiveness (when you’re getting multiple flattering yet suspiciously similar solicitations every day, they start to seen a tad inauthentic). It’s a business built on volume, so only a small fraction of writers need to be fooled in order for the fraudsters to make money.

I’ve been trying to keep track of this scam wave, which is the most prolific and aggressive I’ve ever chronicled. Here, for example, is my list of frequently-impersonated companies and individuals, which I’m adding to daily, sometimes multiple times a day (not exaggerating here). And you can see all of my posts about the scams here.

All of this to say…sorry, I’ve got more for you.

Production Companies

While an earlier wave of foreign impersonation scams heavily focused on filmmakers and production companies, usually with the goal of tricking writers into paying big bucks for screenplays and other “book to screen” services that might or might not arrive and wouldn’t get them any closer to a movie deal even if they did, the current tsunami of AI-driven scams has exclusively–as far as I can tell–targeted books, publishing, and areas surrounding them (such as author interview shows).

Till now, that is. In recent weeks I’ve started getting reports of production company impersonations that bear the AI scams’ distinctive markers, including hyper-personalization and praise and the ubiquitous Gmail addresses.

Note the way the address is formulated in the example above: sendername dot company name @ gmail.com. That’s very characteristic of impersonation scams (I’ve written a whole post about that and other scammer email tells).

The earlier production company impersonation scams are still active, so you could be targeted now on two fronts. The most important things to remember are that a) a production company reaching out to you directly is one of the least likely things ever to happen to you as a writer, and b) in the incredibly rare event that it does, the email will come from a company domain, not a Gmail or other non-professional address.

Literary Agent Impersonation Scams

This wouldn’t be the first time AI scammers have impersonated literary agents, but this new one I’m seeing is a bit different.

Basically, it’s a variation on the editor impersonation scam that is absolutely everywhere right now, except it’s a two step scam (fake agent to scam “editor”) rather than a three step scam (fake publishing house editor to fake agent to scam “editor”) and the emails tend to be less flowery and over-the-top. A literary agent (who, if you google them, is confirmably real) emails you out of the blue. As with the editor impersonation scam, they’re impressed with your work and want to know if you’re currently represented by a literary agent. Or they simply claim to want to know about you and what you’re working on. If you respond, the impersonator asks you to submit your query letter and manuscript, and after an improbably short period of just a few days, refers you to an “editor” who can fix whatever is wrong with your query letter or manuscript–for, of course, a sizeable fee. The scammer inhabits both personas.

I’ve seen emails identical to the one above purportedly from Andrea Brown and Julia Churchill at AM Heath.

This one skips the flattery, but also features the type of wonky Gmail address formulation you often see with these solicitations, where the name of the impersonated person is mashed together with their agency or publishing house.

Congratulations, Non-English-Speaking Writers, It’s Your Turn

All of the foreign scams I’m tracking–publishing and marketing scams from the Philippines, ghostwriting scams from South Asia (which pose online as self-publishing service providers), and the current wave of AI-driven scams that I’ve repeatedly traced to Nigeria and Nigerian individuals–have exclusively focused their efforts on English-speaking writers in the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and wherever else they can be found. The solicitations, the websites, and the advertising are all in English–as are the phone calls (though the callers typically have heavy accents).

That may be changing.

Just in the last couple of weeks, I’ve gotten several reports of marketing solicitations in German. Despite the language switch-up, they are clearly examples of the AI scam wave–Gmail addresses, personalization and praise, marketers who can’t be found online–and target authors in exactly the same way.

This one, whose Gmail address doesn’t quite match the name in the signature (Erikson vs. Erykson; such discrepancies are a common scam marker) is purportedly from a marketing expert who specializes in “Amazon visibility, Goodreads presence, and organic discoverability”–all offerings that will be very familiar to anyone who has been targeted by a Gmail marketing scam.

Note also the next to last paragraph, which invites the receipient to respond to a series of questions: “How do you find your readers? Do they primarily come through your work at the <redacted>, or do they discover you independently?” This kind of friendly, open-ended inquiry is a common ingredient of AI marketing solicitations: it’s intended to incentivize response, so that the scammer can draw the writer in over an often-lengthy series of email exchanges designed to make it harder to say “no” when the money ask finally arrives.

This one is also a highly personalized marketing pitch, with the scammer (whose “team” has zero web presence) claiming to “increase the visibility of [authors’] books by introducing them to relevant readership groups, book clubs, and thematically appropriate audiences.” It too closes with an invitation to respond, but makes it super-easy: “If this opportunity aligns with your current goals as an author, simply reply with “Interested.” We will then send you further information about the campaign and the next steps.”

Additional AI-Driven Email Scam-Spotting Tips

As AI-driven scams continue to change and evolve, writers need to be ever more on their guard. We live now in a world where all writers are fair game, and any out-of-the-blue email or phone call related to your creative work has to be suspect, at least until you can determine that it’s not.

In addition to the specific warnings above and in my other posts, watch out for these:

Non-typical salutations. Using myself as an example: Dear Victoria Strauss, rather than the more normal Dear Victoria or Dear Ms. Strauss. Ditto for Dear Author. Or no salutation at all. (First name/last name is the one I see most often.)

Extended and apparently accurate discussions of your book’s theme and plot points, coupled with effusive praise. A genuine contact won’t necessarily not include these–but both are established scam M.O.s, and should always prompt extra caution.

Emojis. When I first started getting reports of AI-driven marketing scams in the summer of last year, many of the emails were littered with emojis (you can see an example toward the end of this post). Marketing professionals communicate professionally, which means not writing emails that look like social media posts. I’m not seeing this so often nowadays, but it is still something to watch for, and a big caution sign.

Interminable email exchanges. As noted above, AI-driven marketing scams, especially, employ a boiled-frog approach, where they ease you gently toward the actual money ask over the course of multiple emails, with each email re-emphasizing how great they think you are and how excellently they can help you. It’s classic emotional manipulation: the deeper you’re drawn into the interaction, the more invested you become, the more plausible the scammer’s promises start to seem, and the harder it will ultimately be (the scammer hopes) for you to say no.

Insistent nudging. Scammers want to close the deal as fast as possible, so if you don’t respond right away (especially to payment requests) they may repeatedly check back in with “just following up on my last email” or “wondering if you’ve had a chance to evaluate my offer” communications–sometimes within hours of when they last contacted you.

Fees where they aren’t normally charged.This is always a warning sign. For example, real book clubs, radio shows, and conferences don’t charge fees to invited guests. The process of rights acquiition–such as optioning your movie rights–should never involve a fee or purchase requirement.

Non-reversible payment methods. Instead of credit card transactions, scammers will often require payment by methods that are difficult or impossible to dispute or reverse: wire transfers, Upwork or Fiverr invoices, Paypal Friends and Family, apps like Zelle or CashApp.

Invoices that lack vital information like names, addresses, and phone numbers. Scammers want to avoid accountability. Never pay an invoice that doesn’t offer full disclosure of the provider, their business, and how to contact the person.

The post Production Companies, Literary Agents, Foreign Languages: AI-Driven Scams Continue to Morph appeared first on Writer Beware.

In the early days of Writer Beware–back in the pre-digital era–scammers waited for writers to come to them.

Sure, they advertised (Writer’s Digest used to have a Classified section that was full of scam ads; one notorious scam agency placed ads in their local Pennysaver). They had websites. And thanks to often lax oversight, they sometimes wound up in reputable market guides (cough *Literary Market Place* cough). But generally speaking, if you were scammed it was because you approached the scammer, not the other way around. (I don’t mean to suggest that being scammed was the writers’ fault; it was just the way things worked at the time.)

That’s no longer the case. Starting in the mid-twentyteens with the first wave of scams from overseas, direct solicitation became one of scammers’ main victim-recruiting techniques (the other: ads on Facebook). And increasingly, these solicitations involved impersonation–of literary agents, publishers, editors, film production companies, and more–to grab writers’ attention and trick them into parting with large amounts of cash.

I wrote my first post about impersonation scams in early 2020. Today, they’re so common that there’s a whole category devoted to them on this blog. If you write, no matter what your genre is or how you publish, you’ve probably been targeted.

That’s why I’m sure that today’s guest post from author Denise Beck-Clark will resonate with you. Denise details her own recent experience with an impersonation scammer, highlighting how elaborate such frauds have become thanks to scammers’ adoption of generative AI, and the vulnerabilities that make writers susceptible to them. She also points out that the authors the scammers seek to defraud are not the only victims. (You may remember Denise from her post last year about a different, somewhat less complicated impersonation scam.)

A Narrow Escape

by

Denise Beck-Clark

It’s called an “Imposter Scam” and it’s become quite popular these days, according to Victoria Strauss who monitors scams against writers in her excellent website, “Writer Beware.”

I’m not exaggerating when I say I have the occasion several times a week to be taken in by a scam. I want to call it a writer’s scam but that makes it sound like it’s the writer perpetuating the scam while the truth is it’s the writer who is being scammed.

Thanks to self-publishing my most recent novel, I am bombarded with phone calls, emails, and texts from people claiming to be from companies who either want to sell my book to a “traditional” publisher as they call them, or to promote my book.

After I lost a few thousand dollars almost two years ago, I’ve been cautious. But the scams are growing ever more sophisticated, viz., the one that almost just happened to me.

It started a couple of weeks ago with an email from one “Anna Michels” from a company called “BestSolution Publishing.” Interestingly, I rescued it from my Spam folder.

The email was quite literate and at the end of it was a picture of a pretty, young white woman wearing a big hat with address, phone number and email address that all looked perfectly realistic. Except for one thing: to my knowledge most young people these days don’t use AOL as their email provider, but she did.

As did “Eric Simonoff”, the literary agent “Anna” recommended to me. Their names are in quotes because that is the heart of the Imposter scam: people use the names of real people in the publishing industry, trying to get the writer to believe they’re being contacted by people who want nothing more than to help their self-published book become a New York Times bestseller.

Thus, “Anna’s” first email to me was all about how she came upon my novel and how it has great potential, etc. etc. Upon my responding favorably to her email, she gave me the name of the literary agent “Eric Simonoff.” Of course, I Googled him, and after seeing lovely pictures of him and his wife and a long list of writers with whom he’s worked, some of whom I’ve read, I contacted him immediately.

Before I go on, I want to say that at the get-go I told “Anna,” and then “Eric,” that I had been scammed for several thousand dollars and I was not going to fork over any money. For anything.

“Eric’s” ploy was to list all the great things about my book, and then to list the ways it could use improvement. Okay, those lists sounded realistic, too. I want to add here that both of their emails were literate with fine grammar and spelling. I didn’t realize then that thanks to AI you could be totally illiterate and non-English speaking and still put out a perfectly literate document in English.

Anyway, the request for money came in the form of “Eric,” the literary agent, so-called, saying a “professional editor” would be needed to whip my book into such great shape that when he would submit it to “traditional publishers” it would be in excellent standing, competing with the masses of other submitted novels that fall upon publishers’ desks these days. I, all innocence, had said, I thought that editing a book is something a publisher does upon acquiring a manuscript. Yes, that used to be the case, “Eric” said, but these days there’s so much competition that it’s best to have the editing done before the publisher reads it.

These emails went on for about ten days, during which time I was starting to get more suspicious. As it was, I was feeling that I had already told them too much about myself, such as my publishing history and future publishing plans. I believed them, until one day I didn’t.

When you’re suspicious, every little detail of an interaction is potentially revealing, potentially the one that turns something you consider legitimate into the opposite. In this case, what started with the so-called “Anna Michels” also ended with her. She, who was the initial contact, had put me in touch with “Eric Simonoff,” claiming that she would be part of the communication with him, including cc’s on all emails, presumably to make me feel more comfortable with him entering the relationship. Well, from the first email to him, I was the only one cc’ing emails to “Anna.” He never did. As the sense of “it’s too good to be true” started gaining momentum in my mind, I spoke about it to friends, one of whom in response to my saying the emails were so literate, said “That’s AI.”

Plus, there was repetition, of what they said and what I said, including that I wasn’t going to pay for anything. That’s when, after not hearing from “Anna” for a week, I got an email from her, which tried to persuade me to go along with “Eric’s” suggestion of hiring an independent editor to make the book better and more likely to be purchased by a “traditional” publisher. I even responded by providing other ways of doing that that wouldn’t cost anything.

That was the last I heard from them. A couple of times, still believing they were publishing professionals affiliated with the companies shown on Google, I almost wrote to them at those places. But then I reminded myself, Anna Michels and Eric Simonoff were not who I was dealing with.

Scams upon artists, including writers and especially writers who self-publish, have the particular quality of appealing to the heart of someone who is starving for praise and approval of their work. A few years ago, I actually had a woman contact me saying she wanted to buy some of my “artwork” for her husband’s birthday. My “artwork” consists of drawings I’ve done that have appeared on a very small scale, here and there; I was not only shocked when I heard from this woman but hugely flattered. I mean, my drawings really are great, aren’t they? Anyone who would just happen to see them would agree, no? In that case, too, after our negotiations went on for a few days, and the plan to pay and receive the drawings got more and more complicated, I realized something wasn’t kosher and called the whole thing off.

For some reason, the legal world doesn’t have a special category for scams against writers/artists. Like when I tried to recoup from my bank the money I lost two years ago, they didn’t call it fraud, they called it “non-deliverance of paid-for services.”

As the imposter scams happen more and more often, there’s another victim besides the writer, and that is the publisher/editor/agent who is being impostered. There is a real Anna Michel, and a real Eric Simonoff. I wish they would step up and do something about someone using their name and/or identity to rob other people of their money. The more we know, the less likely we are to go for the scam. Also, in the rare cases that the imposters get caught, there should be consequences. Now it’s likely happening with such great frequency because they don’t get caught and there are no consequences.

Easy money, eh? Maybe, but not for me.

Note from Victoria: I’ve gotten a number of reports of solicitations from the scam that contacted Denise, BestSolution Publishing. Its website includes a large roster of fake staffers with stolen or stock photos–including a stolen photo of the real Anna Michels, who is the Senior Editorial Director at Sourcebooks–and whose names don’t necessarily match the gender of their images.

Denise Beck-Clark is the author of Thirty Years Hence, A Novel and Concurrent Sentences: A True Story of Murder, Love and Redemption. She has also written essays on Medium and Substack. Find out more at her website: www.denisebeck-clark.com.

The post Guest Post: A Narrow Escape From an Impersonation Scam appeared first on Writer Beware.

For the second time in four years, the Association of American Literary Agents (AALA) has updated its Canon of Ethics.

The last time, in 2022, the major changes related to packaging and producer fees for clients’ TV and film deals (with members prohibited from participating), and to the growing practice of agents doubling as paid editors. Where the old Canon included a blanket prohibition on paid editing, the update created guidelines designed to allow the practice but head off the more common abuses. Member agents were prohibited from making editing a condition of representation, and required to offer paid editing services only to writers who approached them for that specific purpose (i.e., no bait-and-switch conversion of prospective represntation clients to editing clients). And if they subsequently offered the editing client representation, they had to reimburse all editing fees.

The current update is more sweeping. Most of the revisions are focused on the rapidly-growing trend of agents offering paid services other than editing to clients and non-clients, and, the AALA explains in its discussion of the changes, are intended to establish guardrails to prevent these new practices from being abused, while not constraining member agents’ ability to run their businesses and make a living.

They aren’t totally successful, in my view. And beyond the Canon itself, I think the issues the revisions address pose some troubling questions for the agent profession as a whole.

The revised Canon, which takes effect September 1, can be seen here.

What Has Changed?

Much of the old language remains, such as the prohibition on reading fees and the guidelines on payment and accounting. But some clauses have been overhauled, new clauses have been added, and the Canon as a whole has been re-organized and re-formatted to be more streamlined and easier to read.

Clause 2: Fiduciary. This new clause includes most of the language that appeared in Clause 5 of the old Canon (prohibiting agents from representing both buyer and seller in the same transaction, prohibiting agents from participating in packging fees for film/TV deals or accepting producer fees without the client’s consent) but also adds a paragraph defining the role of a fiduciary.

Clause 6: Payments from Third Parties; Referral Fees. The old Canon prohibited members from “solicit[ing] or accept[ing] any payment or other thing of value in connection with their referral of any author to any third party for any purpose.”

The new Canon both expands this–making clear that agents can make third party referrals (which many are already doing), though they must do so “with the client’s best interests in mind”–and softens it. Secret profits are still prohibited, but while members are forbidden to seek or solicit payments or items of value in return for the referral, referrals to third parties that are “known to pay referral fees or other things of value to those who refer to them” are okay, as long as the agent discloses to the client what they’ve received and the client is “agreeable to such an arrangement.”

For me, the acceptance of something of value in return for a referral is always a conflict of interest, whether or not the agent solicited the thing of value or admitted they received it. Requiring disclosure doesn’t necessarily mitigate that, unless the agent also has to disclose how often they refer to the third party in question (i.e., are the referrals a pattern, in which case the agent may be pursuing their own benefit rather than the client’s).

Clause 8: No Reading Fees. Members are still prohibited from charging reading fees. The section allowing members to receive payment for teaching classes or from writers’ conferences has been expanded to emphasize that such compensation can’t come directly from creators.

Clause 9: Paid-For Editorial Services. This section has been shortened and simplified, with a major component under the old Canon–the prohibition on converting writers who query for representation into clients of paid services–moved to Clause 11. Members still can’t charge clients for editorial services, but if a non-client who buys editing is later offered reperesentation, “the treatment of monies paid for editorial services performed prior to representation shall be subject to mutual agreement between the member and the prospective client.”

This walks back the language of the old Canon, which required the agent to reimburse editing fees if they later offered representation. Removing that obligation weakens the disincentive to double dip by converting service clients to representation clients, since the agent only has to “mutually agree” with the client on how to deal with the fees. How many eager writers, with a representation offer in hand, will protest a “mutual agreement” not to be reimbursed?

Clause 10: Other Paid-For Services Offered to Clients. This is a new clause. It allows members to “employ staff or specialists to aid clients in other areas such as marketing, promotion, web design, or other work, for a fee to be mutually agreed” but prohibits making representation contingent on the client buying such services, and requires members to inform clients of this.

I see potential problems here as well. The required disclosure doesn’t remove the possibility that the agent might pressure the writer to buy in–maybe not overtly, but via more roundabout methods: overstating the benefits of purchasing the agent’s marketing services, for example. Too, the lopsided balance of power between author and agent–especially if the author is new and inexperienced–exerts a pressure to consent. I see this play out in questions I get from writers who have concerns about some aspect of their relationship with their agent but are afraid to voice it for fear of consequences to their manuscripts.

Clause 11: Paid-For Services Offered to Non-Clients. Another new clause. Members can offer not just editing services to non-clients, but also “non-editorial services (e.g. web design, social media consultation, creation of promotional content”). They must state in writing that buying services won’t necessarily lead to representation, and if they don’t offer the service personally, they must disclose who will provide it and their relationship to the member.

As I’ve noted, the language prohibiting client conversion at the query stage has been moved here. Quoting in full: “To avoid the possibility of abuse, members may not respond to an author who approaches them only for literary representation by instead directing the author to pay for services by the member or by anyone financially associated with the member or the member’s agency.” I’m glad to see this language is still included; again, though, there’s a workaround, in that nothing in this clause prevents the agent from providing paid services to a non-client who they know they are likely to later want to represent. And this clause doesn’t even include the directive for “mutual agreement” on reimbursement.

Clause 12: Publishing. This too is new language. Quoting in full again: “While the AALA does not encourage its members to act as publishers of their clients’ work because of the inherent conflicts, doing so may be permissible if the member and client fully execute the ‘Consent Regarding Publication’ or a similar agreement containing all of its substantive provisions.”

The AALA says the Consent document “delineates the ways in which the roles of agent and publisher differ”, but though there’s a link, it’s behind a member login so I don’t know what it includes. Again, though, the emphasis is on “transparency and consent”, which doesn’t necessarily rule out the conflicts of interest the clause acknowledges.

UPDATE: I meant to include this, but pressed “publish” too soon.

A surprising omission from the revisions is any language addressing AI. According to PW’s article on the revisions, though, this is something the AALA is looking at.

Guidelines around AI usage are notably absent from this round of revisions, though AI use ranked as one of the top concerns among agents in a recent AALA survey. [AALA president Regina] Brooks said the AALA has begun circulating information internally and among members, but is “waiting for things to settle out” before formalizing anything.

Whither the Agent Profession?

The Canon has an enforcement mechanism, in the form of writers’ ability to make a complaint about an agent to the AALA’s Ethics Committee. But it is essentially an honor system, and an honor system is only as good as people’s honor. I do think that most people prefer to be ethical, and I’m certain that most agents adhere to the Canon in good faith.

Still, I’m concerned about the new permissiveness around third-party referrals and the walkback of the editing fee return requirement, both of which, I think, create troubling ethical loopholes. And as I’ve described above, I worry especially about the gray areas surrounding paid-for services. As Jane Friedman notes in her assessment of the new Canon,

The problem lies in the power imbalance in the agent-author relationship. Disclosure doesn’t prevent abuse of power, and I’m especially concerned for first-time authors or clients who may only be able to get responses from agents who earn money from services, not sale….Over the last five to 10 years, I have seen an absolute explosion of educational and service offerings from agents (and others). Some have little experience or credibility in the market; they don’t sell books for a living but sell a dream and take advantage of writers who think they’re getting that access or secrets to a book deal.

If agents can’t make sufficient money selling books and want to get into author services, why not leave agenting and become a service business? While this may be too cynical on my part, I can’t help but observe that one of the easiest ways to attract attention to your offerings—or get conference invites—is to put out your shingle as an agent. This latest revision to the Canon of Ethics may encourage more such prospecting.

This–which former agent Nathan Bransford dubs “the rise of the schmagent”–could signal a return to the old days of questionable agenting, where the agent’s main source of income was fees for services, and the promise of representation was little more than a bait-and-switch.

Canon or no Canon, the shift toward services is already happening. When the Canon was created, back in the pre-digital era, the worst abuses it needed to address were paid editing referral schemes and the dishonest use of reading fees; times sure have changed, and the speed with which that’s taking place is evidenced by the fact that this new revision comes just four years after the previous one. The AALA is essentially playing catchup, adapting their ethical guardrails to address business practices that already exist and are being widely adopted–and that, if room isn’t made for them within the organization, will likely lead to dwindling membership and consequent erosion of the AALA’s status as an arbiter of acceptable business practice. (In my opinion the AALA already weakened itself with its decision a few years ago to eliminate competency requirements for membership, but that’s a whole other discussion.)

There’s also a bigger question. With all of these new roles and business practices, what happens to agents’ core function: the representation of authors’ work to publishers and the sale of rights? Even if an agency isn’t a schmagency, but is also a PR company and a tech company and maybe some other kind of company as well, how does it allocate resources betwen the different functions? If the agency side–which by definition involves unpaid labor, since not every manuscript in which agents invest time and effort will wind up finding a home–is less lucrative than the editing or marketing side, will the agency side be neglected? What happens when a core function gets pushed to the periphery?

I’m guessing in the next few years we’ll be finding out.

(Note: This section and the one below have been updated to incude mention of Nathan Bransford’s essay.)

Be Careful Out There

Whatever all of this means for the agent profession, it’s yet another minefield for writers, and yet another reason to do careful reseaarch when choosing whom to query. Both Jane Friedman and Nathan Bransford urge writers to resist the mystique that surrounds agents and look at them with clear eyes, and I agree.

Jane and Nathan both offer helpful suggestions for doing that. To those, I’d add some things to consider if you’re thinking of querying an agency with a service side:

• Is the agent an AALA member? The Canon may not be perfect, but it does offer assurance against major abuses. That’s not to say that non-AALA members aren’t entirely ethical. But with AALA members, you know a bit more going in.
• Does the agency’s online presence place the major emphasis on services, or on representation?
• How does the agency’s track record of sales compare with its service side (i.e., if it has an active service side but has placed relatively few books, that could suggest representation isn’t its main priority).
• Has it placed clients with hybrid publishers (some of which are known to pay referral fees)?
• What can you discover about client crossover between the service side and the agency side?
• Most important: how does what you see match your needs and goals for your writing career?

The post The AALA Makes Significant Updates to Its Canon of Ethics appeared first on Writer Beware.

NOTE: The settlement has been appealed. See the 8/19 and 8/20 updates at the bottom of this post.

On Tuesday, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín granted final approval to the historic class action settlement in the Bartz v Anthropic copyright infringement lawsuit.

At $1.5 billion, it’s the largest recovery ever in a copyright infringement suit, penalizing Anthropic for downloading, storing, and copying pirated datasets consisting of millions of illegally uploaded books in order to use them for AI training. (If you need a refresher, my past blog posts include a general overview of the settlement and the issues surrounding it and an April update.)

Judge Martínez-Olguín’s ruling can be seen here.

Top Takeaways

• Attorneys’ fees have been reduced. Class attorneys had requested 12.5% of the settlement fund, or $187.5 million, plus expenses of $2.5 million and a cost reserve of another $18 million (out of which the settlement administrator would be paid). Rather than a percentage-of-settlement, the judge chose to use a different method of calculation, reducing fees to $101.5 million; this works out to 6.8% of the settlement fund, as opposed to the 12.5% requested–which itself was a reduction from lawyers’ original ask of 20%. The judge granted the expense and cost reserve requests.
• Service awards to class representatives have been reduced. The original request was $50,000 for each of the three class representatives. While acknowledging the time and effort the representatives contributed to the case, the judge deemed those amounts “unreasonable”, and reduced the awards to $15,000 apiece.

These reductions should slightly increase the payout to authors. The math:

• All objections to the settlement are overruled. There were quite a number of these, including objections to the notification process, objections to the composition of the Works list, objections to the copyright registration requirement (which locked large numbers of authors and pirated works out of the settlement), objections to the size of the settlement (too low), objections to the attorneys’ fees and expense requests (too high), and objections seeking miscellaneous (and in some cases somewhat absurd) additional relief.
• Late opt-out requests have also been overruled–with two exceptions. There weren’t a lot of these requests, and the judge deemed that most of them hadn’t shown the “excusable neglect” that would justify approving them. Not so for Laura Esquivel and Jordi Castells, whose requests the judge granted. As it happens, both Esquivel and Castells are plaintiffs in a group of joined lawsuits recently filed by 100 authors and publishers who opted out of the settlement.

The Big Winners, Though? Publishers

The terms of the settlement require publishers and authors to split the per-work payout 50/50 (assuming that publishing contracts are still in force and both parties file a claim). The split is a somewhat arbitrary figure based on a common provision in publishing contracts stipulating that authors and publishers share equally in the recovery from any copyright suits.

This is a sore point with authors, many of whom feel that they are the parties most damaged by pirating and AI training, and shouldn’t have to cut their publishers in on a payout which, though higher than the common award in copyright cases ($750 according to the settlement agreement) is very far short of the $150,000 statutory maximum for willful infringement.

This recent announcement from Bloomsbury demonstrates the lopsided benefit publishers will derive:

14,087 titles x $1,500 (half the estimated $3,000 payout) = $21,130,500.

I posted Bloomsbury’s announcement on social media yesterday.

The response was…sour.

What’s Next?

In many class action settlements, the number of claims isn’t enough to exhaust the settlement fund. This doesn’t necessarily mean more money for those who do respond: settlement terms may direct any excess to be distributed to charity, or it may fall to the court to decide where the extra money goes.

The Anthropic settlement ensures that the entire settlement fund, less attorneys’ fees and expenses, goes to claimants, regardless of how many or how few claims there are. Fewer claims, in other words, means higher payouts. Participation in class action settlements is typically miserable (below 10% on average, according to some estimates), and at the start of the claims process there was speculation that claimants could receive much more than the estimated $3,000 per work payout figure. But participation has been unusually robust: 91.3% according to the motion for final approval, with claims filed for 440,490 of the 482,460 works on the elgible works list. So even with the reduction in attorneys’ fees, any increase will be modest.

When might claimants start to see the money? Per the settlement agreement,

The “effective date” is defined as “the later of” the date on which the time to file an appeal expires (30 days after final approval) or the date on which the resolution of an appeal either upholds approval of the settlement or is dismissed. So…checks could start going out in August. Or, if there’s an appeal, some much later time.

Additionally, Anthropic is depositing funds into the settlement account in four tranches, the last of which isn’t due until 2027 (though Anthropic can choose to deposit earlier)–so it seems likely that payments will go out in waves, or be broken into installments, rather than disbursed all at once. There may also be disputes among rightsholders to be resolved, delaying payments to individuals (a Special Master has been appointed to adjudicate such disputes). Not to mention, simply managing such a massive number of payouts is a monumental task.

Bottom line: no one knows exactly when checks will start arriving. Estimates I’ve seen range from sometime in September to, according to one lawyer I’m in touch with, “not in 2026.”

More Reading

Courtney Milan on the timing of Anthropic’s contributions to the settlement fund and when writers might expect to be paid.

Authors Guild on final approval.

Ars Technica on final approval (including Anthropic’s effort to block late opt-outs)

UPATE 8/8/26: Some information on payment timelines, from the Textbook & Academic Authors Association–assuming no one appeals the final settlement (the 30-day time period in which to do that ends on August 19).

Payments will also be made in two stages, roughly 70% in the first stage and 30% in the second, as Anthropic will be making settlement payments in installments through September 2027.

If no appeals are filed, an online portal will be launched by the end of August that contains claimants’ consolidated claim forms. The portal will include the title of each work, its copyright number, the names of other claimants and the percentages each are claiming. If the claim percentages match for all claimants of a work, said Class Counsel, funds will be dispersed via the method submitted by each claimant.

The article also discusses the dispute resolution process (for example, if you and your publisher disagree on percentage splits).

UPDATE 8/19/26: At the last minute, a group called Publishers Coordination Counsel has filed an appeal.

Because the appeal focuses on “issues related to the Order Granting in Part Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses”, rather than payments to class members, it may not hold up the disbursement of payouts. But stay tuned.

The group filing the appeal is not class counsel nor part of the class, but rather a pair of law firms that signed an agreement with class counsel to represent the publishers who are part of the class. However, because the original judge in the case, Judge Alsup, was concerned about the number of “add-on” (his words) law firms making claims on settlement funds, he made clear that only class counsel was eligible to be paid. With its appeal, Publishers Coordination Counsel is challenging that exclusion.

For a detailed look at all of this, here’s Courtney Milan on Bluesky.

UPDATE 8/20/26: Another appeal has been filed, by another law firm that’s not class counsel or part of the class. This appeal “does not seek to alter the total amount of attorneys’ fees awarded and is limited to the Order as it pertains to CDAS”, which per Courtney Milan, means that “they are probably going to ask for a piece of the $100 million or so that the class counsel were awarded.”

The post Anthropic Settlement Update: Final Settlement Approved appeared first on Writer Beware.

We’re currently waiting for Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin to issue final approval of the historic settlement in the Bartz v, Anthropic copyright infringement lawsuit. (If you need a refresher, my past blog posts include a general overview of the settlement and an April update.)

One of the interesting outcomes–so far–has been that while participation by class members has been extraordinarily robust (91.3%, with claims filed for 440,490 of the 482,460 works on the elgible works list), the number of class members who opted out has been quite small–just 350, according to a motion for final approval filed by plaintiffs in March (the opt-out deadline was February 9).

Opting out preserved those individuals’ right to sue Anthropic on their own. And indeed, in recent months, several lawsuits have been filed, representing approximately a third of the writers who opted out. Each suit is interesting in its own way.

Carreyrou v. Anthropic

If you’ve been following the progress of the settlement, you may remember a group called ClaimsHero. A law firm whose leadership team members do not appear to have law degrees, ClaimsHero got in trouble last year with the court over its attempts to recruit Anthropic class members for representation in alternative copyright lawsuits, using the lure of a higher payout (since the settlement will pay around $3,000 but the statutory maximum for willful copyright infringement is $150,000) without adequately disclosing to potential clients that signing with ClaimsHero meant authorizing ClaimsHero to opt them out of the settlement. (I wrote about this at the time.)

ClaimsHero was forced to change its recruitment and advertising tactics. However, it continued to seek clients, and in December 2025, its efforts bore fruit: six authors, including author and journalist John Carreyrou, filed suits against Anthropic and several other AI companies, based on allegations similar to those that led to the settlement they’d opted out of: that the AI companies had infringed their copyrights by copying and storing pirated books in order to use them for AI training.

The suits, which seek a judgment of willful infringement, statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work, and attorney fees and expenses, are being litigated not by ClaimsHero (one of the things that came out when ClaimsHero was hauled into court was that it had no litigation experience) but by a partner law firm. You’ll also notice that I said suits, plural. The Carreyrou filing isn’t a class action, but six individual lawsuits related by a common cause of action and filed together.

Class action settlements, the plaintiffs argue, serve defendants rather than creators, sidestepping creators’ right to have statutory damages individually determined and allowing companies like Anthropic to “easily extinguish thousands upon thousands of high-value claims at bargain-basement rates, eliding what should be the true cost of their massive willful infringement.”

This unusual approach, with individual cases joined together into a single action, is used by third-party claims filers, companies that specialize in recruiting claimants in class action settlements and batch-filing individual claims on their behalf. The tactic doesn’t always pan out, and whether it will succeed here remains to be seen. The plaintiffs have already suffered a setback, with most of the AI companies named in the original complaint severed from the case. The case has also been consolidated with several other infringement cases against Anthropic.

Back to ClaimsHero for a minute…ClaimsHero’s recruitment efforts have been aggressive. Between February and April, I got at least seven of these emails.

“Potentially” in that first bullet point is doing a lot of work; as far as I know, the Carreyrou action is the only one ClaimsHero has facilitated to date. And although I haven’t gotten a solicitation in a while, ClaimsHero is still recruiting–and there’s still some, well, lack of transparency. Here’s its current website pitch:

But wait, you’re thinking, where is that $750k per work figure coming from? Isn’t $150k the maximum for statutory damages in a copyright suit? Well, yes, and ClaimsHero does clarify that, but only if you bother to scan down the page to find the asterisk:

This is the same kind of bait-and-switch advertising as calorie claims on food packaging that don’t mention that the calorie count is per serving.

UPDATE 8/18/26: One of the plaintiffs in the Carreyrou action has voluntarily dropped out of the suit. No reason was given.

Daniel Benjamin Gilbert v. Anthropic

This second infringement case filed by an author who opted out of the Anthropic settlement touches on a sore issue for writers who did not opt out: they must split their payouts with their publishers if their contracts are still in force and the publisher files a claim.

Originally filed in May and amended on July 7, Gilbert’s complaint makes familiar allegations (infringement based on Anthropic’s copying and storage of pirated books) and seeks familiar relief (including full statutory damages, attorney fees and costs, and destruction of the infringed material). However, Gilbert also wants to make sure his publisher, Wiley, can’t share any of the proceeds.

Gilbert says that he notified Wiley in writing of Anthropic’s infringement, and “asked Wiley to advise within thirty days whether it intended to pursue the claim, and stated that if Wiley did not, he would proceed as provided in Paragraph 16.” Wiley did not respond within that time. Later, however, it notified Gilbert that it had submitted a claim under the settlement–but that the claim was moot thanks to Gilbert’s opt-out (under the terms of the settlement, an opt-out by one rightsholder opts out all other rightsholders as well).

The question here is whether, should Gilbert win his case, Wiley could claim a share of the recovery by arguing that making a claim under the settlement counted under Paragraph 16, despite the opt-out issue and even though it took more than 30 days to respond to Gilbert’s notification. Gilbert argues that it can’t: “Because Wiley declined to pursue the claim after Plaintiff’s request, as between Plaintiff and Wiley any recovery in this action, which Plaintiff prosecutes at his own expense, belongs solely to the Author, and Wiley has no contractual entitlement to share in it.”

Whether a court will agree remains to be seen. It’ll be interesting to watch how this particular case unfolds.

UPDATE: Mr. Gilbert has contacted me, and given me permission to publish this statement.

Twenty years ago, thousands of ordinary people were called thieves for downloading a few pirated songs. They were pushed into settlements for thousands of dollars or, if they fought back, were subject to judgments of hundreds of thousands more (including one Massachusetts student ordered to pay $675,000 for 30 songs). Anthropic downloaded millions of pirated books, including mine. The Bartz settlement offered a payment with no acknowledgment of wrongdoing and no apology. I opted out because I wanted the chance to pursue accountability. Anthropic is a public benefit corporation and I expect them to live up to that standard and take responsibility for their actions.

Shakespeare v. Anthropic

Filed June 17, this is the most recent infringement suit by Anthropic settlement opt-outs. Defendants are not just Anthropic, but Dario Amodei, Anthropic’s co-founder and CEO, and Benjamin Mann, who is identified as “a founder and member of the technical staff of Anthropic” and who the suit alleges personally handled the downloading of the pirate datasets that included the plaintffs’ books.

Plaintiffs bring this case to address Defendants’ unlawful downloading and exploitation of their works from library websites known to consist of pirated works by using BitTorrent, a file-sharing technology widely used for mass copyright infringement. Defendants downloaded works by torrenting an enormous number of unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ works from illegal shadow libraries to avoid paying for those works, while at the same time uploading via torrenting unlawful copies of the same works, all in violation of Plaintiffs’ copyrights.

The case is similar to Carreyrou in approach–“joined individual actions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20”–but much larger, comprising 100 authors, authors’ estates, and publishers who either timely opted out or are seeking permission from the Bartz judge to opt out late.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages not just under the Copyright Act, but under 17 U.S.C. § 1203(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allows awards of up to $2,500 or up to $25,000, depending on the violation. They demand individual judgment on each of their claims, statutory damages “up to the maximum provided by law”, attorney fees and costs, a permanent injunction barring Anthropic and its agents from future infringement of “any of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under copyright”, and “[a]n order requiring that Defendants destroy under the Court’s supervision all infringing copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works in Defendants’ possession or control.”

Again, this kind of joint action is “unorthodox”, in the words of some of the news coverage of it, and it remains to be seen how the court will respond–especially since the number of plaintiffs is so large and they are each demanding a separate jury trial.

Keeping Track

There’s a tremendous volume of AI litigation right now. Keeping track of it is a monumental task.

The best resource I’ve found for that is Chat GPT is Eating the World. This extensive resource provides overviews and updates for every case that’s being litigated (128 of them as of this writing), news and articles, a master case calendar, and more, including a data center lawsuit tracker. It’s an essential resource for keeping up to date with an issue of vital importance not just for writers, but for…everyone. (Forgive its clunky formatting.)

The post Anthropic Settlement Update: The Opt-Outs Strike Back appeared first on Writer Beware.

I doubt that there will be anyone reading this article who hasn’t been targeted by a writing scam. That’s how prevalent and aggressive they are these days.

Fraudsters who prey on writers employ a variety of methods to recruit clients: advertising (especially on Facebook, which is awash in ads for scam publishing service providers), sponsored links on Google (plug “find a publisher” into Google, and the top results will be for scam or vanity publishers), social media activity (watch out for seemingly friendly DM contacts)–and, most often, direct solicitation via email and phone calls purporting to offer publishing or agenting or film adaptation services…and, increasingly, impersonating companies and professionals in those fields.

Real, reputable literary agents and publishers and film production people, by contrast, rarely reach out to writers directly. But while that’s true 99% of the time, you can’t say it never happens. And for writerly activities like conferences, or interview or lecture invites, direct contact is common.

So how do you distinguish the rare genuine contact from a scam solicitation? Often, the first clue is the sender’s email address.

Here are some things to watch for. All examples are drawn from reports and complaints received by Writer Beware.

Gmail and Other Non-Professional Email Addresses

A publishing professional, a conference, a radio or TV show, or a professional organization will most likely be emailing from their own or their company’s web domain. It’s possible, of course, that a literary agent might dash off an email from their personal account. But if someone purporting to be a publishing professional emails you from a non-professional address–AOL, Protonmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, and the like–it is a pretty strong caution sign.

Over the past year, also, the Gmail addresses almost universally used by the aggressive AI-driven marketing and impersonation scams from Nigeria have become a warning sign all by themselves.

Some examples of non-pro addresses where you’d normally expect a company email domain (especially common with impersonation scams):

• info.us.npr@gmail.com (impersonating NPR with fake interview offers)
• ifcfilmsproduction@gmail.com
• penamerica.event@gmail.com (impersonating the PEN America Literary Gala with fake invites)
• harpercollins.publishers@aol.com
• macmillan@gmail.com
• turininternationalbookfair@gmail.com
• therightsfactoryagency@proton.me (impersonating The Rights Factory literary agency)
• ballyscullionbookfest@gmail.com (impersonating the Ballyscullion Park Book Festival with fake invites)
• amazonstudios@gmail.com

The fraudsters running marketing, book club, review, “reading challenge”, and related scams often use two first names, or names that otherwise seem weird. Their Gmail addresses often include numbers (hard to believe there are 8 other Harper Lynn Collinses):

• Judy Chinatown <chinatowncommunityjudy@gmail.com>
• Michael A. Marvellous <michael.a.marvellous.book@gmail.com>
• Freya Gregory’s <freyagreegorys@gmail.com>
• Grace Norah <gracenorah273@gmail.com>
• Lynn Mandi <mandilynn621@gmail.com>
• Santa k.f. Seifeuuyy <santakfseifeuuyy@gmail.com>
• Harper Collinsworth <harpercollinsworthbookexpert@gmail.com>
• Harper Lynn Collins <harperlynncollins09@gmail.com>
• Beloved.Mercy.Co.Organizer PBC <mercybeloved9@gmail.com>

Also popular with book marketing scammers: addresses that include their supposed job title:

• judith.dmoderator@gmail.com
• joshua.bookgrowthpartnerships@gmail.com
• patricialaura.marketingspeci@gmail.com
• gracehannah.authorservices@gmail.com
• leatitia.wetsonlitagent@gmail.com
• Kierrabookpromotion006@gmail.com
• chloebennettbookmarketing@gmail.com
• dominichecarinofilmscout@gmail.com

Lookalike Email Domains

Impersonation fraudsters register email domains specifically to send out scam solicitations. The fake email addresses they choose are designed to look like real ones.

It’s important, therefore, to verify any out-of-the-blue publishing-, writing-, or movie rights-related email you receive, especially where you can’t tie it to a contact or submission you yourself made. The genuine email address may be findable on the official company website, or via references to it online; if not, try searching on company name + email format to see if there are results from sites like RocketReach and ContactOut, which keep track of business email formats. For example, here’s HarperCollins.

Another quick test: load the email domain to see if there’s a website associated with it. Often there will be nothing there–or you may find a placeholder like this one, which was created to impersonate an editor.

Notice also how many of the fake addresses below break up names or phrases with periods (jeff.weber, annejhawkins.literaryagent, etc.). That format is something I see a lot with impersonation scams.

• jeff.weber@thepenguinrandomhouse.com (real email: @penguinrandomhouse.com)
• ebassoff@us-wmeagency.com (real email: @wmeagency.com)
• lexie.smith@lionsgatefilmproduction.com (real email: @lionsgate.com)
• support@wgamembers.org (real email: @wga.org)
• corporate@barnesnobleinfo.com (real email: @barnesandnoble.com)
• bookssubmissions@hachettebookgroup.ink (real email: @hbgusa.com)
• dan.lazar@writershouseliterary.com (real email: @writershouse.com)
• annejhawkins.literaryagent@gmail.com (real email: @jhalit.com)
• megan.lynch@flatironbooks.com.co (real email: @flatironbooks.com)

Sneaky Switcheroos

Some especially sneaky scammers “borrow” the authentic email address, but insert one or two subtle switches: a number interpolated for a letter (Pengu1n), two letters reversed (HarpreCollins), an extra letter added or omitted (Hachett). This kind of subterfuge–famously used by manuscript thief Filippo Bernardini–is especially hard to spot.

This one adds an “s” where an “s” shouldn’t be (real domain: penguinrandomhouse.com):

Many eager authors might miss the extra “i” in “publishiing” (real domain: @skyhorsepublishing.com):

This one leaves out an “s” (the website at the real domain, parkesmacdonaldproductions.com, includes a warning).

Mismatches and Discrepancies

Everyone makes mistakes from time to time, but scammer emails often include telltale discrepancies or mismatches between email address and email content. Here, for example, the sender uses the name Nathan Lewis, but the email address belongs to Nathan Wellis or Nathan W. Ellis.

In this example, the sender’s From line (with the double “a” in Caarolyn) didn’t match their signature at the bottom (Carolyn with one “a”).

One name in the email address, another in the body of the email.

Same problem (my emphasis):

In this one, the sender’s email address in the “From” line doesn’t match the email address in their signature.

Just Plain Weirdness

Scam email addresses–especially for the editor impersonation scam that’s become so widespread over the past months–often feature awkward mashups of personal and company names. Beyond the fact that someone from Hachette or Trellis Literary Agency is unlikely to be using a Gmail or AOL address, they also won’t be combining the publisher’s name with their own, or tacking the publisher’s name onto a personal domain. (Here, as above, note the prevalence of periods.)

• shannonkelly.hachette.uk@aol.com
• carolinamancheno.harpercollins@aol.com
• caitlino.thebookgroup@gmail.com
• natalieedwardstrellisliterary@gmail.com
• aevitas.jenmarshall.literayagent@gmail.com (note the mis-spelling of “literary”)
• brendanbpenguinrandomhouse@gmail.com
• stmartins@vicki-lame.com (this domain and the one below resolve to identical placeholder webpages)
• sourcebooks@shana-dreh.com
• saraquery.megibowlitagent@gmail.com

Additional Email Scam-Spotting Tips

Wonky email addresses are just one of many potential scam signs. Others currently popular with publishing scammers include:

Non-typical salutations. Using myself as an example: Dear Victoria Strauss, rather than the more normal Dear Victoria or Dear Ms. Strauss. Ditto for Dear Author. Or no salutation at all. (First name/last name is the one I see most often.)

Extended and apparently accurate discussions of your book’s theme and plot points, coupled with effusive praise. A genuine contact won’t necessarily not include these–but both are established scam M.O.s, and should always prompt extra caution.

Emojis. When I first started getting reports of AI-driven marketing scams in the summer of last year, many of the emails were littered with emojis (you can see an example toward the end of this post). Marketing professionals communicate professionally, which means not writing emails that look like social media posts. I’m not seeing this so often nowadays, but it is still something to watch for, and a big caution sign.

Interminable email exchanges. AI-driven marketing scams, especially, employ a boiled-frog approach, where they ease you gently toward the actual money ask over the course of multiple, often lengthy emails, with each email re-emphasizing how great they think you are and how excellently they can help you. It’s classic emotional manipulation: the deeper you’re drawn into the interaction, the more invested you become, the more plausible the scammer’s promises start to seem, and the harder it will ultimately be (the scammer hopes) for you to say no.

Insistent nudging. Scammers want to close the deal as fast as possible, so if you don’t respond right away (especially to payment requests) they may repeatedly check back in with “just following up on my last email” or “wondering if you’ve had a chance to evaluate my offer” communications–sometimes within hours of when they last contacted you.

Fees where they aren’t normally charged.This is always a warning sign. For example, real book clubs, radio shows, and conferences don’t charge fees to invited guests.

Non-reversible payment methods. Instead of credit card transactions, scammers will often require payment by methods that are difficult or impossible to dispute or reverse: wire transfers, Upwork or Fiverr invoices, Paypal Friends and Family, apps like Zelle or CashApp.

Invoices that lack vital information like names, addresses, and phone numbers. Scammers want to avoid accountability. Never pay an invoice that doesn’t offer full disclosure of the provider, their business, and how to contact the person.

The post The First Clue to an Email Scam May Be the Address appeared first on Writer Beware.