Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity

New Zealand: two fiction books ruled out of the 2026 Ockham book awards after the awards trust found AI was used in their cover designs

By 18 November 2025 (the date of the first reports) the New Zealand Book Awards Trust had removed two books from contention for the NZ$65,000 fiction prize of the 2026 Ockham New Zealand Book Awards. The Trust said a bookseller suspected AI use in the covers and the publisher confirmed it. The Trust's new AI clause covers illustrations, and the publisher says the covers were designed months before the clause was issued. One author says the author had no idea AI had been used in the cover, the Spinoff reports the publisher did not tell either author that AI might be used, and the authors describe having little involvement in the covers. One author worries readers will assume AI wrote the book and that booksellers may not stock it.

AI system
Unidentified image tool
Occurred
Nov 2025
Reported
18 November 2025
Event location
New Zealand
What the AI did
Made a decision about the person
Reported harm
Professional Harm
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Work
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources
6 claims: 6 reported. 5 open questions
People reported harmed
At least 2 people

AI system as recorded: Generative AI image tools used by a design studio for the covers (specific product not identified in the inspected sources)

Reported harm

RNZ, the Guardian and the Spinoff report the Trust removed the two authors' books from contention for the 2026 Ockham fiction prize, and one author told the Spinoff of worry about reputation and bookseller stocking.

What remains unknown

  • The extent and method of AI use in each cover is unknown. Only the publisher's belief that AI was applied to original concepts was inspected.
  • The exact date of the Trust's decision is not stated. The Guardian says the books were submitted in October and ruled out the following month, the Spinoff says the publisher submitted its entries in September, and the incident date is set to the month of the decision.
  • The New York Times and Euronews articles could not be read (HTTP 403 and 406) and are not cited. The Independent relay was read and is not cited. No source gives the day of the decision.
  • Whether booksellers changed stocking of the books or sales changed is not reported.
  • The design studio's statements were relayed by the publisher (Spinoff) and are general. The studio did not respond to the Spinoff, and no first-hand statement about these two covers was inspected.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The Trust says the publisher confirmed AI use in the covers. The publisher told the Spinoff the publisher believes AI was applied to both covers after original concepts and assumed the studio would use it. No design file, studio statement about these covers or detection result was inspected, and the extent of AI use is unknown.

6 claims: 6 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported The New Zealand Book Awards Trust ruled two fiction books out of the 2026 Ockham New Zealand Book Awards fiction prize because AI was used in their cover designs.

Causal attribution. The exclusion is the Trust's decision under its AI eligibility clause. The outlets quote the same Trust statement, so the decision and its stated reason rest on one chain (the Trust) as relayed by RNZ, the Guardian and the Spinoff.

Reported According to the Trust, a bookseller suspected AI use on the covers and alerted the organisers, and the publisher then confirmed AI use. The publisher told the Spinoff the publisher believed AI was applied to both covers after original concepts and assumed the studio would use it.

Causal attribution. The Trust's account and the publisher's own account to the Spinoff. The extent of AI use in each cover (generated imagery or AI-assisted editing) is not established by the inspected sources.

Reported The covers were made by an outside design studio that the publisher had worked with before, and the publisher says the publisher believes the studio used AI after original concepts had been developed and assumed the studio would use it.

Causal attribution. The publisher's account as relayed by the Spinoff. The Spinoff reported that the studio had not responded to its request for comment, and no first-hand studio statement about these two covers was inspected.

Reported The Trust's AI eligibility clause was in the call-for-entries pack available from 7 August (the Spinoff gives no year). The publisher says the covers of eligible titles had been designed months before, so publishers could not have taken the clause into account.

Causal attribution. The clause date is the Trust's account and the design-timing objection is the publisher's account. The Trust told the Spinoff that publishers had ample time to read the conditions. The dispute over fairness is unresolved in the sources.

Reported One author says the author had no idea AI had been used in the cover, had little to do with the cover beyond the original brief, and had no contact with the design studio. The Spinoff reports the other author also had no contact with the studio.

Causal attribution. First-person accounts to two outlets. The Spinoff reports the publisher did not tell the authors that AI might be used in the final cover designs.

Reported One author says the author is sad about the decision, worried that readers will assume AI was used to write the book, and worried that booksellers might refuse to stock it. The Spinoff reports the other author is agnostic about the elimination and concerned that the designer's work is being disrespected.

Causal attribution. Personal statements about anticipated reputational and commercial effects. No bookseller action or sales change is reported in the inspected sources.

Sources

3 sources inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Event countries: New Zealand. Affected-person countries: New Zealand. Court countries: Unknown.

The awards are described as New Zealand's premier literary prize run by the New Zealand Book Awards Trust, the Guardian describes the two authors as New Zealand authors, and RNZ describes the publisher as Christchurch-based.

Reviewed for publication 2026-09-29: RNZ, the Guardian and the Spinoff were read in full. The disqualification and its reason are the Trust's account repeated by the outlets. The authors and the publisher are public figures named in the reporting. They are not named anywhere in the record, including source locators. No claim about the designers or the publisher goes beyond their reported statements.

People reported harmed in this case

At least 2 people

0 AI participants · 2 other people harmed

Two authors whose books were removed from prize contention. Only one of the two authors describes personal harm (sadness, reputation and stocking worries) and the other is reported as agnostic about the elimination. Both are counted because both books were removed from contention. The publisher and the designers are reported as upset and are not counted as harmed by the AI use.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). New Zealand: two fiction books ruled out of the 2026 Ockham book awards after the awards trust found AI was used in their cover designs. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-new-zealand-ockham-book-awards-two-fiction-books-ruled-out-over-ai-covers

BibTeX

@misc{2025_new_zealand_ockham_book_awards_two_fiction_books_ruled_out_over_ai_covers,
  title = {New Zealand: two fiction books ruled out of the 2026 Ockham book awards after the awards trust found AI was used in their cover designs},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-new-zealand-ockham-book-awards-two-fiction-books-ruled-out-over-ai-covers}
}

Related cases

Low Unidentified image tool

Mato Grosso, Brazil: court selection commission eliminates a candidate after finding her ID photo showed clear signs of AI generation or editing

A candidate in a selection process to accredit social workers and psychologists for the court district of Brasnorte, in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, was eliminated after the selection support commission found that the 3x4 identification photo she submitted had 'clear and unmistakable traces of generation and/or editing by Artificial Intelligence' and a digital watermark in one corner. The commission's statement of 8 October 2026, accepted by the court district and published in the electronic Justice Gazette on 13 October, treated the picture as a simulated image that did not meet the call's requirement of a recent, faithful facial photograph, and her qualification was annulled. A second candidate was eliminated in the same decision for a mould-stained, outdated photo, with no AI involved. The candidate is not named in the reports, and her response and the tool used are not reported.

High Unidentified image tool

Jeju: police refer a middle-school student over secretly filming teachers and making sexual deepfake composites; teachers dispute victim count and legal aid

Jeju Dongbu police announced on 23 September 2026 that a student at a middle school on Jeju had been referred to prosecutors without detention on 17 September for violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (filming with a camera or similar device). The student's phone was voluntarily submitted by his guardians and forensically examined; the examination found footage relating to some teachers and some sexual composites, and the student admitted the conduct. News1 reported that the student was booked for filming a teacher's body with his phone during a school field trip around mid-July 2026, that the offending had continued for several months with multiple victims, and that police found no indication the composites had been distributed. Police told Seoul Shinmun there were more victim teachers than the one first reported but withheld the number to avoid secondary harm, and that no student at the school was a victim; the Jeju teachers' union questioned whether the full scope of harm had been established. According to the union, two months on the victim teachers were receiving hospital treatment and counselling while teaching daily, gave police statements on 14 September without a lawyer, attended the regional teachers' rights protection committee on 17 September without institutional support, wrote the criminal complaint themselves, and were offered 3.3 million won in legal fees for all of them together, payable after the case ends; two requests to meet the superintendent were not accepted. On 29 September one of the victim teachers gave a press interview at the Jeju Teachers' Union office. She said that early in the investigation she had seen on the student's phone material showing other teachers and current students, had made a list of the people and types of harm, and that the material shown to her at the police victim examination was considerably less than what she had seen; Yonhap-chain outlets quote her as saying the students she recognised numbered 10 to 20 and that a graduate had suffered worse deepfakes. She said investigators asked the school only to identify the perpetrator and never requested material to identify the students in the footage, and that the school sent parents a letter premised on there being no student victims. Police replied that phone forensics had been thorough, that every act beyond social norms had been identified and proven, and that one student victim had been confirmed, a student at a different school. The teachers were notified on 22 September that the case had gone to the prosecution and on 24 September that it had been sent to the court's juvenile division as a juvenile protection case, before they had submitted further evidence and a victim opinion. The teacher said the original complaint had also asked police to examine whether physical contact in 2025 was forcible molestation and whether repeated approaching and waiting in 2026 was stalking, and Halla Ilbo reports that such conduct is said to date from 2025. Yonhap-chain reports describe the charged victims as five teachers. The same day the education office briefed on legal-aid rules (up to 6.6 million won per instance when a teacher is sued, 3.3 million won per case when a teacher files a complaint; office lawyers cannot act as a teacher's private counsel), said it had linked the teachers to the national Digital Sexual Crime Victim Support Center, announced an integrated support system through a hotline, and its section head said the office was sorry that early support had not been felt. The KTU Jeju branch (28 September) and the Jeju Teachers' Union (14 and 29 September) demand a victim-support system, per-teacher legal fees paid in advance and a dedicated support team. On 6 October 2026 Seogwipo Broadcasting reported, citing people in education and a tipster, that the education authority had finally rejected the victim teachers' application for lawyer fees for an additional criminal complaint, saying in a written opinion that with a police investigation already under way a further complaint could hardly stop or prevent the infringement of their teaching, so the support requirements were not met; critics contrast this with full legal-cost support in earlier sexual-offence cases.

Medium Unidentified image tool

Los Banos, California: a substitute teacher says a sexualised AI image of him made from an old selfie circulated among middle-school students on TikTok and Snapchat and was used by a student account impersonating him; one student received in-school suspension and he stopped taking assignments at the middle school

WIRED (Caroline Haskins, 24 August 2026) reports the account of a substitute teacher in Los Banos, California, who spoke to WIRED by name (not repeated here). On 12 March 2026 a co-worker at his other job told him an AI photo was circulating on social media; the image reused a mirror selfie he had taken at a job in college but showed him in lingerie, posing suggestively. He traced an account sharing it on TikTok to a student at the middle school where he regularly substituted and reported it to the assistant principal; that evening he found a second account, created by a different student, impersonating him under a misspelled version of his name with the image as its profile picture. Over the following weeks he dealt with administrators, parents and the police; one student who admitted creating the image received an in-school suspension. He says the image was also shared on Snapchat, kept spreading among students and drew crude sexual comments on his TikTok account. He told administrators he would not take assignments at the middle school until the matter was addressed; at the local high school the same image was AirDropped to him during a class. WIRED says the district did not respond to its request for comment. He said he does not feel safe returning to the district. The Los Banos Enterprise (25 August 2026) summarised the WIRED account; no independent local reporting was found.

Medium Unidentified image tool

Video game studio's layoff letter said AI-generated images made a 3D artist's post unnecessary; court held the dismissal fair, Madrid appeal ruling recounts

A Spanish video game studio that went from a profit in 2023 to losses of about 3.5 million euros in 2024, and had notified a court of its insolvency, opened a collective dismissal (ERE) on 30 October 2024 covering 13 of its 83 employees; an agreement was reached and the dismissals took effect in December 2024. According to a judgment of the High Court of Justice of Madrid as reported by EFE, Xataka and a lawyer's analysis, the dismissal letter given to a 3D artist said that images generated with artificial intelligence improved the visual quality of the studio's games and cut production time per scene, that it was adopting an AI-based production process, and that two senior 3D artists were therefore enough, so her post was abolished. The first-instance court held her dismissal fair and she did not appeal. The High Court's judgment 864/2026 of 8 October 2026 concerned a scriptwriter dismissed in the same procedure, whose letter did not mention AI: it dismissed her appeal, leaving her dismissal unfair but not void. Xataka says the letter relied above all on economic and productive causes, that the studio presented AI as a consequence imposed by its clients rather than as a direct cause, and that AI by itself does not justify a dismissal. The studio is not named and the judgment was not read.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents