The controversy surrounding Thélyson Orélien is no longer limited to the methods used to create his first novel, C’était ça ou mourir. Following Éditions du Boréal’s decision to end its collaboration with the author, several questions remain open: what will happen to the Fnac Prize, the publication of translations, Grasset’s position, and the share of royalties that might be retained. At the heart of the matter is a question that has yet to be answered by a court: to what extent was artificial intelligence involved in writing the book?
Published in Quebec and then in France, C’était ça ou mourir had an especially rapid publishing journey. The novel has sold more than 94,000 copies in France and held a prominent place in bookstores for several weeks. But suspicions that artificial intelligence was used, along with accusations of plagiarism involving the author’s earlier texts, gradually shifted attention away from the book’s literary success and toward the circumstances of its creation and publication.
The controversy has also prompted racist reactions directed at the Canadian-Haitian writer, according to reports surrounding the affair. This context has made the debate particularly heated. It is important, however, to distinguish between established facts, the parties’ statements, and the questions that remain unresolved: publishers have made or are considering commercial decisions, but no court has determined whether the novel is a copyright-protected work or publicly established the precise extent of AI’s involvement.
The split with Éditions du Boréal
A decision rooted in trust between the author and his publisher
Éditions du Boréal, the Quebec publishing house that originally published the novel, announced that it was ending its collaboration with Thélyson Orélien. The decision came after assessments indicated that artificial intelligence may have been used in the writing process, although the author had previously disputed this interpretation. He later acknowledged using AI, specifying that he had used it for research.
For the publisher, the issue goes beyond the presence of a digital tool in the preparatory work. The publishing house emphasized trust between the author and the publisher, as well as uncertainty about the extent to which AI was used during the book’s creation. It decided not to reprint the novel in Quebec and not to publish the writer’s future works.
This split does not, however, resolve every question. The publisher said it did not know precisely what role artificial intelligence played in creating the text. The distinction between research assistance, help with phrasing, and the generation of passages intended for inclusion in the manuscript could be crucial, but determining this requires detailed information about the writing process.
A controversy that goes beyond the novel itself
Controversies surrounding AI are now affecting several cultural and media sectors. They raise questions of transparency, attribution, and the use of protected content. In France, for example, the mobilization of several hundred newspapers over a technology company’s use of content illustrates the tensions between rights holders and artificial intelligence companies.
These debates are also unfolding alongside changes to the rules governing AI tools. The European framework is being strengthened, particularly with regard to transparency and the obligations of system providers. The developments discussed in this article on the strengthening of European artificial intelligence regulation offer a glimpse of the context in which publishers, authors, and platforms are being called upon to clarify their practices.
The Fnac Prize: a distinction still under discussion
The jury must consider what action to take
The Fnac Prize is one of the distinctions awarded to C’était ça ou mourir before the controversy reached its full scale. The prize was awarded by a jury made up in equal parts of Fnac booksellers and readers. Following the new information, the retailer announced that it would bring the jury representatives together to discuss the situation, without announcing a final decision at this stage.
An organization awarding a prize may consider several options when faced with a dispute of this kind: maintain the distinction, publish an explanation of the criteria applied, or announce that the prize is being withdrawn if its rules allow. The prize’s fate therefore depends on the organization’s own rules and the jury’s assessment. The available information does not support the claim that the distinction has been withdrawn.
The Fnac Prize case differs from that of the literary prize shortlists with which the novel was also associated. The Goncourt removed the book from its initial selection, saying it wished to preserve the integrity of the prize and the Academy. The Renaudot, Femina, Médicis, and Décembre prizes did not include it on their final shortlists. These decisions do not have the same effect as withdrawing a prize that has already been awarded.
A literary prize is not a ruling on copyright
A distinction rewards a book according to a jury’s rules and choices. By itself, it does not constitute legal confirmation of the work’s originality or of the compliance of its writing process. Even if the Fnac jury decided to maintain the prize, that decision would not settle whether the novel is protected by copyright. Conversely, withdrawing the distinction would not be enough to establish that an infringement had occurred.
The debate therefore involves different criteria: literary judgment, an award’s internal rules, contractual obligations, and the legal conditions for protecting a work. Distinguishing between these matters is essential to understanding why different institutions may take different positions based on the same revelations.
Grasset and the novel’s distribution in France
A reprint remains uncertain
In France, the manuscript rights were acquired by Grasset. The book remains visible in bookstores and featured prominently in the publisher’s promotional materials for a long time. At the time of the latest reported revelations, Grasset had not announced a decision on whether distribution would continue or whether the book might be reprinted. Its press office had said it did not wish to comment on the situation.
Boréal’s decision does not automatically apply to Grasset’s operations. The two publishing houses may be bound by separate contracts, and each must review its commitments, the applicable clauses, and the consequences of ending the publishing relationship in Quebec. The French edition could therefore follow a different timeline, depending on the terms of the agreements signed and Grasset’s assessment of the situation.
The issue is also commercial. The novel attracted considerable attention and has sold more than 94,000 copies in France. In its ninth week in bookstores, it still ranked sixth in literary sales, excluding paperback editions, although sales were beginning to slow. Stopping reprints of a title that has enjoyed such success has consequences for the publisher, booksellers, and distribution partners.
The book’s continued visibility does not, however, determine its future. A book may remain available from existing stock while its publisher suspends orders or decides not to print further copies. It is therefore important to distinguish between its current presence on shelves, the distribution of copies already produced, and the decision to manufacture new print runs.
Translations and rights abroad
International contracts to be reviewed
The novel had attracted interest from several foreign publishers, and translation rights had been negotiated. This international prospect has now been jeopardized by the end of Thélyson Orélien’s collaboration with Éditions du Boréal. The Quebec publishing house said its decisions had implications beyond its own market, given the agreements concluded with foreign partners, and that it was taking time to communicate with them.
The end of the publishing relationship does not necessarily mean that all translation contracts automatically become void. Whether they remain in force or are terminated depends, among other things, on the signatories, clauses concerning the author’s warranties, the chain of rights transfers, and any provisions relating to the manuscript’s integrity or originality. Each agreement may therefore require a separate analysis.
Foreign publishers may wait for clarification before beginning a translation, delay its publication, or request additional assurances. They may also review whether the rights they acquired remain valid and whether the text can be exploited without legal or reputational risk. In the absence of an official announcement about the contracts concerned, the future of the various editions remains uncertain.
Tracing rights and agreements
The international circulation of a work relies on a chain of rights: the author, any agent, the publishers, and the publishing houses acquiring translation rights must be able to establish who is authorized to exploit the text and under what conditions. Documentation of contracts, successive manuscript versions, and permissions can help clarify responsibilities, without resolving the question of originality.
Digital ledger technologies are sometimes presented as ways to document certain transactions or timestamp records. The article on how blockchain can strengthen the security and authenticity of contracts describes one possible use. A ledger of this kind can help preserve a record, but it does not replace a review of the contract or a legal analysis of ownership of the rights.
Copyright: a question of originality and human contribution
AI use is not enough to settle the matter
The central question is whether C’était ça ou mourir remains an original work attributable to a human author. Using an artificial intelligence tool does not, by itself, lead to a definitive answer. It must be determined, among other things, whether the tool was used for research, to organize the work, or to review phrasing, or whether it generated substantial elements of the text that were incorporated into the novel.
A lawyer specializing in entertainment law, interviewed by Radio-Canada, noted that content produced solely by artificial intelligence might not qualify for copyright protection and could fall into the public domain. This general analysis does not make it possible to reach a conclusion about Thélyson Orélien’s novel: the Quebec publisher specifically said it did not know the precise extent of AI’s involvement, and no court has ruled on the case.
In many copyright systems, protection is based on an original creation resulting from human contributions. An assessment may therefore consider the author’s choices and revisions, the selection and arrangement of material, and the proportion of passages generated or reworked by the tool. It is not always enough to know that AI was used: the type of use and its influence on the book’s final form may be decisive.
Royalties already paid and amounts yet to come
The controversy also raises financial questions. Copies already sold may have generated payments to various parties, depending on the contracts and accounting schedules. Amounts paid to the author, advances, royalties still owed, and revenue from foreign rights depend on the agreements with the publishers and the applicable contractual obligations.
The end of a publishing relationship does not, by itself, mean that royalties already earned are cancelled. To change or reclaim these amounts, the parties would need to rely on the contracts and, depending on the circumstances, establish the legal basis for doing so. Future amounts will depend, among other things, on continued sales, reprints, translations, and decisions made by the publishers holding the rights.
If a dispute concerned the ownership or validity of the rights, the parties could seek to resolve it through negotiation or legal proceedings. A court ruling could then examine the facts, communications between the author and the publishing houses, and the available evidence about the creative process. In the absence of a judgment, the rights cannot be declared nonexistent solely on the basis of suspicions or a publisher’s announced commercial split with the author.
Protecting works in the face of new technologies
Blockchain as a tool for evidence, not an absolute guarantee
Documentation of the creative process can play a role in discussions about a text’s origins. Successive manuscript versions, submission dates, editorial correspondence, and research notes can help describe the stages of the work. Digital tools, including certain secure ledgers, can also be used to store or timestamp information, provided that it is reliable and relevant.
Rights-protection initiatives are exploring the possibility of using blockchain to register works or establish a record of their existence. This topic is discussed in this article on how to strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights, including unregistered rights. Nevertheless, registering a file or digital fingerprint does not automatically prove who created the content or whether it meets the legal criteria for originality.
In the Orélien case, such traceability could potentially shed light on the timeline of different versions or the circulation of documents if the parties have relevant evidence. It would not replace an analysis of the manuscript and human contributions. The assessment would remain a matter of law, facts, and contracts.
Rights issues in the cultural and digital sectors
Questions of intellectual property do not concern novels alone. They also arise in audiovisual media, the press, and online services, where the unauthorized distribution of content can lead to legal proceedings or blocking measures. The example of decisions targeting certain illegal streaming services, discussed in this article on the legal crackdown on illegal streaming sites, is a reminder that protecting rights also depends on their practical enforcement.
The comparison with the novel controversy should nevertheless be made cautiously. A dispute over AI’s involvement primarily concerns creation, originality, and the attribution of rights, whereas a case of illegal distribution generally concerns the exploitation of a work without authorization. Both situations fall under intellectual property, but the facts to be established and the remedies available are not the same.
What happens next remains uncertain
At this stage, several decisions are still pending: Grasset’s position on reprints, any decision by the Fnac Prize jury, the future of the translation contracts, and clarification of the rights arising from sales already made. The answers will depend on the agreements in force, the information the publishers are able to verify, and the assessment of how artificial intelligence was used in the writing process.
The case is therefore about more than a distinction that could be maintained or withdrawn, or simply the author’s acknowledgment that he used a tool. It involves contractual relationships, publishers’ responsibilities, the international circulation of works, and the legal criteria for originality. Until a court ruling establishes the facts and their consequences, the status of the translations and copyright will remain dependent on the steps taken by the author, the publishers, and their partners.
