Whenever artwork is replaced, review the credit and supporting record for the new asset instead of carrying forward the previous image’s attribution automatically. Match every published credit to the selected file and applicable conditions. Keep unresolved rights or credit questions visible until the relevant documentation or qualified clarification resolves them.
Identify the replacement as a new review event
An image substitution can look like a small design change while introducing a different creator, source, or usage record. Mark the replacement explicitly in the asset inventory. Preserve the prior image’s status so it is clear whether it was removed, archived, or retained elsewhere. A file occupying the same page position does not inherit the old asset’s documentation merely because the layout remains unchanged.
Record the new filename, source, creator information where known, and the manuscript location. Include significant alterations or combined components that need separate consideration. This gives the reviewer enough information to connect the visible artwork with the appropriate record. Avoid relying on a thumbnail alone when several versions look similar but have different origins.
Read the applicable credit conditions
Locate the documentation associated with the selected asset and inspect what it actually requires or permits concerning attribution and use. A credit format used elsewhere in the book may not be appropriate for this image. Do not assume that naming a creator supplies permission, or that having permission always resolves every question about how the credit should appear.
If the record is unclear, identify the specific question and seek clarification from the relevant rights holder or qualified adviser as needed. This workflow does not interpret a particular agreement. Its purpose is to ensure the author reviews the actual terms for the actual file. KDP’s content guidance places responsibility for applicable rights compliance on the publisher, so a technical image check cannot settle that issue by itself.
Find every credit connected to the old image
Search captions, acknowledgments, credit pages, source notes, and any other location where the previous asset was identified. Check whether the old credit still belongs elsewhere before removing it. A creator may have contributed several retained images, so deleting their name globally can create a new error. Review the relationship between each credit and the specific material it describes.
For example, replacing one photograph in a set may require changing an individual caption while preserving a general credit for the remaining photographs. Alternatively, a blanket statement that previously covered the whole set may need more precise wording. The correction should follow the actual final asset selection, not a convenient assumption that one replacement removes or preserves every earlier attribution unchanged.
Reconcile combined and edited artwork carefully
If the final image combines several components, record their origins and review the relevant conditions for each. Do not allow a single credit line to obscure uncertainty about one component. Keep the editing history understandable enough to identify what remains in the published result. Cropping or recoloring does not, by itself, explain the basis for use or the appropriate attribution.
Preserve generated-content information separately from credit wording. A source or creator label and a content-origin classification answer different questions. Review current KDP guidance for generated or assisted material during publication preparation, using the real workflow. Do not treat the presence of a credit as proof that an asset has passed every rights, origin, and editorial check.
Verify the final export and retain the record
After revising the credit text, export the publication files and check the selected image beside its caption or referenced credit entry. Confirm spelling, placement, and the connection between the credit and the correct figure. Review any image numbering changes caused by the substitution. A correct credit attached to the wrong image is still a misleading publication record.
Save the final asset inventory, supporting documents, approved credit wording, and reviewed export together. If another image is substituted later, reopen the affected review rather than reusing a generic approved status. The final package should make it possible to trace each retained image to its record and understand how its attribution was determined, while preserving unresolved questions instead of hiding them in a polished layout.
Frequently asked questions
Clear answers for this publishing decision.
Can I keep the old credit if the replacement looks similar?
Similarity does not establish the same creator, source, or conditions. Review the selected replacement’s documentation and update the credit as appropriate. Keep the old credit only where it still accurately describes retained material.
Does adding attribution solve a permission problem?
Do not assume that it does. Review the actual basis for use and any applicable conditions. Attribution and permission are related but distinct questions, and uncertainty should be resolved through the relevant documentation or appropriate clarification.
Should I remove an unused asset from the working archive?
You may retain it as clearly identified history according to the project’s needs. Keep archived assets separate from the final selection and do not let their credits remain in publication files unless they still describe material actually used.
What must I check, disclose, and verify myself when AI helped produce the book?
Review facts, rights, and source material yourself, record which parts were AI-assisted or AI-generated so you can answer Amazon’s disclosure question accurately, and treat every automated check as a starting point rather than a verdict.
See what the compliance checks cover