ChatGPT has started refusing requests to write in the style of well-known authors whose books are still under copyright, according to reporting by Ars Technica published July 27, 2026, and independently confirmed by Engadget the following day.

When Engadget asked ChatGPT to copy Agatha Christie's style, the chatbot declined, stating: "Agatha Christie's works are still under copyright, so I can't provide text that closely imitates her distinctive style." ChatGPT then offered a middle path, saying: "I can certainly write something with those characteristics, while remaining original." Ars Technica's article, titled "ChatGPT stops cloning famous writers' voices but may capture a 'similar feeling'," described this as a shift where the chatbot refuses to directly copy a writer's style but still tries to produce text with broadly similar qualities.

Engadget attributed the original discovery to Ars Technica and then ran its own tests, finding the same results. Firstpost, an Indian news outlet, also covered the development on July 28 under the headline "OpenAI's ChatGPT no longer mimics famous authors' writing styles."

A study by No Latency, cited in Ars Technica's reporting, found that Google's Gemini — a competing AI chatbot — consistently did what users asked when it came to copying an author's style, unlike ChatGPT. This tells us that not all AI systems handle these requests the same way. At least one major competitor still does so without raising a copyright objection.

The line ChatGPT draws is narrow but matters. The chatbot will not produce text that "closely imitates" a copyrighted author's "distinctive style," but it will write something with the general qualities associated with that author. Exactly where the boundary falls between capturing a "similar feeling" and copying too closely is not something the chatbot explained in the exchange Engadget documented. It is also not clear whether OpenAI made a deliberate policy change, updated the behind-the-scenes instructions that guide the chatbot's behavior, retrained the model on new examples, or used some combination of these approaches. The reporting describes what users see, not the technical details underneath.

What is verifiable is the reason the model gives. ChatGPT's refusal is not a generic safety message. It specifically names copyright as the reason for saying no. That is a meaningful signal about how OpenAI's current safeguards handle stylistic imitation, even if the model's stated reason does not necessarily match the exact technical process causing the behavior.

The broader context here is that an AI model is voluntarily saying no to a type of request that has been common since chatbots became available to the public, and it is doing so specifically on copyright grounds. Authors and rights holders have sued AI developers over the use of their work in training data and over outputs that resemble their writing. A model that refuses to imitate a living or recently deceased author's style on its own changes things for users who relied on that feature. At the same time, the alternative the model offers — writing "something with those characteristics, while remaining original" — keeps a degree of similarity that may or may not satisfy users or rights holders, depending on how close the result feels to the original author's voice.

The fact that Gemini still does what ChatGPT will not adds another layer. If one major chatbot refuses a type of request and a competitor does not, users who specifically want author-style imitation have a straightforward reason to switch. Whether that pushes companies toward stricter refusals or toward continued compliance is something the current reporting does not cover. It would depend on data like how many users leave one service for another, and on any legal or regulatory developments.

For people who build software on top of these AI models, the shift is a reminder that what a chatbot will or will not do can change with each update, and that a feature available through one company's service may not be available through another's. The No Latency study's finding that Gemini still complies where ChatGPT does not means you cannot assume that competing AI systems offer the same creative capabilities.

The Ars Technica article and Engadget's independent confirmation establish that the behavior is reproducible as of late July 2026. Whether it persists, gets stricter, or relaxes is an open question that will depend on OpenAI's own decisions and the broader legal landscape around AI-generated content and copyright.