The use of copyrighted books for training AI has sparked lawsuits from authors concerned about AI generating derivative content. Yet whether these models can produce high-quality literary text emulating authors' voices remains unclear. We conducted a preregistered study comparing MFA-trained writers with three frontier models (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) writing up to 450-word excerpts emulating 50 award-winning authors' styles. In blind pairwise evaluations by 28 MFA-trained readers and 516 college-educated general readers, AI text from in-context prompting was strongly disfavored by MFA readers for stylistic fidelity (OR=0.16) and quality (OR=0.13), while general readers showed no fidelity preference (OR=1.06) but favored AI for quality (OR=1.82). Fine-tuning ChatGPT on authors' complete works reversed these results: MFA readers favored AI for fidelity (OR=8.16) and quality (OR=1.87), with general readers showing even stronger preference (fidelity OR=16.65; quality OR=5.42). Both groups preferred fine-tuned AI, but the writer-type X reader-type interaction remained significant (p=0.021 for fidelity; p<10^-4 for quality), indicating general readers favored AI by a wider margin. Effects are robust under cluster-robust inference and generalize across authors in heterogeneity analyses. Fine-tuned outputs were rarely flagged as AI-generated (3% vs. 97% for prompting) by leading detectors. Mediation analysis shows fine-tuning eliminates detectable AI quirks that penalize in-context outputs, altering the nexus between detectability and preference. While not accounting for effort to transform AI output into publishable prose, the median fine-tuning cost of $81 per author represents a 99.7% reduction versus typical writer compensation. Author-specific fine-tuning enables non-verbatim AI writing preferred over expert human writing, providing evidence relevant to copyright's fourth fair-use factor.