I've been using Topaz AI for noise reduction / sharpening for more than a year now and super pleased. However, I've noticed that iStockphoto have rejected whole batches of commercial and editorials. See screenshot below.

I went to find out why and from November 2024 they changed their policy. See link here:

https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article/10847

In summary:

If you want to make significant changes to your content, either separately or in addition to work you�ve done under the Retouching Requirements, follow these rules (�Modification�):
Do not apply Modification to your content with generative AI tools (only use traditional, non-generative AI tools).
Do not add location keywords, titles or descriptions more specific than Region/State/County if you modify recognizable, named, or famous locations.
Do not alter a model�s body shape to make them look thinner or larger than they are in real life. Find out more.

NOTE: Under these Modification Requirements, without using generative AI tools, you can:
Retouch more than 10% of the image�s total pixels.
Add new elements you own the copyright for, including creating composites.
Retouch your models more extensively.

Had no issues at any other agency. Frustrating, might just stop uploading to iStock anyway for what they pay and now further hurdles of creating two separate batches.

Maybe strip the meta or exif data before submitting.

Removing the corresponding metadata (Exif tag �Software used�) could work.
Here is a screenshot of our own Zoom software where you can see that Topaz leaves an entry that is possibly recognised by IStock and is considered AI-generated.

In fact, this is technically correct, because the AI system is very similar to a Ki image generator. In the end, not a single original pixel of your photo is retained - the image is generated block by block in a different resolution/de-noised/business.

Strictly speaking, it is no longer your image, but a completely generated image to which you no longer have the rights.

If you want to avoid such problems, you would have to avoid scaling/de-noising/sharpening programmes with generative AI and rely on other algorithms.

Examples of such scaling programmes with �non-generative AIs� would be Zoom #2 professional or Photozoom #8 and in the area of denoising, Neat Image or Denoise #5 professional come to mind.

For normal photos I process with an old ps elements version that doesn't have modern ai tools.

I hope that version stays available for a long time.

But next generation cameras will be using ai integrated into their software.

What happens then?

In fact, this is technically correct, because the AI system is very similar to a Ki image generator. In the end, not a single original pixel of your photo is retained - the image is generated block by block in a different resolution/de-noised/business.

Strictly speaking, it is no longer your image, but a completely generated image to which you no longer have the rights.

Using an AI tool for sharpening certainly does not alter a picture in a way that you lose copyright, strictly speaking or otherwise.

That no pixel of the original image may be retained is hardly an argument, because that if true of a plethora of filters or other modification.

If you apply a filter to a photo, so that it looks like an impressionist painting with Photoshop, no pixel is the same either. Even if you just make a picture darker or brighter or change the colour temperature, no pixel may be exactly the same afterwards, if you change it enough. But you still have the copyright.

I've been using Topaz AI for noise reduction / sharpening for more than a year now and super pleased. However, I've noticed that iStockphoto have rejected whole batches of commercial and editorials. See screenshot below.

I went to find out why and from November 2024 they changed their policy. See link here:

https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article/10847

In summary:

Quote

If you want to make significant changes to your content, either separately or in addition to work you�ve done under the Retouching Requirements, follow these rules (�Modification�):
Do not apply Modification to your content with generative AI tools (only use traditional, non-generative AI tools).
Do not add location keywords, titles or descriptions more specific than Region/State/County if you modify recognizable, named, or famous locations.
Do not alter a model�s body shape to make them look thinner or larger than they are in real life. Find out more.

NOTE: Under these Modification Requirements, without using generative AI tools, you can:
Retouch more than 10% of the image�s total pixels.
Add new elements you own the copyright for, including creating composites.
Retouch your models more extensively.

Had no issues at any other agency. Frustrating, might just stop uploading to iStock anyway for what they pay and now further hurdles of creating two separate batches.

As far as I am aware Topaz AI Denoise and Sharpen are supposed to be acceptable on IS, but if you are using some of Photoshop's tools, just check that AI has not been activated on them ... the latest version of CC turns them on automatically again.

Quote from: Brasilnut on January 05, 2025, 09:39

I've been using Topaz AI for noise reduction / sharpening for more than a year now and super pleased. However, I've noticed that iStockphoto have rejected whole batches of commercial and editorials. See screenshot below.

I went to find out why and from November 2024 they changed their policy. See link here:

https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article/10847

In summary:

Quote

If you want to make significant changes to your content, either separately or in addition to work you�ve done under the Retouching Requirements, follow these rules (�Modification�):
Do not apply Modification to your content with generative AI tools (only use traditional, non-generative AI tools).
Do not add location keywords, titles or descriptions more specific than Region/State/County if you modify recognizable, named, or famous locations.
Do not alter a model�s body shape to make them look thinner or larger than they are in real life. Find out more.

NOTE: Under these Modification Requirements, without using generative AI tools, you can:
Retouch more than 10% of the image�s total pixels.
Add new elements you own the copyright for, including creating composites.
Retouch your models more extensively.

Had no issues at any other agency. Frustrating, might just stop uploading to iStock anyway for what they pay and now further hurdles of creating two separate batches.

As far as I am aware Topaz AI Denoise and Sharpen are supposed to be acceptable on IS, but if you are using some of Photoshop's tools, just check that AI has not been activated on them ... the latest version of CC turns them on automatically again.

I'm using Topaz for noise reduction on most images, and occasionally use their sharpening tool. I haven't experienced any problems with Istock acceptance.

As far as I know, the potentially problematic Topaz tool is Gigapixel, as this uses AI to upscale.

A few clarifications:

- Only used Topaz AI sharpening and/or noise reductions. I've disabled face recovery as some results are just weird.
- Didn't use Gigapixel upscaling

Next steps:

- Will test if by deleting the title will make a difference (I don't think so)

Curious theory:

- Apparently, human reviewers are paid by image/video and so it's easier for them to reject whole batches without much inspection. Perhaps they will begin adopting AI reviews as is now becoming the norm at other agencies (Depositphoto assets are accepted/rejected within seconds).

What happens if you do all the AI you want, flatten the image, save it as a JPG, open up an unrelated raw file (with no AI, no adjustments), drag the jpg onto that unrelated raw file and flatten it.  Save it as whatever file name logic you use. Wouldn't that effectively strip out any evidence of AI in the exif data?

With tools like ExifTool, metadata records actions like flattening, saving, or combining files. Even if you remove metadata to hide these traces, that can make the file appear suspicious, as stripped metadata is often a red flag.

ChatGPT helped me a little bit:
 
Generally, metadata in image files (such as EXIF, IPTC, or XMP) does not record detailed editing actions like flattening layers, merging files, or specific save steps in Photoshop. Standard metadata fields typically include information such as:

Camera settings (exposure time, aperture, ISO, etc.)
Capture date and time
Geolocation (if enabled)
Copyright info
Software used (e.g., �Adobe Photoshop 2024�)
However, they usually do not store a history of how the file was altered (like which layers were flattened, in what sequence images were combined, or how many times the file was saved).

Where does Photoshop store editing actions?
History Panel (Temporary): Photoshop keeps a record of the most recent editing steps in the History panel, but this history is lost once you close the file or exit Photoshop (unless you specifically configure and save History Logs within Photoshop preferences, but that�s stored in a text/log file on your computer, not embedded in the image).
PSD or PSB Files (Layers & Metadata): Photoshop file formats (.psd, .psb) maintain layers and adjustments, but they still don�t embed each step you took to get there.
Can you embed editing steps at all?
In some workflows, you can save a layered PSD that preserves your edits and smart objects, but that�s not the same as a detailed action-by-action log.
History Logs can be turned on in Photoshop�s preferences (�History & Cache� settings), but those logs are external text files or appended as metadata in a very limited manner, and are generally not part of the standard EXIF/ITPC fields other software would read.
So, if you flatten, save, or merge files in Photoshop, that information typically does not appear in the exported image�s standard metadata. Instead, only a general reference to �Adobe Photoshop� and a timestamp for the last edit might be included.
 
If you paste an AI-generated image (Image A) over an unedited image (Image B) in Photoshop, flatten it, and save the result, Image B�s EXIF metadata will not automatically retain or include any metadata from Image A. Here�s why:

How Photoshop Handles Metadata During Editing
When Pasting or Combining Images:

Metadata from a pasted image (Image A) does not carry over to the final file. The act of pasting only transfers the visual content (pixels), not the metadata.
Flattening Layers:

When you flatten an image, Photoshop combines all layers into one. This operation discards the layer structure and any linked file references, but it doesn�t alter or add new metadata unless you explicitly modify it.
Metadata in the Saved File:

The saved image will retain the metadata of the base file (Image B) unless you change it manually in Photoshop or through external tools.
For example, the EXIF field might still indicate that Photoshop was used for editing, and it will record the last modification date. However, there will be no direct trace of Image A.
Stock Agency Concerns
Stock agencies that restrict AI-generated content typically rely on:

Visual Analysis: Identifying characteristics of AI-generated imagery.
Metadata Inspections: Checking for clues in the metadata that indicate AI tools or software were used.
By flattening and saving as one layer, the metadata from Image A will not be embedded in the final image unless:

The AI software explicitly watermarked the image or inserted detectable data into the visual content.
You intentionally added metadata indicating the use of AI tools.
Best Practices and Considerations:
If you're submitting images to stock agencies, ensure the final content complies with their policies. Flattening may "hide" metadata, but it doesn�t change the fact that the content was partially AI-generated.
Some stock agencies use AI detection tools that analyze pixel patterns and artifacts, which could still identify the image as AI-generated even if metadata is removed.
While metadata manipulation might work technically, it�s ethically better to adhere to agency guidelines and disclose the use of AI where required.

However, ... if you paste an AI-generated image (Image A) over an unedited image (Image B) in Photoshop, flatten it, and save the result, Image B�s EXIF metadata will not retain or include any metadata from Image A. I think it will have NO data from image A, except the pixels copied. Basta. All the info, in the EXIF or out of it, will be the one Image B had from the beginning, except "edited in Photoshop" will be added almost for sure.

Istock has nowhere written that you can't improve the quality of images and videos with Topaz Ai tools, upscaling or smoother slow motion, etc. And I guess the same is true for other agencies if they want better quality images. These Ai tools also help a lot for animation graphic designers because they have less work to do with renders, etc.

Stock agencies are more interested in whether there are image elements from MidJourney etc. in the images they submit. Such Ai generators are of no interest to me for commercial use.

Sure makes sense, doesn't that?

However, ... if you paste an AI-generated image (Image A) over an unedited image (Image B) in Photoshop, flatten it, and save the result, Image B�s EXIF metadata will not retain or include any metadata from Image A. I think it will have NO data from image A, except the pixels copied. Basta. All the info, in the EXIF or out of it, will be the one Image B had from the beginning, except "edited in Photoshop" will be added almost for sure.

It's NOT in the EXIF or usual metadata. From what I've found the code is embedded in the image itself.

"When an image is created or edited using C2PA-compatible software, a set of cryptographically signed metadata is embedded directly into the image file. Content: This metadata includes information such as the creation time, the software used, and any edits made to the image."

Copy and paste into a different or new image, does not erase this tracking.

I NEVER had any issues in spite of using topaz for denoising and sharpening routinely. But I uncheck the option to use their program-specific file prefix and my vote goes to simply not using their naming convention.

Quote from: odesigns on January 05, 2025, 09:50

Maybe strip the meta or exif data before submitting.

Removing the corresponding metadata (Exif tag �Software used�) could work.
Here is a screenshot of our own Zoom software where you can see that Topaz leaves an entry that is possibly recognised by IStock and is considered AI-generated.

In fact, this is technically correct, because the AI system is very similar to a Ki image generator. In the end, not a single original pixel of your photo is retained - the image is generated block by block in a different resolution/de-noised/business.

Strictly speaking, it is no longer your image, but a completely generated image to which you no longer have the rights.

If you want to avoid such problems, you would have to avoid scaling/de-noising/sharpening programmes with generative AI and rely on other algorithms.

Examples of such scaling programmes with �non-generative AIs� would be Zoom #2 professional or Photozoom #8 and in the area of denoising, Neat Image or Denoise #5 professional come to mind.

Topaz Ai with all its Ai tools claims you own the copyright.

https://community.topazlabs.com/t/topaz-photo-commercial-usage/55873/4

Those of your recommended scaling programs also ashampoo zoom and zoom pro have Ai.