Author Topic: Be careful if you're using Topaz AI (Rejections for "AI Modified) (Read 2706 times)

JustAnImage · « **Reply #25 on:** January 08, 2025, 09:51 »

Quote from: userpoland on January 08, 2025, 07:51

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

That is correct, but the training data used in Zoom #2 Pro and Ashampoo Zoom #2 are only self made images.

How do I know that?
How do I best express this... I developed the Zoom #2 programme, so I can say with certainty that no data with third-party copyright was used.

userpoland · « **Reply #26 on:** January 08, 2025, 10:43 »

So why wouldn't Topaz Ai also legally license the photos to Ai. This company is big and has a million users. A lot of people are making money from these Ai tools, but istock is still not clear about these Ai tools.

I will be happy to test these Ashampoo programs, they are also interesting.

JustAnImage · « **Reply #27 on:** January 08, 2025, 11:23 »

Quote from: userpoland on January 08, 2025, 10:43

So why wouldn't Topaz Ai also legally license the photos to Ai. This company is big and has a million users. A lot of people are making money from these Ai tools, but istock is still not clear about these Ai tools.

I will be happy to test these Ashampoo programs, they are also interesting.

The difference is in the way the AIs are used, but of course you can't see that from the outside.

Self-learned generative AI models require vast amounts of images to achieve good results with such a system, and by that I mean ranges of several hundred million images as a lower limit.

The AI system used in Zoom #2 pro is a non-generative system, which takes the information exclusively from the current image to be scaled (+ training images that can be specified additionally). This means that no large training volumes are required, but no new details are generated into the images.

Unfortunately, the topic is very complex and you need a lot of ‘basic knowledge’ if you want to make well-founded statements here.

I did not want to claim that the various providers have not all acquired the training images legally, but you should at least remain sceptical.
The large image datasets that can be ‘acquired’ from the relevant companies with 4-6 billion images cost 2-3 digit million sums - only the really big ones can afford such datasets...

Actually, I just wanted to say: ‘Remain sceptical’ - but I probably didn't manage that very well ;-)

userpoland · « **Reply #28 on:** January 08, 2025, 12:32 »

Yes, I know it's worth being skeptical. Okay, but what will it change if, years later, it turns out that a well-known company that uses Ai tools for image scaling and enhancement was illegally using a photo database?

Would we authors also be complicit with stock agencies? After all, we would no longer remove improved photos or videos using Ai tools from our portfolio, which sell to customers, etc. By purchasing the Ai utility program, we should be released from liability. That's how I understand it. What is your opinion?

JustAnImage · « **Reply #29 on:** January 08, 2025, 17:33 »

Quote from: userpoland on January 08, 2025, 12:32

Yes, I know it's worth being skeptical. Okay, but what will it change if, years later, it turns out that a well-known company that uses Ai tools for image scaling and enhancement was illegally using a photo database?

Would we authors also be complicit with stock agencies? After all, we would no longer remove improved photos or videos using Ai tools from our portfolio, which sell to customers, etc. By purchasing the Ai utility program, we should be released from liability. That's how I understand it. What is your opinion?

It is currently very difficult or even impossible to answer this question. On the one hand, there are currently numerous lawsuits in court around the world concerning the use of images for AI training, some of which are being brought by artists, photographers, graphic designers, etc., because the big companies simply ‘download’ the entire Internet using web crawlers and use it as training data - but the problem has already been discussed extensively here.

Then there is the problem of the different regions, for example the EU has much stricter regulations than the USA, so does the company from the USA have to comply with the stricter rules for the EU customer of the software or not? Good question...

What happens now, if it turns out in the court cases (which I don't believe) that the companies are really ordered to use only copyright-free images in training and to prove this, would basically all images processed with AI tools (which were trained with unauthorised images/videos) not be legally flawless in the first place. In this case, the software customer would then have to claim the corresponding costs from the software provider (who used unauthorised data) - what a mess that would be, even if it were the right way

And to avoid such problems with my software, I don't use such tools, even if you can get some of them for free on the net and integrate them into commercial products.
Just because you can do it and it's possible doesn't mean you should do it

userpoland · « **Reply #30 on:** January 09, 2025, 04:22 »

Quote from: JustAnImage on January 08, 2025, 17:33

Quote from: userpoland on January 08, 2025, 12:32

And to avoid such problems with my software, I don't use such tools, even if you can get some of them for free on the net and integrate them into commercial products.
Just because you can do it and it's possible doesn't mean you should do it

So you wouldn't even trust RAW file denoising programs because of their Ai tools? Like DxO PhotoLab or Pure Raw. They are the leaders and they boast that they have databases of billions of photos.

JustAnImage · « **Reply #31 on:** January 09, 2025, 05:34 »

Quote from: userpoland on January 09, 2025, 04:22

So you wouldn't even trust RAW file denoising programs because of their Ai tools? Like DxO PhotoLab or Pure Raw. They are the leaders and they boast that they have databases of billions of photos.

If you ask me privately, I generally only believe what I can verify - but as a mathematician, that's my own personal quirk ^^ Basically, I see every generative AI (trained with ‘billions of images’) as a potential legal problem in the future, but I'm also very cautious.

The results of these generative AI algorithms are impressive and certainly usable, in some cases (I would not denoise a night sky with stars with a generative AI, then I have some new stars in the sky afterwards and with luck also a few extra comets ;-)

At the moment, everything is unclear from a legal point of view (for example, it is not at all clear where ‘Sora’ got all the videos for their training) - committing to something here is currently on shaky ground.

userpoland · « **Reply #32 on:** January 09, 2025, 06:14 »

Yes, but can photos after editing with DxO PhotoLab or Pure Raw be checked with any tools to see if it leaves any traces after using the Ai tool? Same with Topaz Ai.

Now Topaz Ai boasts that Gigapixel will be on iOS soon. Top brands such as NASA, Google, Tesla are also reportedly using these Ai tools from this company. Which somehow Topaz Ai are becoming more and more credible.

Yes, but Sora creates images from scratch from other images and there is a greater risk here. I'm more interested in the safety of photos and videos improved using Ai tools.

JustAnImage · « **Reply #33 on:** January 09, 2025, 08:18 »

Quote from: userpoland on January 09, 2025, 06:14

Yes, but can photos after editing with DxO PhotoLab or Pure Raw be checked with any tools to see if it leaves any traces after using the Ai tool? Same with Topaz Ai.

You can recognise from the image itself (with a certain degree of certainty) whether it was a generative AI that created the image or not. There are algorithms that search for typical artefacts in the image that result from the use of generative AI. This is therefore technically possible even without looking at Exif data or embedded watermarks - only the agency itself knows whether an agency actively uses this.
The trace is therefore the image itself or the specific arrangement of certain structures.
And yes, in order to recognise this via the pixels, an AI is used that is trained to distinguish between a ‘photo and an AI image’ - we have probably all experienced this before, where a real photo was rejected because it was supposedly taken with AI. In these cases, the ‘recognition AI’ was simply wrong

Quote from: userpoland on January 09, 2025, 06:14

Yes, but Sora creates images from scratch from other images and there is a greater risk here. I'm more interested in the safety of photos and videos improved using Ai tools.

Yes, that's right and something very similar happens when you denoise with generative AI.
Let me try to describe the process (very simplified) for denoising:
-> the process takes a block of 32x32 pixels with image noise from the original and generates a block as similar as possible without image noise and adds it there, then it continues with the next block in the original image, etc.

The resulting image is therefore completely newly generated and may well contain deviations from the original (see example ‘additional stars in the sky’) - regardless of whether we denoise, sharpen or scale with these tools, the technology is always exactly the same, only the training data differs.

userpoland · « **Reply #34 on:** January 09, 2025, 12:57 »

When it comes to artificial intelligence images that are created in generators from scratch, there are certainly algorithms that detect them.

https://sightengine.com/detect-ai-generated-images

And I doubt that our photos or videos corrected in Ai tools will be detected by any algorithms. Just add some noise to your photos or videos in a graphics or video program. No chance.

These brands, Topaz Ai or Dxo photolab, I doubt that they want to expose themselves to damage to the creators or any lawsuits. Creators have paid, so they use these Ai tools to make their creative work easier and better. What would be the point of getting into trouble with some free Ai tools.

everest · « **Reply #35 on:** January 14, 2025, 08:40 »

Not so sure about that. Getty has already warned multiple times about using AI in their submissions and given plenty of advice of what can be done and what not. I would not be surprised if they close accounts that violate their policies , no matter how many files in their portfolios or how successful.....

Quote from: odesigns on January 05, 2025, 16:09

Quote from: cobalt on January 05, 2025, 15:45
But next generation cameras will be using ai integrated into their software.
What happens then?

AI will be everywhere. The agencies are fighting a losing battle. I'm sure iStock and others are already flooded with AI-modified videos and images without them even knowing it.

userpoland · « **Reply #36 on:** January 14, 2025, 08:59 »

Graphic animators who buy, textures or matcap for their graphics and renders. How do they know that these derived textures or matcap are created in Ai generators? Or are they taking a risk as to Getty?

Brasilnut · « **Reply #37 on:** January 15, 2025, 15:15 »

Resubmitted one of the files without the "Topaz AI" extension on the title and it has been accepted.

Brasilnut · « **Reply #38 on:** January 17, 2025, 08:36 »

Getty replied to my ticket:

Quote

Topaz is defined as an AI tool. Please ensure any files edited using AI tools falls under our requirements.

Creative Content Retouching and Modification Requirements:
https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article/10847

I will go ahead and close this ticket. If you would like to reopen this ticket, please reply to the email notification of my response as replies via Account Management will not register a response if the ticket is closed. If you have another question or issue, please create a new ticket as we often need to assign tickets to different people and departments.

Sincerely,
Maggie

Find out more about how we license your work:
https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article/6251
Contributor Services

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #39 on:** January 17, 2025, 15:05 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on January 17, 2025, 08:36

Getty replied to my ticket:

Quote
Topaz is defined as an AI tool. Please ensure any files edited using AI tools falls under our requirements.

Creative Content Retouching and Modification Requirements:
https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article/10847

I will go ahead and close this ticket. If you would like to reopen this ticket, please reply to the email notification of my response as replies via Account Management will not register a response if the ticket is closed. If you have another question or issue, please create a new ticket as we often need to assign tickets to different people and departments.

Sincerely,
Maggie

Find out more about how we license your work:
https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article/6251
Contributor Services

What did that actually say? Can you use Topaz or not, or only some parts of it?

"Did Not Connect: Potential Security Issue

Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to contributors.gettyimages.com because this website requires a secure connection."

Brasilnut · « **Reply #40 on:** January 17, 2025, 16:55 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 17, 2025, 15:05

Quote from: Brasilnut on January 17, 2025, 08:36
Getty replied to my ticket:

Quote
Topaz is defined as an AI tool. Please ensure any files edited using AI tools falls under our requirements.

Creative Content Retouching and Modification Requirements:
https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article/10847

I will go ahead and close this ticket. If you would like to reopen this ticket, please reply to the email notification of my response as replies via Account Management will not register a response if the ticket is closed. If you have another question or issue, please create a new ticket as we often need to assign tickets to different people and departments.

Sincerely,
Maggie

Find out more about how we license your work:
https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article/6251
Contributor Services

What did that actually say? Can you use Topaz or not, or only some parts of it?

"Did Not Connect: Potential Security Issue

Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to contributors.gettyimages.com because this website requires a secure connection."

I asked why my images using Topaz solely for noise reduction and/or sharpening were rejected.

userpoland · « **Reply #41 on:** January 18, 2025, 06:47 »

Also, I asked Istock if it is possible to enhance images with Topaz Ai or Dxo photolab tools.

I got a not clear answer. Does anyone understand this answer?

It is possible to use these Ai tools for image and video enhancement or not?

"
The majority of image editing software packages and smartphone platforms are incorporating generative AI technology. Each company may describe their tools in different ways, but they will often use words like ‘magic’, ‘generative’ ‘intelligence’, ‘assistant’, etc., when using generative AI. Also, if the technique you’re applying involves minimal effort or can be completed with a text prompt, the tool is likely to be using generative AI.

If in doubt, please assume that generative AI is being used and stick to the Retouching Requirements when using these tools. If you choose to follow our Modification Requirements, then it’s your responsibility to ensure that you are using traditional, non-generative AI tools.

AI tools may only be used if they comply with our retouching guidelines, however only whole image color adjustments are acceptable if you are retouching more than 10% of the images pixels.

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

I will go ahead and close this ticket. If you would like to reopen this ticket, please reply to the email notification of my response as replies via Account Management will not register a response if the ticket is closed. If you have another question or issue, please create a new ticket as we often need to assign tickets to different people and departments."

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #42 on:** January 18, 2025, 13:20 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on January 17, 2025, 16:55

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 17, 2025, 15:05
Quote from: Brasilnut on January 17, 2025, 08:36
Getty replied to my ticket:

Quote
Topaz is defined as an AI tool. Please ensure any files edited using AI tools falls under our requirements.

Creative Content Retouching and Modification Requirements:
https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article/10847

I will go ahead and close this ticket. If you would like to reopen this ticket, please reply to the email notification of my response as replies via Account Management will not register a response if the ticket is closed. If you have another question or issue, please create a new ticket as we often need to assign tickets to different people and departments.

Sincerely,
Maggie

Find out more about how we license your work:
https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article/6251
Contributor Services

What did that actually say? Can you use Topaz or not, or only some parts of it?

"Did Not Connect: Potential Security Issue

Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to contributors.gettyimages.com because this website requires a secure connection."

I asked why my images using Topaz solely for noise reduction and/or sharpening were rejected.

I still don't understand the answer?

Is Topaz allowed or not, or was one of the limitations in "retouching" the problem? But if you remove the name Topaz in the name of the file, then you're OK?

Do not add new elements, ‘inpaint’, or extend the canvas/‘outpaint’.
Do not retouch more than 10% of the image’s total pixels (whole image color adjustments are acceptable).

Is de-noising or sharpening, more than 10% of an image. I really don't see the answer in their advice page.

gnirtS · « **Reply #43 on:** January 18, 2025, 18:30 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 07, 2025, 12:56

"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."

In LR at least, Content Credentials are an opt-in menu option and not on by default. I do use Topaz AI for maybe 2 in 100 images if it needs extra work on the noise or sharpening front but havent yet had one rejected for it. My normal workflow is export from LR with metadata except keywords and description etc stripped (i do this by default to stop anyone scraping anything i dont add myself).
I did play with content credentials but couldnt really get it to work or do anything so i just disabled it again. No idea if PS is an opt-in or in by default.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Be careful if you're using Topaz AI (Rejections for "AI Modified) (Read 2706 times)

JustAnImage

userpoland

JustAnImage

userpoland

JustAnImage

userpoland

JustAnImage

userpoland

JustAnImage

userpoland

everest

userpoland

Brasilnut

Brasilnut

Uncle Pete

Brasilnut

userpoland

Uncle Pete

gnirtS

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors