|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - userpoland
1
« on: March 10, 2025, 04:09 »
I would also add that on the Istock/Getty Images website they don't ban anything. Using Ai tools to remove noise, improve image quality like sharpening and even scaling. They also don't prohibit editing videos as far as improving image quality or adding smooth slow motion with Ai tools. Istock/Getty Images mainly only writes about AI tools like cutting objects and pasting to about 10% and banning the upload of images of graphics, photos and videos created from scratch with generator descriptions. "Which generative AI tools can I use to retouch my content? (Are the following tools allowed - Topaz denoise, Topaz upscale, Lightroom denoise, Lightroom lens blur, Photoshop Render a lens flare, etc? Software packages and the specific tools/features within them will evolve over time, so we will not be providing guidance at this level. Instead, we’ve provided requirements for applying either Retouching or Modification. If you follow our Retouching Requirements, you do not need to worry about whether the tool is traditional or using generative AI. Alternatively, if you follow our Modification Requirements, it is your responsibility to be sure that you are not using generative AI tools. " "Do NOT submit content created or modified using AI generative tools or models (e.g., Stable Diffusion, Dall-E, MidJourney, Adobe Firefly, etc.)" https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article/10847https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article/9608
2
« on: March 09, 2025, 16:10 »
I wrote to Topaz Ai asking if I have the copyright after image enhancement like simple dehazing or sharpening.
The company replied that I still have the copyright and that it is not a graphics generator with descriptions from scratch. I am not interested in scaling the image.
After all, the main requirement of stock agencies is to own the copyright, and I don't know if they should care how I edit my photos or videos. There is also such a thing as professional secrecy.
Istock/Getty Images previously didn't exactly answer my question about whether I can enhance images with Ai.
3
« on: March 09, 2025, 14:26 »
Yes Topaz Ai leaves tags however in Vegas Pro you can clear these tags after saving in ProRes codec without setting etc.
I doubt there is technology that detects if an image has been enhanced in Ai programs and how edited.
4
« on: March 09, 2025, 08:45 »
But how will agencies detect that the photo or videos were de-noised and sharpened in Topaz Ai? If you enhance videos in Topaz Ai and then edit in Vegas Pro to Prores or another codec then there will be no Topaz Ai information. Topaz Ai does not take away the image copyright. It is not an image generator from scratch with prompt.
5
« on: March 09, 2025, 02:50 »
I also received a response from Istock/Getty Images that they do not accept 3d graphics or animations that have derivative Ai textures.
''We do not accept AI generated content, this includes files created using AI generated elements, such as texture.''
This is a problem because when you buy textures to create your own 3d graphics and animations, you don't know if they are Ai textures.
6
« on: January 23, 2025, 14:09 »
How are your video sales on Pixta compared to Adobe or other agencies?
7
« 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/10847I 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."
8
« on: January 15, 2025, 09:44 »
Do Istock and other agencies accept 3d graphics and animation graphics that are part of Ai textures? Does anyone have experience with this?
9
« on: January 15, 2025, 09:31 »
And Ai textures can be used for 3d projects and graphic animations? Without indicating that it is an Ai generated image.
10
« 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?
11
« on: January 14, 2025, 06:36 »
I have a question for animation graphics. I bought commercial color matcap overlays for 3d designs and renders.
I suspect that the author created the matcap overlays using Ai generators but I am not sure because the online store nowhere writes how the matcap overlays were created etc.
If I use these matcap overlays in my projects for animation graphics is there any risk?
Should the agencies be interested in how I created the animation graphics?
12
« 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-imagesAnd 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.
13
« 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.
14
« on: January 09, 2025, 04:22 »
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.
15
« 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?
16
« 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.
17
« on: January 08, 2025, 09:42 »
"Should there be a requirement to label AI-generated content? What’s your take on this?"
My understanding is that there is a requirement. If you've used AI to generate elements used in the image it has to be declared as "AI was used to generate this image" tag.
There is an exception that relates to the use of filling expanded backgrounds in photoshop or, editing out parts that are distracting but, if you add a person, animal or element to the image it has to be declared as AI.
As you mentioned, there are a lot out there that don't. I now use "Content Credentials" from Raw File -> Photoshop -> finished Tiff / Jpg. This way I can prove the origins of my work and how it was created.
What if you improve your video in Topaz Video Ai like denoising, better slow motion, Proteus image quality improvement? Do we also have to mark it as Ai's film?
18
« on: January 08, 2025, 07:51 »
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/55873/4Those of your recommended scaling programs also ashampoo zoom and zoom pro have Ai.
19
« on: January 08, 2025, 03:29 »
And what about Topaz Video Ai? On istock etc.
Is it possible to denoise movies, improve the quality of movie details like a Proteus filter without upscaling or improve slow motion?
20
« on: January 07, 2025, 08:14 »
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. Even Dxo Lab boasts that it improves RAW image quality in Deep prime Ai using a model with billions of images. Just does this company have licenses for billions of images and permission from the authors? The same is true of Topaz Ai. How do we know if we own the copyright to our image after developing RAW Deep prime Ai images? The problem is that we don't know if we have copyright on our images after using these Ai image enhancement tools, and whether the stock agencies protect us from these problems if it came out that these programs used non-legal AI models. I guess it would have been worse if we had sold Ai-enhanced images to customers ourselves without the intermediaries of stock agencies. In my opinion, as one bought these programs legally, these companies should be responsible for Ai tools and not us customers. There is also the AI Act in the European Union and the world's first comprehensive legal regulation for artificial intelligence systems and models. I also found an interesting other similar thread about Ai. https://www.reddit.com/r/TopazLabs/comments/17ptl6p/topaz_photo_commercial_usage/?sort=new
21
« on: September 02, 2024, 12:23 »
Yes, this can also fall under plagiarism. That's why it's not worth making identical motion graphics as in tutorials on Youtube, etc. It is better to add some of your modifications, shapes or colors, etc. Not which simulations in blender are popular as they also show in tutorials. Without learning, it is unlikely that no author would create his own motion graphics for sale so tutorials are also needed.
22
« on: September 02, 2024, 08:15 »
Yes I know that it is better to mix multiple clouds. Just what if there is one cloud and we render with camera for example rotation and some other effects with camera. It's still not a VDB file sale like a graphics motion render. I guess it is better not to make renders of one cloud as to mix many as you wrote and I agree.
As for hdri textures there are ready-made planets for sale with clouds too. I don't know if after buying such a texture you can do graphics renders of the planet itself with camera effects or there must be an additional other graphics element as well.
Out of curiosity I will also ask the authors of these graphics.
In blendermarket graphic elements do not have an extended license in addition to the usual Royalty Free, gpl or mit? Isn't such an extended license needed for a stock motion graphics producer? After all, motion graphics also sell many times.
Also, how is it with those free Blender tutorials on Youtube? There are a lot of tutorials like abstract backgrounds or shapes and they are almost very similar to those on stock sites. Someone learned thanks to the tutorial or they download free shaders, nodes, blend files and then they render it further to stock agencies. Is this in order?
23
« on: September 01, 2024, 14:14 »
It's nice that there are still helpful people on the forum. Thank you very much.
I still have a question about point a)
If we buy for example a package of realistic clouds in VDB format under Royalty Free license. And we make it a moving graphic with many clouds by moving the camera or clouds, for example, is that okay? Does there have to be another object besides the clouds to be able to sell moving graphics?
Another example. If we buy the hdri texture alone under Royalty Free license for a spherical planet and make it a moving planet in moving graphics without other objects, is that okay? Or must there be additionally another object?
It is also possible to create interesting textures for moving graphics thanks to AI but I prefer not to use this technology, not all stock agencies accept partial input of AI in moving graphics as in AdobeStock. I prefer to buy authoring elements for graphics and support the author.
I know that he should write to the agency. For now, I wanted to get some advice on this interesting forum.
24
« on: September 01, 2024, 07:31 »
Thank you for your quick response. Yes. It would be better to ask the authors of add-ons. Just what are texture add-ons, planets, cloud generators, nebulae, plants in blender that are on sale under Royalty free license for commercial use for? Only for games?
Ready-made 3d models don't interest me. I know that you have to be the author of the 3d models. I'm more interested in textures and effect generator add-ons that make it easier to work to moving graphics. Like for example creating landscapes. In stock agencies, for example, there is a lot of our planet without NASA's signature. Where do authors of moving graphics get such textures?
Free Blender or Unreal Engine also have add-on stores. It is difficult to create moving graphics without add-ons. I just don't know which add-ons for a fee you are allowed to use for your moving graphics to sell.
Is a derived resell license an extended license?
Rather, the popular stocks such as Istock, adobestock, shutterstock, pond5, envato, etc.
25
« on: August 31, 2024, 07:41 »
There are graphic stores that help you create motion graphics with resources of textures, models, special effects generators under royalty free or CC0 licenses.
Is it legal to create stock video works from elements of other authors? Do you have to be the author of all elements in motion graphics?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
