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

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.

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

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.

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.

@Stoker2014:
I had a dataset earning at Deposit as "kundenspezifischer Verkauf" (sorry for the german text here) on August, 2nd 2024.

Maybe you want to check your earnings stats too, it should be there...

Everything looks "kinda" normal for me on the map of the last 20 sales from yesterday and today - 60% Europe / 20% US/NA / 20% Asi

Just to keep you informed - the support answered my ticket with serveral specific questions:

"Hello Michael,
For more information regarding our generative AI services we have created a new FAQ section to address the questions you might have. 
Please visit the link below: https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article/10953
Best Regards."

And my ticket was closed wihout any answer to my questions...

@Stoker2014: Thanks for the hint with the .pdf

I found these two lines there:
- AISERVICES United States of America 41.07 varies 6.54
- AISERVICES varies 30.37 varies 4.84

In both cases ($6.54 of $41.07 and $4.84 of $30.37) it is 15.93% of the total - so neither 15% (photo) nor 20% (video)

And the message from Getty/IStock says �Training share: 50% of the revenue is split across all files used to train our AI services, with each file receiving an equal share.�

Something is very wrong here!

@Raul:
My wife and I both have our own AS account and neither got the email about this survey (not even in the spam folder), the communication in the account should be active.

Through the link (thanks for that) we were both able to participate.

I'll join Jo Ann here and also ask if we can know what the aim of the survey is

I am enjoying every moment for as long as the fun lasts.

I really wish I could get this income all year round.

And I am sure that you will succeed. You look very closely at your figures and your images, at niches that might open up.
That will definitely pay off in the long term - now you basically �only� need material every season and you have good sales for every season

At least that's what I keep thinking - diversifying the portfolio further will eventually result in more constant downloads - that's the hope :-)

Made it into the inner 1k. Happy day

I am really happy to see this!!
Congrats and Herzlichen Gl�ckwunsch :-)

Hmm. Yeah. I had the teaser of close to that amount... and then... nada. While I didn't (necessarily) expect ALL of them to be accepted, I thought maybe around 10% or so, so thought maybe I'd get a couple grand... instead... nada. Hmm...

Hmm... with about 1.500 nominated you got 0 selected?
That is strange indeed...

No, you are not the only one with the time-out messages.

@Stoker:
Just because it works for you, to conclude that Louis is the only one with the message is, to put it mildly, �a bold statement� ;-)

For weeks/months now, 123rf has been in a mess.
The site often doesn't work for contributors, the ftp upload hasn't worked properly for a while (the ftp certificate expired years ago) and the reviews haven't worked for months (4,200 images in the queue since February 24).
On average, support only replies to every 3rd email and then only with a standard reply from the archive.
It looks to me very much like the next agency will soon be closing its doors here...