We all know that software offers no acknowledgment or protection whatsoever when there is a copyright within an image.
I specifically only sell / release low resolution digital files, so that they are not print quality, to protect my copyrights. I sell the prints and products of my images. When a client purchases an image product, including a digital file, I do not give permissions for any other reproductions, usages or modifications - including derivative.
With the software doing nothing to prevent users from now adding pixels or otherwise modifying images specifically not allowed nor intended for print or any usage within topaz at all, it is a direct loss of revenue - a substantial loss of revenue.
I believe Topaz can offer a copyright infringement protection feature. An added security measure, on behalf of the original copyright owners.
I propose that the licensed owners of the Topaz software be able to submit their copyright signatures to Topaz, that it be recognized just as facial recognition AI, and not allow images to be opened in topaz if they are not the copyright owner (or an authorized representative.)
I believe software making changes that reflect this, and remove access to downloading previous versions missing this crucial security measure, is a viable request. It will show a more substantial good faith measure, more respect towards the seemingly impossible battle we are up against in protecting and enforcing our copyrights, for those of us who are professionals who create purely original works.
Any other professionals here agree?
(Let’s be positive in the discussion here, I’m sincerely suggesting discussion of a viable solution and I believe this software company can help.)
As an idea this would a complete non-starter for many users. Not everyone updates to the latest version for various reasons, one being that they don’t renew their licensing. I don’t think they’d take kindly to having access removed to software they’ve paid for.
Basically this is as if you wanted to prohibit the sale of sharp kitchen knives because bad minded people could kill someone with them…
It’s not the tool that’s to blame but the one who does the bad thing with it.
This is a horrible idea on all fronts. Basically you are asking for a form of DRM enforced at the software level. There is absolutely no possible justification for why this is a good idea.
If someone is copying your intellectual property, there are numerous avenues open to you, including legal actions.
What a lazy, horrible idea.
