Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective. I appreciate the effort. However, I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that this situation is merely a fair or technical fulfillment of the original agreement.
Under the original purchase terms, the perpetual license did not simply mean “you keep the last binary that exists at the end of 12 months.” It meant permanent usability of the product and of all updates released during the paid upgrade period.
The core issue is not that Topaz introduced a subscription-only product — that is a business decision they are free to make. The issue is that models and functionality released during the paid upgrade period were deliberately made incompatible with the perpetual product through new file formats and extensions, despite the software itself remaining materially the same (same UI, same workflow, same functionality, largely the same models).
That is not a natural consequence of a subscription transition - it is an artificial incompatibility that effectively prevents customers from using what they already paid for.
Calling the subscription-based application a “different product” does not resolve this, when the differences are contractual rather than technical. Minor UI adjustments and a new licensing model do not transform an otherwise identical application into a genuinely new product for the purpose of existing usage rights. Just to clarify one additional point:
I am also a “Founders” customer. I had an active Topaz plan before the transition and renewed for another 12 months, which is why Topaz included me in that group. So this is not a case of someone standing outside the system asking for special treatment.
More importantly, my request does not take anything away from other users - founders or otherwise. Asking Topaz to provide the models released during the paid upgrade period in a form compatible with the perpetual version does not reduce anyone else’s access, benefits, or subscription value. It simply ensures that previously purchased usage rights remain usable.
This is not about envy, preference, or choosing sides between subscription and perpetual users.
It is about honoring what was already paid for, without retroactively redefining ownership through licensing or file-format changes.
Everyone remains free to subscribe, renew, or take advantage of founder discounts if they choose. That choice, however, should not be used to invalidate existing perpetual usage rights that were part of a different agreement.
To be very specific about my individual case: The final 12-month renewal - roughly USD 300 - provided me with no additional value whatsoever for the product I actually paid for. Without that renewal, I would still have permanent access to Topaz Video AI with exactly the same models I have today for Topaz Video AI. No functionality would be missing. No models would be missing.
I paid those USD 300 explicitly in expectation of new models being released for Topaz Video AI during the subsequent 12-month upgrade period - models which, under the original agreement, I would then be able to use permanently. But unfortunately that did not happen. From the perspective of the place of consumption, this conduct would very likely be assessed as a violation of the principle of good faith and fair dealing. While the contractual structure was formally adjusted, the economic substance of the agreement - and the expectations it created - were undermined through rebranding and artificial incompatibility.
