I have purchased Video AI starting in version 4.x onto version 5.x … I just got an email about the “Pro” version at a ridiculous “Pro” price of $1100/yr. BUT, the real issue I have is that the suggestion I can’t do any “commercial” work with just the standard Video AI?
There is NOTHING in my EULA that says I can’t use the content I created and modified via Video AI (stand alone or plugin) for commercial use? In fact, any such statements in a EULA to suggest I can’t use Video AI for commercial purposes would violate many consumer rights in the US.
Why does this smell just like what Adobe is trying to do and being sued by the US Fed government?
Software licenses are contracts. The licensor has the legal right to restrict non-commerical licenses to personal or “limited commercial” use only. But the EULA has to specify that.
The EULA for VAI says “personal or limited commercial use,” and defines “limited commercial use” as a business with an annual revenue of under $1M.
If Pro can actually deliver a speed 10X faster than standard, I might actually think about it. I know I’m not ever going to exceed that $1M/yr threshold…
From what I can see, all the individual Pro license provides is multi-GPU and it removes the $1M cap on commercial use. Since I’m never going to need that $1M cap removed, $1100 just to add back multi-GPU would be a ridiculous proposition for me.
Maybe what they need is a $400-$500 “super-personal” version that has multi-GPU and keeps the $1M cap…
FYI, because a EULA tries to define a contract with a consumer doesn’t mean the contract in itself is legal … what is legal in a contract varies by country. Agreeing to an illegal EULA is not binding.
The “commercial use” wording has been challenge in US courts and in all but one case the consumer or company won the case. I know a lot of software companies attempt to establish a contract with such terms, but it doesn’t necessarily mean those terms are actually legal. They’re drafted by lawyers/legal team who should be familiar with state/country consumer laws. If challenged in court, a Judge and/or jury would decide the legality.
I understand the essence of what the “Commerical use” means … if you make a lot of money from a tool that is used to provide a tangible or intangible asset, Topas want more of one’s revenue. This is however not enforceable as it would require Topaz to obtain financial statements they have no legal right to obtain if the company is not public. The US IRS isn’t just going to hand over tax filings to any company that wants to review (case in point Donald Trump).
Anyway, not going to go to far down this road as I’ve had real world experience from companies that attempt this type of “contract” with an end user. Let’s just say it’s unfortunate Topaz have elected to go down this path.
Although I think Topaz is a great tool, it’s not going to take a bigger piece of my pie, it’s just a tool. It’s really there to fix old legacy footage and/or shooting mistakes. Given that most professionals shoot in RAW at 4K or higher, the professional need for this tool is very minimal and certainly not worth $1100 per seat. Given how poorly it integrates into video editing suites as a plugin it’s for the most part just not practical. The process introduces color changes and a slew of other contrast/brightness changes … I’ve not been able to make it work well with RAW and then apply a LUT and then do editing/color grading.
Again, it’s a nice tool, but this Pro push and commercial use attempt is just not gonna work. Topaz would do far better with a Pro version that provides more options at maybe $100 more than Standard version and with none of the un-enforceable commercial use verbiage.
I fully agree, doubling the price for multi GPU would have been reasonable
Multiplying by 3+ is insane
1099$ acceptable if product have been PERFECT
We are far from it, very
Yes, of course EULAs depend mostly - maybe totally - on users’ lack of willingness to incur the expense of defending against accusations of violations even if those accusations are bogus. In the case of a product like this one, the most likely consequence is the company voiding your license and locking you out of the app, which would mean you’d have to incur the expense of suing them to get it back.
I also think this business model is nuts. It might appeal to some studio that isn’t smart enough to do multiple takes of scenes to avoid having to do reshoots, or to some company trying to market 4k versions of restored pre-WW1 silent films, but how many of those are there?
TVAI always had a cap of $1M for commercial use, only we had to contact their enterprise support before whereas now the pricing and plans for it are more transparent.
I don’t understand the big push though. Advertising this to all consumers as if it’s for everyone or for most people, like by mail and a prominent website banner, only causes confusion and turns people off. Especially for it’s making it seem like TVAI can’t be used commercially at all. TVAI Pro should’ve said to contain “uncapped commercial licensing” if anything.
Not that I like the pricing and the fact that there are different features, but nothing really changes.
Like said, it’s not enforceable in the US. I think they under estimate how many one or two person studios exist with the invent of YouTube. I’d dare suggest we far exceed the number of large studios.
You said it doesn’t say anything like that in the EULA, while it always did. I clearly remember it doing so and you can check the Wayback Machine to see it was there way before TVAI Pro too.
From what I know, it’s legally enforceable just fine (it’s also pretty much the system the entire video game creation industry relies on), but it’d definitely be an honor system in part as they can’t just go audit every user (let alone internationally). It may also be why they added the extra features.
There aren’t thát many YouTubers making $1M+ a year ánd relying on TVAI though. Not enough for them to push it like this and so hard. I feel like they should’ve just released and announced it alongside another normal TVAI update and keep it at the several enterprise sections on the normal version’s page.
I’ve gone thru this with another company, it’s not enforceable. Like I said, because one writes a EULA and a consumer agrees to that EULA (with knowledge or without) doesn’t automatically make it a legal and binding document.
Look at the legal mess Adobe are in right now if you want an example. Sued by Federal government and numerous class action lawsuits.
Go interview some of these YouTube editors, heck just look at the inventory of equipment/hardware they use, well over $1M. YouTube is cash cow for editors … probably why Topaz is trying to extract from that market.
This exactly. There are only 2 YouTube companies I could think of that could possibly come close to editing equipment worth that much: Linus Media Group and maybe Corridor Digital. Other than channels of film and animation studios or companies alike, but not so much when it comes to YouTube editors.
Also, this is $1M revenue per year we’re talking, not equipment worth that much. So sure, there will be more YouTubers making that much, but most of them don’t use TVAI whatsoever. And most as in 99.99%.
The Adobe situation is not comparable at all. Many companies with similar pricing structures seem to be enforcing their plans just fine, which means it’s quite literally enforceable even if legally it wouldn’t be sound, but I wouldn’t know on which grounds that would be in this case.
So I’ve just been sent an email stating for commercial use Video AI Pro is needed, it would be a lot better if Topaz made it clearer what is meant by commercial, how many users actually read EULA’s. I can see some spending more than needed, assuming multiple GPU’s doesn’t mean multiple GPU cores then there appears to be next to or no benefit for Apple Silicon users
The more they market it willy-nilly without clarifying the commercial use (they literally put an asterisk regarding the Multi-GPU rendering but nothing alike regarding that), the more I feel like it’s some desperate push for more cashflow, and the more justified it is for users to get confused, frustrated and upset.
