Good advice. Thank you.

So I finally downloaded the trial. First thing I went to look at is the AI parts of the program as that seems a lot of the advance. I got a message that I needed to download Deep Learning Models from My Products, but no such thing appeared. Is there something I am missing, or do I need to buy them, or do they show up once I purchase 22?

So far everything looks the same as 21 to me, though I lost my screen layouts that work so good for me.

Thank you

Douglas

Probably the Deep Learning Models are not available for the trial.

After your purchase, you will get the links of the additional downloads for installation.

Probably the Deep Learning Models are not available for the trial.

You should be able to download them and install them with a trial. There is not reason why they would not work.

So Steve says I get them after purchase, which means I can't try them to see if they are of use. VEGASDerek says I should be able to download them with a trial, but I don't see where.

Should I ask tech support?

@Douglas-McCarron Look at the end of this thread: https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/update-vegas-pro-22-build-239--148287/ for downloading latest deep learning models.

Thank you 3Point, that did it, I appreciate it

Douglas

I've found Vegas to be quite stable for me on the computer listed in my Signature below. While there have been crashes and freezes, it has happened with other editing software that I will use too. But I've edited for hours using keyboard shortcuts to speed up the editing process and nary a hiccup. But that doesn't stop me from doing incremental saves along with way, just in case.

Also I can confirm @Reyfox findings, to me Vegaspro 22 is rock stable. I haven't a single crash yet.

Thank you all. I like the trial, though with all the AI and the copyright office challenges I am not sure I am comfortable with the AI. But stability will be good.

... though with all the AI and the copyright office challenges I am not sure I am comfortable with the AI

I am not sure where you are seeing copyright challenges with Vegas Pro AI - they are only video FX utilising Vegas' proprietary AI and are not video or audio media - they are just advanced Video FX that are added to a video event on the timeline as equally occurs with any non-AI video FX.

VEGAS doesn't have generative AI incorporated- I don't see where there could be a copyright issue.

VEGAS doesn't have generative AI incorporated- I don't see where there could be a copyright issue.

Under US Law the factual analysis would be different. Vegas does in fact have the ability to generate speech from text and generate imagery. But that would probably not be a relevant fact. The more relevant fact related to copyright liability would be whether Vegas copies protected sound recordings, compositions, photos, artwork, or video recordings in its AI process. I suppose Vegas could have liability exposure using a centralized AI database service which has done unauthorized copying itself. Do not take this as legal advice, but what I do to protect myself in my own business, which involves recording performances of copyrighted musical compositions, is to only license either directly from composers who have not transferred their rights. Or if rights have been transferred, from a transferee of performance rights that agrees to hold me harmless against composer copyright claims. Eg., ASCAP and BMI in the US where I operate.

Can you reference what US case law you are referring to and how far does it go? Are you saying that if any models are trained with copyrighted data, not just their direct output but works deriving from that would all have liability?

So if you use a grammar checking program trained on commercial books for an essay the essay itself is now potentially in violation of copyright? If the speech to text trained on copyrighted material then the use of this voice as part of a broader work is potentially infringing? If the upscale algorithms used trained on copyrighted material then its application to enhance video imagery taken by a user is now also potentially infringing?

Are you saying that if any models are trained with copyrighted data, not just their direct output but works deriving from that would all have liability?

@RogerS US copyright law is based on copying. If there is no copying, then copyright liability would not come into play. My own personal concern, as a retired attorney who spent 30 years in the employ of trial judges and courts of the US Federal judiciary, is possible liability licensing from a violator. Hold-harmless clauses running in my favor in the license agreement should protect me from that. Assuming the licensor lives up to the agreement. Although now that I'm retired and no longer licensed to render legal services or advice, I am allowed and encouraged to advise retaining legal counsel licensed to practice in your jurisdiction of interest.

AI FX (sourced from Vegas Pro's Deep Learning Models program) does not copy or infringe anybody's intellectual property because - as mentioned earlier - those FX are Vegas Pro proprietary FX. I cannot see how there would be any difference with using Ignite Dehaze on a video event on Vegas Pro's timeline as against using Vegas Pro's AI Dehaze FX, the latter only using a different more modern method of technically assessing the image. If Vegas Pro's AI Dehaze FX by default possibly breaches copyright law then so must Ignite Pro's Dehaze FX - and any other FX for that matter.

Surely the intellectual property is the source of the video/image being used, not the FX being used on that video/image. For example, if I am using my own video recordings (not involving copyright instances in that video such as music / artwork / etc) then using an AI FX or a non-AI FX on that video event won't make a scrap of difference. But if I record a movie in a cinema (which I've never done - I haven't been to a cinema for 10 years +) and upload it to social media, then that would be a copyright breach regardless as to whether or not I had applied an AI FX or non-AI FX to that video.

AI FX is a completely different issue to AI on social media where it seems - for example - that students can 'write' their school projects using AI like SnapChat (and others) where the source of the information for that AI sourced school project may well be copyright particularly if the source of the information is not attributed - and even so and depending on the jurisdiction the amount of content used even with attribution may well be limited.

I can envision issues with AI databases and their contents. For instance, the Vegas DLM is a database and it's copied during installation. Databases themselves are compilations which I imagine Magix has copyrighted. So if you copy it for an unauthorized purpose, like to integrate into a competing product, Magix might be inclined to come after you. If the DLM includes unauthorized copyrighted writings, like a book or a song, I could see that as a problem for all. And then there's DeepSeek reportedly self-identifying as ChatCGT... if it actually makes use of an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted database, that could be deep trouble.

@RogerS Been pondering the theoretical issue of training an AI database from copyrighted writings. I've never heard of liability from reading a book, learning from it, and then applying your knowledge. Maybe if you steal your books, à la Abbey Hoffman. Otherwise, encouraging the advancement of knowledge and the arts is the fundamental rational for granting authors limited monopolies in the US.

VEGAS doesn't have generative AI incorporated- I don't see where there could be a copyright issue.

Under US Law the factual analysis would be different. Vegas does in fact have the ability to generate speech from text and generate imagery. But that would probably not be a relevant fact. The more relevant fact related to copyright liability would be whether Vegas copies protected sound recordings, compositions, photos, artwork, or video recordings in its AI process. I suppose Vegas could have liability exposure using a centralized AI database service which has done unauthorized copying itself. Do not take this as legal advice, but what I do to protect myself in my own business, which involves recording performances of copyrighted musical compositions, is to only license either directly from composers who have not transferred their rights. Or if rights have been transferred, from a transferee of performance rights that agrees to hold me harmless against composer copyright claims. Eg., ASCAP and BMI in the US where I operate.

With my smartass hat on, can Vegas be charged, brought to court and convicted/punished? Like, for anything?

Is Vegas a person? :)