Adobe License

The tweet and screenshot desperately needs some more context.

I suspect that this holds true for whatever you upload at Adobe's servers/cloud service.

"Adobe accesses user content for a number of reasons, including the ability to deliver some of our most innovative cloud-based features, such as Photoshop Neural Filters and Remove Background in Adobe Express, as well as to take action against prohibited content," the company said at the time. "Adobe does not access, view or listen to content that is stored locally on any user's device."

(From https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/06/07/adobe-has-clarified-controversial-shrinkwrap-license-terms-but-the-damage-may-have-already-been-done)

Note that I am not here in defend of Adobe. I am not a fan of their subscription model.

So they’ll change the legalbabble license agreement, and people will be happy again. 

happy with the instability and insecurity. 

no thx.

I appreciate all the comments on this topic.
I think Adobe does not understand that currently in this field there are very competitive programs that offer similar and often improved tools, but also with a price and accessibility that is much more convenient and much more friendly to users, and this is even the case with free open source programs. with high performance and quality.

In any case, this is a mere observation of what is happening with this software within the framework of the TOS, then everyone will make their own decisions in this regard.

Best regards and CS

Nicla

I think that Adobe has become the Boogeyman in a lot of circles as of late.
Yes their ToS are shady but how many other ToS's do we sign away not even reading them. 

Look at Facebook and Instagram for instance. We freak out about our editing software having access to our images but we give permission to social media companies to actually profit from our images with no entitlement to anything in return.

I'm not saying what Adobe is doing is right, just that one article in the news about them puts every one on edge. Yet those same people sign the next ToS from a different company without batting an eye. (Maybe it's a little bit of a defeatist attitude, but I have enough to worry about in life already)

Just to play devils advocate here… Consider, you are the owner of a billion dollar company that provides software to tens of millions of users. Those users regularly use online services, host their content online, utilize your AI functionality which relies on uploading data to your servers, use your image sharing functionality, etc. etc. 

Without ever TAKING anyone's imagery, through the use of your services as users host and share their content, use online tools, etc. your services are according to legal descriptions "publishing" THEIR content, on YOUR web sites… You are not taking their content for the purposes of making your own content from their content, you are simply displaying your user's content on your own web sites, which is part of the services you offer. You might sometimes use some kind of automated process to stylize some of the imagery to make it fit the overall UI style of your web sites when publishing. Additionally, your company relies on other third party services to support your own services, and you frequently transfer your users data through those third party services in order to provide your own services. 




………


Would YOU have a clause in your contract that effectively indemnified you for such "usage" of your user's content? Additionally, would YOU require a sublicensable license, to ensure that any of your USER's data you transfer over any third party services YOU use, couldn't be considered unlawful use?



Don't get me wrong. I totally get it, and I don't like the language any of these kinds of service providers use either. Its overly broad, and does not explicitly state the kinds of usages or purposes. At the same time, when you consider the sheer scale and scope of Adobe's operations…how the heck would YOU figure out all the explicit and specific details of what kinds of "usage" might occur, on your own or third party services you rely on (i.e. Amazon Web Services) so that you could explicitly spell them out in your contract? The cost to determine all those uses would be immense, and for an operation the scale of Adobe (speaking as a software architect and engineer myself) you would simply NEVER account for ALL of them. And if you didn't account for one, and someone figured that out, and figured they had a chance to take you for some big $$$ for "unlawfully using" your content…

Its a really messy situation. I wish Adobe and other companies that utilize our data would do a better job here, and not be so overly broad, but at the same time, when I think about how they would even reign it in in the first place, I kind of understand. 

The one thing I wish they would be clearer on, and think they COULD be clearer on, is that the usages they are protecting themselves for are NOT to directly utilize your work in works of their own to, say, promote a product. They shouldn't have free reign to utilize your work for purposes that might make them money via marketing, advertising, product design, etc.  I don't think Adobe is clear enough about that, and I think they should be. There are different kinds of usage and different purposes of "usage" and generally speaking, I think they are primarily trying to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits just for them doing their business as usual, which involves a lot of online services, online data storage, online data transfer, throughout their own networks as well as third party networks, across MANY service providers all around the world. 

Anyway… I get everyone's frustration, and I'm frustrated to (I've been using Adobe products for decades). I also understand that its just not a simple thing, and I don't really think that its Adobe trying to steal work or anything like that…they are trying to protect themselves.

Or… they are using your IP, and charging you to use it to train their AI, instead of paying you for your IP. 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Tony (from Tony & Chelsea Northrup's photography channel) has his own perspective on these Adobe T&Cs, that I found thought-provoking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEbgh-q7RCc

Richard Carande:
Tony (from Tony & Chelsea Northrup's photography channel) has his own perspective on these Adobe T&Cs, that I found thought-provoking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEbgh-q7RCc

This indicates the purpose is for the purposes of censorship... Which is extremely disappointing. They do clarify that they claim no ownership, which would preclude them using anyone's work in their own works (i.e. marketing, product design, etc.) But the censorship stuff is annoying. 

He is right too, about the massive invasion of privacy if people (vs. automated systems) can review any and all of anyone's photography...  Well, the only thing that ever makes these behemoth software companies change, is hurting their bottom line.

Invading people's privacy to censor their content, especially if that content is NOT public anywhere, crosses the line. It is one thing to have terms in a license agreement to cover automated systems and the transfer of data across networks (including third party networks) for the general purpose of operating the business. Its definitely another thing to pry into people's private data and moderate and censor it...

Jon Rista:
Just to play devils advocate here... Consider, you are the owner of a billion dollar company that provides software to tens of millions of users. Those users regularly use online services, host their content online, utilize your AI functionality which relies on uploading data to your servers, use your image sharing functionality, etc. etc. 

Without ever TAKING anyone's imagery, through the use of your services as users host and share their content, use online tools, etc. your services are according to legal descriptions "publishing" THEIR content, on YOUR web sites... You are not taking their content for the purposes of making your own content from their content, you are simply displaying your user's content on your own web sites, which is part of the services you offer. You might sometimes use some kind of automated process to stylize some of the imagery to make it fit the overall UI style of your web sites when publishing. Additionally, your company relies on other third party services to support your own services, and you frequently transfer your users data through those third party services in order to provide your own services. 




.........


Would YOU have a clause in your contract that effectively indemnified you for such "usage" of your user's content? Additionally, would YOU require a sublicensable license, to ensure that any of your USER's data you transfer over any third party services YOU use, couldn't be considered unlawful use?



Don't get me wrong. I totally get it, and I don't like the language any of these kinds of service providers use either. Its overly broad, and does not explicitly state the kinds of usages or purposes. At the same time, when you consider the sheer scale and scope of Adobe's operations...how the heck would YOU figure out all the explicit and specific details of what kinds of "usage" might occur, on your own or third party services you rely on (i.e. Amazon Web Services) so that you could explicitly spell them out in your contract? The cost to determine all those uses would be immense, and for an operation the scale of Adobe (speaking as a software architect and engineer myself) you would simply NEVER account for ALL of them. And if you didn't account for one, and someone figured that out, and figured they had a chance to take you for some big $$$ for "unlawfully using" your content...

Its a really messy situation. I wish Adobe and other companies that utilize our data would do a better job here, and not be so overly broad, but at the same time, when I think about how they would even reign it in in the first place, I kind of understand. 

The one thing I wish they would be clearer on, and think they COULD be clearer on, is that the usages they are protecting themselves for are NOT to directly utilize your work in works of their own to, say, promote a product. They shouldn't have free reign to utilize your work for purposes that might make them money via marketing, advertising, product design, etc.  I don't think Adobe is clear enough about that, and I think they should be. There are different kinds of usage and different purposes of "usage" and generally speaking, I think they are primarily trying to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits just for them doing their business as usual, which involves a lot of online services, online data storage, online data transfer, throughout their own networks as well as third party networks, across MANY service providers all around the world. 

Anyway... I get everyone's frustration, and I'm frustrated to (I've been using Adobe products for decades). I also understand that its just not a simple thing, and I don't really think that its Adobe trying to steal work or anything like that...they are trying to protect themselves.

*** Jon absolutely agree with your comment.  I don't think Adobe will be more accurate in this matter, as each time is getting worst, (as Tony pointed out well in his video) and they will use your data as they say because the terms are on purpose not clear.... ***

Jon Rista:

Richard Carande:
Tony (from Tony & Chelsea Northrup's photography channel) has his own perspective on these Adobe T&Cs, that I found thought-provoking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEbgh-q7RCc

This indicates the purpose is for the purposes of censorship... Which is extremely disappointing. They do clarify that they claim no ownership, which would preclude them using anyone's work in their own works (i.e. marketing, product design, etc.) But the censorship stuff is annoying. 

He is right too, about the massive invasion of privacy if people (vs. automated systems) can review any and all of anyone's photography...  Well, the only thing that ever makes these behemoth software companies change, is hurting their bottom line.

Invading people's privacy to censor their content, especially if that content is NOT public anywhere, crosses the line. It is one thing to have terms in a license agreement to cover automated systems and the transfer of data across networks (including third party networks) for the general purpose of operating the business. Its definitely another thing to pry into people's private data and moderate and censor it...

This is the other collateral effect and maybe also an objective, the censorship and privacy invasion but cam not be accepted at all.

This is like the scan face/eyes software used is several authoritarian countries and not, around the world where the individual privacy basically is gone.  When the 'use' is in good faith and purpose is not a problem (security, lost people, etc) but when is used by criminal organizations then you can imagine what can happen.

If Adobe's goal is censorship and invasion of privacy, then the customers need to respond with their pocket books. As I mentioned before, there is a certain level of reasonability in these kinds of clauses, as for the sheer scale of Adobe's enterprise, knowing 100% of all possible uses of individual users' data is basically impossible.

That's an entirely different thing, though, than gathering personal info and scanning users private content expressly for the purposes of censorship and other personal privacy invasion. Its just wrong if that's what they are doing.

Conspiracy theory alert!!!

I think that they (along with microsoft) are working with 3 letter agencies to give data access to governmental AI.