6.89
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Hi all, Today I read a tweet from James Clark that comments on what a user states the cancellation of his Adobe license for the reasons he points out in the attached image. This is the tweet https://x.com/sashayanshin/status/1799118418085380431  I don't know nothing about copyright or intellectual property law, but it seems clear to me that Adobe says it can make use of works produced with its software without the express consent of the author. As it is written, it can be interpreted that way, although point 4.3 says the opposite. Regardless of what has been pointed out, it is evident that in the future, the use of systems or databases or hosts where data is stored whether in documents, videos or images that can 'feed' the 'AI software' this company like many Others somehow want to cover their backs so as not to have to pay any type of copyright or royalty for the works produced by the users of their license they may use, coming in this case from Adobe Creative Cloud or Document Cloud. The truth of the matter is that despite what has been said in comments after that those points had more than eleven years old, many users have canceled the license when they learned about it today. I just hope that other software programs associated with image processing (paid and free open source) that many astrophotographers use do not fall into the same 'path' of Adobe. For my part, although I use a Photoshop version that is more than five years old and I do not have the problem of paying a monthly or annual fee since I also do not use any type of host/cloud or special effects, nor commercial use at the time of our images, I will limit myself to removing it from the list of software used in Astrobin for the processing of future images and of course I will not go into great detail describing what was done or name others instead and the analogous tools used. It would be interesting to hear your opinions on this and Salvatore's. CS, Nicla |
11.25
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
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. |
0.90
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Die Launische Diva: All that happened is that they got caught redhanded and backtracked to save face. Their original TOS was intentionally vague to give them access to everything, even local files. |
3.61
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
So they’ll change the legalbabble license agreement, and people will be happy again. happy with the instability and insecurity. no thx. |
4.53
...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
|
Never been a fan of Adobe's subscription business model and have therefore never subscribed. When I started doing astrophotography a few years ago I purchased (not subscribed to) Affinity Photo instead, which I found very capable and a good alternative to PS. Since then it's become even more capable and on a par with Adobe products for a fraction of the price (and no subscription). Affinity products are currently 50% off. If you want to see Affinity used for astro images, search for James Ritson on YouTube. He's a wiz. I've since moved to PixInsight but still use Affinity for final tweaks, annotations, etc. as well as non-astro image processing. No affiliation, just a happy customer. |
|
6.89
...
·
|
|---|
|
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 |
 ...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
| Sounds like Adobe wants this to train their generative AI. They boast that you can’t get sued if you use their generative AI (meaning that they will literally defend you in court). |
|
1.51
...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
|
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) |
|
3.61
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| No facepalm or instaspam here… |
11.42
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
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. |
|
11.42
...
·
|
|---|
| ... |
|
3.61
...
·
|
|---|
|
Or… they are using your IP, and charging you to use it to train their AI, instead of paying you for your IP. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
11.42
...
·
|
|---|
Sean Mc: Sure. And lets explore that. How much money would Adobe have to pay, if they paid 33 million users for the use of their IP? Those payouts would instantly bankrupt them... Again, I get it. I don't like it, and generally speaking I avoid using any AI tools anywhere (even beyond Adobe). I also avoid using a heck of a lot of services, as I don't like being tracked, don't like my data being mined, etc. I'm generally absent from social media. I us forms, like this one. ;) But I also get that people only see one side of the equation. I like Photoshop. I'm very familiar with it. Some of the competitors these days are also very good, and have features Photoshop does not have. I am very quick and efficient with Photoshop, though, and I tend to use it for most of my photography and graphic design work. If you don't want Adobe using your IP "royaltee free" then don't use Adobe products. At the same time, its unrealistic to expect them to pay EVERYONE for use of their images or other data, every time anyone USES of their own free will, the AI tools available in Adobe products, because then there simply wouldn't be an Adobe anymore. For some, maybe that is the preferred outcome. All I'm trying to do is demonstrate that its totally unrealistic to expect Adobe to pay every user for the right to use their data, if the user is choosing to use Adobe AI for their own purposes to create their work. Literally...Adobe couldn't possibly scrounge up the money to pay everyone for the right to use their data to train Adobe's AI. I'd be curious to know...has ANYONE ever been paid for having their own data used to train an AI before? Anyone? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
2.15
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
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 |
|
3.61
...
·
|
|---|
|
Hey if what the board of directors want will cost the investors too much money, it’s ok to steal it. Other people do it all the time. Look at government funding for example. Just bend over and be quiet. Editt: to be honest, adobe’s clarification sounds like they will be selling info rather than developing ai. |
|
11.42
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Richard Carande: 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... |
|
6.89
...
·
|
|---|
Richard Carande: ***Thank you Richard for bring this to our attention. Tony video point out what is all about clearly on regard ToS, and the 'clarification' turn out worst in every sense.*** |
|
6.89
...
·
|
|---|
Jon Rista: *** 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.... *** |
|
6.89
...
·
|
|---|
Jon Rista:Richard Carande: 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. |
|
11.42
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Jon Rista:Richard Carande: 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. |
0.00
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Matt Kloskowski says pretty much the same as Jon: https://mattk.com/adobe-terms-of-service-qa-and-new-podcast/ |
|
3.61
...
·
|
|---|
|
Conspiracy theory alert!!! I think that they (along with microsoft) are working with 3 letter agencies to give data access to governmental AI. |
|
11.42
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Sean Mc: I believe all mega tech corps have been giving data freely to government for a long, long time. Every few years articles crop up about how microsoft or google has tens of thousands of interactions a year with government officials demanding data. I'd be surprised if they haven't already jammed AI up that putrid rear end. |
1.20
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Sean Mc: I trust the US government entirely. They exist to help me. They have never taken a covert action against me or any other citizen. I trust them with my money, welfare and children. I want a mark on my hand or my forehead to show my support.  |
