Skip to main content
March 21, 2009
Question

Protecting our Copyright from being Misappropriated.

  • March 21, 2009
  • 58 replies
  • 5699 views
Before anyone posts ANY image in the New Forums, it is essential that they re-read Adobe's TOS and particularly the wording (and implications) of Clause 8.

Adobe has given themselves the power to purloin any "Content" posted or displayed on their web sites (meaning our original art and photographs) for ANY purpose, anywhere, and in perpetuity

Adobe's Legal Department need to address this matter with some urgency because the risk of loss of Artists' Rights is already damaging participation in some Forums severely:

The Photography Forum is one example as shown in these threads:

http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b85627/

Wade Zimmerman, "So is the photography forum dead or grasping for its last breath?" #, 19 Mar 2009 12:27 pm
    This topic has been closed for replies.

    58 replies

    Inspiring
    March 23, 2009
    I don't believe it matters one bit what WE think. What is needed is a definitive statement by someone who speaks 'legalize". Better yet, let Adobe put the TOS into language that mere mortals can understand with an official statement from that same legal department.
    Mark_A__Boyd
    Inspiring
    March 23, 2009
    Hi David,

    I read that section a little differently. It seems we are only granting them license to do all that stuff "solely for the purpose of enabling your use of the Service."

    That one does seem reasonable to me, but then I haven't had my first cup of coffee, yet.
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Inspiring
    March 23, 2009
    >Adobe can't be this hard up for material.

    No, but the staff at the Adobe legal department is hard up to justify their existence. :/
    March 23, 2009
    Mark,
    I agree with what you wrote.

    This is a good reason not to even provide in private or even a link:

    This is a catch all for 8.a.

    " b.ii. When Your Content is Made Available through Services that are intended for private communication or which allow you to limit public access to Your Content and you do in fact limit public access."

    In the case of Your Content covered by Section 8(b)(ii), you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, publish and translate Your Content solely for the purpose of enabling your use of the Service. You may revoke this license and terminate Adobes rights at any time by removing Your Content from the Service.

    So even in private communications, used in their forums, they get value. Thus your remark about a simple link to someones website falls under this web.

    Sorry for beating a dead horse. Adobe can't be this hard up for material.
    March 23, 2009
    and again, just because an eula or tou SAYS they "own" something, doesn't make it fact. ianal but i know that much.

    > I am perfectly certain that they would face lawsuits for theft

    you'd be perfectly wrong. worst is they'd face lawsuits based on copyright or trademark infringement stuff. theft involves actual goods - no matter what, how loud or how many times the the big money tells you "copying is theft".
    Mark_A__Boyd
    Inspiring
    March 23, 2009
    Yes, I agree with all you've just said. In fact, in my case, the chance that Adobe would even want to use that ancient script I mentioned is so remote as to be laughable.

    But it is not my script and he gave me permission to use it under certain conditions. That is not a laughing matter to me. As I interpret Adobe's TOU, those conditions may no longer be satisfied. I had do the responsible thing and make changes so those conditions could be met again.

    It is a vague point we're discussing here, but all legaleze is written intentionally to be vague to the layman. It is written by lawyers for lawyers.
    March 23, 2009
    The thing that needs to be defined is whether Adobe's "grab" applies only to "Content" posted directly onto an Adobe web site; or whether Adobe is also trying to lay claim to any or all material on distant web sites (that are not their property!) to which Links have been posted on Adobe's Sites.

    I very much doubt that Adobe are planning to do that; and I am perfectly certain that they would face lawsuits for theft if they even attempted it; but this point does need clarification and an unambiguous statement of their position and Intent.

    When the "posted content" is merely a line of html text, that should surely be the only "Content" that they are entitled to publish?

    And if that line of html text is no longer a Live Link , what good does that do them anyway?
    Mark_A__Boyd
    Inspiring
    March 23, 2009
    BTW, don't limit your concerns by thinking this applies only to images and photography.

    Some time ago, I posted a link to a page on my site that includes - with permission - a script copyrighted by somebody else. I am in no position to grant rights to Adobe or anybody else to that content.

    I will be moving some things around on my site tonight.
    Mark_A__Boyd
    Inspiring
    March 23, 2009
    >The only way I see around adobe's ability to steal, as they claim they can, is to just post a link only.

    The way I read section 2b, where they define "Your Content" as used in section 8, posting a link still qualifies.

    ]"...any Materials that you upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available through your use of the Site or via the Services (Your Content).
    March 23, 2009
    <judas priest>breakin' tha law! breakin' tha law!</judas priest><br /><br />and everyone reads and abides by click-wrap too. it's the law!*<br /><br />(hint: no, it's not.)