Protecting our Copyright from being Misappropriated.

The conditions you agree to when using the site specify that you undertake not to post others' copyright stuff.

It is also an issue if the posted graphic is from a copyrighted site. There are many copyrighted photos out there that folks could post with the include from a web site. That raises a big legal question to me since the poster did not even have the right to post the graphic, but the new editor allows for links to a URL site.

I think that posting graphics is not a bad idea, but am concerned about the copyright issues and such, even if owned by the poster. It would be easy for Adobe to be in a bind only because a user links to a photo on another site that is copyrighted, and as such is not properly posted on Adobe's site. I have no clue about how such events could be policed. I just think the flags need to be up for a check in this area. It is not that other sites might not do it, but I thought that Adobe was paranoid about legal issues with the whole aspect of embedding fonts.

>The only way I see around adobe's ability to steal, as they claim they can, is to just post a link only.

David:

That is my feeling too because the only "Content" that you have then posted on Adobe's web sites is a line of html text.

But the fact that people will now have the ability to post their images directly on Adobe's New Forum Sites is a trap for the unwary and holds the potential for all sorts of legal consequences involving Model and Property Releases if the "User's Content" is misappropriated for Advertising or other Commercial Purposes.

This is no small matter and Adobe Systems Inc. needs to think very seriously about what they are doing.

All,

Keep on protesting directly to Adobe. They had to roll back similarly onerous terms shortly after they launched their online editing web site, Photoshop.com, in the face of outraged protests.

If similar pressure is applied this time too, they will have to modify the TOU like they did at Photoshop.com.

Adobe is powerful, but not almighty.

The only way I see around adobe's ability to steal, as they claim they can, is to just post a link only. Adobe claiming all rights like that cannot be legal just because they print it and say so for admission to the club. I don't see any poster willing to share under those terms.

I would think that to professionals, who are most affected by these license terms, it might be a good idea to consult with a lawyer and get an answer once and for all.

these kinds of terms are far from "rare" on the internet these days. most of us treat them as the "price you gotta pay" to play, but if it's your lively hood, or if it were mine, i might want to know for sure rather than banter it about on a forum, or rely on the party setting the legal terms to "clear it up" by saying 'we have to say this to do that. even though it SAYS this, we'd NEVER DO that...'. if you know what i mean.

Ozpeter, "So is the photography forum dead or grasping for its last breath?" #38, 21 Mar 2009 5:08 pm is also relevant.

I think this information should be posted loud and clear.