Deeply concerned over new terms of service agreement

[ckuehne]

I was seeing that people were launching Photoshop and seeing an agreement they had to accept in order to launch it, and it sounded like anything at all being created or altered in Photoshop could be used by Adobe in any way they want. I did not see this same thing pop-up in After Effects, this morning. Does anyone know if this is being planned for After Effects as well? My concern is that clients will not allow me to use After Effects, at all, if any footage I use in it is being sent to Adobe to be used however they like.

[Rick Gerard]

The terms of service are published on the Adobe site. They only require that they can look at your work to help diagnose and solve problems with the software. There is no claim on copyright. Most of the terms of service explain that the software is licensed, not owned. 

[Donka]

"

4.2 Licenses to Your Content. Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free sublicensable, license, to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, create derivative works based on, publicly perform, and translate the Content. For example, we may sublicense our right to the Content to our service providers or to other users to allow the Services and Software to operate as intended, such as enabling you to share photos with others. Separately, section 4.6

(Feedback) below covers any Feedback that you provide to us."

 "reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, create derivative works based on, publicly perform",

Rick tell me, how do you get that to

"They only require that they can look at your work to help diagnose and solve problems with the software."

[Shebbe]

No copyright but they do claim to have the right to use any "content" that the user uses to review it's contents for potential legal issues, use it for product improvements (like AI models?) and even look at it manual, i.e. a real person. This is indeed highly concerning in my books and I've also forwarded this to my supervisors to see if this raises giant red flags on their or their clients end when it comes to privacy and security.

[Donka]

I agree, it is also obfuscated on their part, by fault to make it seam softer than it is.

This is a huge liability for photohournalists as well.

And "Most of the terms of service explain that the software is licensed, not owned. " is the worst freaking answere ever, oh ok, I'll guess its ok treat people terrible if you just state it.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

"Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software" and "For example, we may sublicense our right to the Content to our service providers or to other users to allow the Services and Software to operate as intended, such as enabling you to share photos with others" means in order for Adobe to produce thumbnails, previews, allow users to share work via online services they need permission to do so.

[Donka]

"you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free sublicensable, license, to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, create derivative works based on, publicly perform, and translate the Content."
And also at the same time giving them the rights to the above? But that you just skipped?

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

How do you expect them to produce a thumbnail, translate shared content in different languages, or preform any basic file sharing service without you granting these rights?

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Donka 

1. to use - AKA host on our cloud

2. reproduce - store your file in a directory

3. publicly display - thumbnails

4. distribute - share

5. modify - allow you to edit names, etc in the stored service

6. create derivative works based on - download and produce different size files and file formats (export as jpg etc)

7. publicly perform - (legal definition) to make publicly available via wireless service

8. Translate the Content - could be derived as actual translation or translating the file to a stored file format

[Donka]

I know Kevin, but they don't limit it enough, thats my problem, I know that you are fine with all of the above, I am not.

And your interpetation of the content is in the best of worlds.

The most problematic part beeing that humans "may" watch my content.

[Marilyn38070203qep8]

Is it that I have paid hundreds of dollars to buy pictures and hundreds more in Adobe's subscription just to have my work forceably taken and distributed globally? Is this the thanks I get for refusing other options? Is it that my work (books) can no longer be original?  So after years of work, any Tom,  Sally or AI, can access my work without my consent! Is this what I am paying for? You cannot change the rules of the game in the middle of the game. If they want to implement this new rule or policy why not do it to new customers? Why punish loyal customers? So what is the use of my copyright if they are claiming they have rights over my work to do whatever they want with it? Is it that I am paying to be taken advantage of? 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Marilyn38070203qep8 you clearly have not read this thread at all. None of what you said is accurate.

[Tommy37062731m4r9]

You are special, aren't you?

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Clarification from Adobe: https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use

[Donka]

so the clarification is that they may, hurray, it is still terrible.

[K.O.KYLE]

* off Kevin.
Everyone responding to you is way to polite. People should be outraged by this.

You force us to sign new terms so we can continue working on our current projects and continue to make a living. Most contracts are a negotiation. These Terms state that you will have irrevocable licence to my content for pretty much any purpose you choose.

This could screw customers. I already think Adobe software is overpriced and now you think its fine to steel my work? This is another way to make money off of your customer base and this could * some of us over if you abuse this clause (4.2).
Don't tell me everything is fine and to just trust you(adobe). I don't.

I think you overstepping. I guess I will pirate Adobe for use on my current and my old projects and I will move to Resolve and if you have an issue with me pirating your software... you can go * yourself. You not paying me to re-edit my old projects and in my opinion, I have the right to access my old work espessially when your Terms forced my hand.

NOTE: I can spell the * word but the forum doesn't allow me to use it because I might hurt someones feelings. You(adobe) think swearing is inappropriate and that people should be able to express themselves without using swear words. I could do this but right now I feel swearing is an appropriate way to express my outrage at these changes in the terms. Besides you are an adult Kevin so if this hurts your feelings... Guess what... I dont give a *. 

* swearing removed by moderator 

[ace_cleg]

I have heard MANY people say their going back to pirating Adobe until they find work arounds. This is what happens when you allow a company to become a monoply! Like Figma they should never have allowed them to buy Macromedia in the first place, they soon phased everything out to enure their monoply. Its just worrying when you pay all this money as in your words, "They don't fuucking care!" ...

[Keith Wing]

This does not seem clear and rather vague. They need to make it crystal clear that they do not and cannot view or see content that is kept locally on your machine. We have extremely private financial and medical information that we open and edit in Adobe software. Not only would it be criminal to share this information publicly, but it would also open our company and numerous partner companies to civil liability. These documents are obviously never uploaded to Adobe and are kept locally.

[Marhie-Marhie Photography]

How is a "Blog Post" Clarification of anything. Completely non binding!

[dbeattie-rcb]

Yes, everyone should be outraged at this situation and look for alternative software. QuarkXPress for layout, Affinty products as needed, plus numerous others.  We are looking for other apps now and will be cancelling all our licenses unless the Terms of Service are corrected and replaced with new agreements.

That being said, the 'experts' here are not usually Adobe employees and do not deserve the rage directed at them (unless they are vigorously defending Adobe or are completely clueless as to the ramifications of this TOS requirement).

[Donka]

Totally agree! But I don't get why all these adobe warriors come in and try to explain something thats totally nonsense!

this is hust a small part of adobes lack of privacy and integrity for their clients. They don't care at all and have never.

i would suggest everyone to have a look at all the processes going on in the background or processes contacting servers, its insane. There is no software that I ever used in my life that have such a non explainable activity.

Can't wait for affinitys own DAM software.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Everyone please read this update from Scott Belsky. More to come. Adobe is listening.

https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/10/updating-adobes-terms-of-use

[Donka]

Adobe is not listening, they just realised that they are loosing customers.

Adobe does what ever makes them money, and now they are trying to cover up their crappy mistake.

If they are so listening, why not change the agreement, totally.

The part where some random person might watch my images in some check of content, is still discusting and dangerous.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Hopefully we will have clarity and calming of nerves in a few days.

[Donka]

Lets hope Adobe get their crap together instead and do whats right. Instead of calming of nerves, calming of their greed and control.