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.

[Lumigraphics]

Actually I'm a working pro photographer and Adobe customer who relies on their products to do my job, and I generally am VERY critical of Adobe. I think they are doing a lot of things wrong. This particular "issue" isn't what you claim it is and no amount of raging will change that. Your analysis is way way off..

[dave12345645]

What part of the analysis is off? what thing did I say is wrong and that they cant do?

[Jose379212392gaz]

What part of the analysis is off? what thing did I say is wrong and that they cant do?

By dave12345645

Nothing. Every argument for Adobe so far has been. "Trust me they won't", or "You're making a mountain out of a molehill" except throughout history if you give people the power they will use it. 

[jane-e]

Every argument for Adobe so far has been. "Trust me they won't", or "You're making a mountain out of a molehill"  

By Jose379212392gaz

This is false information. Only you and plottingpixels said either of those.

DFosse, Kevin, Sameer, and Davescm have all posted links to official Adobe pages. Consider reading what the links actually say.

Jane

[dave12345645]

Every argument for Adobe so far has been. "Trust me they won't", or "You're making a mountain out of a molehill"  

By Jose379212392gaz

This is false information. Only you and plottingpixels said either of those.

DFosse, Kevin, Sameer, and Davescm have all posted links to official Adobe pages. Consider reading what the links actually say.

Jane

By jane-e

attached are a couple screenshots showing that it is not false information, you saying only me and that guy said either of those, but here they are.

the link I posted was a video breaking down what the "clarification" said and bringing up other questions and concerns with it, the fact that it was removed as "misinformation" is a joke. This is the type of censorship a lot of people ironically worry about when it comes to the terms and conditions. Then you follow it up by saying what people said in this thread is no true without specifiying how its not true. Then you say that nobody else said the equvilance of "your making a moutain out of a molehill" when I provide several screenshots showing otherwise.

So here is your chance, tell me that they cant sell my photos on adobe stock and show me where in the terms or clarification document that it prevents them from doing so. Remember Adobe Stock is one of their services they provide.

[dave12345645]

Also hopefully you dont consider Tony and Chelsea Northup to be a "misinformation source":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEbgh-q7RCc

[davescm]

As soon as he started talking about people not being able to use Photoshop for NDA work it became misleading. Read the content analysis FAQ  https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html  in particular the sections on how to opt out  opt out and how to avoid tools that upload your images. Remember, you choose whether or not to use generative fill, you also choose in preferences whether to use local, or cloud, selection and removal functions.

Dave

[dave12345645]

the link you are providing is not legally part of the terms and conditions. It does not matter what it says from a legal perspective. Also they say they dont do these things, that might be true right now, but its about what they legally CAN do.

"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"

Adobe Stock is one of their services. They have a license to use your work (NDA or not) for their adobe stock service. Show me where it does not allow them to do that? That alones violates NDAs which means you automatically labeling anything that mentions NDA violations as misleading is actually false and misleading it its own right. Show me how that part does not have a potential to violate NDAs or how its not possible for them to do that legally. Not that they wouldnt do that, but that they CANT do that legally.

Also: "When Adobe applications and services may access content
1. Access is needed for Adobe applications and services to perform the functions they are designed and used for (such as opening and editing files for the user or creating thumbnails or a preview for sharing)."

Not just uploaded files, show me how this is not an NDA violation.

Boudoir photographers or anyone taking photos of their significant other better not create or open files using photoshop. Privacy be gone.

[jane-e]

Every argument for Adobe so far has been. "Trust me they won't", or "You're making a mountain out of a molehill"  

By Jose379212392gaz

This is false information. Only you and plottingpixels said either of those.

DFosse, Kevin, Sameer, and Davescm have all posted links to official Adobe pages. Consider reading what the links actually say.

Jane

attached are a couple screenshots showing that it is not false information,

By dave12345645

I don't even know how to begin to reply to you, Plotting. Are you agreeing with José that every reply has been one of those two statements? Because that is most definitely false and that's all I was saying. I did a search for the words he quoted and they were never said by any Community Experts who volunteers on this forum and I thought (originally) that we were trying to help. That does not appear to be the case.

I will not post on this thread again. Goodbye.

Jane

[Marcello M]

That's a large part of the problem. The "clarification" does not address the issue.  It's little more than a PR attempt. I will gladly listen to an Adobe spokesperson or one of their defenders who actually addresses the issues of concern. I'm listening. 

[Jim335634165owl]

I've seen that video even though you've chosen to remove it from this thread. I totally agree. If Adobe does not change or completely answers all the questions, i'll be forced to cancel my subscription and use Luminar and other products.  I've been using Adobe products for as long as Adobe have been in business. I hate to change but I do not now want anyone, human, AI or otherwise to use any part of my files for ANY purpose.

[jane-e]

I heard last night from an employee of one of the globe's largest games producers...

By TMTI user 1

This is vague hearsay unless you provide details. 

• Who was the employee?
• Which game producer do they work for?
• How did they purportedly obtain this "information" from Adobe? 

Jane

[TMTI user 1]

Your attack on my honesty is unwarranted and beneath the current level of this discussion, if I was lying I would have concocted a 'Team manager who has shut down multiple accounts' or 'the tech Director of an agency who has cancelled their account'. Certainly something more impactful than one employee - please, if you cannot treat me as honest person, at least give me some credit for understanding drama.

At no point in this discussion have I referred to anyone in a demeaning or derogatory manner.

Clearly I cannot reveal the details of an employee of another company, thus putting their position at risk - and neither should you want me to! The incident was referred to, to illustrate that this situation is having exactly the affect that is at the core of the discussion and if Adobe doesn't want it to spread they should have been clearer and more transparent - particularly as a company pushing AI into everything.

[SamuelAmar]

Heya, quick information check. Those it means that NDA works stocked on the Adobe Creative Clouds will be scrutinize. (Professionnal Artist working in the game industry) Honestly huge bummer as this was one if not my favorite feature from adobe.
Thanks

[davescm]

Just store NDA work on your own system(s). Problem solved.

Dave

[SamuelAmar]

Thanks for the clarification @davescm  ! Man I wish I could do that, but 90% of my files are NDA project. Plus like I said I loved the automatic history state and I move between work station a lot so their cloud service was my main attract to Photoshop. Do you think it's possible to ask for refunding my yearly suscription in that case ?

I know it's a bummer because there is a lot of misinformation, but I feel like my specific use of adobe service is the main one being touched 😔

[davescm]

I am not an Adobe employee so cannot comment on your subscription.

Before you do though, take a look at any other file transfer services you may be using (or may switch to as an alternative). They will almost certainly contain similar terms of service to prevent unlawful and unacceptable use of those services. 

Dave

[SamuelAmar]

Yeah? Even stuff like Dropbox? I know some of my clients use that for filesharing but maybe they don't care about being uncautious, I'll ask them? Or I could look onto a private server, but I'm such a beginner tech wise ahah.
Thanks for the tips.
Have a good one mate

[kirlybalding]

I wish I could feel confident that the original terms were just a "misunderstanding". More likely it was a testing of the waters to see if they could get away with it. I am deeply unnerved and unsatisified by their reassurances. I am actively looking for software alternatives. 

[Thomas240496677fvk]

Subscription cancelled.

That might not mean much. But, lets say Adobe has some 25M users to get that 13B cloud revenue. Almost 1M artists has started cara accounts in a bit over a week due to Meta's decision to use everything on Instagram to train its AI. That many cancelling near term is a 2-3% hit on their quarterly growth. Might not mean that much. But let's say this goes on for a few months. A few times that and Adobe's growth grinds to a total halt and that share price will plummet. Creative cloud might be a cash cow, but with their cost base, that's gonna suck.

So, if you don't like this, only one option. Make them feel it.

[TMTI user 1]

Facebook killed trust in tech, I have zero trust in any corp. Adobe included and this isn't helping, I've been using PS since the late 90's and it's almost part of me - to lose all that training and experience would really hit me. But the clarifications don't clarify anything in the slightest - if anything it just makes things worse!

I understand the online services, but the clarification just blows smoke around Adobe's snooping around locally stored data. For real people all we need is a clear 'Yes/No' if you give us politician replies it's because the answer is the one we don't want - so we get smoke.

Give us access to a safe version that has all the AI doilies removed and a clear statement that NDA protected work won't be reviewed so NDA users can give clients a definitive "Your work is safe with me" as we are staking our professional futures on this.

In that conversation with clients, we would have to reveal that "Well, a large US corporation based in a country with a copyright system stacked in favour of the home team, will be accessing my work daily to process the content. But they have alluded in legaleese that they won't, despite saying in a clarification that they will.". How many clients will sit comfortably for that?

I take the comments in regard to all online storage services checking users content, but those companies don't state that they will also process all material 'created with the services or software' that is a horrifically wide brush for such a vital point of legal order. All the biggest agencies, creative departments as well as independent users use PS and when word of this debacle spreads what will their legal departments suggest? Do we all go back to GIMP? Is it a massive payday for Infinity and other competitors?

[davescm]

'....just blows smoke around Adobe's snooping around locally stored data.'

Please stop such misleading statements and read Adobes direct statements. To quote from here  : https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html

'We don't analyze content processed or stored locally on your device.'  How clear a statement do you want?

Dave

[Jose379212392gaz]

We don't and we can't are completely different things, also the clarification document is not a legally binding document. Tell them to put their money where their mouth is and put it in the actual terms that people agree to. I'll wait.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAT7LICq3og

[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