Photoshop CS4 vs. CS4 Extended Student Edition

[_Mika_Bar-Chaim_]

I have Photoshop CS2, and it's incompatible with Vista on my laptop. At this point I'm going to buy some version of Photoshop CS4. So here are my questions:

- What's the difference between Photoshop CS4 and Photoshop CS4 Extended? The extended version Student Edition is significantly cheaper.
- Should I just buy the regular Photoshop CS4 Upgrade or is the student/education edition of Photoshop CS4 cheaper?

At this point it's a matter of what to buy and what's the least expensive.

[Jim_or_Marion_Jordan]

>why isn't Adobe more specific about it?

Even Adobe is confused. Student licenses did not appear until CS3. This is new territory for them.

It is unlikely that any student will be prosecuted for not fully understanding a license in regard to commercial use ( or for Adobe's failure to explain their licensing more clearly). However, if anyone seeks a student or education license with the clear intent to abuse it (I'm not saying anyone in the present conversation is), they should not waste their money on a purchased, discount license. It is no better than a free pirated copy.

[Guest]

right bob. adobe.uk. if that's where the person's at then those are the terms. is she us based? then she needs to look at the US terms.

[BobLevine]

There would be zero reason for the student edition to exist if it didn't
carry any restrictions above the regular academic version.

If you want to do commercial work, then buy the academic version, not
the student version.

Bob

[Jim_or_Marion_Jordan]

>There would be zero reason for the student edition to exist if it didn't carry any restrictions above the regular academic version.

There's the worry. Why do they still offer the 'education' version? Adobe is severely confused and it does not help customers. A student customer from the US should get the licensing explained in writing. A verbal explanation on the phone from Adobe customer service or sales is useless.

The student version is actually a spin off of a volume licensing program that has been offered to educational institutions for a long time. That volume license

• prohibited resale or transfer
• limited installation to only one computer (and that had to be owned by the institution - a separate education license had to be purchased by educators to run on their own home computers)
• prohibited commercial use

[Guest]

In the absence of any clearly stated restrictions against commercial use of Adobe software puchased under any kind of discounted student or educational licensing program, I personally say "go for it".

If you have concerns about not being able to use the software for commercial reasons, certainly an inquiry to Adobe could be done, but even there you might get a wrong answer, so you should ask for specific documentation of such restrictions. In the absence of that, the burden of prosecution lies upon Adobe to pursue violations of a "no commercial use" rule and showing it was clearly stated for the product in question at the time of purchase. I suspect Adobe has a lot better ways to invest their time and money than in trying to identify an artist whose work they suspect was created using Adobe software, tracking down that person and, getting legal authorization to have an investigation performed into conclusively proving said artwork was created by Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. as opposed to other capabale digital imaging applications (Corel Draw, The GIMP, PaintShop Pro, etc.).

Zero reason for Adobe to offer such a discounted price on their software? I think not...for years we saw, and perhaps still do, Adobe software that was normally very expensive yet was greatly discounted when bundled with hardware. By the same argument of zero reason for a discounted student license, I could say the same would be true to those hardware/software bundles...but, there is good reason to offer the software at reduced prices in both cases: NEW CUSTOMER and FUTURE SALES, or at least the potential for that. Conversely, one might just opt instead for a lower-cost software package and happily stay with it for years to come.

I started using Photoshop with version 3.0 that was in a scanner bundle, and I've upgraded to nearly every version ever since. Sure, Adobe would've made even more off me if I'd paid the full price initially, but that is something I'd not have done...in fact, I even remember buying Micrografx Picture Publisher because it was inexpensive and yet pretty highly regarded at the time. After a bit of time using PS, I hated Picture Publisher, and as my experience grew, I also found my recommenations to others was to go the Adobe route. So, maybe that lower-cost investment in Photoshop paid off more in the long run for Adobe than if I'd paid full price or even a modestly higher one at the time. I think the same is true today, in Adobe offering their software at greatly reduced prices to students or anyone qualifying for a given discounted license.

I also believe that a discounted software license should come without any restrictions on commercial use, because:

1) Burden of proof is going to be more costly than the profit loss on the product in question unless pursued on a large scale, in which case the software manufacturer would (or should?) garner a strong customer backlash.

2) If a student qualifies to purchase discounted software and is talented enough to use said software to create marketable artwork, and if they can offset some of their cost of education by selling this artwork while still in school, then that's great!

3) Just because a student's education is later completed, shouldn't restrict them from commercially using software they purchased while still a student.

Regards,

Daryl

[Michael D Sullivan]

Let's think about practicalities. If, due to confusion over, or misunderstanding of, the restrictions imposed by the Student edition (assuming there are restrictions on commercial use), a user creates an image that is popular and sets up with Cafepress to sell T-shirts and such, or sells photo albums to relatives through Blurb.

Let's assume that's a commercial use that would be prohibited by the Student license but permitted by the Education license. The user makes all of $35 for the t-shirts with the image or for the photo albums. How is Adobe damaged? At most, it would seem to me, Adobe could claim that the user should pay the difference between the Student and Education license fees, since a student would have been eligible for either and chose the one over the other due to the lower price and the lack of any clearly articulated limits.

Obviously, Adobe isn't going to go after someone just because they used the Student edition license to produce something that got sold on Cafepress or Blurb. But even if the student designs something that ends up on a hot album cover or in People magazine, Adobe doesn't really have serious damages to claim, so it has no reason to pursue such cases.

My guess is that the Student Edition licensing scheme is simply a way to legitimize what schools were likely doing outside the scope of their preexisting volume licenses that were supposed to be restricted to the school's owned computers. Of course the programs made their way onto students' computers despite those restrictions. Adobe wasn't about to shut off relations with academic institutions that were its best marketing agents, who annually created huge numbers of Adobe product users. The Student Edition licensing system provided a route for legitimizing that conduct for a minimal fee.

[Michael D Sullivan]

To amplify on my last post:

My son is in the process of applying for colleges. He is interested in graphic design. We went to one school for a presentation from the graphic arts faculty about their program. It sounded absolutely fabulous. Some of the courses were, in essence, Photoshop, Advanced Photoshop, InDesign, advanced InDesign, Illustrator, Advanced Illustrator, etc. (I decided that I should enroll under my son's name.)

Adobe is a huge beneficiary of schools such as this. Its Student licensing program simply enables students to use its products while they are learning and makes them likely to be customers for life. If a student from that school won a design award and then sold the rights, there is absolutely no way Adobe would try to stop that from happening. Adobe would be delighted.

[Guest]

>There would be zero reason for the student edition to exist if it didn't carry any restrictions above the regular academic version.

why sure. i've NEVER seen microsloth deep dish discounts to near free on their software to students to make SURE that's what the student knows how to use when they enter the real world.

>If you want to do commercial work, then buy the academic version, not
the student version.

but read the eula first just to be sure you're not over paying... ;)

my guess is the STUDENT version is a special discount ONLY for students. the edu version is for everyone else associated with the schools.

but don't take my word for it. RAFO! (read and find out!)

[BobLevine]

Have you seen the new Home and Student version of MS Office? They
removed Outlook and the title bar on every application says something
along the lines of commercial use prohibited.

Bob

[Jim_or_Marion_Jordan]

>the edu version is for everyone else associated with the schools.

Actually, the student version is also available for faculty as well.

http://www.adobe.com/education/hed/promos/facultystaff_tc.html

Adobe is screwed up. Is the education license doomed? With this lack of organization, I'd be less worried about the commercial use aspect and do everything one can to get in writing that their license can be upgraded later. (Macromedia's academic licensing did not allow upgrades or commercial use. Is this where Adobe is heading?)

[D__McCahill]

> which is available for personal use only

The above statement, in JJs link, should provide the evidence we have been searching for that you CANNOT use the student versions for commercial use. Note that the link is to Adobe US, not UK.

[Guest]

Too many JJs around here!

I claim precedence! :)

[Jim_or_Marion_Jordan]

What if my personal use is commercial? 🙂 If I use Photoshop for personal reasons, am I not allowed to edit family photos and share with others?

This is still gray area until Adobe spells it out explicitly.

I'm reading the 'personal use' text as a variation from the previous restriction that an educational volume license could not be installed on personal computers. It could previously only be installed on computers owned by the institution.

The problem with this discussion is that I recall there was a time during the CS3 release where Adobe explicitly said student editions were not for commercial use. Something fell apart with the advent of CS4.

The only definitive statement may come from this K-12 student licensing FAQ for CS4 (which probably applies to the higher ed student license as well).

[Guest]

Ah, finally a "personal use only" reference, from Jim Jordan's post #30 above. So, while I'd tend to echo his comment in #34, at least there is an implication that perhaps "personal use" means "non-commercial use". But definitely more clarity is needed from Adobe, rather than using such a vague phrase more subject to interpretation than simply stating very concisely that "no commercial use is permitted"...although I still don't see how Adobe would really ever be able to effectively enforce such a restriction.

Regards,

Daryl

[KatGV]

I was considering getting my son (with student eligability) to get a student version scince it is sooo much cheaper.. could you explain the difference again ( in simpler terms) I'm not quite understanding the Commercial use? does this mean that you dont get to have ALL of the funtions or it wont let you doo certian things??

[BobLevine]

Commercial use means you can use it for paying work.

Stick with the commercial version if there's any chance that will happen.

Daryl, I agree completely with you...there's simply no way to enforce it
any more than there is to enforce the two activations for only one user.

Bob

[Guest]

It is fully functional and you can do what you like with it, but not for financial gain, either privately or in a company.

[Guest]

>any more than there is to enforce the two activations for only one user.

???

[BobLevine]

You confuse easily. How can anyone tell who's using the two activations?

Bob

[Guest]

Hi Bob,

I was also confused by your comment, but now I see what you're referring to. Yes, I too agree that whether one person is using both activations on two PCs, or two separate people are "sharing" in the use of one license, each using one of the allowed activations, that would be difficult to enforce.

As I think more about "personal" and "commercial", I realize part of my angst in wanting to see more specific and clear verbage from Adobe, is perhaps a heightened awareness resulting from an issue I was involved in not too long ago, when I gave my sister permission to use photos I'd taken at various zoos in a book she was going to publish. A season pass holder, the pass having no "fine print" to read, I'd never given any consideration to the possibility that zoos might restrict how photos taken on their premises are used. But, on normal admission tickets and a zoo website, there is a photo policy stating "personal videos and still photography" is encouraged for your enjoyment, but they "may not be used for commercial profit (i.e., financial gain)..." By the time I'd learned this, 2000 copies of the book had already been printed and were ready for sale, but this policy statement made it very clear that no such use of those photos was permissible, especially without the zoo's consent. Luckily, we learned this ahead of any sales and abated problems by an honest approach with the zoo, who subject to the payment of commercial use fees ultimately permitted the book to be sold, although only this initial printing of 2000. Beyond that, my sister will have to pursue another way to market her story, apart from using my zoo photos.

In any case, just as with the Adobe UK site, this zoo policy did not rely simply upon "personal" to convey also the commercial restrictions also applicable to their policy. Instead, they specifically included "commercial" verbage that made the policy clear. So, while Adobe US may say "personal use only" in that reference Jim cited earlier, I can't help but wonder if that is legally sufficient to also mean "no commercial (for profit) use"?

In the end, I think the important thing is that such threads as this heighten everyone's awareness of the "gotchas" to be aware of in regards to product licenses.

Daryl

[Guest]

>You confuse easily

Your english so good is not. A hard time understanding you, having, I am.

>How can anyone tell who's using the two activations?

whom? yes. but they know how many times it's been activated.

My give up.

[Guest]

>I was also confused by your comment, but now I see what you're referring to.

thanks. 🙂 glad i wasn't the only one. bob's subsequent post cleared up what he meant.

> So, while Adobe US may say "personal use only" in that reference Jim cited earlier, I can't help but wonder if that is legally sufficient to also mean "no commercial (for profit) use"?

good point.

personal use: only me. personally. if i show my images to YOU, i'm breaking contract.

personal use: use anyway i want to as long as i'm not making money, including say, flyers for my sisters hot new all girl band as long as i'm not getting paid for it.

personal use: use only on my personal computer... so anyone in my family can use it.

personal use: fine for use on a "not for profit" charity?

personal use: fine for use for salable stuff as long as i'm the only one using it, personally.

I think you've hit the nail on the head daryl.

as long as "personal use only" is vague and undefined it's essentially meaningless in the contract except as a big-scary boogey man. to enforce something like that, they're going to have to be clear, as the zoo in your example was. "No commercial use, including non-profits" might be a way to put it.

otherwise they're barking at the moon, in my non-lawyerly opinion.

[Guest]

iow, it's like the "you break it, you bought it" signs in stores.

[Guest]

or the "management takes no responsibility if you're injured riding our jet skis"...

[Guest]

ooga booga! :)