then they should limit their terms to that instead of making it vauge which allows them legally to do much much more   ... View more

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. ... View more

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

  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.     ... View more

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

1. Good point, are you? He references another video from a law channel: This one: [link removed as per forum guidelines] 2. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY ARE NEW TERMS, people have found out about them recently and are pointing it out now. If a murder happened a few years ago and people just found out about it, doesnt mean its okay to say "this murder isnt new" Its new to them and they are bringing it up because they are your customers and they have issues with it. 3. Follow up posts are not legally binding and no they said they are not training Firefly AI, They didnt mention any other AI they are working on in the background. Again they have a license to all of your work to improve their services. AI is part of their services. And just because they clarify they are not doing that, doenst mean they WONT do it in the future. 4. License needs to be able to do that, I agree, then the should update their actual terms to be less broad and specifically targeted torwards that instead of what they currently have which allows them to use it broadly on any of their services. ... View more

then update the terms to be less broad and cover that specifically. The clarification document does not do that and is not legally binding.   ... View more

yeah that doesnt clarify anything I said.  Also that is a clarification document not an update to the actual binding legal document. If you read my original comment, I made reference to their "clarification". If you don't like to read, here is a suplimental video that brings up many of the same points and problems with the "clarification" link you provided: [link removed by moderator - see guidelines on posting misleading information]   ... View more

<sigh> if only people were as outraged at meta, google, apple, microsoft, etc etc etc...then we might get somewhere.   @dave12345645Do you use Chrome? That's something to worry about. By @D Fosse   You must have missed the news, people are outraged at them... There have many many recent mass cancelations, Microsoft and Unity specifically. And how is that an argument to say "these guys are evil so we can be evil too?" And to answer your question, No I don't use Chrome. Only time I do is when I am using a VM running it to test code.  and again, just because one company is worse, doesnt mean that you shouldnt pay attention to companies that are "slightly worse"   ... View more

people make an uproar because they are bad terms. Its not the fact that they "just changed" or that it "just happened", They just happened to notice it now.  They have been bad, and when certain people finally notice they are bad, then they speak up about it, as they should. Just because he finally noticed and made a video about it doesnt mean that his points in that video are wrong. You are a "legend" rank on this forum, We get it, you like adobe and will fight for them, that doesnt mean the points are wrong. especially from a legal perspective. It just means people are finally taking notice and redressing their grievences. Get used to it, not everybody loves adobe and trusts them. ... View more

short answer, no its not safe. good video discussing the problems with their "clarifications" [link removed by moderator - see guidelines on posting misleading information] ... View more

Adobe owns Adobe Stock where they sell stock photos.Thats part of the services they provide. They state they own a prepetual license to any of your work for their services. There is nothing legally stopping them from selling your photos as stock photos. Their clarification is that they don't "own your photos", Thats true but they have a license, and a license means they can sell it or use it. You can say "trust us" they dont plan on doing that, but that means absoutely nothing when it comes from Adobe or any company for that matter. What matters in the terms is the terms, not their intent right now. The road to heck is paved with good intentions. ... View more

nothing changed, sure, People are not upset over the "change" they are upset with the Terms in general. They just finally found out how terrible they are.  Adobe's "clarrifications" don't help. Instead of saying yes our stuff is oveerreaching and we will fix it, they make a suplimental non legal binding document saying "trust us bro". This video sums it up pretty clearly [link removed by moderator - see guidelines on posting misleading information] ... View more

Yes they replied and issued "clarifications" but didnt actually address the main issues or fixed the problem. This video sums it up pretty well: [link removed by moderator - see guidelines on posting misleading information]   ... View more