Protecting our Copyright from being Misappropriated.

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

Before anyone posts ANY image in the New Forums, it is essential that they re-read Adobe's TOS and particularly the wording (and implications) of Clause 8.

Adobe has given themselves the power to purloin any "Content" posted or displayed on their web sites (meaning our original art and photographs) for ANY purpose, anywhere, and in perpetuity

Adobe's Legal Department need to address this matter with some urgency because the risk of loss of Artists' Rights is already damaging participation in some Forums severely:

The Photography Forum is one example as shown in these threads:

http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b85627/

Wade Zimmerman, "So is the photography forum dead or grasping for its last breath?" #, 19 Mar 2009 1...

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

>nobody reads post #3.

But that would just be that particular lawyer's "opinion" of what Adobe's TOS might mean.

As far as I am concerned, I believe that we need to have a clear Statement in the TOS from Adobe that sets Limits so that User's Content can ONLY be stored on Adobe's Servers and disseminated in connection with the Forum or web site on which it was posted.

It should also state that Adobe will NOT convert such material for other purposes or reproduction without written permission of the Copyright holder.

[John_Cornicello_Photo]

Working on it. Legal departments are not always the fastest operations (for many good reasons) to get a response from.

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

John:

Excellent.

I think that it is extremely important for both sides to be absolutely clear as to what rights are being granted and also what rights are protected.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda]

Dov,
>A similar brouhaha erupted last year over similar TOS on the photoshop.com website. Ultimately, Adobe Legal added wording to clear up what the whole issue

That's what I keep saying. Glad to hear it confirmed by THE Bear. ;)

Thanks. :)

[Guest]

Learning has occurred.

We shall see on the final wording.

I recommend the OP receive a free "Let those who ride decide" bumper sticker.

[Dirck]

The issue was first raised by Mark Boyd in the preview area of the new forum.

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

Really?.

Purely in the interests of accuracy; and not because it really matters a damn who first raised the issue as long as Adobe corrects the situation:

http://adobeforums.adobe.com/message/1616081#1616081
Ann Shelbourne:
Mar 16, 2009 9:09 PM
>The inability to use Pixentral will finish the Photography Forums no photographer is going to risk losing copyright to Adobe by posting directly into these Forums and the permitted image size is too small here for serious discussions about Photography anyway.

-----------
http://adobeforums.adobe.com/message/1616096#1616096
John Cornicello:
>Please give me the lines in the User Agreement you are questioning and I will follow up with Legal on that.

--------------
http://adobeforums.adobe.com/message/1616107#1616107
Ann Shelbourne:
Mar 16, 2009 9:49 PM in response to: John Cornicello
Re: Go to Jive's own forum. What do you like and dislike?
This paragraph in the Terms of Use is one of the ones that should definitely concern Photographers:

8. Use of Your Content.

----------------
http://adobeforums.adobe.com/message/1616516#1616516
Mar 18, 2009 5:00 AM
Mark Boyd:
>I am really curious. Have you just granted Adobe "a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display Your Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate Your Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed." as per section 8a of the Terms of Use?

[Dirck]

Aha! The jury will disregard my comments...

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

Fair enough!

And it really doesn't matter who said what first because the subject has had a thorough airing and it seems that Adobe will now provide the clarification which is so important to us all.

:)

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

Adobe would do well to model their revised TOS on the one used here:
http://www.dpreview.com/misc/copyright.asp

DPR's terms are clearly stated and differentiate between articles and illustrations/photographs which are posted by DPR themselves (in their articles and product reviews); and the material that is posted by participants in their Discussion Forums.

The property of each group is covered, and protected, separately.

>All text, design, layout and graphics* (unless otherwise noted and excluding messages posted on the discussion forum) on this website are (c)1998-2009 Digital Photography Review a website owned by dpreview.com Limited.

DPR's terms seem to me to be eminently fair to both sides and I would be interested in the re-actions of other professional Artists and Photographers who contribute to the Adobe Forums.

John might like to draw the attention of Adobe's Legal Department to the DPR Terms.

[D__McCahill]

The legal beagles could come up with something along the lines of "Copyright of images posted within discussions remains with the creator, but posting of images within discussions will be considered implied consent from the copyright owner for Adobe to make use of said image in any forum-related manner it chooses.

Does that seem to cover it, Ann?

Edit: Thinking about it, one would really want to extend that from images to the text part of messages as well. With the exception of short one liners, text messages, tips, etc., should be covered by copyright just as much as the images are.

[PJonesCET]

The Internet is not covered under copyright.

To prove it type your name - example James T Kirk - into Google. I know my niece at college, being bored one day, typed my name in. There were pages and pages of links. The only way is be on a secure server (newsgroup- secnews) or on a system that is authenticated. I don't know if the webx or even the new system qualifies as authenticated or not.

Anything you say or do on the internet, once published on the internet, is in the public Domain period.

The only way images can be prevented from being copyied is to set website so that they can't be copied once uploaded even by adobe corporate.

I could go to any site Not setup correctly and drop an image on to my desktop. I don't do it, because I believe that is stealing. I have some ethics.

[Bob_Peters]

PjonesCET wrote:
>Anything you say or do on the internet, once published on the internet, is in the public Domain period.

I think that is utter nonsense. Sorry, but I don't know any other way to phrase my comment.

[Guest]

Don't you go correcting our Pj Bob.

He knows stuff! ;)

[PJonesCET]

Bob type you your name in to Google, or Yahoo see what comes up. You'll be surprised. Once published on the internet its in public domain.

[Guest]

>The Internet is not covered under copyright.

that is so far from correct, it's a different animal.

>Anything you say or do on the internet, once published on the internet, is in the public Domain period.

wrong! wrong! wrong! omg!

>The only way images can be prevented from being copyied is to set website so that they can't be copied once uploaded even by adobe corporate.

IMPOSSIBLE! how many wrong statements can you make in one post?!!

>I could go to any site Not setup correctly and drop an image on to my desktop. I don't do it, because I believe that is stealing. I have some ethics.

here's a scary thing. did you know that as soon as you visit a website containing any images, THEY'RE ALREADY ON YOUR COMPUTER?!! OMG! YOU THIEF! read up on browser cache and stop posting when you have nothing to say but rubbish!

[Guest]

(omg! did he really post that?!!)

!!!!

[PJonesCET]

Not I'm not stealing the images because I am only viewing them.

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

PJones:

I suggest that you go to this Link:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

Download the Copyright Act and READ it (right through!) before posting anything else on this subject.

8/

[_Phos_four_dots_]

wow.

Just when I thought I'd seen it all, an even deeper and darker realm in nadirland opens its gaping maw.

just. plain. wow.

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

>Why these people simply just don't get an expert opinion from a qualified legal begal >

They don't need to because Adobe's current TOS, while perfectly easy to comprehend by any normally intelligent person (without benefit of "legal opinion"!), is unconscionable.

If you were a professional Artist, Author or Photographer, and your livelihood depended on income derived from your Copyrighted work, you would understand why the prompt resolution of this matter is of the utmost importance especially because people will shortly be able to post images directly onto Adobe's Servers (via these Forums) and, by doing so, will unwittingly give away ALL "Rights of Usage" of their creative work for all time without monetary compensation.

Now do you understand?

[_Paz_]

>Before anyone posts ANY image in the New Forums

Hasn't this been in Adobe's TOS for quite some time? Are you saying Adobe's 'Right to Purloin in Perpetuity' as per a user agreeing to Adobe's agreement is only in the NEW forums?

Paz

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

We do not post images directly into the current Forums we are only posting html Links to third-party or private servers; and woe betide Adobe if they try to raid those to harvest "Content" for their own use!

But now we have a different scenario because people will have the ability to post images directly into the New Forums so their actual images will be stored on Adobe's own Servers which is when the true evil of Clause 8 of the present TOS takes hold.

[_Paz_]

I see. Thank you for the clarification.

Paz

[Bill12]

Even linking copyrighted photos into a page is on the edge of an infringement of the copyright law as I have read in the past for web page development. I had several photos I wanted to use for a page one time (by link) and did not use them since I could not get the permissions.