I would think that to professionals, who are most affected by these license terms, it might be a good idea to consult with a lawyer and get an answer once and for all.
these kinds of terms are far from "rare" on the internet these days. most of us treat them as the "price you gotta pay" to play, but if it's your lively hood, or if it were mine, i might want to know for sure rather than banter it about on a forum, or rely on the party setting the legal terms to "clear it up" by saying 'we have to say this to do that. even though it SAYS this, we'd NEVER DO that...'. if you know what i mean.
The only way I see around adobe's ability to steal, as they claim they can, is to just post a link only. Adobe claiming all rights like that cannot be legal just because they print it and say so for admission to the club. I don't see any poster willing to share under those terms.
>The only way I see around adobe's ability to steal, as they claim they can, is to just post a link only.
That is my feeling too because the only "Content" that you have then posted on Adobe's web sites is a line of html text.
But the fact that people will now have the ability to post their images directly on Adobe's New Forum Sites is a trap for the unwary and holds the potential for all sorts of legal consequences involving Model and Property Releases if the "User's Content" is misappropriated for Advertising or other Commercial Purposes.
This is no small matter and Adobe Systems Inc. needs to think very seriously about what they are doing.
It is also an issue if the posted graphic is from a copyrighted site. There are many copyrighted photos out there that folks could post with the include from a web site. That raises a big legal question to me since the poster did not even have the right to post the graphic, but the new editor allows for links to a URL site.
I think that posting graphics is not a bad idea, but am concerned about the copyright issues and such, even if owned by the poster. It would be easy for Adobe to be in a bind only because a user links to a photo on another site that is copyrighted, and as such is not properly posted on Adobe's site. I have no clue about how such events could be policed. I just think the flags need to be up for a check in this area. It is not that other sites might not do it, but I thought that Adobe was paranoid about legal issues with the whole aspect of embedding fonts.
BTW, don't limit your concerns by thinking this applies only to images and photography.
Some time ago, I posted a link to a page on my site that includes - with permission - a script copyrighted by somebody else. I am in no position to grant rights to Adobe or anybody else to that content.
I will be moving some things around on my site tonight.
The thing that needs to be defined is whether Adobe's "grab" applies only to "Content" posted directly onto an Adobe web site; or whether Adobe is also trying to lay claim to any or all material on distant web sites (that are not their property!) to which Links have been posted on Adobe's Sites.
I very much doubt that Adobe are planning to do that; and I am perfectly certain that they would face lawsuits for theft if they even attempted it; but this point does need clarification and an unambiguous statement of their position and Intent.
When the "posted content" is merely a line of html text, that should surely be the only "Content" that they are entitled to publish?
And if that line of html text is no longer a Live Link , what good does that do them anyway?
Yes, I agree with all you've just said. In fact, in my case, the chance that Adobe would even want to use that ancient script I mentioned is so remote as to be laughable.
But it is not my script and he gave me permission to use it under certain conditions. That is not a laughing matter to me. As I interpret Adobe's TOU, those conditions may no longer be satisfied. I had do the responsible thing and make changes so those conditions could be met again.
It is a vague point we're discussing here, but all legaleze is written intentionally to be vague to the layman. It is written by lawyers for lawyers.
and again, just because an eula or tou SAYS they "own" something, doesn't make it fact. ianal but i know that much.
> I am perfectly certain that they would face lawsuits for theft
you'd be perfectly wrong. worst is they'd face lawsuits based on copyright or trademark infringement stuff. theft involves actual goods - no matter what, how loud or how many times the the big money tells you "copying is theft".
This is a good reason not to even provide in private or even a link:
This is a catch all for 8.a.
" b.ii. When Your Content is Made Available through Services that are intended for private communication or which allow you to limit public access to Your Content and you do in fact limit public access."
In the case of Your Content covered by Section 8(b)(ii), you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, publish and translate Your Content solely for the purpose of enabling your use of the Service. You may revoke this license and terminate Adobes rights at any time by removing Your Content from the Service.
So even in private communications, used in their forums, they get value. Thus your remark about a simple link to someones website falls under this web.
Sorry for beating a dead horse. Adobe can't be this hard up for material.
I don't believe it matters one bit what WE think. What is needed is a definitive statement by someone who speaks 'legalize". Better yet, let Adobe put the TOS into language that mere mortals can understand with an official statement from that same legal department.
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 was about and I suspect John Cornicello will arrange for similar clarification here.
In a nutshell, the key words in this "license" are
for the purpose of enabling your use of the Service. Adobe claims no ownership of end users' content or any rights beyond those necessary to show the web page with the messages and content that
you have posted. If you don't provide those rights to Adobe, it cannot legally display the page at all! It is unfortunate that these "great legal minds" cannot, at least on the first pass, provide wording that doesn't evoke all sorts of conspiracy theories such as those opined in this thread.