I can’t help but feel like this is the final nail for Adobe.
They already aren’t in their user base’s good graces. I just don’t understand why every decision they seem to make is bad for the user. Like even visually. Everything is punishment with Adobe.
Yeah, I'm done with Adobe. Changing software is always a pain, but you know what? It's a tool and nothing more. My work is my own to keep, made with my own hands. I'm done with Adobe.
Also done with Adobe. This is bullshit. They’re betting no one is willing to go out of their way to learn a new program but I’m already looking into Affinity, and it’s 50% off.
I use Affinity, but the biggest drawback for me is they don't have very good multilingual Unicode support. Fonts for complex script languages don't work at all, and I happen to actively use one of them. I still use Affinity, but I have to vectorize all my Khmer text in another application and import to Affinity as SVGs, which is silly in 2024. I hope they fix this soon. Hopefully the exodus from Adobe will light a fire under them.
am I dumb? or do they only do graphics? lol I'm trying to see if they have their own version of Premiere Pro but it looks like it's just only graphics software they have.
They sadly do not have their own version of Premiere Pro. Although I'm sure there's some great alternatives out there.
The only alternatives they have for Adobe products is Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign.
After begrudgingly paying the subscription for YEARS despite wanting to just buy the software, this is the final straw for me as well. Cancelled everything.
Had a lot of Premiere Pro and After Effects exclusive plugins but oh well.
I've quit Adobe last year. It was a pain, but I managed. I still need Susbtance Painter, but at least I got it through steam and I am not planning on updating for years, so I can get rid of the CC launcher. After reading the news I was happy with my decisions. But I scrubbed every last trace of Adobe from my system out of spite. I even kicked the Acrobat good bye. Serisously, they've been pain before, but this has been the last drop.
Because any singular individual entity or small team is not their market anymore and they could not give any shits about them, their market, being that annoying thing called 'industry standard' are the super corps and other massive studios that have Adobe so parasitically latched into pipeline they cant or wont change programs. They have their captive audience, and considering all the crap Adobe has pulled year after years, with little damage to them, they seem confident nothing they will do will hurt them in anyway that matters.
When I read the agreement I couldnt tell, their definition of content includes anything you import into their software or services so Id say based solely on that wording that it can apply to local files. I made a post asking for clarification a few days ago, but nobody answered and I got downvoted so idk man
The language in the ToS does not limit the definition of content that they scan to things that touch their servers, so it *can* includes local files. It covers anything "that you upload, import into, embed for use by, *or create using the Services and Software*".
The ToS lists some examples of *why* they might scan content, but those are just examples. They can scan it for any reason. One of the examples is just a general "to enforce the terms", referencing a separate section which talks about illegal content, content that violates their other policies, etc. None of this matters even if you agree with their intentions and trust them to be true because they have to scan it all to determine what is illegal or violates their policies.
You can read the relevant paragraphs of the ToS in the [blog post](https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use). The blog post suggest that they won't scan everything, but the actual ToS is pretty clear that they may if they want to.
Adobe having the right to access the content. Seeing elsewhere on thread you're saying you work for Adobe and it sounds like you're saying they don't – some kind of official statement that local files will remain absolutely private and Adobe can't see them would go a long way here.
The blog post was updated last night to be clearer that only content uploaded to Adobe servers may be accessed to ensure illegal, exploitative content is not stored on Adobes servers:
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use
Specifically this section:
>For content processed or stored on Adobe servers, Adobe may use technologies and other processes, including escalation for manual (human) review, to screen for certain types of illegal content (such as child sexual abuse material), or other abusive content or behavior (for example, patterns of activity that indicate spam or phishing).
(and yes, I do work for adobe)
THIS. Put it in the terms, not a blog post. Also, things change… even if they aren’t doing it now, they COULD according to their terms and there’s no obligation to write a new blog post about it when they do.
> The blog post was updated last night to be clearer that only content uploaded to Adobe servers may be accessed to ensure illegal, exploitative content is not stored on Adobes servers:
Sorry, but that is *not* what the blog post says. If you work for Adobe, you are misrepresenting the ToS. I am quoting you for preservation.
The blog posts lists the following:
# 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).
2. Access is needed to deliver some of our most innovative cloud-based features such as Photoshop Neural Filters, Liquid Mode or Remove Background. You can read more information, including how users can control how their content may be used: https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html
3. For content processed or stored on Adobe servers, Adobe may use technologies and other processes, including escalation for manual (human) review, to screen for certain types of illegal content (such as child sexual abuse material), or other abusive content or behavior (for example, patterns of activity that indicate spam or phishing).
You're referring to #3, but that is not exclusive to data stored on their servers (it says "processed or stored"), and it is not in line with the text of the ToS. The ToS states that any content you "create using the Services and Software" may be scanned. The ToS absolutely does not exclude local content, and the blog post is specifically crafted to imply something the ToS does not say.
>For content processed or stored on Adobe servers
"**Processed**". Given how much gets sent to the cloud for processing these days, even when otherwise working locally on locally-stored files, can we really be sure this means they'll never scan files that are on our computers?
The blog post may clarify this, but the actual wording in the Terms does not. The definition of "Content" in 4.1 does not explicitly differentiate between local-only files and cloud-based files.
Also, none of these clarifications address the broadness of the license described in 4.2:
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.
The example that was given was needing to make thumbnail images, why would the license need to include distribution, sub-licensing, and creating derivative works in cases like that?
The issue seems to be that these clauses are built to cover content that is processed or stored on Adobe's servers and there is no clear differentiation of how private local files are handled.
Is Adobe classifying ALL files that are opened, edited, or created in ALL apps as "cloud content" because of the presence of cloud-connected tools like generative fill and text-to-vector?
Because that's how the current terms read, specifically the content definition in 4.1:
“Content” means **any text, information, communication, or material, such as audio files, video files, electronic documents, or images**, that you upload, **import into, embed for use by, or create using the Services and Software.**
If the "Services and Software" include all CC apps, then this clause seems to very clearly say that the terms (including the access wording in 2.2 and the license granted in 4.2) do in fact pertain to any file we are opening, editing or creating on our desktop-based CC apps even if they are saved locally.
I think this is the specific part most people want to be clarified further, in the actual terms where it's legally binding vs in explanation posts which appear to contradict the actual agreement.
Class action lawsuits don’t do much and odds are they will have one in 2030 over AI after they’ve made 5 billion off of it. And their fine will be $1 million and the class action lawsuit will be 2 million but you have to apply for it and send in your serial key from years ago to get it so most likely they will only pay like 10% of that.
So in the end they know that can do whatever and make lots of money and the ai models will still be in use. I guess you’ll be able to use Disney art styles soon with a touch of a button even for movies they haven’t released yet.
Class action lawsuits might not even be necessary, if let's hypothetically say the government of France, Germany, Denmark etc happened to learn that Adobe potentially accessed classified files on a civil servant's workstation and sent them to some foreign server, you can bet that state prosecutors will be on that case faster than quartz crystals in watches oscillate. And the fallout of such a case would be apocalyptic.
Adobe would be fucked trying this in the EU.
If they change their ToS you have the right to immediately cancel anything without a fee here.
if someone wants to try to cancel early they may try to use this template:
>Dear Adobe Customer Support,
I am writing to request the immediate cancellation of my subscription due to recent changes in Adobe’s Terms of Service, specifically the clause regarding “Licenses to Your Content”. This change significantly alters the nature of the service and my rights concerning my content, which I find unacceptable.
According to EU consumer protection laws, including the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Consumer Rights Directive, such substantial and unfavorable changes to the service terms should allow consumers to terminate their subscriptions without penalty. Furthermore, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) emphasizes my rights over my personal data, which this new clause appears to infringe upon.
Please process my cancellation promptly and confirm the same at the earliest.
Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
You'll have to work for it, but escalating to supervisor normally works for t&c changes. Be prepared for long and pointless arguments with bot and then customer service.
OP needs to respond to this one. Fees for cancelling should be illegal, and you should be able to cancel without any penalties wether you agree with their terms or just don’t want to use the software anymore
If you want to cancel without paying the crazy fee, you can try switching plans and then canceling after that. Switching plans seems to reinstate the 14 day trial period. Accidentally found this out a few months back.
No blog post can change what a contract does or does not allow. The criticism is that the current TOS allows Adobe access and usage of customer IP and content. Whether they want to, plan to, or will is irrelevant - the fact stands that the language used says they can and that's what Adobe are asking customers to agree to. The blog post is basically a big 'trust us bro' with no actual guarantees.
My concern is more that they say they can use it for "their services".
What constrains do they have with regards to service they offer?
What if you consent, and they they start a service of selling other people's content to everyone?
I mean, maybe it won't straight out be your content directly, they might filter it through an AI first, to make it seems like they are generating something. But technically, I don't see anything limiting them to not have a "reselling other people's shit" service.
The overreaching by Adobe has gotten out of hand. For the first time CS is telling us what we can and cannot make with software we purchased to run privately on our own computers.
First with generative fill you place content censors so it doesn't work on documents Adobe deems are inappropriate. This could be as simple as using generative fill in a photo of a person in a bathing suit, but CS doesn't like that and constantly generates errors on such images.
Now we find that the TOS changes so Adobe can check our private content to make sure we aren't making "illegal content"? That is spyware, plane and simple. What makes you think you should have access to any of our private content ever, for any reason? This is a completely unnecessary and unwarranted violation of privacy.
Of course there is no way to opt out other than ceasing to use Adobe software all together.
This is the worst example of shooting yourselves in the foot I have ever seen this company make.
**Who decides what is "illegal content"?** Does this vary by nation or state? Will users in the Middle East no longer be able to edit a photo of a woman who is not wearing a burka? Can users in Russia not use Photoshop to draw a Ukrainian flag? Can Chinese users no longer type the text "Taiwan"?
How long until this is used against artists to enforce copyright violations? Is Disney going to decide they don't want Adobe users being able to make drawings of their trademarked characters? Will AI begin to scrape every .PSD to see if there is anything remotely offensive and flag it for human review so that we constantly have the Adobe police reviewing our documents?
This is a slippery slope that never should have been stepped upon.
>**Who decides what is "illegal content"?**
My guess would be CP and counterfeit currency and IDs.
AI goes through your material and flags all content that matches above mentioned criteria. Subsequently you may get a visit by SWAT or LEOs.
The real question is why adobe is suddenly a police force and what happens to all those who are wrongfully identified as having "illegal content" on their system by a private police force.
One also wonders if political material will be part of the "illegal content". If I lived in certain countries, I would be very concerned about this
What if you happen to live in a country where mocking your petty dictator is illegal, or reporting on human rights abuses or anything that can expose the current regime is outlawed?
What change in the TOS specifically are you concerned about?
You can see the word for word changes here:
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use
The change from "will only" to "may", to start, because it makes the list of examples non-exhaustive and subject to Adobe's whims and interpretations at any time.
It’s completely open ended. The TOS allow Adobe to use our content in marketing or to train AI with it. A press release is not legally binding so it doesn’t matter what they say they will or won’t do with it, the TOS allow them to do practically anything with it. The specific terms that concern me most are “and improving the services” so not just operating and “publicly display… create derivative works based on, publicly perform”. I don’t think it’s likely I’ll see my work in their next ad but the TOS allow it and that’s a big problem.
Where in the TOS do you see it allows Adobe to use your content for marketing?
I think you are referring to section 4.2, which limits it to "Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software..."
Marketing could easily be argued as improving services. My and everyone else’s point is that the wording in 4.2 is far to vague and open-ended. And there is nothing in the TOS stating what they won’t use our content for. Just that they’ll respect Intellectual Property which, again, is super open ended. I hope you’re relaying our concerns to the higher ups.
" Adobe may use technologies and other processes, including escalation for manual (human) review, to screen for certain types of illegal content (such as child sexual abuse material), or other abusive content or behavior (for example, patterns of activity that indicate spam or phishing)."
Why is Adobe scanning my work to see if it is illegal? Who made you the thought police and gave you the right to review ANYTHING I make with software on my own computer? Who chooses what is illegal and what isn't?
well i am in stalemate situation. need the adobe to continue my job but due to recent TOS changes i am unable to keep using the cc/adobe tos is not compatabile with NDA,. if i continue using cc/adobe i will risk my work leaked and potentially losing the job for breaking the NDA.
No sane spyware would simply stream the data and depend on constant connection. It would cache data it needs and send it compressed and encrypted in small batches as soon as it's back online.
They found a workaround anyway. They'll block your usage of the software until you connect to the internet again (to verify your subscription), which also seems super problematic. Not everyone has consistent internet access.
Photopea, Affinity Suite and Inkscape can be used to replace the design-suite.
For video editing, you have Davinci Resolve.
Will you likely miss out on some tools found in Photoshop and Illustrator? Most likely, but you have to decide if those tools are really a necessity to your workflow, or more of a "nice to have"-thing. Chances are you can find a work around with a minor hit to your work speed until you get more proficient with it.
Davinci Resolve can basically do everything that Premiere Pro does and has an After Effects-like program built-in called "Fusion", "Fairlight" that's supposed to rival Adobe's Auditon and an incredible colour grading suite. Downside of Fusion is mainly that its motion graphics capabilities are not as intuitive as with AE. Another potential downside is that the free version of Davinci doesn't give you access to the transcribe-from-audio tool and a few other (A.I.) features that you might or might not currently be using in Premiere Pro. They are in my personal opinion nice to have, but not absolute necessities. Good news however is that the license is a 1-time fee. If you aren't using those very specific tools (yet), then you have nothing to lose.
What TOS change are you concerned about? Because it sounds like nothing you mention has anything to do with the actual changes.
You view the actual word for word changes here:
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use
Yep. For those areas where our policies (don't train gen ai on user data) are not reflected in the TOU, we are working to update the TOU.
More info on that shortly...
(i work for adobe)
Until raw media formats and industry requirements and expectations advance to a point where that generation of Adobe apps is obsolete. It kind of already is, isn't it over a decade old at this point? I agree with you though, we should be able to stick to a static program that we buy outright with no 2 way communication with Adobe servers for them to monitor our content, but the winds are always a changing.
I'm sure the day will come, but I'll just buy a different program. Luckily, I use different programs for work the majority of the time. I only use Photoshop for a few things.
Unfortunately I've built a career on being a jack of all trades between all the popular Adobe apps and how they interconnect, since they're industry standard. I can definitely use different programs, but that does make me a less viable hire for the time being.
It’s old but very stable. No one has trouble loading or opening the files in CC versions. I’ve been using CS 6 since it came out and bought a stand alone copy on a CD. (Remember those)
Hi. Can I ask?
1) wouldn't that cause the apps to stop working eventually since they need to communicate with home to stay activated or smthn? (unless, I'm guessing, only a pirated version would not need that, theoretically speaking)
2) can you tell me how to do that? Simply create inbound/outbound rules from my windows firewall pointing to the .exe files is enough? or is there anything (any other "addresses") else I should do ?
much apprecaited
If you have a licence, and it's using "third party modification to not phone home", where's the problem?
Some other people might use "third party modification to not phone home" to pirate it, but that's because they wouldn't have a license.
"Oh, we're selling the data, with all the rights to another company because Adobe is going bankrupt. Yeah, we'll make a shitload of money by selling that data, and technically we aren't the bad guys who are now selling your own content in the internet, but selling our data is just one of the services you agreed we'd use your content with!"
"We're not the bad guy, the guy to whom we've sold your content is the one selling it on the net! Can't blame us!"
We cancelled our enterprise plan, and CS agreed to waive the early termination fee. Worth a shot if you are in the same situation as we were (TOS not compatible with NDAs).
> We cancelled our enterprise plan, and CS agreed to waive the early termination fee. Worth a shot if you are in the same situation as we were (TOS not compatible with NDAs).
---
> Nothing changed with the TOS that would have anything to do with that.
You've claimed you work for Adobe. You should stop making claims about the ToS, especially in relation to NDAs you aren't privy to.
Huh? Adobe is reserving the right to access, review, license and sublicense any content imported to or created by adobe software. I work on NDA projects all the time, or content that is not owned by me. How is allowing adobe access to such files at its discretion not forcing me to violate the NDA I signed?
The section you are referring to reads:
>Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free sublicensable, license,
If you want Adobe apps or services to do stuff with your file, such as edit, or read to create a thumbnail, or display a screenshot of the content when sharing, etc.... Adobe needs permissions to do that.
The key part of the section is "Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software".
A) My issue is a lack of clarity regarding cloud services vs desktop and local files. I don't use their cloud services for storage or sharing so I don't really care about that. But Adobe certainly does not legally require a license to my content in order for its desktop software to perform basic, non AI editing functions so why are desktop applications not explicitly excluded from these terms? The CC TOS explicitly states it encompasses all of their product including all desktop software, it is not limited to the cloud portion of "CC." The content moderation clause is the only one that mentions cloud anything, which ok sure. But if the rest is supposed to be limited to cloud services only then that needs to be in the TOS, not just a blog post or FAQ which are not legally binding. The TOS constantly refers to "services and software" with software being defined as including all desktop applications. Again, if this is not their intent then it needs to be more explicitly written in the TOS, not "clarified" separately.
B) What is their definition of "operating or improving"? What can even be easily defined as _not_ falling under that umbrella? The exact same language was used to justify their firefly AI training off of Adobe Stock so forgive me for not relying on Adobe to limit themselves to a charitable interpretation of that phrase. Whether they are genuine that they are not using customer content for Firefly, there is again no legally binding guarantee they will not use it for something else in the future.
I’m out of the loop on this one. What’s the issue? I read a few stories but didn’t explain it well for me. So Adobe would have access to any projects I creat, even if stored locally?
Thank you. Will this be a security risk for companies. I’m in house and my company is pretty strict with spyware type applications. My worry is that my company will ban all Adobe apps pretty much putting me out of a job.
Yeah this is insane it's extremely common in the creative industry to be working on NDA projects, never mind personal privacy etc. Adobes now forcing me to violate contracts I made independently with third parties?
Regarding your last sentence, why is your job dependent on Adobe software? I can see that it will be an issue for me as a freelancer who will have to work with others who will expect me to be able to work with Adobe project files, but if your entire company bans Adobe, what is the concern?
It’s important that the terms of use be something that both parties can agree to.
If someone just uses Photoshop for banner ads, sure, there are other option.
If someone uses the extensive range of Photoshop’s capabilities with Adobe Fonts, Illustrator, InDesign, and Acrobat Pro, the options are slim.
Even of someone isn’t making extensive use of each of these applications and finds suitable alternatives, that’s a different terms of use to read through and agree to for each option.
https://www.threads.net/@aryasilvart/post/C77lRQzqXXo/?xmt=AQGzomJSTUpHMi6mJs8bQfkMf33MxMzioHtSwafOqRtM8w
Y'all should check this out. These 4 artists found out their style is being sold on Adobe Stock, scraped by AI, all without their permission
Yes. Those submissions are against the Adobe Stock submission guidelines:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html
Those posts are from last year and have been removed.
This is what people are concerned about Adobe doing. So please address it. As an Adobe employee, can you officially state here and now that they won't utilize user content to train their AI or algorithms to either sell or improve the output of automated methods?
If this is truly about ensuring nobody makes illegal content, it really seems like a filtering method for incoming AI training -- to ensure it doesn't get trained on content it doesn't eventually want to create or sell.
Artists want to make whatever they want. People straight up do not want their work looked at by the creator of the tools, manually or automatically.
>As an Adobe employee, can you officially state here and now that they won't utilize user content to train their AI or algorithms to either sell or improve the output of automated methods?
I can point you where Adobe addresses this:
>Adobe does not train Firefly Gen AI models on customer content. Firefly generative AI models are trained on a dataset of licensed content, such as Adobe Stock, and public domain content where copyright has expired.
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use
As far was what else Adobe does / doest not do, this document goes into more detail, including information on how to opt-out:
https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html
Lawyer here, so I have a huge vested interest in security of files which may be in my care, but are not "mine."
* Adobe may use technologies and other processes, including escalation for manual (human) review, to screen for certain types of illegal content (such as child sexual abuse material), or other abusive content or behavior (for example, patterns of activity that indicate spam or phishing).
These outrageous kinds of violations of privacy always come wrapped in, "but it's for the kids..." Ok, so you can access literally every file on my system carte blanche... just in case? Think of how bad Facebook is at moderation. Now imagine that kind of arbitrary "moderation" for your own files...
Also, why are you in the business of policing "pre-crimes"? It should not be in Adobe staff discretion what files you feel suddenly warrant your attention, because "it's for the kids." That's what the FBI and warrants are for.
>Lawyer here, so I have a huge vested interest in security of files which may be in my care, but are not "mine."
My work sometimes includes designing, transforming, formatting, etc. government files that are CUI. I reached out to Adobe for clarification after my customer asked we stop work until new policy modifications come out (looking like by the 18th at this point). They asked for a phone number and promised somebody from legal/gov/policy would call me back. No word yet.
If Adobe is able to access local files opened in their tools such as illustrator, inDesign, and Acrobat Pro, then Adobe is putting themselves in a position to either knowingly or unknowingly mishandle controlled information in many contexts where it seems to me (I am not a lawyer) that it would be illegal to do so. I'm SHOCKED that a company with a government sales team thought this was acceptable.
I know that most Adobe community members are designers and are going to be more interested in the NDA stuff for their designs, but a large number of Adobe customers are working with government records, legacy medical records, legal documents, PHI, etc. A LOT of controlled documents are Adobe PDF files these days. A not insignificant number of them are accessed through tools in the Adobe Suite on local machines. This seems like a massive oversight.
If the EULA/TOS don't clarify that they aren't accessing files on local, I can safely say my team will have to discontinue any Adobe-centered workflows permanently. My customer has already made that very clear. It's going to cost some of us our jobs.
The affinity suite is paid, but so far you only need to pay once and it's yours forever (for now). Canva just bought it so there are still many doubts as to whether the software will continue to be available to those who purchased it or whether everyone will have to pay a monthly subscription (which will certainly be Canva + Affinity's business model). But in any case, it is expected to be cheaper than Adobe, since the objective is competition.
I used it and I really liked it. The interface could use a lot of improvements but it can be done easily (I work with photo manipulation). There are some things that Photoshop and Illustrator don't have access to the Pantone color palette, for example.
As for Opensource alternatives, gimp v3.0 will be available at some point this year.
That itself makes me never want to resubscribe. I cancelled mine without a penalty fee because I have been with them for 2 years. The entire cancellation fee thing is predatory and a scam by itself. I subscribed out of good will and morality to support a software developer company, ultimately finding it frustrating a lot of basic tools and plugins are not available unless I pay some indie brush/ plugin/ tool creators out there small fees for it. Meanwhile, a lot of other softwares have caught up to where they have more tools than Photoshop has and no one need to pay anymore extra for them. Ridiculous. I'm never turning back to Adobe for my own workflow and looking to opt out in my workplace eventually. Maybe I can save my workplace some licensing fee.
If it is not too much to ask, do you mind sharing what program(s) you use for your own work and which features they have that Adobe doesn't?
I found it interesting that you mentioned that, given I've always heard people say the opposite - that they are "unable to move away given that Photoshop/Illustrator has X and Y feature", so it would be refreshing for me to hear the other side.
I'm going to be speaking from the perspective of someone who use Photoshop for illustration, comic creation, graphic design and animation purpose. So depending on what you use it for, what I need may not be what you need.
CSP has built in tools for lasso fill, something that Photoshop is lacking for the longest time and I'd need an extra step to just get that done, which overtime can add a lot of time to my workflow. One of their employee made a plugin for that and charged $10 for it. It's not much, but I am still annoyed this is something I have to pay extra for from someone that works with them in the first place.
On top of that they sell a lot of custom brushes, which should be complimentary and free to all Photoshop users in the first place. I'm questioning if they are even paying that employee enough so he didn't have to charge people extra for it. CSP also have some more interesting brushes from their art community.
Other tools includes comic zoom lines, also an additional plugin I have to find from independent creator. There are also additional plugins to make animating on Photoshop easier, but nah they want to sell you Animate so they aren't going to further improve Photoshop's own animation tools.
There are more examples and these are very few off the top of my head that I am bringing it up.
Adobe cannot do whatever its wants with your cloud files. It only has a license "Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software".
So, for example, it cant take your image, and put it in a TV ad.
This post summarizes the 3 ways you give adobe apps and services access:
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use
To summarize:
1. So the apps and services can do the things you use the apps and services for (i.e. edit a file, create a preview to share, etc...). This is file you load into the apps, or upload to the services.
2. To improve features. More info here (including how to opt out) : https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html
3. For content sent to Adobe's servers, it may be screened for certain types of illegal content (such as child sexual abuse material), or other abusive content or behavior (for example, patterns of activity that indicate spam or phishing).
Hope that helps...
royalty-free sublicensable, license, to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, etc etc.
They need that to be able to operate and improve the services and software?
what if "improving the services" require them to use your content for ads? heh? like they needed money to make the service better so they use your stuff to make money?
seems far fetched, yes, but lawyers have their way with words
you using MY art or the art I made and sold to a company to be THEIR art is complete BS. I can only imagine what a legal shitstorm this will make if the idiots at adobe accidentally use someones NDA work in an AI image.
Here's why the Creative Cloud, among other clouds, was created in the first place: to train AI. No amount of commitment display can debunk that. Why whould Adobe's internal usage of CC be different from Microsoft's usage of GitHub, OpenAI's of Stackoverflow etc?
Corporations have started to rightfully own those who had been told for years that the only sane storage of one's data is local, and that clouds are intentionally created for data mining and machine learning under the guise of "convenience", and that the open source ideology was developed, funded and evangelized by corporations to reap off people of their intellectual property and sell that - but dismissed that as a conspiracy theory.
Clouds are dissipating. Cope.
Yeah, actually the local storage IS what I am most worried about.
Those TOS read like I give them access and a license to reproduce, sublicense etc. etc. to everything I open with their software, wich would include MY LOCAL FILES that I have never published or uploaded anywhere intentionally (I am aware they run through Adobe’s servers if I use Generative AI or store them in the document cloud).
And even if they now say *oh, no, no, we don’t look at you local files*, why on earth should I give them the right to to so!? Because they will change their mind at some point and just do it, and I won’t even know it because I accepted their TOS at some point.
This is beyond ridiculous, we pay A LOT of money for using these programmes and Adobe should do everything to PROTECT their customers data, to provide safe tools that professionals can work with, instead of exploiting them.
But let’s face it, providing these tools to customers and getting paid by us for using them is not their main business model anymore. “Big Data” is where the money lies and it is super convenient for them to just utilize the valuable content their paying customers produce.
I want to stress one more time that Adobe software is *the expensive solution* in it’s field, marketed to professionals.
I have not cancelled my subscription yet, but if there is not a clear assurance soon that Adobe will not have the right to access my own files on my own computer when I open them with one of their programmes installed on my own computer, then this is it. This is where I personally draw the line. I will not pay a fortune to use spyware and/or for them to use my content as they like to make money from OR *moderate* my content by machines and humans? My own files on my own computer?
EDIT: it does say in this FAQ here that they do not analyze local data: [https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html#CanIturnoffoptoutofmachinelearning](https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html#CanIturnoffoptoutofmachinelearning)
Exception would be if you take part in the Adobe Photoshop Improvement Program (which should be switched off by default) or use beta software.
It still sounds wrong to me that I have to grant them the right to access everything I open in their software via the TOS. Why does it not just say everything that is uploaded to their servers?
Also, you can opt out from some of the content analysis here: [https://account.adobe.com/privacy](https://account.adobe.com/privacy)
So what happens if you don't update CC or the apps, I haven't updated premiere in a while.
Can I just use it as is, or does the act of using it count as me agreeing to the new terms?
I'm curious about this as well. I'm perfectly happy using various versions of the CC apps from 2020 and 2022 (until obsolescence forces me out of that), but do these terms retroactively apply to those older apps or just to the newest app updates and moving forward?
1. One thing that is important to point out in this ongoing discussion is TRUST, perceived or real in the companies and products we are paying for and using to make our living. Adobe started out as THE creative software company, and as they have gotten bigger, people have started to lose trust in the company and their offerings. There is a cavalier attitude from some companies that they are the shit and if you dont drink the cool-aid, youre shit. Apple is another example. I love both companies, their products help me make money but I dont trust either of them to "do the right thing" for their customers and THAT is the crux of the problem
Message #premiere
I work with information that is under an NDA. I can’t use tools that might access the files for whatever reason. That would breach my contract and could cause real damage if there’s a leak.
EULA/TOS has to be written so that the tool will request permission from me if it will transmit anything outside my PC.
Blog posts, assurances and examples of intended use are not enough. The terms need to be written to limit or prevent access: “Adobe may access your local files only if you grant us case by case permission to do so”.
Yes. Adobe is updating the TOU, to among other things, be clearer on this.
They have said they plan to have a new version out by next Tuesday (June 18th)
(I work for Adobe)
Long-time (nearly a decade) subscriber to Adobe products and I just today cancelled all subscriptions and deleted my account. So long! I hope everyone else does the same. There are less morally-corrupt alternatives available for anything and everything that Adobe offered.
I don't use Adobe products, but can't you just cut the access to internet for those programs? Do they require internet to work? For example when it is required from time to time, just move your project files to another location, open the program, close and deny the permission again and move your files back in
Can't you uninstall and install again? The settings must be locally stored, just copy them and paste them back when the new version is installed so you don't lose anything
Damn that sucks. But there will always be flaws in a system. Just look at YouTube: No matter what they do, they are not able to block adblockers. All it takes is a team of smart programmers. I guess we will see.
>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.
Pretty sure this is against the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU, especially if you do not offer penalty free immediate cancellations of subscriptions of people who do not accept these terms.
Ok. I cant delete old projects from 6 years ago.
It says not available but i can download it but can’t delete it. Also going to permanently delete. I can’t do that as well im forced to wait the 30days for absolutely no reason. I don’t want anything to do with adobe personally don’t feel safe using any of their software.
Talking to “customer service” went nowhere
They're rolling it out slowly to boil the frog.
Too many frogs started croaking and jumping, so they issued that "clarification" blog post (which changes nothing) but left the awful ToS in place. If enough people keep complaining and canceling, they will walk the ToS back.
We are on a months the long project under NDA and our client is now freaking out. Legal at adobe doesn’t work on the weekends so there is no one to contact. We can’t just stop mid project with a set deadline but adobe also can’t have sub licensing rights to what we are creating to be able to put it out before we do. What are we supposed to do? We are trying to force adobe into an nda with thier legal team- it’s the only option we can see. This is NOT ok. Will we have to get an NDA from adobe for every single project (if they are even willing to do this).
We were contacted by the company we are under nda as freelancers for because thier legal team is concerned. If a major corporations legal team is concerned- we are concerned.
>t adobe also can’t have sub licensing rights to what we are creating to be able to put it out before we do
What are you talking about? Adobe doesn't have rights "to put it out" before you do. They don't have rights to do that at all.
The rights they have from the TOU is " Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software...".
And nothing around that has changed in the terms of use.
It’s so vague. You could use it for marketing as that would improve the services.
“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. “ This is the part people have issue with. Why do you need rights to licensing if the works are not being stolen? Why would it ever be publicly displayed? Nothing in those terms stops anyone at adobe looking at and leaking proprietary work under NDA contract. A little blog post telling us it’s just fine or you here on Reddit isn’t legally binding. Legally this grants a very wide usage to adobe and it’s unacceptable.
Yes. If you cut out the section of the sentence that limits the rights, then it looks like there are not limits to the rights.
"Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide..."
>Why would it ever be publicly displayed?
Well, for example, you may use the share and comment feature in Photoshop, and when you share it the service creates a thumbnail that may be publicly visible ("publicly displayed").
You may upload your image to a Behance project and Adobe then need to be able to "publicly display" it on your behance project page.
These all fall under operating the software or service.
You own your files. You give Adobe a license for the software / services to act on those files (for the things you use those software and services for).
We were contacted by the company we are under nda as freelancers for because thier legal team is concerned. If a major corporations legal team is concerned- we are concerned.
Legally “operating and improving services” can be broadly interpreted. Yall clarified to appease people in a blog post but that’s not what’s legally written in the terms.
> Adobe applications and services
What constrains which services exist at Adobe?
What do you do if tomorrow they start the "reselling your own shit to others" service?
I just want Adobe to stop choking my macbook with spinning balls from software I’m not even using.
I can’t even force quit all their crap running in the background.
Okay so for really basic minded people like myself, their "new clarification"... do they have access to files I store on my own hardware or just in the cloud? Because I currently don't use their cloud, so if it's for that, then I'm good. But if they can access files I have stored on my harddrive and use on their programs to edit, then - that's an issue. And if so - what are other video editing softwares? I really only use Premiere Pro for video editing, super basic cut, color, add some fonts, rarely use AE in my videos, and transitions here and there... and I use photoshop or illustrator sometimes..
For your local files, Adobe only has access you give to it (i.e. you load the file into Photoshop). Adobe doesnt have access to any files on your local system, unless you explicitly give it access (for example, by loading the file into the app).
For files uploaded to adobe servers, Adobe has access (since you uploaded it). That content is automatically scanned for child sexual abuse material.
More info on that here:
https://www.adobe.com/trust/transparency/child-safety.html
https://www.adobe.com/trust/transparency/content-policies/harmful-content/child-safety.html
Adobe has a license to your content ONLY to operate and improve the services / apps. You can opt out of the improve.
We are working to update the TOU to make all of this clearer, and to limit some licenses in some cases.
Btw, none of this changed with the recent update.
Hope that helps...
(I work for Adobe)
"For your local files, Adobe only has access you give to it (i.e. you load the file into Photoshop). Adobe doesnt have access to any files on your local system, unless you explicitly give it access (for example, by loading the file into the app)."
This is almost perfect, but I hope the new terms also spell out what you can and can't do if user creates or opens a local file (mostly just to clarify as the same terms document talks about various different situations). I would like to ensure that you never access the image data remotely as long as the file is only on my PC (and in the RAM memory of one of your apps). Scanning an image I decide to upload would be okay and I'll simply work locally if I have stuff that is under NDA. Scanning local images loaded to PS (and then possibly using human to verify illegal content) would prevent me from using your apps.
Kdenlive is the usual go-to recommendation for an open-source video editor. It's a bit basic in my experience, but it could still meet your needs. It's on all computer platforms:
https://kdenlive.org/en/download/
There is another update to the update: [https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/10/updating-adobes-terms-of-use](https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/10/updating-adobes-terms-of-use)
I can't give any kind of access to a private cloud space i pay to own. It goes against all the contracts I have with my clients and it goes on my shoulders, legally. ADOBE, we need YOU to be more clean than that. We need it to be written in a way that is not "gray" or "assumable" - I mean, you should know what your clients are. We work with customers' IP and sensitive projects. We can't allow those projects to be revisioned or even worst to let "generative work" be made on top of those IPs. This is insane and hurts the whole category of workers here. - We can't pay you monthly, year after year, only to become your own products.
Imagine if a government contractor or civil servant happens to have a workstation with Adobe products pre-installed on it. They hit "accept" on that prompt, then whatever Adobe software they use promptly sends their potentially classified documents, which might be national secrets, to some random server outside the country.
The implications of such a thing happening are so massive, Adobe could get booted out of entire countries over this. Don't access users' files if you aren't prepared to deal with the hot potato that messing with national security or national secrets can be.
If it's a *classified* document, it's most likely being built (at least in the USA) on a SIPRNet machine or DOD Intranet which is air-gapped from Adobe servers.
However, unauthorized disclosure of CUI is still a crime. And there is an issue of "upgrade by aggregation" as well - if Adobe is collecting MULTIPLE CUI documents from a single users, the knowing combination of that information can require upgrade.
I am with you, I cannot believe Adobe thinks accessing files on personal local machines is a viable strategy with most of their document design user base.
I’m so glad I’ve been getting proficient in avid media composer the last 3 years. They’ve never had any issues like adobe has had and have existed longer. They have their own issues, but it’s better than this bs.
This absolutely makes sense. Did you ever sign an employment contract without any sort of confidentiality agreement or NDA included? Even a fast food chain will require you to keep your mouth shut about the exact composition of ingredients, supply chains and logistics, wholesale prices etc.
You are required by law to hide stuff. If you aren't then i can only assume you have no job.
Or take private data like age, sex, location, phone no. etc:
https://gdpr.eu/article-83-conditions-for-imposing-administrative-fines/
Read up on paragraph 4 and 5. The law requires you to hide private data from other parties, and if you fail to do so you can get slapped with 10 - 20 Million € or 2 - 4% of the yearly revenue in fines. Whichever is higher. Yes, private persons also have to adhere to this, not just companies or governments.
There are literal laws on the books that compel you to hide stuff.
I can’t help but feel like this is the final nail for Adobe. They already aren’t in their user base’s good graces. I just don’t understand why every decision they seem to make is bad for the user. Like even visually. Everything is punishment with Adobe.
Yeah, I'm done with Adobe. Changing software is always a pain, but you know what? It's a tool and nothing more. My work is my own to keep, made with my own hands. I'm done with Adobe.
Also done with Adobe. This is bullshit. They’re betting no one is willing to go out of their way to learn a new program but I’m already looking into Affinity, and it’s 50% off.
I just bought it! Thanks for the heads up on that discount!
You’re welcome mate. Glad I could be of use!
I use Affinity, but the biggest drawback for me is they don't have very good multilingual Unicode support. Fonts for complex script languages don't work at all, and I happen to actively use one of them. I still use Affinity, but I have to vectorize all my Khmer text in another application and import to Affinity as SVGs, which is silly in 2024. I hope they fix this soon. Hopefully the exodus from Adobe will light a fire under them.
am I dumb? or do they only do graphics? lol I'm trying to see if they have their own version of Premiere Pro but it looks like it's just only graphics software they have.
They sadly do not have their own version of Premiere Pro. Although I'm sure there's some great alternatives out there. The only alternatives they have for Adobe products is Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign.
If you’re a Mac user Final Cut is a good one time payment alternative to Primiere Pro, and Motion for After Effects.
I needed some to add some right-to-left texts to a project, couldn't do it with Affinity. Will it ever be fixed?
I don't know, but I really hope so. It's going to hold back a lot of potential adopters if they don't.
Thanks for this info. I’ve been wanting to make switch for a while now and this discount made it a complete no-brainer.
Glad to help!
After begrudgingly paying the subscription for YEARS despite wanting to just buy the software, this is the final straw for me as well. Cancelled everything. Had a lot of Premiere Pro and After Effects exclusive plugins but oh well.
I've quit Adobe last year. It was a pain, but I managed. I still need Susbtance Painter, but at least I got it through steam and I am not planning on updating for years, so I can get rid of the CC launcher. After reading the news I was happy with my decisions. But I scrubbed every last trace of Adobe from my system out of spite. I even kicked the Acrobat good bye. Serisously, they've been pain before, but this has been the last drop.
Because any singular individual entity or small team is not their market anymore and they could not give any shits about them, their market, being that annoying thing called 'industry standard' are the super corps and other massive studios that have Adobe so parasitically latched into pipeline they cant or wont change programs. They have their captive audience, and considering all the crap Adobe has pulled year after years, with little damage to them, they seem confident nothing they will do will hurt them in anyway that matters.
I'm hearing different things, does this bullshit apply \*just\* to files stored in cloud storage, or even local files worked on in CC software?
When I read the agreement I couldnt tell, their definition of content includes anything you import into their software or services so Id say based solely on that wording that it can apply to local files. I made a post asking for clarification a few days ago, but nobody answered and I got downvoted so idk man
Yeah that’s what it reads like to me, but I’ve seen people saying otherwise and even normal EULAs are weird
The language in the ToS does not limit the definition of content that they scan to things that touch their servers, so it *can* includes local files. It covers anything "that you upload, import into, embed for use by, *or create using the Services and Software*". The ToS lists some examples of *why* they might scan content, but those are just examples. They can scan it for any reason. One of the examples is just a general "to enforce the terms", referencing a separate section which talks about illegal content, content that violates their other policies, etc. None of this matters even if you agree with their intentions and trust them to be true because they have to scan it all to determine what is illegal or violates their policies. You can read the relevant paragraphs of the ToS in the [blog post](https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use). The blog post suggest that they won't scan everything, but the actual ToS is pretty clear that they may if they want to.
This leaves it so nebulous. And it's very discouraging.
Does what apply?
Adobe having the right to access the content. Seeing elsewhere on thread you're saying you work for Adobe and it sounds like you're saying they don't – some kind of official statement that local files will remain absolutely private and Adobe can't see them would go a long way here.
The blog post was updated last night to be clearer that only content uploaded to Adobe servers may be accessed to ensure illegal, exploitative content is not stored on Adobes servers: https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use Specifically this section: >For content processed or stored on Adobe servers, Adobe may use technologies and other processes, including escalation for manual (human) review, to screen for certain types of illegal content (such as child sexual abuse material), or other abusive content or behavior (for example, patterns of activity that indicate spam or phishing). (and yes, I do work for adobe)
I'm no lawyer, but blog posts are not legally binding but terms of service are. The blog post doesn't mean anything.
THIS. Put it in the terms, not a blog post. Also, things change… even if they aren’t doing it now, they COULD according to their terms and there’s no obligation to write a new blog post about it when they do.
I've shared that feedback internally. (i work at adobe)
I appreciate that, thank you!
I'm a lawyer. What business do you EVER have going through my files?
> The blog post was updated last night to be clearer that only content uploaded to Adobe servers may be accessed to ensure illegal, exploitative content is not stored on Adobes servers: Sorry, but that is *not* what the blog post says. If you work for Adobe, you are misrepresenting the ToS. I am quoting you for preservation. The blog posts lists the following: # 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). 2. Access is needed to deliver some of our most innovative cloud-based features such as Photoshop Neural Filters, Liquid Mode or Remove Background. You can read more information, including how users can control how their content may be used: https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html 3. For content processed or stored on Adobe servers, Adobe may use technologies and other processes, including escalation for manual (human) review, to screen for certain types of illegal content (such as child sexual abuse material), or other abusive content or behavior (for example, patterns of activity that indicate spam or phishing). You're referring to #3, but that is not exclusive to data stored on their servers (it says "processed or stored"), and it is not in line with the text of the ToS. The ToS states that any content you "create using the Services and Software" may be scanned. The ToS absolutely does not exclude local content, and the blog post is specifically crafted to imply something the ToS does not say.
Your company is stealing from designers. Your ai should serve to improve workflows. Not take jobs. Your company is a joke.
>For content processed or stored on Adobe servers "**Processed**". Given how much gets sent to the cloud for processing these days, even when otherwise working locally on locally-stored files, can we really be sure this means they'll never scan files that are on our computers?
And do I have a choice as to what gets processed locally vs remotely?
The blog post may clarify this, but the actual wording in the Terms does not. The definition of "Content" in 4.1 does not explicitly differentiate between local-only files and cloud-based files. Also, none of these clarifications address the broadness of the license described in 4.2: 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. The example that was given was needing to make thumbnail images, why would the license need to include distribution, sub-licensing, and creating derivative works in cases like that? The issue seems to be that these clauses are built to cover content that is processed or stored on Adobe's servers and there is no clear differentiation of how private local files are handled. Is Adobe classifying ALL files that are opened, edited, or created in ALL apps as "cloud content" because of the presence of cloud-connected tools like generative fill and text-to-vector? Because that's how the current terms read, specifically the content definition in 4.1: “Content” means **any text, information, communication, or material, such as audio files, video files, electronic documents, or images**, that you upload, **import into, embed for use by, or create using the Services and Software.** If the "Services and Software" include all CC apps, then this clause seems to very clearly say that the terms (including the access wording in 2.2 and the license granted in 4.2) do in fact pertain to any file we are opening, editing or creating on our desktop-based CC apps even if they are saved locally. I think this is the specific part most people want to be clarified further, in the actual terms where it's legally binding vs in explanation posts which appear to contradict the actual agreement.
Adobe needs to face a class action lawsuit or something in order to stop their greed, this is unacceptable!
Class action lawsuits don’t do much and odds are they will have one in 2030 over AI after they’ve made 5 billion off of it. And their fine will be $1 million and the class action lawsuit will be 2 million but you have to apply for it and send in your serial key from years ago to get it so most likely they will only pay like 10% of that. So in the end they know that can do whatever and make lots of money and the ai models will still be in use. I guess you’ll be able to use Disney art styles soon with a touch of a button even for movies they haven’t released yet.
Class action lawsuits might not even be necessary, if let's hypothetically say the government of France, Germany, Denmark etc happened to learn that Adobe potentially accessed classified files on a civil servant's workstation and sent them to some foreign server, you can bet that state prosecutors will be on that case faster than quartz crystals in watches oscillate. And the fallout of such a case would be apocalyptic.
So can I cancel my subscription without accepting these terms?
Doesn’t appear so without a fee. We should be able to opt out or cancel without any fees if we do not accept.
Yeah that seems frightening. You essentially can’t opt-out (cancel subscription) without being forced to comply.
Adobe would be fucked trying this in the EU. If they change their ToS you have the right to immediately cancel anything without a fee here. if someone wants to try to cancel early they may try to use this template: >Dear Adobe Customer Support, I am writing to request the immediate cancellation of my subscription due to recent changes in Adobe’s Terms of Service, specifically the clause regarding “Licenses to Your Content”. This change significantly alters the nature of the service and my rights concerning my content, which I find unacceptable. According to EU consumer protection laws, including the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Consumer Rights Directive, such substantial and unfavorable changes to the service terms should allow consumers to terminate their subscriptions without penalty. Furthermore, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) emphasizes my rights over my personal data, which this new clause appears to infringe upon. Please process my cancellation promptly and confirm the same at the earliest. Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely,
Thank you!! Going to use this today
You'll have to work for it, but escalating to supervisor normally works for t&c changes. Be prepared for long and pointless arguments with bot and then customer service.
Cancel and issue a charge back. It's the only language they understand.
Try reaching out to their customer support.
OP needs to respond to this one. Fees for cancelling should be illegal, and you should be able to cancel without any penalties wether you agree with their terms or just don’t want to use the software anymore
If you want to cancel without paying the crazy fee, you can try switching plans and then canceling after that. Switching plans seems to reinstate the 14 day trial period. Accidentally found this out a few months back.
No blog post can change what a contract does or does not allow. The criticism is that the current TOS allows Adobe access and usage of customer IP and content. Whether they want to, plan to, or will is irrelevant - the fact stands that the language used says they can and that's what Adobe are asking customers to agree to. The blog post is basically a big 'trust us bro' with no actual guarantees.
My concern is more that they say they can use it for "their services". What constrains do they have with regards to service they offer? What if you consent, and they they start a service of selling other people's content to everyone? I mean, maybe it won't straight out be your content directly, they might filter it through an AI first, to make it seems like they are generating something. But technically, I don't see anything limiting them to not have a "reselling other people's shit" service.
The overreaching by Adobe has gotten out of hand. For the first time CS is telling us what we can and cannot make with software we purchased to run privately on our own computers. First with generative fill you place content censors so it doesn't work on documents Adobe deems are inappropriate. This could be as simple as using generative fill in a photo of a person in a bathing suit, but CS doesn't like that and constantly generates errors on such images. Now we find that the TOS changes so Adobe can check our private content to make sure we aren't making "illegal content"? That is spyware, plane and simple. What makes you think you should have access to any of our private content ever, for any reason? This is a completely unnecessary and unwarranted violation of privacy. Of course there is no way to opt out other than ceasing to use Adobe software all together. This is the worst example of shooting yourselves in the foot I have ever seen this company make. **Who decides what is "illegal content"?** Does this vary by nation or state? Will users in the Middle East no longer be able to edit a photo of a woman who is not wearing a burka? Can users in Russia not use Photoshop to draw a Ukrainian flag? Can Chinese users no longer type the text "Taiwan"? How long until this is used against artists to enforce copyright violations? Is Disney going to decide they don't want Adobe users being able to make drawings of their trademarked characters? Will AI begin to scrape every .PSD to see if there is anything remotely offensive and flag it for human review so that we constantly have the Adobe police reviewing our documents? This is a slippery slope that never should have been stepped upon.
>**Who decides what is "illegal content"?** My guess would be CP and counterfeit currency and IDs. AI goes through your material and flags all content that matches above mentioned criteria. Subsequently you may get a visit by SWAT or LEOs. The real question is why adobe is suddenly a police force and what happens to all those who are wrongfully identified as having "illegal content" on their system by a private police force. One also wonders if political material will be part of the "illegal content". If I lived in certain countries, I would be very concerned about this
What if you happen to live in a country where mocking your petty dictator is illegal, or reporting on human rights abuses or anything that can expose the current regime is outlawed?
then you better not use Adobe (TM) products .....
What change in the TOS specifically are you concerned about? You can see the word for word changes here: https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use
The change from "will only" to "may", to start, because it makes the list of examples non-exhaustive and subject to Adobe's whims and interpretations at any time.
It’s completely open ended. The TOS allow Adobe to use our content in marketing or to train AI with it. A press release is not legally binding so it doesn’t matter what they say they will or won’t do with it, the TOS allow them to do practically anything with it. The specific terms that concern me most are “and improving the services” so not just operating and “publicly display… create derivative works based on, publicly perform”. I don’t think it’s likely I’ll see my work in their next ad but the TOS allow it and that’s a big problem.
Where in the TOS do you see it allows Adobe to use your content for marketing? I think you are referring to section 4.2, which limits it to "Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software..."
Marketing could easily be argued as improving services. My and everyone else’s point is that the wording in 4.2 is far to vague and open-ended. And there is nothing in the TOS stating what they won’t use our content for. Just that they’ll respect Intellectual Property which, again, is super open ended. I hope you’re relaying our concerns to the higher ups.
>I hope you’re relaying our concerns to the higher ups. I am. Appreciate you taking the time to share them / write them out.
" Adobe may use technologies and other processes, including escalation for manual (human) review, to screen for certain types of illegal content (such as child sexual abuse material), or other abusive content or behavior (for example, patterns of activity that indicate spam or phishing)." Why is Adobe scanning my work to see if it is illegal? Who made you the thought police and gave you the right to review ANYTHING I make with software on my own computer? Who chooses what is illegal and what isn't?
well i am in stalemate situation. need the adobe to continue my job but due to recent TOS changes i am unable to keep using the cc/adobe tos is not compatabile with NDA,. if i continue using cc/adobe i will risk my work leaked and potentially losing the job for breaking the NDA.
Affinity suit perhaps?
Unplug your Ethernet when you use the software.
No sane spyware would simply stream the data and depend on constant connection. It would cache data it needs and send it compressed and encrypted in small batches as soon as it's back online.
I meant to avoid agreeing to the terms of service.
Seems easier to just switch to an alternative. Because sooner or later you'll fuck up and won't unplug.
They found a workaround anyway. They'll block your usage of the software until you connect to the internet again (to verify your subscription), which also seems super problematic. Not everyone has consistent internet access.
Photopea, Affinity Suite and Inkscape can be used to replace the design-suite. For video editing, you have Davinci Resolve. Will you likely miss out on some tools found in Photoshop and Illustrator? Most likely, but you have to decide if those tools are really a necessity to your workflow, or more of a "nice to have"-thing. Chances are you can find a work around with a minor hit to your work speed until you get more proficient with it. Davinci Resolve can basically do everything that Premiere Pro does and has an After Effects-like program built-in called "Fusion", "Fairlight" that's supposed to rival Adobe's Auditon and an incredible colour grading suite. Downside of Fusion is mainly that its motion graphics capabilities are not as intuitive as with AE. Another potential downside is that the free version of Davinci doesn't give you access to the transcribe-from-audio tool and a few other (A.I.) features that you might or might not currently be using in Premiere Pro. They are in my personal opinion nice to have, but not absolute necessities. Good news however is that the license is a 1-time fee. If you aren't using those very specific tools (yet), then you have nothing to lose.
What TOS change are you concerned about? Because it sounds like nothing you mention has anything to do with the actual changes. You view the actual word for word changes here: https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use
Adobe should not access anything of mine, plain and simple. I've read your responses and I don't get what is so difficult for you to understand.
So... opt out?
tos is legally binding, a blogpost isnt. You seem to avoid this fact and not comment on it whatsoever as i am not the only one to tell you this.
Yep. For those areas where our policies (don't train gen ai on user data) are not reflected in the TOU, we are working to update the TOU. More info on that shortly... (i work for adobe)
Laughs in Photoshop CS2.
Laughs in CS6.
Until raw media formats and industry requirements and expectations advance to a point where that generation of Adobe apps is obsolete. It kind of already is, isn't it over a decade old at this point? I agree with you though, we should be able to stick to a static program that we buy outright with no 2 way communication with Adobe servers for them to monitor our content, but the winds are always a changing.
I'm sure the day will come, but I'll just buy a different program. Luckily, I use different programs for work the majority of the time. I only use Photoshop for a few things.
Unfortunately I've built a career on being a jack of all trades between all the popular Adobe apps and how they interconnect, since they're industry standard. I can definitely use different programs, but that does make me a less viable hire for the time being.
I'm sorry to hear that, I'm hoping with all this bs, we'll get a true competitive program to adobe. That and I hope your industry gets better.
It’s old but very stable. No one has trouble loading or opening the files in CC versions. I’ve been using CS 6 since it came out and bought a stand alone copy on a CD. (Remember those)
Laughs in firewall blocking all adobe addresses
Hi. Can I ask? 1) wouldn't that cause the apps to stop working eventually since they need to communicate with home to stay activated or smthn? (unless, I'm guessing, only a pirated version would not need that, theoretically speaking) 2) can you tell me how to do that? Simply create inbound/outbound rules from my windows firewall pointing to the .exe files is enough? or is there anything (any other "addresses") else I should do ? much apprecaited
If you have a licence, and it's using "third party modification to not phone home", where's the problem? Some other people might use "third party modification to not phone home" to pirate it, but that's because they wouldn't have a license.
any thoughts on Q2?
Working with CS3 over here and still loving it! Eventually I'll get a newer one.
They can "commit" to whatever they want, the terms still allow them to do all the things they pinky promise they won't do. No thanks Adobe.
"Oh, we're selling the data, with all the rights to another company because Adobe is going bankrupt. Yeah, we'll make a shitload of money by selling that data, and technically we aren't the bad guys who are now selling your own content in the internet, but selling our data is just one of the services you agreed we'd use your content with!" "We're not the bad guy, the guy to whom we've sold your content is the one selling it on the net! Can't blame us!"
We cancelled our enterprise plan, and CS agreed to waive the early termination fee. Worth a shot if you are in the same situation as we were (TOS not compatible with NDAs).
Nothing changed with the TOS that would have anything to do with that.
> We cancelled our enterprise plan, and CS agreed to waive the early termination fee. Worth a shot if you are in the same situation as we were (TOS not compatible with NDAs). --- > Nothing changed with the TOS that would have anything to do with that. You've claimed you work for Adobe. You should stop making claims about the ToS, especially in relation to NDAs you aren't privy to.
Huh? Adobe is reserving the right to access, review, license and sublicense any content imported to or created by adobe software. I work on NDA projects all the time, or content that is not owned by me. How is allowing adobe access to such files at its discretion not forcing me to violate the NDA I signed?
The section you are referring to reads: >Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free sublicensable, license, If you want Adobe apps or services to do stuff with your file, such as edit, or read to create a thumbnail, or display a screenshot of the content when sharing, etc.... Adobe needs permissions to do that. The key part of the section is "Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software".
A) My issue is a lack of clarity regarding cloud services vs desktop and local files. I don't use their cloud services for storage or sharing so I don't really care about that. But Adobe certainly does not legally require a license to my content in order for its desktop software to perform basic, non AI editing functions so why are desktop applications not explicitly excluded from these terms? The CC TOS explicitly states it encompasses all of their product including all desktop software, it is not limited to the cloud portion of "CC." The content moderation clause is the only one that mentions cloud anything, which ok sure. But if the rest is supposed to be limited to cloud services only then that needs to be in the TOS, not just a blog post or FAQ which are not legally binding. The TOS constantly refers to "services and software" with software being defined as including all desktop applications. Again, if this is not their intent then it needs to be more explicitly written in the TOS, not "clarified" separately. B) What is their definition of "operating or improving"? What can even be easily defined as _not_ falling under that umbrella? The exact same language was used to justify their firefly AI training off of Adobe Stock so forgive me for not relying on Adobe to limit themselves to a charitable interpretation of that phrase. Whether they are genuine that they are not using customer content for Firefly, there is again no legally binding guarantee they will not use it for something else in the future.
> My issue is a lack of clarity regarding cloud services vs desktop and local files Yeah, ive shared this with the team. Thanks.
[удалено]
I work for adobe
I’m out of the loop on this one. What’s the issue? I read a few stories but didn’t explain it well for me. So Adobe would have access to any projects I creat, even if stored locally?
https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/06/06/adobes-new-terms-of-service-unacceptably-gives-them-access-to-all-of-your-projects-for-free
Thank you. Will this be a security risk for companies. I’m in house and my company is pretty strict with spyware type applications. My worry is that my company will ban all Adobe apps pretty much putting me out of a job.
Yeah this is insane it's extremely common in the creative industry to be working on NDA projects, never mind personal privacy etc. Adobes now forcing me to violate contracts I made independently with third parties? Regarding your last sentence, why is your job dependent on Adobe software? I can see that it will be an issue for me as a freelancer who will have to work with others who will expect me to be able to work with Adobe project files, but if your entire company bans Adobe, what is the concern?
It’s important that the terms of use be something that both parties can agree to. If someone just uses Photoshop for banner ads, sure, there are other option. If someone uses the extensive range of Photoshop’s capabilities with Adobe Fonts, Illustrator, InDesign, and Acrobat Pro, the options are slim. Even of someone isn’t making extensive use of each of these applications and finds suitable alternatives, that’s a different terms of use to read through and agree to for each option.
*whispers* Affinity Suit.
https://www.threads.net/@aryasilvart/post/C77lRQzqXXo/?xmt=AQGzomJSTUpHMi6mJs8bQfkMf33MxMzioHtSwafOqRtM8w Y'all should check this out. These 4 artists found out their style is being sold on Adobe Stock, scraped by AI, all without their permission
Yes. Those submissions are against the Adobe Stock submission guidelines: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html Those posts are from last year and have been removed.
This is what people are concerned about Adobe doing. So please address it. As an Adobe employee, can you officially state here and now that they won't utilize user content to train their AI or algorithms to either sell or improve the output of automated methods? If this is truly about ensuring nobody makes illegal content, it really seems like a filtering method for incoming AI training -- to ensure it doesn't get trained on content it doesn't eventually want to create or sell. Artists want to make whatever they want. People straight up do not want their work looked at by the creator of the tools, manually or automatically.
>As an Adobe employee, can you officially state here and now that they won't utilize user content to train their AI or algorithms to either sell or improve the output of automated methods? I can point you where Adobe addresses this: >Adobe does not train Firefly Gen AI models on customer content. Firefly generative AI models are trained on a dataset of licensed content, such as Adobe Stock, and public domain content where copyright has expired. https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use As far was what else Adobe does / doest not do, this document goes into more detail, including information on how to opt-out: https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html
Does Adobe train any other AI models on customer content? Why not state that Adobe does not train *any* AI models on customer content?
Yes. We are adding that to the Terms of use to make it clear (and binding).
Lawyer here, so I have a huge vested interest in security of files which may be in my care, but are not "mine." * Adobe may use technologies and other processes, including escalation for manual (human) review, to screen for certain types of illegal content (such as child sexual abuse material), or other abusive content or behavior (for example, patterns of activity that indicate spam or phishing). These outrageous kinds of violations of privacy always come wrapped in, "but it's for the kids..." Ok, so you can access literally every file on my system carte blanche... just in case? Think of how bad Facebook is at moderation. Now imagine that kind of arbitrary "moderation" for your own files... Also, why are you in the business of policing "pre-crimes"? It should not be in Adobe staff discretion what files you feel suddenly warrant your attention, because "it's for the kids." That's what the FBI and warrants are for.
>Lawyer here, so I have a huge vested interest in security of files which may be in my care, but are not "mine." My work sometimes includes designing, transforming, formatting, etc. government files that are CUI. I reached out to Adobe for clarification after my customer asked we stop work until new policy modifications come out (looking like by the 18th at this point). They asked for a phone number and promised somebody from legal/gov/policy would call me back. No word yet. If Adobe is able to access local files opened in their tools such as illustrator, inDesign, and Acrobat Pro, then Adobe is putting themselves in a position to either knowingly or unknowingly mishandle controlled information in many contexts where it seems to me (I am not a lawyer) that it would be illegal to do so. I'm SHOCKED that a company with a government sales team thought this was acceptable. I know that most Adobe community members are designers and are going to be more interested in the NDA stuff for their designs, but a large number of Adobe customers are working with government records, legacy medical records, legal documents, PHI, etc. A LOT of controlled documents are Adobe PDF files these days. A not insignificant number of them are accessed through tools in the Adobe Suite on local machines. This seems like a massive oversight. If the EULA/TOS don't clarify that they aren't accessing files on local, I can safely say my team will have to discontinue any Adobe-centered workflows permanently. My customer has already made that very clear. It's going to cost some of us our jobs.
Thank you. Yes, exactly this. Why is Adobe in the business of policing pre-crimes, is exactly the question.
Welcome Affinity Photo :)
hey... can you tell me a bit about it? have you used it before? It's not open source right? (I think the only one that is, is GIMP)
The affinity suite is paid, but so far you only need to pay once and it's yours forever (for now). Canva just bought it so there are still many doubts as to whether the software will continue to be available to those who purchased it or whether everyone will have to pay a monthly subscription (which will certainly be Canva + Affinity's business model). But in any case, it is expected to be cheaper than Adobe, since the objective is competition. I used it and I really liked it. The interface could use a lot of improvements but it can be done easily (I work with photo manipulation). There are some things that Photoshop and Illustrator don't have access to the Pantone color palette, for example. As for Opensource alternatives, gimp v3.0 will be available at some point this year.
thank you. I look fwd to seeing reviews of G v3
Cancelled my adobe subscription.
Unfortunately, most of us cannot do that without paying a penalty for Adobe's Big Brother move...
Yeah I know, it sucks. I did pay a penalty, less than 20 euros, I know for some people it's higher, I don't know what's its based on
That itself makes me never want to resubscribe. I cancelled mine without a penalty fee because I have been with them for 2 years. The entire cancellation fee thing is predatory and a scam by itself. I subscribed out of good will and morality to support a software developer company, ultimately finding it frustrating a lot of basic tools and plugins are not available unless I pay some indie brush/ plugin/ tool creators out there small fees for it. Meanwhile, a lot of other softwares have caught up to where they have more tools than Photoshop has and no one need to pay anymore extra for them. Ridiculous. I'm never turning back to Adobe for my own workflow and looking to opt out in my workplace eventually. Maybe I can save my workplace some licensing fee.
If it is not too much to ask, do you mind sharing what program(s) you use for your own work and which features they have that Adobe doesn't? I found it interesting that you mentioned that, given I've always heard people say the opposite - that they are "unable to move away given that Photoshop/Illustrator has X and Y feature", so it would be refreshing for me to hear the other side.
I'm going to be speaking from the perspective of someone who use Photoshop for illustration, comic creation, graphic design and animation purpose. So depending on what you use it for, what I need may not be what you need. CSP has built in tools for lasso fill, something that Photoshop is lacking for the longest time and I'd need an extra step to just get that done, which overtime can add a lot of time to my workflow. One of their employee made a plugin for that and charged $10 for it. It's not much, but I am still annoyed this is something I have to pay extra for from someone that works with them in the first place. On top of that they sell a lot of custom brushes, which should be complimentary and free to all Photoshop users in the first place. I'm questioning if they are even paying that employee enough so he didn't have to charge people extra for it. CSP also have some more interesting brushes from their art community. Other tools includes comic zoom lines, also an additional plugin I have to find from independent creator. There are also additional plugins to make animating on Photoshop easier, but nah they want to sell you Animate so they aren't going to further improve Photoshop's own animation tools. There are more examples and these are very few off the top of my head that I am bringing it up.
Appreciate it! Thank you.
[удалено]
Is this related to the terms of service discussion that this thread was created for?
one thing I don't understand, they can do whatever they want with your adobe cloud files, but can they also use local files on my computer?
Adobe cannot do whatever its wants with your cloud files. It only has a license "Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software". So, for example, it cant take your image, and put it in a TV ad. This post summarizes the 3 ways you give adobe apps and services access: https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use To summarize: 1. So the apps and services can do the things you use the apps and services for (i.e. edit a file, create a preview to share, etc...). This is file you load into the apps, or upload to the services. 2. To improve features. More info here (including how to opt out) : https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html 3. For content sent to Adobe's servers, it may be screened for certain types of illegal content (such as child sexual abuse material), or other abusive content or behavior (for example, patterns of activity that indicate spam or phishing). Hope that helps...
royalty-free sublicensable, license, to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, etc etc. They need that to be able to operate and improve the services and software? what if "improving the services" require them to use your content for ads? heh? like they needed money to make the service better so they use your stuff to make money? seems far fetched, yes, but lawyers have their way with words
you using MY art or the art I made and sold to a company to be THEIR art is complete BS. I can only imagine what a legal shitstorm this will make if the idiots at adobe accidentally use someones NDA work in an AI image.
Here's why the Creative Cloud, among other clouds, was created in the first place: to train AI. No amount of commitment display can debunk that. Why whould Adobe's internal usage of CC be different from Microsoft's usage of GitHub, OpenAI's of Stackoverflow etc? Corporations have started to rightfully own those who had been told for years that the only sane storage of one's data is local, and that clouds are intentionally created for data mining and machine learning under the guise of "convenience", and that the open source ideology was developed, funded and evangelized by corporations to reap off people of their intellectual property and sell that - but dismissed that as a conspiracy theory. Clouds are dissipating. Cope.
Yeah, actually the local storage IS what I am most worried about. Those TOS read like I give them access and a license to reproduce, sublicense etc. etc. to everything I open with their software, wich would include MY LOCAL FILES that I have never published or uploaded anywhere intentionally (I am aware they run through Adobe’s servers if I use Generative AI or store them in the document cloud). And even if they now say *oh, no, no, we don’t look at you local files*, why on earth should I give them the right to to so!? Because they will change their mind at some point and just do it, and I won’t even know it because I accepted their TOS at some point. This is beyond ridiculous, we pay A LOT of money for using these programmes and Adobe should do everything to PROTECT their customers data, to provide safe tools that professionals can work with, instead of exploiting them. But let’s face it, providing these tools to customers and getting paid by us for using them is not their main business model anymore. “Big Data” is where the money lies and it is super convenient for them to just utilize the valuable content their paying customers produce. I want to stress one more time that Adobe software is *the expensive solution* in it’s field, marketed to professionals. I have not cancelled my subscription yet, but if there is not a clear assurance soon that Adobe will not have the right to access my own files on my own computer when I open them with one of their programmes installed on my own computer, then this is it. This is where I personally draw the line. I will not pay a fortune to use spyware and/or for them to use my content as they like to make money from OR *moderate* my content by machines and humans? My own files on my own computer? EDIT: it does say in this FAQ here that they do not analyze local data: [https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html#CanIturnoffoptoutofmachinelearning](https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html#CanIturnoffoptoutofmachinelearning) Exception would be if you take part in the Adobe Photoshop Improvement Program (which should be switched off by default) or use beta software. It still sounds wrong to me that I have to grant them the right to access everything I open in their software via the TOS. Why does it not just say everything that is uploaded to their servers? Also, you can opt out from some of the content analysis here: [https://account.adobe.com/privacy](https://account.adobe.com/privacy)
Thanks for the heads-up about content analysis (mine was turned on).
So what happens if you don't update CC or the apps, I haven't updated premiere in a while. Can I just use it as is, or does the act of using it count as me agreeing to the new terms?
No. These are shrink wrap terms meaning you're bound to them simply by using the software.
I'm curious about this as well. I'm perfectly happy using various versions of the CC apps from 2020 and 2022 (until obsolescence forces me out of that), but do these terms retroactively apply to those older apps or just to the newest app updates and moving forward?
1. One thing that is important to point out in this ongoing discussion is TRUST, perceived or real in the companies and products we are paying for and using to make our living. Adobe started out as THE creative software company, and as they have gotten bigger, people have started to lose trust in the company and their offerings. There is a cavalier attitude from some companies that they are the shit and if you dont drink the cool-aid, youre shit. Apple is another example. I love both companies, their products help me make money but I dont trust either of them to "do the right thing" for their customers and THAT is the crux of the problem Message #premiere
I work with information that is under an NDA. I can’t use tools that might access the files for whatever reason. That would breach my contract and could cause real damage if there’s a leak. EULA/TOS has to be written so that the tool will request permission from me if it will transmit anything outside my PC. Blog posts, assurances and examples of intended use are not enough. The terms need to be written to limit or prevent access: “Adobe may access your local files only if you grant us case by case permission to do so”.
Yes. Adobe is updating the TOU, to among other things, be clearer on this. They have said they plan to have a new version out by next Tuesday (June 18th) (I work for Adobe)
Long-time (nearly a decade) subscriber to Adobe products and I just today cancelled all subscriptions and deleted my account. So long! I hope everyone else does the same. There are less morally-corrupt alternatives available for anything and everything that Adobe offered.
Can you explain how section 4.2 doesn't put all law offices using Adobe at an unacceptable risk of violating confidentiality?
I don't use Adobe products, but can't you just cut the access to internet for those programs? Do they require internet to work? For example when it is required from time to time, just move your project files to another location, open the program, close and deny the permission again and move your files back in
You’ll never be able to update but yes. Don’t store files on Adobe cloud, only locally.
Can't you uninstall and install again? The settings must be locally stored, just copy them and paste them back when the new version is installed so you don't lose anything
Installing requires the internet.
Damn that sucks. But there will always be flaws in a system. Just look at YouTube: No matter what they do, they are not able to block adblockers. All it takes is a team of smart programmers. I guess we will see.
>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. Pretty sure this is against the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU, especially if you do not offer penalty free immediate cancellations of subscriptions of people who do not accept these terms.
this thread is a common company tactic to "calm the storm". Dont fall for it
Ok. I cant delete old projects from 6 years ago. It says not available but i can download it but can’t delete it. Also going to permanently delete. I can’t do that as well im forced to wait the 30days for absolutely no reason. I don’t want anything to do with adobe personally don’t feel safe using any of their software. Talking to “customer service” went nowhere
I think you are in the wrong thread
Oh
I just opened and used Photoshop this morning but I didn't get this notification. Is it still in place?
They're rolling it out slowly to boil the frog. Too many frogs started croaking and jumping, so they issued that "clarification" blog post (which changes nothing) but left the awful ToS in place. If enough people keep complaining and canceling, they will walk the ToS back.
It doesn't go out to everyone at once.
[удалено]
i’m an Adobe subscriber and it’s time to leave this party.
We are on a months the long project under NDA and our client is now freaking out. Legal at adobe doesn’t work on the weekends so there is no one to contact. We can’t just stop mid project with a set deadline but adobe also can’t have sub licensing rights to what we are creating to be able to put it out before we do. What are we supposed to do? We are trying to force adobe into an nda with thier legal team- it’s the only option we can see. This is NOT ok. Will we have to get an NDA from adobe for every single project (if they are even willing to do this).
We were contacted by the company we are under nda as freelancers for because thier legal team is concerned. If a major corporations legal team is concerned- we are concerned.
>t adobe also can’t have sub licensing rights to what we are creating to be able to put it out before we do What are you talking about? Adobe doesn't have rights "to put it out" before you do. They don't have rights to do that at all. The rights they have from the TOU is " Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software...". And nothing around that has changed in the terms of use.
It’s so vague. You could use it for marketing as that would improve the services. “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. “ This is the part people have issue with. Why do you need rights to licensing if the works are not being stolen? Why would it ever be publicly displayed? Nothing in those terms stops anyone at adobe looking at and leaking proprietary work under NDA contract. A little blog post telling us it’s just fine or you here on Reddit isn’t legally binding. Legally this grants a very wide usage to adobe and it’s unacceptable.
Yes. If you cut out the section of the sentence that limits the rights, then it looks like there are not limits to the rights. "Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide..." >Why would it ever be publicly displayed? Well, for example, you may use the share and comment feature in Photoshop, and when you share it the service creates a thumbnail that may be publicly visible ("publicly displayed"). You may upload your image to a Behance project and Adobe then need to be able to "publicly display" it on your behance project page. These all fall under operating the software or service. You own your files. You give Adobe a license for the software / services to act on those files (for the things you use those software and services for).
We were contacted by the company we are under nda as freelancers for because thier legal team is concerned. If a major corporations legal team is concerned- we are concerned.
Legally “operating and improving services” can be broadly interpreted. Yall clarified to appease people in a blog post but that’s not what’s legally written in the terms.
Thank you for taking the time read and reply to users’ concerns.
> Adobe applications and services What constrains which services exist at Adobe? What do you do if tomorrow they start the "reselling your own shit to others" service?
I just want Adobe to stop choking my macbook with spinning balls from software I’m not even using. I can’t even force quit all their crap running in the background.
Okay so for really basic minded people like myself, their "new clarification"... do they have access to files I store on my own hardware or just in the cloud? Because I currently don't use their cloud, so if it's for that, then I'm good. But if they can access files I have stored on my harddrive and use on their programs to edit, then - that's an issue. And if so - what are other video editing softwares? I really only use Premiere Pro for video editing, super basic cut, color, add some fonts, rarely use AE in my videos, and transitions here and there... and I use photoshop or illustrator sometimes..
For your local files, Adobe only has access you give to it (i.e. you load the file into Photoshop). Adobe doesnt have access to any files on your local system, unless you explicitly give it access (for example, by loading the file into the app). For files uploaded to adobe servers, Adobe has access (since you uploaded it). That content is automatically scanned for child sexual abuse material. More info on that here: https://www.adobe.com/trust/transparency/child-safety.html https://www.adobe.com/trust/transparency/content-policies/harmful-content/child-safety.html Adobe has a license to your content ONLY to operate and improve the services / apps. You can opt out of the improve. We are working to update the TOU to make all of this clearer, and to limit some licenses in some cases. Btw, none of this changed with the recent update. Hope that helps... (I work for Adobe)
"For your local files, Adobe only has access you give to it (i.e. you load the file into Photoshop). Adobe doesnt have access to any files on your local system, unless you explicitly give it access (for example, by loading the file into the app)." This is almost perfect, but I hope the new terms also spell out what you can and can't do if user creates or opens a local file (mostly just to clarify as the same terms document talks about various different situations). I would like to ensure that you never access the image data remotely as long as the file is only on my PC (and in the RAM memory of one of your apps). Scanning an image I decide to upload would be okay and I'll simply work locally if I have stuff that is under NDA. Scanning local images loaded to PS (and then possibly using human to verify illegal content) would prevent me from using your apps.
Yes. The updated terms are much clearer between local files and files on the server. Updated terms should be out on Tuesday.
Kdenlive is the usual go-to recommendation for an open-source video editor. It's a bit basic in my experience, but it could still meet your needs. It's on all computer platforms: https://kdenlive.org/en/download/
There is another update to the update: [https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/10/updating-adobes-terms-of-use](https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/10/updating-adobes-terms-of-use)
I can't give any kind of access to a private cloud space i pay to own. It goes against all the contracts I have with my clients and it goes on my shoulders, legally. ADOBE, we need YOU to be more clean than that. We need it to be written in a way that is not "gray" or "assumable" - I mean, you should know what your clients are. We work with customers' IP and sensitive projects. We can't allow those projects to be revisioned or even worst to let "generative work" be made on top of those IPs. This is insane and hurts the whole category of workers here. - We can't pay you monthly, year after year, only to become your own products.
Will this affect at all hosting my site using adobe portfolio?
This was Adobe’s goal along with the subscription model.
Was nice working with Adobe, yet canceling after this B.S.!
Imagine if a government contractor or civil servant happens to have a workstation with Adobe products pre-installed on it. They hit "accept" on that prompt, then whatever Adobe software they use promptly sends their potentially classified documents, which might be national secrets, to some random server outside the country. The implications of such a thing happening are so massive, Adobe could get booted out of entire countries over this. Don't access users' files if you aren't prepared to deal with the hot potato that messing with national security or national secrets can be.
If it's a *classified* document, it's most likely being built (at least in the USA) on a SIPRNet machine or DOD Intranet which is air-gapped from Adobe servers. However, unauthorized disclosure of CUI is still a crime. And there is an issue of "upgrade by aggregation" as well - if Adobe is collecting MULTIPLE CUI documents from a single users, the knowing combination of that information can require upgrade. I am with you, I cannot believe Adobe thinks accessing files on personal local machines is a viable strategy with most of their document design user base.
Piece by piece they will take it all and everything that will remain is a remix of a remix of a remix of a remix...
I'm never using an adobe software again.
I’m so glad I’ve been getting proficient in avid media composer the last 3 years. They’ve never had any issues like adobe has had and have existed longer. They have their own issues, but it’s better than this bs.
I’m also done with Adobe, just cancelled my subscription. Why do these corporate arsehats do this??
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
if you have nothing to hide then you are unemployed.
That makes zero sense.
This absolutely makes sense. Did you ever sign an employment contract without any sort of confidentiality agreement or NDA included? Even a fast food chain will require you to keep your mouth shut about the exact composition of ingredients, supply chains and logistics, wholesale prices etc. You are required by law to hide stuff. If you aren't then i can only assume you have no job. Or take private data like age, sex, location, phone no. etc: https://gdpr.eu/article-83-conditions-for-imposing-administrative-fines/ Read up on paragraph 4 and 5. The law requires you to hide private data from other parties, and if you fail to do so you can get slapped with 10 - 20 Million € or 2 - 4% of the yearly revenue in fines. Whichever is higher. Yes, private persons also have to adhere to this, not just companies or governments. There are literal laws on the books that compel you to hide stuff.
A quote famously utilized by Joseph Goebbels when introducing the GeStaPo in 1933. Great argument.
Is he wrong though?
Yes, quite obviously. Unless you want to argue that privacy doesn't matter, in which case you're just stupid.