Adobe's new T&C's causing concern

[jwheeler]

Interesting news about Adobe's latest T&C's:

In short:
"A change to Adobe terms & conditions for apps like Photoshop has outraged many professional users, concerned that the company is claiming the right to access their content, use it freely, and even sub-license it to others. The company is requiring users to agree to the new terms in order to continue using their Adobe apps, locking them out until they do so …" (Lovejoy, B. (2024, June 6). Change to adobe terms & conditions outrages many professionals. 9to5Mac.com)

Two articles:
1. Change to Adobe terms & conditions outrages many professionals

2. Adobe's new terms of service unacceptably gives them access to all of your projects, for free

 

[chriscozi]

Only because they have been using any and all images in their grasp to train LLM's.
And this will indemnify them from future usage and they'll be prepared to fight any current lawsuits.
Think teams of lawyers.
Past being prologue - just explain to me how I'm wrong.

 

[chriscozi]

Past being prologue - just explain to me how I'm wrong.

But then this is the company that forces you to accept that you don't own a copy of any software they sell.
You are only purchasing the rights to 'use' the functions of the software as it currently exists for as long as 'terms apply'.

 

[Dov Isaacs]

There are a number of issues here.

With regards to the articles called out by @jwheeler, the information in the article in Apple Insider is absolutely wrong. The “terms” that were “changed” were in fact restatements of existing terms, allegedly to make them clearer. In fact, the Adobe lawyers involved in the restatement of the terms only obfuscated those terms. Supposedly, we will soon be seeing a rewrite of those terms to better reflect the truth and reality. (This is not the first time in the last thirty-something years that Adobe's legal department blew it in terms of producing “legalese” that didn't reflect the intent and reality, but rather led some customers to believe that Adobe owned all content stored on servers such as for the “Adobe Creative Cloud.”) Adobe has released statements to the press explaining this.

In terms of @chriscozi's comments that claim that “they have been using any and all images in their grasp to train LLM's” – this is absolutely and totally untrue. All of Adobe's AI training has been done with either internally-developed content or content that Adobe has explicitly licensed for its Adobe Stock service. If you believe or have real evidence otherwise in terms of Adobe, you'd better be prepared to prove it.

Also, with regards to @chriscozi's comments vis-à-vis Adobe software licensing, the fact is that unless you pay a company to develop software explicitly for you, the reality is that virtually all computer software these days is licensed for use. All you “own” is a license to use the software subject to various conditions in the software license. I am not saying that this is something ideal or that you or I should like or love, but the reality is that it is the means by which software vendors make their software available to their customers, whether that is Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Quark, Canva, Corel, Autodesk, Oracle, SAP, etc. and whether such licensing is “perpetual” (whatever that means) or by “subscription” (effectively rental). If you complain about Adobe's software licensing, you should complain equally about virtually every other software vendor out there. (Note that I am not justifying here how software is licensed, but rather explaining the reality!)

- Dov

 

[MailGuru]

A license to "use" software, rather than you "owning" the software is not new, and, has been going on since computers were first introduced back in the early 70's.

As someone who made a living writing software back then, I can tell you that there is a logical valid reason for this type of arrangement, and, it has absolutely nothing to do with revenue.
It has to do with supporting and maintaining the software.

You have no idea how frustrating it is to spend hours, or, even days trouble-shooting a bug, only to find out that their in-house programmer made modifications to your software which caused the problem.

 

[Magnus59]

A license to "use" software, rather than you "owning" the software is not new, and, has been going on since computers were first introduced back in the early 70's.

As someone who made a living writing software back then, I can tell you that there is a logical valid reason for this type of arrangement, and, it has absolutely nothing to do with revenue.
It has to do with supporting and maintaining the software.

You have no idea how frustrating it is to spend hours, or, even days trouble-shooting a bug, only to find out that their in-house programmer made modifications to your software which caused the problem.

I was one of those in house programmers, we were running print MIS systems on Pick and pretty much had to make modifications to make the software do what we needed.

 

[MailGuru]

So.......YOU'RE the one.