For what it's worth, since the article doesn't go over it, Adobe posted a "clarification" on this: https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use and a news item...
The posted article was published a day before Adobes statement so maybe it wasn't updated My issue with the official statement is that it expands Adobes power (i also anal but the highlighted...
The posted article was published a day before Adobes statement so maybe it wasn't updated
My issue with the official statement is that it expands Adobes power (i also anal but the highlighted change at 2.2 may reads very differently than will only) and tries to weasel out out of user concerns by talking about customer commitments. Customer commitments are not legally binding. They can be changed on any whim and violating these terms has no quantifiable consequences. Adobe has a history of acting in bad faith, specifically in regards to AI and I dont really see the reason to trust them here.
All said, I don't hold any illusions that my $5/mo will mean anything to Adobe. I understand that they make their money on enterprise contracts, not individual users
I have a feeling that the real story is the little guy gets screwed over enterprise either leaves the suite or (much more likely) negotiates a contract that lets them have their way. If I was...
I have a feeling that the real story is
the little guy gets screwed over
enterprise either leaves the suite or (much more likely) negotiates a contract that lets them have their way.
If I was working on a competitor, I'd be working real hard to appeal to the increasingly disgruntled indie/small studio marketplace.
It doesn't really matter, the fact that Adobe even thought to do something like this is reason number 56,347 not to trust them. Their "clarification" being this convoluted shouldn't instill...
It doesn't really matter, the fact that Adobe even thought to do something like this is reason number 56,347 not to trust them. Their "clarification" being this convoluted shouldn't instill confidence in anyone.
Reposting a comment from HomebrewTea from the verge article linked as it summaries my thoughts to a tea and I'm on mobile: Why does nobody think we can read? Even this article seems to be skipping...
Reposting a comment from HomebrewTea from the verge article linked as it summaries my thoughts to a tea and I'm on mobile:
Why does nobody think we can read? Even this article seems to be skipping over what was literally typed out between the quotation marks. Saying you've never before used user content for "gen Ai" in the past tense, has nothing to do with the fact that they did say that they would be giving themselves permanent access to all content that touches any Adobe software for both human review and machine learning. Permanently giving them permission to use private user content that isn't in the public domain for company benefit. Just because you say users own their content, doesn't change the fact that you made it a condition for the use of your software, that people had to agree to, to also give you total access to all content regardless.
I'm excited to see this new TOS rollout, I wanna know if they're gonna actually change the fact that they essentially gave themselves permanent admin level permissions in regards to user content, or if they'll just change the words around so that they're too confusing for most people to be upset about it.
I've been on a $5/mo Adobe student plan for a few years to do lightweight artwork for my dev projects but this will likely be the move that pushes me to Krita. Limited psd support will hurt but I...
I've been on a $5/mo Adobe student plan for a few years to do lightweight artwork for my dev projects but this will likely be the move that pushes me to Krita. Limited psd support will hurt but I shouldn't be losing anything I can't recreate.
I do wonder about my works enterprise license. Surely that one will be free from "content moderation" right?
I have an old laptop with an old version of Adobe software that I can use without an internet connection. I don't ever intend to upgrade the OS. It still works perfectly fine for my purposes and I...
I have an old laptop with an old version of Adobe software that I can use without an internet connection. I don't ever intend to upgrade the OS. It still works perfectly fine for my purposes and I don't see why I wouldn't be able to get 20-30 more years of usage out of it. At the moment the laptop's keyboard is kind of worn out, but luckily I made sure to get one that I can service myself. The new keyboard is sitting in my drawer, waiting to be installed. I've already replaced the battery kit once. The expenses from servicing are negligible compared to the cost of paying Adobe's subscription fees, and now there's the added cost of having to worry our work gets grabbed for potentially dubious purposes without our explicit consent.
I've also bought a newer laptop for online stuff + running DaVinci Resolve and Blender, as well as raw still image editing using Nikon's free software. Most of my lightweight image editing work can be done using free software, some of which has better tools for certain jobs than Adobe (at least the old versions I'm using). I do still need Photoshop / Illustrator / InDesign for some stuff, and it's nice to have an uncluttered, dedicated laptop for that.
I'm quite pleased that I don't have to deal with Adobe ever again. In the past, every time I needed something from them, it was a PIA experience.
For what it's worth, since the article doesn't go over it, Adobe posted a "clarification" on this: https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use and a news item here: https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/10/updating-adobes-terms-of-use .
And a more neutral and in-depth article by the verge: https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/10/24175416/adobe-overhauls-terms-of-service-update-firefly
I have no idea what the real story is, and I suspect only lawyers really know if the change had an impact or not.
The posted article was published a day before Adobes statement so maybe it wasn't updated
My issue with the official statement is that it expands Adobes power (i also anal but the highlighted change at 2.2
mayreads very differently thanwill only) and tries to weasel out out of user concerns by talking about customer commitments. Customer commitments are not legally binding. They can be changed on any whim and violating these terms has no quantifiable consequences. Adobe has a history of acting in bad faith, specifically in regards to AI and I dont really see the reason to trust them here.All said, I don't hold any illusions that my $5/mo will mean anything to Adobe. I understand that they make their money on enterprise contracts, not individual users
I have a feeling that the real story is
If I was working on a competitor, I'd be working real hard to appeal to the increasingly disgruntled indie/small studio marketplace.
It doesn't really matter, the fact that Adobe even thought to do something like this is reason number 56,347 not to trust them. Their "clarification" being this convoluted shouldn't instill confidence in anyone.
Reposting a comment from HomebrewTea from the verge article linked as it summaries my thoughts to a tea and I'm on mobile:
Why does nobody think we can read? Even this article seems to be skipping over what was literally typed out between the quotation marks. Saying you've never before used user content for "gen Ai" in the past tense, has nothing to do with the fact that they did say that they would be giving themselves permanent access to all content that touches any Adobe software for both human review and machine learning. Permanently giving them permission to use private user content that isn't in the public domain for company benefit. Just because you say users own their content, doesn't change the fact that you made it a condition for the use of your software, that people had to agree to, to also give you total access to all content regardless.
I'm excited to see this new TOS rollout, I wanna know if they're gonna actually change the fact that they essentially gave themselves permanent admin level permissions in regards to user content, or if they'll just change the words around so that they're too confusing for most people to be upset about it.
I've been on a $5/mo Adobe student plan for a few years to do lightweight artwork for my dev projects but this will likely be the move that pushes me to Krita. Limited psd support will hurt but I shouldn't be losing anything I can't recreate.
I do wonder about my works enterprise license. Surely that one will be free from "content moderation" right?
I have an old laptop with an old version of Adobe software that I can use without an internet connection. I don't ever intend to upgrade the OS. It still works perfectly fine for my purposes and I don't see why I wouldn't be able to get 20-30 more years of usage out of it. At the moment the laptop's keyboard is kind of worn out, but luckily I made sure to get one that I can service myself. The new keyboard is sitting in my drawer, waiting to be installed. I've already replaced the battery kit once. The expenses from servicing are negligible compared to the cost of paying Adobe's subscription fees, and now there's the added cost of having to worry our work gets grabbed for potentially dubious purposes without our explicit consent.
I've also bought a newer laptop for online stuff + running DaVinci Resolve and Blender, as well as raw still image editing using Nikon's free software. Most of my lightweight image editing work can be done using free software, some of which has better tools for certain jobs than Adobe (at least the old versions I'm using). I do still need Photoshop / Illustrator / InDesign for some stuff, and it's nice to have an uncluttered, dedicated laptop for that.
I'm quite pleased that I don't have to deal with Adobe ever again. In the past, every time I needed something from them, it was a PIA experience.