Clarifying Adobe's Terms of Use Update

While Terry White is NOT a lawyer, he's here to break the changes and updates down for us all.

[EricLefebvrePhotography]

These "changes" don't address issues usch as NDA work and work where I the user is not the copyright holder such as client work or work on material under fair use doctrine. Under those terms we have no legal rights to grant Adobe the license they demand.

Sure, many people will simply say "don't use the cloud services" but with Adobe's push to AI how can we know what is being run 100% locally on our machines and not being sent to the cloud for processing?

Rotobrush 3 is local (I think right?) but Firefly is cloud based ... what about video auto transcription? Is that being run locally or on Adobe's cloud? What other tools or services are now or will on the future run on their cloud instead of locally and how will users be made aware of this so that they don't accidentally grant Adobe a license that the user LEGALLY cannot assign either through a lack of legal right to do so or through NDA agreements?!?!

This is a legal liability we can't afford and I expect that larger clients such as government will need to re-evaluate their use of Adobe products (like LiveCycle and AEM as well as creative products such as Premiere, in Design, Photosop ...) since these ToS / EULA are for ALL adobe products! Imagine a lawyer having to worry about granting confidential client info to Adobe because Adobe's new spell checker suddenly runs on the cloud! RIDICULOUS!

Also the constant emphasis of "YOU OWN YOUR CONTENT" ... that was NEVER in question, the contentious part is Adobe blanket granting itself a perpetual license to that content with nothing more than a "Trust me bro."

"We've added it to our ToU" ... just like you retroactively added the right to train your AI on Adobe Stock contributors ... to quote Vader "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."

There are other options and I STRONGLY recommend people look into them.

[kdshelic]

⁠You are partially mistaken.

While it says that it will only use licensed content, if you read carefully you will notice that you are granting said license for all your work that touches the cloud.

Furthermore, uploading stuff to the cloud is on by default for all your work. For example if you use ligthroom on the iPad, even if you are working on a local library of photos, the software automatically uploads it to the cloud, thus granting them said license to train AI.

You HAVE TO opt out from uploading to the cloud every time you add photos to your catalogue.


Also, the fact that the license allows them to operate the software as intended, I.e. uploading and sharing your work, it doesn’t mean it’s the only thing they are allowed to do.

As is written, they CAN sell, publish and modify in ANY way they want your work. You are just trusting them not to do it, but legally they have the right.

[thebiblioholic]

Adding "for example" only suggests one use case, it does not preclude others. "The knife will be used to cut things, for example carrots" does not mean the knife can't also be used to stab you in the back. There are other examples of "reproduce", "distribute", "create derivative works", "publicly display", "publicly perform", "sublicense to third parties on ADOBE's behalf" that are not as innocuous as the cited examples.

[MarciaFunebre]

Sorry to be blunt, but I call bullshit on this. When challenged in court this vague wording can always be interpreted in favor of Adobe, enabling in fact any kind of theft under the "sub license" heading.
If Adobe wanted to (re-)gain some trust they would
- include options for perpetual software licenses and complete offline operation with exception for specific AI features.
- opt-out for machine learning must be the default.
- document and disclose ALL server traffic to and from the customer's computer (each IP, for what, how often and why).
- provide a two-way conversation for complaints when algorithms falsely claim that the user violated TOS with an AI feature. Without that it is a no less than an insult against honest creatives working within reasonable parameters. (this happens way too often, and there is NO one to talk to and to make it right.)
- Enable a one-click cancellation for subscriptions (NEEDLESS to say! - I hope the lawsuit of the FTC will succeed on this).
As it is now, Adobe has positioned themselves very clearly against the creative community and against their own customers in the most unethical way.

[NormanZealandMalana]

Adobe was training their generative AI, using our content. There was a checkbox in the settings, that was opted-in, automatically, before they updated it, and removed it, after the backlash.

[Mithferion]

Adobe might also need your explaining skills when addressing the little thing the U.S. regulators want to talk about

[horsecrow]

“We will not x” means nothing. It comes from PR in full defense mode. What we want is “we cannot x” and we want that in the contractual language.

[Ced_Wms]

Just now catching up completely to this Adobe fiasco. Have enjoyed your channel for years and it’s unfortunate that Adobe put you up to doing this video. I agree, it’s a legal issue and you should not have been put in the position to defend it. Stay strong.

[squidskunk]

Adobe has ripped me off one too many times in the past...this time was the last straw...TOO LITTLE TOO LATE.

[SoftwareManiacLSM]

This is one of several Adobe issues that IMHO makes them completely anti-customer.
Things Adobe should do (and they are simple):
1. AI "ownership" of your stuff (local, cloud, or both?): Place responsibility back on the user with regard to unsavory artwork. Their spokeslawyer kept on mentioned the worst (child porno) in her three-part response video. As most anti-Adobe reviewers say this isn't a new problem. Keep humans out of it and make the whole upload, verify, reporting of bad stuff automated and self-policing. If another client complains about your uploaded stuff, do something about it (ex: take it down, correct it, …).
2. Make it easy to cancel an annual subscription. Some other pissed-off videos state the terror (waste of time) it takes to cancel a subscription. It's easy to sign onto an Adobe's subscription, so keep humans out of it as they attempt to talk you out of canceling. OK, when you cancel online, prompt them that there is a cancellation fee based on some pro-rated formula and show the calculations. If you still want to cancel, click Cancel, and your credit card will be charged $x amount. 5 minutes. Easy in, easy out. Sometimes we all make mistakes and have buyer's remorse.
3. Reduce this nightmare of restricting personal computer installations. I have four computers (3 macs and 1 pc) and I have licensed two subscriptions that require DIFFERENT email addresses. Not only expensive, this lack of trust approach towards licensing is really out of date. Just because I am a computer junkie and go out in the field a lot and need Adobe software on a couple of other laptops, doesn't mean I'm going to attempt to run Photoshop on more than one computer at the same time. Do what Escape Motions (Rebelle), Sketchbook, The Omni Group (OmniGraffle), TechSmith (Camtasia Pro), and Microsoft Office does: allow basically up to 5 or so computers to have your stuff installed. Their online licensing software can check to see if more than one or two computers are using Adobe apps (based on IP addresses) at the same time. Almost all of us are honest customers. Otherwise, why make this so difficult?

Surprisingly, compared to many reviewers, I don't have a problem with subscriptions. Adobe puts a lot of work enhancing and supporting their software. And that costs money. OK. But to avoid Adobe from becoming "Big Brother" to their creative community, they can become user-centric overnight and do some basic repositioning of their business practices. "Attention to user needs" always wins in the long run. This DOJ issue is the wake-up call I guess most of us need. It seems like there are a LOT of unhappy customers out there with this latest AI fiasco.

One final note (sorry!) … When licensing, terms of use, and legalese become a larger issue than using the software, you have already lost. Explaining, re-explaining, and re-simplifying "what you really mean" wears most of us out. Many great tech companies have realized that true customer trust is much more important than exploiting revenue opportunities. AI appears to be the current excuse. I'm going to rethink continuing to use Adobe CC, too. It's not a good thing. I find it to be GREAT software. Now, if only Adobe can rethink what it means to be a GREAT company.

Best,
Ken
Bellingham, WA USA

[kosowskj]

I’ve been a long time admirer of you Terry, but am disappointed in your response. To us Adobe’s users and customers these are NOT minor issues as you state! I fail to see the distinction between items that I may store locally vs. in the cloud. Your explanations were vague and left to much grey area as to what Adobe CAN do with our images. I’ll give this time to play out, but as of now, I see myself looking for another company to use for my image editing. Very disappointing, Terry.

[ether]

2:03 Why does everyone from Adobe keep saying Adobe "DOESN'T train generative AI models on your content"? Our question has always been DID Adobe do that, since they opted us in by default.


You're not a lawyer yet you spoke like one here.

[Merlin-nbtj]

Nice try on spinning it. The end user would not know that sub licensing on 3rd party server farms was implied, when 3rd party server farms were never mentioned in the original paragraph. Your clarification's are just espousing trust in the ambiguity of the original TOS, Nothing more. Basically, "DON'T YOU TRUST US ?"

[robinbowen]

I sill don't trust Adobe and all the lawyer wording. Lawyers are skilled with their fancy wording. The cancellation fee was not addressed.

[WayneSpikeLarge]

Thanks for this Terry. Of course, most of us common sense users knew this to be the case already but sadly the internet is rife with those that do not have any common sense and throw a hissy fit at any opportunity. Either out of ignorance or to produce clickbait. The positive in all this, I have seen many YouTube channels literally create hysteria on this issue and I've been able to unsubscribe from their channels and have a damn good clear out!! Thanks again Terry.

[SooksVI]

Thanks for the update. "Generative AI models" is very specific. There are other types of AI models like diffusion models. I would feel more comfortable if Adobe clearly stated that they don't use our work to enhance ANY of their AI models or for machine learning.

[RisottoNero-zw]

pirating Adobe is ALWAYS MORALLY CORRECT

[nikofoto]

Terry, an Adobe shill?!

Why is everyone surprised by this?

[maciejgk]

It's funny how Adobe created an explanation for "us idiots" who ate clearly incabable of understanding the original text.
We need a simplified version and Terry's tutorial.
Terry, you were right the first time, when you said no.
Instead if explanation there should be an apology, not this insane PR to the death.

[pathankotiya]

Nice explanation Terry ... just don't trust Adobe now. Been frustrated for a long time with Adobe and its business but this was the last straw for me. I have cancelled my subscription.