Adobe Terms of Service - June 2024 | FACTS NOT CLICKBAIT
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- Adobe recently updated their Terms of Service, however how this was done and the wording used did cause quite a strong reaction across the internet. Some people took to posting videos with Clickbait Titles that served only to incite anger and unneccesarily spread worry across the creative community … and ultimately result in them gaining large view counts.
⛓ 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐊𝐒 𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐍 𝐕𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐎: bit.ly/adobe-t...
📰 𝐆𝐄𝐓 𝐌𝐘 𝐅𝐑𝐄𝐄 𝟐 𝐱 𝐌𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐇𝐋𝐘 𝐍𝐄𝐖𝐒𝐋𝐄𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐑 for Photographers, Photoshop and Lightroom Users, Mobile and Gear and Lovers: www.glyndewis.com
🖥 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐞𝐧𝐐 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐈 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐡𝐬 ... 𝐒𝐖𝟐𝟕𝟐𝐔
benqurl.biz/3t...
🖥 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐞𝐧𝐐 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐈 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨 ... 𝐏𝐃𝟑𝟒𝟐𝟎𝐐
glyndewis.com/...
𝐀𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐐𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐦𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐫 𝐈 𝐝𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐒𝐖 𝐨𝐫 𝐏𝐃 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲. 𝐅𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐞 𝐚 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐦𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐛𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮❜𝐝 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞.
•𝐑𝐨𝐲𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐲 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐜, 𝐕𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨 𝐅𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞, 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭)
bit.ly/37teIbU
•𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐬, 𝐓𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐬, 𝐋𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝟑𝐫𝐝𝐬, 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐬, 𝐓𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐭𝐜 ... (𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐀𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐲):
bit.ly/3ddtZno
𝐉𝐨𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦 / 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫: @𝐠𝐥𝐲𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐬
𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 📘📘📙📗
The Photoshop Layers and Selections Workshop: amzn.to/2U2Gjg
The Photoshop Toolbox: amzn.to/3b7n6Rt
Photograph Like a Thief: amzn.to/3rHSJqC
The Photoshop Workbook: amzn.to/2X5dWwB
For those who mis-understand the Terms of Service here's a VERY simplified 'revised wording' Terms of Service ... www.adobe.com/uk/legal/terms.html and to help with that even more here's a video from Terry White giving examples of what each of the Terms mean ... th-cam.com/video/FB-UVLncSTM/w-d-xo.html
And their lawyer
th-cam.com/video/VETOSYXL7LY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=r7N8VqCu-aIVlddA
Doubling down on insulting peoples' intelligence isn't working for Adobe, and it's especially not working for you. And, citing Terry White (a 27-year representative/employee of Adobe) is akin to the proverbial wolf protecting the sheep herd. Good luck with that. I'm reminded of a maxim: " Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."
Your video is trash and you fell for the bs excuses adobe is making. You pointed out their reply on section 4.1 of the TOS which cleverly left out addressing 4.2.
Let's start with 4.1
While they claim only content that one uploads to CC is reviewed, they left out the explanation that any background & fill content using generative ai also will be. Because it has to be uploaded to CC for the function to work. It is not programmed into the software and accomplished on your machine.
4.2
While they claim in the explanation blog that we retain ownership, 4.2 clearly states that they may use, post, sell, and modify any of your copyright and use it without compensation. Yes, they can't use it to train ai, but the contract leaves it wide open for any other use, which has no stated limits on time nor reason.
Are you paid by Adobe to continue hiding the full truth dude?
So where is the Decline option on the screen that popped up?
The 'decline' was to close it as it says on the screen "By closing this window...."
@@glyndewis "...By closing this window, you'll be unable..." etc
So total BS in my opinion.
@@mariuslabuschagne9012 Yep. Also, GD here is repeating the "generative AI" line when the new terms clearly state it will use the content for "machine learning" - that's just PR synonym sneaky word play and reeks of disingenuous legal-sleaze language. This video adds 0 context/usable insight and just repeats Adobe's CYA reply.
Just block all internet traffic to adobe processes you dont need and you wont ever get it again.
@@mariuslabuschagne9012 I agree with mariuslabuschagne9012. When the user closes that popup window, he'll be unable to access all his contents in Adobe cloud even though he has paid for the service till the end of this year 2024. That is, his contract with Adobe still has 6 more months to go. Is that BLACKMAILING?
I've seen where they're reconsidering their terms by June 18. But I would like to say -- a blog post "clarifying" something is not a binding agreement. They also weren't training AI initially on Adobe Stock, until they updated their terms of service to do so years after most people had already uploaded their content there with no intention of it being used that way. Sure, they could take it down -- but the point here is that Adobe retroactively changed the agreement and took advantage of their users to essentially replace them and put them out of work. You don't need stock photographers when you can just generate an image. And they built firefly on the backs of stock photographers, who are their customers. Markets shift and change sure, but don't bite the hand that feeds you.
And just because Google or Amazon does something, doesn't make it right that Adobe does. Charging users a substancial fee every month to not own their software and exploiting their work is wrong. Don't accept it because other companies do it. We should all be skeptical when a company does stuff like this.
I take it you don’t use their apps?
@@glyndewis honestly not sure how this is relevant to the point I'm making. I have used their apps for years, bugs and all. But this isn't about me, it's about the behavior of a large corporation taking advantage of their customers.
Agreed with summary.
@@glyndewisis that really the best you can come up with
@@gabehobbs If you used Adobe stock you would know that when they decided to optionally, at the upload/owners discretion, use stock for AI training, they made it opt-in so they didn't start scanning without explicit user agreement. Also, they cut checks and paid you for your photos. Still haven't seen any of the other 'scraping rapists' do that and actually pay instead of stealing images. (ChatGPT, are you listening?)
Glyn, for a video that is called "Facts not clickbait" you have given very little facts and just enough of clickbait.
You’re a fan of Tony aren’t you? 😉
@@glyndewis no Glyn, I don't give a f*#K about Tony. Yet, this is not relevant. You make your own comment about him, not about the "facts". I didn't say anything about Tony. Your "damage control" is even funnier than Adobe's at this point. The facts are against you. All you can say is "you're a fan of Tony". Cry me a river.
You're being called out for bs.
🥱
@@glyndewis when you lose your credibility, all you have left are emoticons.
You're a funny guy.
Zero valid arguments on your end.
@@ShutterTwist Aaaaannnnnnd relax
The fact that Adobe has had to promise to come out with a revised Terms of Service next week suggests that they know the complaints have some substance to them. Hopefully the new terms will be written in a way that puts the more serious concerns, especially regarding privacy and the very vague mention of "machine learning" (not generative AI) to rest. We shall see.
What Tony's video incorrectly stated, is that they should should never access your content. That's not correct. They have had to introduce this since the EU now require them to have systems to check for illegal content and to have human checking, verification and intervention in any automated processes.
This applies to any and all similar companies. It doesn't apply to material you store locally. Adobe's mistake was failing to make this clear and to separate it, from other consensual reasons they may need to access your content.
They definitely should have been far more prescriptive in their language, examples in TOS can help but often they are the source of the most problems.
@@vincevinnyp9224 They wouldn't have to do so if they provided outright purchase and no requirement to use creative cloud.
But they haven't promised that ... they did however say they are published a revised 'wording' of thr same ToS so that some people that don't understan the original ... will 😉
This is clickbait by accusing others of clickbait. It didn’t really bring any FACTS. Northrup did not to promote a product but to demonstrate he is an avid user and supporter of Adobe but finds it deeply troubling to recommend and promote a company and product that is not trustworthy.
It's INTERESTING to see that Glyn replied to gabehobbs's comment but he has not replied to your comment "This is clickbait by accusing others of clickbait...."
Same thought, same truth. Clickbait and probably Adobe promoter of some sort.
@@mauriciolee7349 No not at all ... it's just that I couldn't be bothered 😃
Sorry but I should say nonsense, adobe has been changing for a while, you want to keep defending it, it is your choice but the way you are doing it is very unprofessional! Yes adobe backtracked, the reason that they came with that statement! To adobe, please throw out the sales people instead of promoting them and bring back professionals that used to run the company!
Clause 4.2 does not mean Adobe can 'sell' content without compensating
@@glyndewis sorry, But "Royality Free" sublicense means you don't need to compensate...
@@keerthinarasimha Hmmmm have you see the 'simple' wording ToS now released ? 😉
@@glyndewis lol..!.. So condescending its funny.. Firstly you tell someone else in their comment Adode didnt backtrack, but here it seems your saying they did by '..simplifying..' ..the TOS.. Adobe shouldnt be selling anyones content without permission.. Oh right it compensates.. With what..?
Well, not to take the "both sides" approach to this, but it is a bit rich to criticize Northrup for his work and his monetization of it while defending Adobe, which in spite of producing an outstanding product, consistently ranks among one of the greediest corporations out there.
I didn't see Northrup's video, nor will I bother as I don't really feel impacted by this issue, but I do know Tony and Chelsea Northrup have generated some really fantastic content over the years. He could be off the mark with his criticism of Adobe, I don't know. But it's hard to question his depth of experience and knowledge. He has educated A LOT of photographers, so I guess I'm willing to give him a pass on this one.
I of course remain a fan of your work Glyn!
log into your Adobe account online, Adobe account > Account and security > Data and privacy settings - turn off desktop app usage and content analysis. Then open Photoshop Edit > Preferences > Product improvement - untick product improvement participation. This automatically unticks permission for Adobe to use your images and data to train AI. Of course you only have Adobe's word that they won't use your data, but that's the same for any software you use. It's worth making sure they don't have your permission for future legal cases. It only takes one well-known user to have their data used without permission to trigger a class-action lawsuit. The thing I find annoying about these type of things is that these options should be "opt-in" by default, not the other way around. I'm paying for Adobe software. If they want to utilise my data they should ask for permission and offer an incentive or compensation.
Thank you!
You are the one and only one on here is genuinely "clickbaiting" Just the mention of Tony Northrup sends your views up. He on the other hand has written books on Adobe products and has so much more to lose when as they are with HIS wake up call unsubscribing to Adobe products. You on the other hand are just riding the wave later than most. Northrup is the eyes and ears of his and his wifes massive photographic community. If nothing else is gained from his heads up, folk have now switched off adobes auto theft and read the T&C's properly, like me for the first time. Glyn? Welsh? that fits thens
1) Not Welsh
2) Don’t mention Tony Northrup in the title so you wouldn’t know he was mentioned unless you watched; which you obviously did … so thank you 😉
3) ToS not T&C 💁♂️
First let me say, that I've been an Adobe customer for over 20 years at this point. I LOVE Photoshop & Lightroom. But here are some of the MAJOR issues with these terms of service as I see them.
"Owning your content" means absolutely nothing if you can't enforce usage rights. Copyright owners get to say how, when, where and for how long their intellectual property can be used and there's always an invoice attached to that. Licensing our work is how artists make a living. So Adobe forcing its customers to agree to grant Adobe (Clause 4.2) "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" is completely unacceptable, monopolistic behavior.
Only copyright owners get to say how their intellectual property is used, not Adobe. And I don't know about everyone else, but I sure as hell don't remember seeing a check in the mail from Adobe for the overly broad usage we're being forced to grant them to use our work. Clause 4.2 needs to be fixed ASAP. (Which they are apparently working on).
They state that "Adobe does not train Firefly Gen AI models on customer content." Adobe can let you opt out all you want, but at the end of the day it really doesn't matter because the broad use license we're being forced to grant Adobe in Clause 4.2 seems to provide them with the ability to override our opt out any time they wish. The fact is, based on this agreement us creatives are being forced agree to terms that will allow Adobe to use our intellectual property to train Firefly Generative AI and Adobe is simply asking the entire creative industry to trust them that they won't. Adobe also states that they DO use your work for machine learning. There needs to be a CLEAR distinction between machine learning and Adobe Firefly generative AI. Do we trust them becomes the question.
Between Adobe's recent "Skip the Photoshoot" campaign (aimed at promoting businesses use Adobe Firefly Generative AI instead of hiring photographers) and recent updates to Adobe's terms of service, I've lost a LOT of trust with this company in recent months. Check out ASMP's open letter to Adobe: www.asmp.org/press-release/an-open-letter-to-adobe/
Big Tech is out of control right now! Every company is in an A.I. arms race and there is no real legislation in the United States at this time that prohibits the scraping of our personal data, images, videos and documents for machine learning and AI. These monopolistic companies are getting away with absolute murder. Look at Meta, you can't even opt out of AI training if you wanted to here in the United States of America....Only if you live the U.K. (www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/how-to-opt-out-of-instagram-and-facebook-using-your-posts-for-ai)
Clause 4.2 does not mean Adobe can 'sell' content without compensating
@@glyndewis I didn't say anything about Adobe selling our work without compensation.
@@glyndewisyour response is dumbest thing I’ve heard. Is that what your channel is about? Clickbait instead of facts?
@@glyndewis It sounds like they can use it however they want, without compensation or permission.
@@glyndewisyes it does. That's exactly what it says in plain English
NO, you do not have "the choice to opt out" because you cannot open your own files if you do not expressly agree to Adobe's new conditions. Meaning that they are blackmailing you to agree, or you are locked out of your own content.
Sorry Glyn, but this video is a bug nothingburger. Why make it 4 minutes ? just say "Trust Adobe and move on" it`s probably just me but the fact that you don`t know who Tony is is concerning.
Don’t be concerned because I don’t know someone that thrives on controversy
@@glyndewisyou are creating a controversy here and right now by calling out a TH-camr. Sorry but with this pretty “controversial” video you lost me.
Clearly you own Adobe stocks! 😂
i wish 🤣
@@glyndewis When your Adobe Cloud is free, you have to show your loyality.
I do own stock in Adobe. And I'm throwing up alarms over this all over the place.
@@deckertyrell3340 The only way you'd know that (if it was true) is by looking into my account and personal information.
@@glyndewis Since Adobe is being sued by the U.S Government for "unlawful subscription practices", even you cannot claim book promoting, monetised videos or misinformation is the agenda.
The agenda is to protect people from being manipulated and forced to part with money.
Reeling off other big tech companies does not hide the fact Adobe are underhanded and coercive.
I am sure you will still blame Mr Northrup.
Why are you attacking the man and not what he mentioned in the video???? it is very strange and Unprofessional
You think that's "attacking" someone? Oh dear
@@glyndewis Yes, because you simply didn't address the concerns in his video.
Noone cares about Tony, they're pointing out that you've set up a bogeyman to make your case on adobes behalf. There's plenty of good reason to be upset at adobe and here you are playing games with your viewers.
@@glyndewis It's clearly ad hominem. It's low character stuff and completely undermines your credibility.
@@hjmkhalaf😅😅😅😅😅😂😂😂😂
4.1 says we grant them a license of our work…then they say we remain owners of our work…you realize those two things aren’t mutually exclusive, right? And yes, I read the “for the sole purpose of…”, but that’s not much a confort…
Clause 4.2 does not mean Adobe can 'sell' content without compensating
@@glyndewis the point is that they shouldn’t be able to sell at all. Or do anything other then display, store, etc. They cannot have a license over your work. And I say this with no passion. If I want to be compensated for my work that has to be subject to a specific contract. That’s what Adobe Stock is for. Voluntarily.
@@glyndewiswho cares about selling. When privacy is broken like this, then they’re options with what they do with your info is limitless. Psh, and you’re worried only about that small choice.. these are fucking corporations whose sole purpose is to make money. Get your head outta the sand
… talking about privacy and coming from someone who is using social media 🤷♂️
When the argument becomes ad homini, the debate is over…
Adobe should change the terms of service not make cheap excuses.
Louis Rossmann shares my point of view, maybe you should watch his video ...
THAT’S whose video he should watch!!
@@pancakelens75 Louis Rossmann´s video to the topic
Blog posts clarifying terms of service are not legal agreements. So they can say whatever they want in the blog, if it isn't in the terms of service it doesn't matter.
Well that's just stating the obvious. You saw that the blog post mentions about ToS next week right?
Ehm if the author of a terms of service "Clarifies" what it means then that is what the TOS means. I can enforce the TOS as based on that clarification.
@@vincevinnyp9224 The information was not clarified by the company, but an employee of the company, and we don't even know if they know law. It can be argued he posted without proper context, or without due authorization. It would be dubious, and there is case law going either direction, but typically the court followed what the user agreed to.
@@vincevinnyp9224 Well said
@@RobertFrisbeeTAM That's like comparing a lawyer explaining the law isn't valid becuase they didn't write it
that's just a blog post. Have they changed the Terms of Service? NO. In the end they can say what they want on the internet, but the terms of service - ie the contract- is the only document that stands up in court.
... and if you read it you'llsee that it says Terms of Service will be coming out next week in a language that makes it all clearer 🤷♂️
@@glyndewis that will be interesting. They tried it on and got caught out
@@glyndewis Let me tell you something. It doesn't matter what they say anywhere else, Including in other blogposts , External links, website, Instagram posts ,X(formal Twitter) or anywhere else in any other manner. The one thing that matters is Written in Terms of Service Contract. It should be changed. No clarification can justify holding a Royality Free license.
What is written in Contract, if it has any other ways to interpret the Terms, that will be a way create loopholes for the company to use. In company like Adobe , Legal team makes the terms and Conditions, and PR team handles the Communication with the customers. If they write anything in language that makes it all clear next week that will come from PR team. And any and every legal issue is responsibility for Legal Team.
I know (think) you are trying to calm down some people. But the concerns are there even if they say I Won't use your contents in clarification, until they put the same in Terms of Service Contract. Just do your research, you will figure it out hopefully.
How to show you don't understand what a clarification means in the law, at least in the EU and the UK but probably the rest of the world.
If the author, of a document, including TOS, publishes a clarification as to what it means then you are entitled to rely on that to show that the document meant that from the outset.
It's the best of both worlds, for the party who didn't draft the document as they are the ones who can choose whether to argue the clarification makes changes to their detriment and should not apply to them, or base it on the clarification.
@@vincevinnyp9224 If that is the case then why is Adobe coming out with revised terms of service next week?
With all due respect, you sound like a paid shill for Adobe in the way you presented this. For instance, I just watched Northrup's vid in which he holds up two of his Adobe training books. It was clear to me that he did it to qualify that he understands that industry as a software developer and systems administrator, has written technical manuals on the software, and is qualified to speak on the issue. You either intentionally misinterpreted that or the point was lost on you, although my guess is that you are intelligent enough to know better. The wording used to cause such a strong reaction across the Internet, as you put it, came directly from Adobe in its TOS.
I read Adobe's TOS and remain as incredulous as the numerous long-time users who have expressed their vexation. Adobe has employed these underhanded tactics before, so their blog post clarifications should be taken, at best, with a grain of salt. I used the Adobe suite for decades, as a commercial user, and tolerated their blatant disrespect for professional creatives because they were the industry standard and held a monopoly. It was a relief to finally break ties because a viable competitor now offers a suite of apps that easily handle essentially any professional workflow, although I digress.
What does it matter that Tony hasn't raised privacy concerns on other companies you mentioned?
Thanks for the gaslighting🤦♂️
😂
@@ggstylz According to @glyndewis WE are the ones gaslighting… this guy is corrupted.
Tony showed his books to underline in what difficult position he was in: concerning terms of service you don't want to recommend and at the same time being heavily invested in the product.
I’ve no objection to Toneh selling stuff on his channel, we all have a right to earn a living, so good luck to him on that front, I hope he succeeds. But, it was a shameless plug and his supposed (or was it fake?) dilemma provided him with a perfect opportunity to do just that, advertise his books.
@@davids2720 That is your take, I did not experience it that way. Hence it's a kinda a stupid to burn the company you make a living from.
isn’t it just 💁♂️
@@glyndewis Say that to Adobe. They are being sued by the US for sketchy subscription models. It takes some real effort as a company, to get sued by the US.
I'm not here to defend Tony but in my humble opinion...
I've think your clip of Tony's books is totally out of context and misleading to anyone who hasn't watched his video...
Also, as someone who makes a living from youtube, he has every right to monetize his videos, whatever the topic.
Most people watch his Photography channel to hear his takes on photography related matters, not all of the stuff you listed at the end.
Adobe have enough resources to make sure they get the wording right first time. They have clarified things only in response to the (some say justified) uproar.
Anyway, I'm off to do some editing in Lightroom...
How much did Adobe pay you to gaslight like this?
Back at you 😉
You just gave me a good giggle. The hand is open..
@Glyn obviously knows what gaslighting is, unless he does it himself, and when he people point that out, he blames them. Pathetic.
Hey Glyn, I'm a long time subscriber and watch all of your content, but, I have to say you have taken a clip of Tony's out of context. Maybe you weren't aware of the context of Tony's video, maybe you were just sent a clip and you are reacting. But, that is not what Tony is doing. If you have actually watched his video and feel this way then maybe you have misunderstood his message. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with Tony a lot. But in this instance he is not calling out Adobe and then promoting their product. I have to say you are wrong mate. Watch his whole video and then comment 👍
Watched the whole video and it was completely one sided. The Police analogy towards the end was ridiculous as was the Makita Drill reference. You own the drill ... you don't own Adobe Apps.
@@glyndewis, Maybe we are just seeing two different sides of the coin. I just watched his video again and I cannot for the life of me see that he is maliciously misdirecting anyone to buy his books. I'm thinking that he is saying, "Hey Adobe is doing this stupid thing and I've even written books on their product saying it's great, I'm embarrassed." I'm now quite confused as to your point. I'm trying to understand your point.
@@glyndewis I don't personally care for Northrup a lot as I find he does a lot of clickbaity stuff, but then again, who in this space doesn't? But, I do have to agree with OP here. The video was a bit overdone, but they are right in that Tony wasn't promoting his book, and while it was one-sided (I mean, to be expected considering the topic) it did have valid points even if you don't agree with it. The original EULA did state some pretty wild rights that Adobe was giving itself, and the professional community had and has a right to be wary of it all and question it/not be happy with it. Different people will have different viewpoints, but in the end this video is basically doing the exact same thing that you just admonished Tony for in his video: made a one-sided video (that attacked another creator and cherry-picked clips while neglecting to provide some pretty big context) in an effort to gain clicks and views. Whether that was the actual intent or not, that's what this video is, and quite honestly the way you went about this one is a bit off-putting. I normally respect your stuff quite a bit, but this one could've been done and handled a whole lot better than singling one person's video out and misrepresenting it. Good enough information within (although, I would have preferred you actually addressed the multiple parts that people are rightfully upset about instead of just one little thing in a sea of bashing someone), but come on.
@@itmeryy I have to agree.
Adobe got called out and now have to backtrack.
Not backtracking ... just having to make the wording 'simple' for those who don't understand the original
You are so funny. You tell we need to check the facts. I think it is other way round. YOU need to check the facts.. what adobe say now is "generative AI" that is miniscule sub area. Of what is in TOS. show me the opt out. You seem to have a very limited comprehension of what is taking place and interpreting the fire fighter posts by ADOBE
Adobe shill
🤣
So you bashed another TH-camr, Tony, and said there is a new Adobe ToS. That's all. No deep clarification or discussion. Please do an in depth clarrification of their new ToS.
Of course Tony will promote his own stuff.. I personally have not watched him for years. To me, he's always doing thing to create a havoc in the photo community to gain clicks and views.
What adobe wrote is an interpretation of the terms of service by someone from adobe. Unless this is clarified in actual terms of service this can be interpreted differently by someone else from adobe. The way it is phrased suggests that adobe could use your work as by signing the agreement you gave them royalty free license for it.
I give 0 ducks about what someone says in their social media when it comes to the legal terms unless this would be legally binding them to that statement, which it probably doesn't, blog posts are just as helpful in clarification.
If you meant it the way it's not phrased in terms of service, jus CHANGE TERMS OF SERVICE, the reason they go in such roundabout way about it is because they want you to shut up and give them data. There is literally no reason for them NOT to change ToS if they mean it like they wrote on the blog post xD
I stopped looking at Tony's TH-cam channel years ago. It seems as his modus operandi is to to rant about some brand of this or some brand of that. I'm not saying he's right or wrong. It became difficult to say what was true or what was essentially and advert for a product. Ranting to get clicks got very old for me.
You’ve said nothing in this video. Get to the facts out and actually comment on Adobe’s deception and manipulation. It seems that you are not interested in protecting your viewers or making them aware of Adobe’s use of our art for A.I. training.
Your Art? Got a link?
wow. some real BS advocacy from Glyn. If something is just a clickbait, so is THIS video.
🤣
If Adobe paid you to do damage control for them, they just wasted their money. The way you respond to comments, your sheer indifference to what the actual issue is, lame deflection tactics, and your resort to throwing personal attacks on Tony instead of addressing what he is talking about is deeply concerning. Do better.
Posted a follow up video just for you 😉
Adobe disrespects artists!
Lucky 😉
Nice, rational analysis. I've been an Adobe client forever and love their stuff. Unfortunately, I can't ditch it easily because my clients EXPECT work to be done and passed back to them using Adobe CC tools: Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign. The AI "rules of engagement" are intrusive and really make me wonder, but as their competitors will employ AI to remain competitive, who says they will be more "hands-off?"
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
Thankyou Glyn for the video
Finally... a video on the ToS update that isn't just a giant pile of clickbait for the sake of selling shite or getting more AdSense revenue!
I was on the fence, but I've gone ahead and given you my Sub now :)
You are an Adobe trainer, so tell me why should we take your word at face value trying to put in a good word for a multi billion company, instead of, say, Tony's? Adobe has lied before. Did Adobe ask all the Adobe Stock contributors if they actually wanted to opt in to feed their stuff into Firefly? You also left out the part where Adobe automatically sublicences all of our content made by their products. How could a creative like you possibly defend that?
Because I understand it and have had Adobe PAY to license images for use that I have uploaded on their servers as I use Lightroom desktop. Note … they don’t use them without my permission AND they paid.
@@glyndewis If Adobe is paying you then your defence speech makes a lot more sense of course. But for the rest of us, that is precisely the problem, we pay them, they don't ask us any permission to use our stuff, but instead force us to comply so that they can do it anyway, which they already have.
Adobe in their initial update to their terms of service stated that they could access our images using both machine and via actual people. They did not state that this only applied to images that were uploaded to their cloud servers. So for clarity, you are saying that they will only look at images that have been uploaded (i.e. they cannot access images on my PC). Also in terms of this "opting out" of their product development program, how does one do this? I can't see any obvious, stand out button that allows me to opt out on my CC Desktop App.
Chedck out link in the description that takes you to a post i have written with relevant links
If people reacting as they did had actually clicked on some of the original inks in the ToS and read them, they would have seen that it was refering to content on their servers. To say that Adobe were scanning our computers hard drives was simply wrong.
@@glyndewis Thank you for clarifying
This was the most click bait video on this topic I've watched. I thought it was going to be a break down of the facts of what the tos said and concerns........ yet it was a skirt around, point the finger at this guy, we will have to wait and see without discussing the affor mentioned. Lol. Wow.
@@koishiikittydude’s projecting what he does in the title 😂
Great video, thanks for an unbiased, common sense, view of the situation. However, one point that was left out is that a lot of us use Adobe's cloud as a mechanism to keep our mobile devices and desktop in sync. Another point is that these ToS were put into effect in February, but Adobe just did the mandatory click to continue. Now, although Adobe recognizes that we own our material, this agreement secures them a sub-license to your work (in the cloud) to do anything they want with it.
They can't do 'anything' with it
@@glyndewis Really? Please look at this: "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. For example, we may sublicense our right to the Content to our service providers or to other users to allow the Services and Software to operate as intended, such as enabling you to share photos with others. Separately, section 4.6 (Feedback) below covers any Feedback that you provide to us." To me that defines "anything", except of course own.
Without 4.2 in your discussion, you are partially out of context with the unhappiness in the community.
Well this is pretty disingenuous of you and frankly disappointing I guess you changed from being an Adobe Evangelist to an Adobe Apologist.
Tony clearly wasn't plugging his books only showing how dependent/invested in Abode products he is - even to the point he wrote books about it.
And throwing unnecessary shade at "Some guy called..." do you mean some guy with 5~6 times as many subscribers? Cheap and low - we don't think it, we all know you are better than that.
I see you avoided the Louis Rossmann videos, who is far more comprehensive about these kind of things that big corporations do and calls BS on this blogpost update from Adobe.
I'm sure at some time in the future, when Adobe are found to have stolen everything, they'll be more than happy to pay some miniscule fine.
Again pretty disappointed in this video and you this time - it's the first video of yours I had to downvote.
Click bait is it, Gwen. Hmmm... perhaps consider the new slogan for Firefly. It reads, "Skip the Photoshoot."
I don't know about you, but I interpret that to mean "Skip the Photoshoot". So, here we have a company with millions of photographers in their customer base, and they are suggesting the work those customers do ...can be skipped.". You may feel that's customer focused. I do too, but I recognize it is not focused on their photographer customer base and is instead focused on their 'production clients and new clients, at the expense of their photographer customer base, who they are literally putting out of business. So, you go ahead and interpret their intentions as you wish, and when your own customers decide to take Adobe's advice and ,'Skip YOUR Photoshoots', come back and remind us how well intentioned they are.
🤣
My ‘customers’ have a mind of their own and understand that technology is one thing but a feeling of being out with a camera and creating is another. Surely you understand that ??? Would you ‘do’ what a corporation tell you or would you do what brings you pleasure? I hope for your case and longevity … it’s the latter.
@glyndewis if you believe that Glyn, you will 'pleasure yourself' into the ranks of the unemployed. "Skip the Photoshoot" is an indefensible battle cry. Adobe is laying the groundworrk to replace professional photographers with Ai.
If you can't read the writing on that wall, you may as well quit now due to "vision impairment." Get that checked.
And you believe them? lol Adobe as screwed their stock photo supports among many other questionable things...
Exactly this!!!
I don't always agree with Tony but you got it wrong here mate.
Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that one; the revised wording explains why. Plus ... you own the Makita ... you license the software.
I have to agree that Tony has a well-oiled ranting machine going, which is why I stopped watching most of his videos. and i also fell in with both feet on this one. That said, does the internet really need another mud-throwing video? if we are going to discuss the Terms of Use, shouldn't we only look at the actual Terms of Use document from Adobe and steer away from personal opinions or or a blog post? After all, we don't sign up for those.
This would be a great opportunity to make a video with a legal expert reviewing the Terms of Use document. Having a lawyer's perspective could help clearify how some parts might pose future problems or be misinterpreted by the general public.
The real problem is that so many tech companies have abused their users and taken liberties that the end user did not intend that we don't know who we can trust anymore. After seeing the keynote for WWDC, I immediately felt this same distrust even though I have virtually nothing on my phone that Apple doesn't know about already. This issue goes well beyond Adobe and is now firmly seated in the zeitgeist of corporations vs consumers. What can be done to rebuild this bridge? That's the question that Adobe and other big tech companies need to be asking.
You are now the Mark Hamill of photography!
😃
Tony Northrup the same guy who went after Steven McCurry a few years ago. People need to chill out.
I've been using Photoshop since the mid 90's (hand full of 3.5" floppies to install) then LR after Apple pulled the plug on Aperture. I had never been thrilled with Adobe's switch to the subscription model after LR6, so I took the opportunity with all the fuss going on to see what else was out there. As it happened, I found a lesser known product that ended up suiting my needs and workflow better. Had it not been for all the drama, I would have kept LRC/PS, so I'm glad I took the time to see what else was out there.
I unsubscribed from Tony a long time ago. Always came off a bit like a weasel.
From long time hi is giving wrong information. I don't like his channel .
my main problem still lies with their monetizing system these terms of service related to AI and just the fact at all that they have to clarify that you own your content as if that is not clear enough was the breaking point for me and decided my switch to affinity.
4.2 Licences 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, licence, to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, create derivative works based on, publicly perform and translate the Content.
That gives adobe the right to use your content however they want and pay you NOTHING for it. guess you missed that bit
Completely wrong! Check out my recent TH-cam short / Instagram reel. They WILL NOT use for promotion or marketing purposes without prior consent from owner.
I speak with first hand knowledge of this as I have an image licensed for use by Adobe on the Apple Store for which they have paid!
2 things I've noticed, firstly Clause 4.2 is pretty damning though not new, no amount of clarification so far has addressed this,. Secondly the generative AI and neural filters have moderation on them when uploaded to the cloud for processing, which means they do look at your private content. Now as a I specialize in art nude photography this is problem, often gen AI and neural filter processes are rejected because of the content rendering a section of photoshop useless. Of course there are ways to avoid this but it goes to show the intrusiveness of Adobe and their 'moderation', when you are editing an art nude shoot of about 100 images or more then the last thing you want is to spend extra time and editing to get past the cloud moderation.
All in all it's not good.....my subscription is valid til Aug 25, after that, unless something changes, I'll be considering other options to Adobe with the intent of removing their software.
I mean the context of Tony's mention of his book was to show that he has been using the software quite a lot. Enough to write a book about it in fact.
And whether or not Adobe are ultimately going to look at his pictures, the ToS as they stand will allow them to do so. They are as far as I'm aware not yet updated. And rogue employees doing dumb things exist in any company the size of Adobe so just having the option to look through those files for any reason is cause for concern.
The title may sound clickbaity but it's appropriate IMO when the ToS literally say "we have the right to look at/listen to all of your content".
I hope Adobe makes this right. There is a large number of people that can't easily make the switch and they shouldn't be subject to such abusive terms.
Adobe has not earned the good will of the community, rather they did the opposite, using pictures uploaded to Adobe Stock to train generative AI that aims to replace the artists that created that content in the first place. I don't see any grounds to give Adobe the benefit of the doubt. All we can go by is the ToS and as long as they are the way they are, I will assume they will look at everything that their software ever touches.
First, I would point out that these terms are hardly unique to Adobe. Go check the terms of service of any online image hosting site you use. You might be shocked to see the same language as in Adobe's section 4.2. Running a server and providing bandwidth to access that server isn't free. Companies find ways to recoup those costs. That isn't going to change no matter how much outrage is fabricated. At least Adobe is up front about what they want to do to recoup the cost of online services they offer to users. Hell, they might even cut you in on the profit. But go ahead and sharpen your pitchforks and show all the faux outrage you want if it makes you feel better. It isn't going to change the fact that if Adobe is really as evil as you make them out to be, they are not going to change. So delete your files on their servers, cancel your account and move on.
Thanks Glyn, I appreciate you have tried to plot a sensible way through something that may be a big deal or may not. And your contribution is more factual and observational than loaded. I am glad I have missed most of the other posts. Hilarious that other commenters seem to see some sort of personal agenda in your video, arrgghh. Lot more conspiracy theories than there should be I reckon. Keep up the good work.
Toneh has been, allegedly, less than charitable to those who disagree with him. Is that ‘breaking news!’? (Removes spectacles in a cringe inducing, amdram style)
Excellent observations on Tony's motivations and Adobe's Ts & Cs.
It looks like you have prodded the hornets' nest. Peace!
Northrup is a hack and seems to mainly put out click baity opinionated prattle these days
These days. I've been sort of following them for quite some time (I don't watch most of the vehicles, but they are mostly for clicks, and less for actual useful content IMO). I mean they, along with Fro to a point and Ken Rockwell, have earned themselves a bad name in the community. One is entitled to their opinions obviously but these people make it very clear to make their opinions clear to others and force them down people's throats basically. Why can't more people be like say Steve Perry or Mike Smith (wildlife photographers) -- quite neutral in their channels and content (For Steve Perry at least, he does own both a Sony and Nikon system so he's a bit more brand neutral than most probably who only own one system or who switch back and forth)
Tony have 1,6mln subscribers and 17 years on YT his don’t need tricks for promoting his book .
The Issue here is Adobe(mostly intentionally) created Loopholes in Licensing (ownership is not required in this context).
Comment will be long Please read through... and I am not a legal advisor .
By the way, "legally" by agreeing to the Updated Terms and Conditions, they(Adobe) have Royality free license to use any work opened using their software. If there is any dispute in the future(Say for example, Your work which is under an NDA is used by Adobe and the other party sue you for the breach of NDA) , they can and will show that "you have agreed to the terms and conditions" and can find a way out of it. And at the time blog posts might not be valued by the Court of Law. This is clearly a Loophole Created by Adobe and they are playing "Trust me bro" Card... (It Is not a new thing,But it is now being noticed by everyone ). The thing is to solve this, the contents should be directly put in Terms and Conditions So that the loophole is not there for Adobe to use.
exactly!
That is completely opposite to what they said in the original post.
If you'd have watched all of Northrup's video you'll have got the point he was making about his books...he wasn't advertising as he can make a million videos to do that.
Watched it all. The police reference was ridiculous as was the makita drill. You own the drill , but you are licensed to use the software. BIG difference that he failed to mention. Weird.
I believe that you are quite Naive. Even if Adobe told me that they were not looking at stuff, their 4.2 part of their Terms of Service say the opposite. And I was one who was not allowed to proceed to use Lightroom without first agreeing to the new terms of service. I think changes to Terms of Service should be illegal once one has paid for a product. It's a contract between the company and you. I think unilateral changes should be illegal. If I can't change the terms of service, then they should not be able to change it either. People had the right to be upset. That you never heard of Tony tells me you have your head in the sand. It make you less believable in my eye. Most TH-cam people got it right. And if nothing else Adobe's language led to all this. Yet you would defend Adobe. It's like Stockholm Syndrome.
That's what you believe ... I on the other believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky. In fact I dream about it every night and day ... I spread my wings and fly away.
Adobe sent this dude a check
Correct but for licensing an image I had uploaded to the Lightroom community that they want to use advertising Lightroom in the Apple Store 😃
Half way in he hasn't discussed anything in the TOS and only complaining about other channels; bringing it up.
I'll watch the other part. If he does not do what his click bait title says it's going to do, I'm blocking this channel and going to watch the ones he complains about.
Seems like geberish Karen complaining up to now.
Brilliant 🤣🤣🤣
Just watched Tony's video and it's a bunch of self promo.
Funny how you don’t include the comparison to the portion of adobes terms of service that he was making with the hammer reference. But this video had no “facts” just “don’t believe this dude”. Plus the full video he published a month ago had no promotion of his product so that’s where you shot yourself in the foot 😂😂😂
You're a Tony Fan aren't you? 😉 ... must be if you reference a video he posted a month ago. No promotion of his books? You did watch the video right? 😎
Tony Northrup and his wife Chelsea have been a great source of consistent, thoughtful, and experienced advice to photographers and the creative community. You could have done your homework better on this one, Mr. Dewis.
Not what a lot of people in the comments say though 🤔
Agreeing or disagreeing with Adobe’s legal position and EULA is one thing. And this is worth discussing. Throwing mud at another TH-camr is a completely different thing. For the latter you lost me as a subscriber.
The law to a degree is about interpretation. Even if Adobe did not intend to overstep what is fair, that the very same terms can be interpreted as such opens up a very real possibility that Adobe itself could one day act out of expected bounds and say, look it’s part of what’s in the terms you clicked agreed on.
Beyond terms, IMO and TBH, Adobe has done very little to show that there are proactive and robust measures in place to ensure that there are no backdoor or avenues for access abuse whether to their cloud service or otherwise. Yes no one can guarantee 100% but the onus is on them to give a damn and put just as much effort, resource and time towards safeguarding customers from bad actors in the actual security and the clear and consistent communication of this implemented safeguards. Adobe has eroded trust with its decisions, is it really surprising that folks have doubts about where they stand with Adobe. That they could well be fodder rather than important customers
The one who is misunderstanding and gaslighting is you. He clearly provided solutions for adobe and also demonstrated the issues. This attempt was rather sad
You’re clearly a Tony fan and won’t accept that he did what he did for clicks
I don’t envy your comment feed, Glyn!! What I find mildly amusing is that people are getting hot under the collar about an app they use to edit the photos they put on Instagram and Facebook…🤯
Thanks Glyn!
Thank you so much for making this. I just watched another youtuber talk about it for 20mins and they got every single point wrong.
Greed.. Monopoly.. Silver Tongues.. Holding peoples work and subscriptions to Ransom.. Privacy issues.. Others defending multi billion dollar corperations over users.. Whats not to trust..!
I do Luv the tools offered by Adobe.. But Adobe itself is just another example in our lives of overreach and greed.. And the company knows its done wrong.
An isnt it lovely they made '..the wording simple..' ..for us laymens out there.
Yeah agreed … great they made an easy to understand version for those who just didn’t understand and flew off the handle.
@@glyndewis Well thanksyou for the response.. Wishes you well.. It wasnt a personal attack.. Only what encompasses Adobes actions an other big Tech Giants even Governments with our privacy.. You'd have to admit it looks like they have no respect for it..!
This video is trash and doesn't actually cover the TOS. It only covers smack talking about other channels that are clearly talking about the TOS and showing it to us.
He also only covers the bs excuses made by Adobe and does not even touch section 4.2 on how we give them permission to use, publish, modify, sale, and post any of our copyright materials.
🤣🤣🤣
@@glyndewis you can laugh pretending it doesn't bother you. But a lot of people are saying the same thing and your channel is losing viewers. Keep it up so you're forced to stop posting sooner.
So you're saying the extensive fact digging you did on this...was basically to read their blog post response? And you stopped digging right there? And swallowed it whole, as if their blog post actually answered all the concerns (it actually raised more). No real commentary on the actual blog post, no breakdown of the key topics - the difference between ownership rights and licensing rights, the difference between generative AI and machine learning. All you really did was make assumptions about why other people addressed this topic, but very little to "educate your audience". This is not "sticking to the facts" when 80% of your video was speculation about other youtubers motives, and very little exploration of the "facts". Just a tidy little PR link to the blog post saying "look adobe said its all fine. I'm no fan of tony northrup he seems like an algorithm chasing hack, but he was an easy target to make your pointless point. (which sounded like misdirection to me). This video is a the pot calling the kettle black. Or a hack calling a hack a hack.
Sorry ... didn't read it all
@@glyndewis Of course you didn't. Because the comment actually makes sense which does not seem to be your strong point.
Also, your lack of knowledge about how AI systems or mass data training work and your confidence on claiming that you do is astonishing.
You made no point in this video. Adobe publishing one blog and not changing their ToS is bullsh*t. Also, they licensed one image from you, that is not a general practice experienced by millions of other users of Adobe. So would be good if you stop claiming that you have "first hand experience".
Now, don't pick one specific thing out of my comment and be snarky about it in the response.
I would still recommend you to watch Louis rossmann's video and hope you can learn something from it if you have some neural capacity to understand things.
Facts 10% ... Rant about others 90% ... what a bs video I watched to actually know what's happening
Translating to .... 100% facts that the 'others' were spouting spin for clicks 👍🏻
@@glyndewis -10 iq in a nutshell 👍🏻 ... ur rply
I found two software pdf editor and photo editor same
Im just gonna start editing my photos in DaVinci hahahah i will quite Adobe Tonight
Tonight sounds like a definitely maybe
This is utter bs, but you probably get payed enough by Adobe to do their dirty work for them. Really disappointed by them and this video. AND pure clickbait and gaslighting, and you obviously know that.
Ah yes … there’s that word again ‘Probably’; I’ve seen that a lot this past couple of weeks along with ‘might’ , ‘maybe’ and ‘possibly’.
Did make me laugh that you mention gaslighting when that’s exactly what you’re doing in your comment. To quote Alanis Morrissette … “Isn’t it Ironic” 🤣
@@glyndewis you were one of the people in the photography business that I really appreciated, but helais, not anymore. Your behavior is suspicious at best. I hope you come to your senses when you realize what Adobe os actually doing. Have a nice life.
Adobe do overstep the mark. Adobe is not the police. We subscribe to pay to use the software for what we want to use it for, so long as that is legal. We do not subscribe to comply with Adobe’s “values”, whatever these may be. This is not just a matter of their terms and conditions, take for example the restrictions on what Adobe will and will not permit generative fill to be used for. If it is legal, the user should be allowed to use the software for whatever legal purpose the user likes, unrestricted by the pious, sanctimonious wokerati buried deep in the bowels of Adobe who try to impose their values on everyone else, agree with them or not.
While I'm not defending Adobe on their disastrous attempt at communication, nor their vague assurances of creators owning their content, I do think the "policing" language they have regarding certain types of illegal content, i.e. sexually exploitative images of children, is something they have to address from a liability standpoint. Because they are developing generative AI, if someone uses that to create sexually exploitative material of children, Adobe could be seen as being complicit in its creation. This is an overly simplistic comparison, but it's like a restaurant allowing alcohol purchased by an adult to be consumed by a minor, especially if that minor, who might be old enough to drive, then drives a car after leaving the restaurant and gets into an accident. Even if the accident would not have otherwise been blamed on that minor, if not for the presence of alcohol in the system, the fact that the restaurant allowed consumption by the minor is going to make them liable for the accident. In much the same way, because we consume Adobe's AI while using their engines (in other words, we don't buy the generative AI then use it privately - we have to be connected to Adobe's systems to use it), and because this AI is "learned/taught," someone could rightly make the case that Adobe participated in the creation of sexually exploitative images, even if only passively and not with intent.
Again, I'm not defending Adobe on this ToS debacle, but I do think that they, and every other company involved in AI development, are going to have to institute some degree of policing, even if only to protect themselves.
Adobe's new terms of service still don't retract them saying they can give away our content to third parties.
You've not read the follow up that explains that point have you?
@@glyndewis The follow up says the same thing it did previously ... the one 'example' they provide is useless and not legally binding at all. The wording here is what counts and the wording says they can give away our content to third parties. The 'explanation' you're siting just proves they do.
Tony Northrup has no friends.
Thank you for this video. I cancelled quite some YT Subs after that "uproar" one of them being Tony and Chelsea Northrup.
Thank you for sharing and clearing up the misinform information.
Declare your interest
Facts and doing more research before posting rather than jumping to conclusions 😉
@@glyndewis yes, some research before making this video would have been a good idea ;)
🤣
@@glyndewisalways thought you funny, know we know
@@lukasf5256 The sameToS but in VERY simple wording has been published so I hope this helps 😉
two facts about this guy
he is bald
he is a shill
🤣
I look and I listen, then I make my own mind up. If I don't like what I hear then I unsubscribe which I am just about to do. (Perhaps Adobe may offer you a PR job.)
@@glyndewis I'm comfortable in my own skin. Are you hurting then? In response to your offer, have no need of you, or any wish for further communication.
Glad you stuck around long enough to post the comment Lawrence 😉
@@lawrencecosslett You replied to my message 7 hours later but you originally said you were "just about" to unsubscribe ... weird 🤔
@@glyndewis One doesn't have to be Subscribed to read comments. Did you not know that? Our conversation is visible to the whole World. Your arrogance is astounding.
@@glyndewis Over to you for the last word, because I'm sure it's coming!
Well done Glyn, thanks for the info
You also missed that his point is they can view your NDA-ed CONTENT. PROBLEM IS, any CONTENT YOU LEAVE ON ANY SERVER NOT YOURS "CAN BE VIEWED" BY OTHER NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO SO. This is just the way storing on others' servers works; if yu want to belive that you content is safe...then I have a bridge to sell you north of Cuba (was this 45-year retired software developer).
Finally!
Dude, are you on Adobe payroll ?
No just reading the ToS correctly. Funny how when you don't 'follow the angry crowd' it can only be because you're "on the payroll" 🥱
Adobe is not the industry standard anymore.
Oh but it is
Thank you!