The main reason they don't do that is because there's no technology in the pencil that could capture that. Otherwise I'm sure they would have jumped on the hype and put AI in them
@@tomlxyz I hasten to disappoint you, honored one, but it will happen at some point in the future. As soon as technology allows the introduction of advanced elements in every product, that day everything will change. Currently, there is such a thing as, and I quote, *"The Internet of things (IoT)* describes devices with sensors, processing ability, software and other technologies that connect and exchange data with other devices and systems over the Internet or other communications networks." - But it's all on a primitive level. Give corporates time and they will monetize every little moment of it 👌 *Alas, this is one of the downsides of technology. And to avoid it, we need strict standardized laws from the government itself.*
Companies using user content and not paying us. There must be something done about this. Companies are so prudish about us using their content, but they have all the rights under God to use our content. How much more one-sided can you get?
Anyone that still has an Adobe account that wants to do some shenanigans, hear me out: Delete all of your content on your Adobe account and fill it with pictures of poop instead. Please. Poison their data. This is how you defeat AI. I know it's stupid, but it works. Bonus points if you tag it as "beautiful princess" or something like that.
ADOBE: "Hey, customer! You will never own our software. In exchange for your expensive subscription, we get to peek at what you make using our suite and we get to sub-license it to our 3rd party clients" --- One of the MOST one-sided deals in history.
And guess what these 3rd parties are going to do. Naw, they're not going to train AI algos; and no no no, adobe wouldn't have any ( future) stake in that of course...
I hate being the guy that politizes everything. But it is really hard when we come here every week impressed by the isolated case number #9648434 of companies being evil for profit. Just maybe it is because of capitalism...
No the fk no one has, buddy...AI in apps hasn't even been a thing for nor than 2 years for art and image manipulation software...Adobe didn't even have it until recently. So why the fk would Affinity add it when no one else has it, and no one was asking it...
@@DxBlack That's just not true, AI and Macine learning have been here for ages and Adobe have had AI in their softwares since early 2022. Furthermore AI is a general integration for ALL new phones from last year and going forward and now with Apple as well. There has been standalone companies and platforms using AI for +4 years for different things, including the creative workspace. AI implementations are taking off with lightning speed now and Affinity will be left in the dust, if they don't keep up, that is not an opinion or up for debate, that is fact and reality. So you are wrong, clearly unintelligent, clearly lack knowledge of which you try to preach.
There is no way that a company is going to grant itself full legal right over your content and not exploit that to the fullest. Even presuming they have "no current plans" to do so, that won't last very long.
This AI craze is a cancer. Every corporate on the planet is scrambling to violate your privacy in order to get data for their AI project that will never have an actual use case.
@@Patrick-857 Because they know copyright law is bound to catch up to "AI" tech eventually and they all want to benefit from it as much as they can before that happens.
I think it's kind of still fair for a company to say: "We scan YOUR content when you upload it to OUR cloud." - Well then I will not upload to your cloud I guess. But if they say: "We scan your content when you work with it on our software on your own device... that's a problem.
I really hate their license model by paying every month. But what I hate most about Adobe is that you have to pay a "fee" just to stop using their services. This lead me to never sign up for it again.
@@cujoedamanthe fact that the burden of taking this to court is on citizens is why nothing changes, all governments are blind to it until someone spends their life savings suing a company
@@cujoedaman the fee is Adobe not giving you back all the money for the duration you already paid for but won't use. That isn't illegal as far as I could find out. Would be different if they make you pay more than what you've already paid
"We're not going to use your content or distribute it or whatever, even though we legally can because we have a license to it, and even though we have done so in the past." - Adobe Nope. Hard-deleted my Adobe account two days ago. Never again.
it doesn't matter what random employees say. All that matters is the actual document. Companies can change direction at any point. So even if what the employee says is currently true that doesn't mean it wont change 3 months from now.
"Your honor, I'd like to submit exhibit A in my claim that I own my own work. It's a post from a reddit user who claims that he's an employee of Adobe..."
Makes me think of the meme from Arther, "You really think someone would do that? Just go on the internet and lie??" It's hilarious to me that people so completely naive that they think because a person said a thing that it's bound in heaven and earth. I just look at them and say, "Im superman. Huh, how'd I say that just now? Im not superman and yet, I was able to say I was superman even though Im not.... So it's possible to say things are arent true I guess..."
Also what are the chances that any random employee knows? There could always be another department that they have nothing to do with which does train an AI with it
It’s time to move on to Krita, Kdenlive, Gimp, Blender, Unreal Engine, DaVinci Resolve/Fusion, Godot, Darktable, Inkscape, Scribus, Audacity, Reaper, Natron and run it all on Linux instead.
Godot all the way!!! I wish there was a good photo editing software similar to photoshop that is open source, with the same love and quality put into it as godot. Giml is absolute dogcrap. The only thing that comes close is affinity photo, which is not OS, but atleast its one time purchaseable.
Explain. Do you mean they're trying to get initial copyright by publishing users' creative works before the user can? I would consider that unfair and exploitative.
@@autohmae I guess only saving grace for Google is that they only have view permission not do whatever the f I want permission like adobe here and I heard they dont audit every single file on the drive it's random.
Physical downloads? What are they? 🤔 You realise that having to pay upfront for a perpetual license would then cost you many hundreds per Adobe app, or several thousands for their entire suite? I’m not shilling for Adobe, but that’s what you had to pay before they moved to a subscription. Best to stop using them altogether, and try more reasonably-priced non-subscription software, or open source alternatives, donating to the developer where you can.
You forgot to mention that the old license specifically refers to content uploaded to the Creative Cloud, while the new license doesn't specify that. Huge difference.
Agree that this is a key difference, and I think it has something to do with product features which cannot be performed locally on the device with the application code. Those "innovative cloud-based features" highlighted at 17:10 are parts of the application, or Service, offering which are an online extension of the local application code. Adobe are asking to upload the contents of an open file to their servers so their remote machine learning features can process your pixels and send the finished result back to you. This is a distinct split from how we expect locally installed applications to work, where we do our work on our device and it stays on our device. And that leaves us as users with a choice. A choice on whether we use these cloud-based features, and a choice on whether we can trust Adobe to communicate the core difference between what their applications perform locally or remotely. I'm not as comfortable with the latter.
It’s not really about using your content (even on your machine), it’s about being able to shutting you down if you don’t go along with the globalist narrative.
Yeah, even having acknowledged that at 5:52, he didn't say more than just "Basically the same thing." Really, if you didn't upload any content in 2020, you didn't grant them any license, while now, you granted everything since the creation of project. But, it sounds like Adobe wants you to stay connected and upload your content or stream it to content moderator. Strange. Does this mean no one can use Adobe software offline? Tbh, I stopped using Adobe since the coming of smart fill in or smart remove. Because I know that it's not just an algorithm, it was already ML since CS6.
Thats what has me wanting out. I just did a shoot for a family friend and I seriously hesitated to load it into bridge like I normally do. All I could think of was how Adobe was going to be taking the pictures as fast as they went into Bridge and then I started worrying if they had access to my whole studio hard drive since I loaded in to bridge directly from it! I dont want to feel like all the files on my computer are being scanned and taken by adobe to use for them, or more importantly, use against me i.e. I voted for the wrong person so now they're turning me in for "hate content." I think people are too naive when it comes to the power these companies have. It's not about the law it's about rhetoric and power, both of which they have.
Removing the word ”cloud” was a massive change. This gave Adobe full access to any file you ever open or come into contact with on an Adobe app. This is a machiavellian move by Adobe and a clear signal of what’s to come. They want to do what Meta did - get the rights, say they’ll never use them and a couple years later just come out and say ”oh by the way, we used the heck out of them”.
Even if Adobe doesn’t have nefarious intentions right now, this blanket policy gives them complete discretion of how to use our images going forward. In the future, no matter what they decide to do with it, they can always claim, “But, you agreed to it."
Exactly, We have seen what happened in the Google leaks recently rare previous statements they claimed that they don't do turns out they in fact do those things! You literally cannot trust these companies at all, they lie all the time.
"Adobe does not assume any ownership of customer work" - no, they just require you hand over all the rights that come with ownership. It's a distinction without a difference.
Been working in Design on the side for the past 6 years. All of my client's files are in Illustrator and it is a pain having to remake templates and projects that need to remain editable. Having said that though, every day I'm finding reason to justify my decision to move over to Affinity.
At least Affinity can handle Illustrator files, but they do get converted into Affinity files after, so its a one way trip. Worst case you might need a separate machine or an Adobe installation in a VM strictly for maintaining your archive.
@@ghost-user559 so what I've noticed is that when brining in AI files into Designer, it treats them like a PDF because Adobe is protective of their .AI files. Not a total loss but some elements that I need to remain editable will need to be remade. Still, I'm enjoying using Affinity so far
@@richardhaddadau Yeah my files made it through the transfer. It treated them like a PDF but luckily with the layers intact. I’m not sure how it would handle groups within layers however so I’m sure that could get messy. As long as every element is a separate layer it tends to work fine, but I can imagine more complex elements like groups within layers and masks might be a bit more complicated.
Basically I pay for adobe to use their software and in turn they get access to all my adobe data and then use it to train their own AI, Then sell that AI to us which has been trained on our data. Genius!
They aren't training their AI on your data though. Not unless your data is stored on the cloud and violating laws, in which case the AI will be trained to detect and take down. It's the same thing as TH-cam moderating content on its platform. By even commenting here you are "training" TH-cam's AI.
@@Rafael-uk2ut they are only "reviewing" content that's stored to their cloud storage though, not on your machine. They have features where you can share that content with other users as well, so it isn't entirely private. In that way it parallels social media. If you're sharing online something through Adobe systems, it kinda makes sense that they'd automatically scan it to ensure it isn't malicious for example. That's what all the other tech companies are doing. Not sure what the big deal is here.
@@horseror There is no proof that they are or are not using it for AI. Even if they were there is no way for the user to prove it. They say have never before used customers data for AI or to sublicense it (in a fking blogpost) not that they never will use. To use Adobe requires the user to trust adobe which many dont. Anyway, the argument of "everyone is an asshole, so I should be allowed to be an asshole too" doesnt fly im sorry. I dont care if everyone is doing it mainly because everyone else doesnt have my creative works. Adobe does. But also because it is a childish excuse for allowing bad practices.
Adobe's response is more proof that the weird loophole with the licensing clause allows them to decide how to train their software on user's data without user's consent, because by agreeing to the TOS the customers gave Adobe a license to all of the work produced with Adobe's software, imported or even just viewed through their apps. What a despicable brush off of the issue at hand. Adobe is trying to cover its ass to use your stuff (or stuff you don't own), by saying that it has a catch-all clause where you license your stuff to them, but it doesn't specifically give you the option to not have that content used for Gen AI when you're not specifically watching them do it!? Why are we even debating about brand loyalty? These TOS are utterly unacceptable. Adobe has no right to sublicense or license, view, edit, modify, or even touch copyrighted, IP, or NDA work made or viewed with their software that you never owned the rights to while you were working on it IN THE FIRST PLACE! Oh and guess what, they're not obligated to notify or pay you, actually you pay them for the privilege of being shagged like that. What a dumpster fire.
Sure. But who will stop them ? Before couple of years, there were news that facebook (meta) will use the data of WhatsApp in their other services like Facebook and Instagram. And people were panicking. But dear lord, they don't understand that Meta owns WhatsApp from year 2014. So, all data of WhatsApp is actually data owned by meta. They will use it and we will never know unless we see an effect we can't ignore. Adobe will simply say that user checked "agree with terms and policies" checkbox, and they have right to use user data. Users themselves given permission to do so. There should be good number of brilliant lawyers who don't care about the money, and just care about the people to stop this basterds.
Adobe "does not" train Firefly Gen AI models on customer content Adobe "will never" assume ownership of a customer's work Why they dont say: "Adobe will never train" and "Adobe will never assume" Because "does not" is not equal to "will never"
Anyone that still has an Adobe account that wants to do some shenanigans, hear me out: Delete all of your content on your Adobe account and fill it with pictures of poop instead. Please. Poison their data. This is how you defeat AI. I know it's stupid, but it works. Bonus points if you tag it as "beautiful princess" or something like that.
Buy affinity! Wait for the 50% off sale! Its like 80 for 3 sofrware with a forever license! Or just use gimp and others. Do not patronize a billion dollar company when they f up this bad!
Almost everything needs the internet to install. I don't even remember the last time I saw something modern use physical installation mediums. Even video games just give you a digital code.
The difference betweeen now and then is massive! The word "Upload" missing is critical! As previously anything that was not uploaded was not covered by their license, now even local files are covered!
If they simply restricted the legal wording for moderation purposes only, this would have blown over much quicker. But the bettering and enhancing the service part is just too broad, especially in a world where creators don't have the best view of AI generated content.
...and here's the thing: a team of corporate attorneys would have known to add that limiting language if that was their intent. The fact that they didn't add that language ("for moderation purposes only") should tell us that is *not* their intent.
@@alldecentnamestakenactually a team of corporate attorneys is almost certainly always going to write the license in a way that gives their client as much leeway as possible... that way if they ever do something that is even on the margins it is still covered by the license. The terms are written to protect Adobe... not give you rights. They would never write the terms in a way that do anything else.
Legal did that on purpose, if Adobe hadn't forced the new terms of service the way they had and got people to actually read the changes it might have taken a little longer for people to notice but the 1 thing I am 100% sure of is the wording is broad on purpose.
Its unbelievable that they say they will police your files for "illegal content" manually or in an automated way. First of all, Adobe is not the police, they should not have this kind of authority. But more importantly, why the hell would adobe freaking care? They are a software company and they presumably want to make money, how does manually reviewing your content for problematic content make them money? The only conclusion is that they are going to use the content for their own purposes (which I guess they literally stated in their own policy) and this is just ammunition for the inevitable lawsuits when someone sues them for damages cause their work was stolen and adobe tells them "it was for the greater good of making us money + thought-policing our customers". Really sick stuff, I'm glad I don't use adobe products.
My sister works for Adobe in UK, she told me they hire famous artist for playing music at private concert for the employers and get free food. She works as a laywer within adobe. She also got promoted, but not because of her skills, but because of her look. Terrible company.
they never asked adobe stock contributors if they could use their photos to train their Firefly AI, they just autojoined them into it by some legal loophole..
To be fair adobe stock was literally their assets. The rest of the ai image generators were glorified web scrapers. It seems like adobe is thirstier for data by the minute though..
I do remember I purchased sketch for 50$ bucks for lifetime. After year or so they forced me to buy subscription as well. And finally having lifetime key and online subscription, I was not able to activate software recently. Brave New World!
another super crazy point is their corporate customers.... Are they claiming legal rights/license to stuff made by other large corpos and movie studios?!?!? A lot of big companies use Adobe software in their shops (this include the likes of Sony and Disney). Is Adobe trying to slurp up Disney IP?!?!? That won't end well.
Nah big corpos have customized EULAs and anything they redline adobe usually doesnt even try to keep in. For example, in Disneys EULA you will most likely not find the standard "this licensing agreement can be changed at any point without notice" because you cant have fluid contracts like that. you also wont find the "we can use your creations lol" clause because the individual who agrees to that license might not have legal rights over what they are working on, so adobe cant use it without risking lawsuits. adobe does this because they want the business. they sell thousands of licenses at a time and its good advertisement too, so they dont mind making these custom EULAs for big corpos.
You're taking this all out of context buddy. Adobe isn't training their AI off of their user's Photoshop projects. This provision in the ToS is strictly for detecting abuse of the products for illegal activities. It's not for training some image generation model. Adobe already has clear policies on how they are doing that and they actually will pay artists if you want to opt in.
@@tatzecom Adobe isn't using anyone's creations for training AI to rip off their intellectual property. The EULA for Disney is the same as any other company or user Adobe works with. The real exceptions would be for medical companies and government agencies which have federal compliances such as HIPAA and FEDRAMP. The differences in those cases are mostly related to how data is encrypted, how access is provisioned, how long data can be retained, etc. These types of policies are all public info and apply to every company, not just Adobe. Someone in Adobe legal just made a change to the ToS and didn't consider how badly it would be misinterpreted by random people on the Internet.
That's a good point, but even if they're not legally responsible, they probably still don't want to host certain types of illegal content. Similar to how TH-cam scans new videos and deletes them if the AI detects that it's porn
It's to protect the company, as they may be liable with the data they're storing in the cloud. Now, the bigger problem is, why are they storing what the customer does with their service in the cloud?
Their response STILL doesn't address supposed moderation stuff under NDA. Imagine you working in movie industry under VERY strict NDA. Moderator, who reviews cloud stored materials, can leak it. They didn't sign those NDA paper. Leak can be traced to you and YOU will get in legal troubles, not that chatty moderator!
I've been using Krita, can't recommend it enough. Two things that are still in need of work: 1. Align elements (K's align tools are not up to snuff, such a simple thing, wonder what the problem is?) 2. Text (this is apparently in the process of being vastly improved in the next update).
Can you tell me a good photo editing that is open source or at least free without an account/internet because I need to edit some pictures for my company in Germany but I literally can't use closed source stuff that connects to the Internet because of data protection.
How many pull requests you added to gimp, or how much money you donated to it? Everyone loves to scream OPEN SOURCE, and think there are some fools who will work thousands of hours with no pay for you
It's not an issue since they never used it in the first place though, right? wink wink! They just looked at while you worked on it to admire your work! (adobe employee mumbling) get the copy quick, we gotta hit the next guy. (adobe employee with jazz fingers) I was never heeeerrrreeee! Seriously though, good luck proving otherwise...
but, not everyone is "Work-For-Hire", and if you like to work on your free time creating portfolio and personal work like a lot of other Professionals , you can no longer do that. never tolerate the Big Bully, never try to justify their logic, today they're just nibbling for reaction, tommorow, they'll hunt you down to the end of the world for owning a PSD file
1:48 What if the content you work on isn't yours? What if you are working, let's say on a movie and you get footage to edit that isn't yours,you legally can't allow Adobe to view that content. How would thst work?
Reminds me of how people are freaking out about windows recall spying on them, not realizing that there has been evidence of Microsoft spying on them for years, lmao
@christophernuzzi2780 same actually, never been happier when proton first hit the ground running with the steam deck because it meant I no longer had any reason at all to run windows in any capacity
The license they wrote giving themselves perpetual free access to your stuff is bad enough, but they also specify that the license is SUBLICENSEABLE, so they PLAN to sell licenses to YOUR stuff. That is the most egregious F-YOU to their customer base I could imagine.
I am rooting so hard for Affinity. I "only" need a Affinity version of lightroom and premiere/after effects. Then I could finally completely ditch Adobe for all my personal work.
1:00 something you NEVER SEE in a free and open source software’s license agreement. The makers of FOSS will not see how you use the software in real time. I’m pretty sure any software that requires internet connection, especially constant, essentially are under surveillance. Roblox and UEFN probably do the same thing, which is why “the mirror” is created on top of the godot engine.
There's a thread about getting their stuff to work on Linux issuing Wine. It might be easier to use Bottles or Lutris to set up a bespoke environment for this but yeah
@@ThePlayerOfGames For now I use Peaphoto and Krita. Those work without translation layers. I only have a few vst plugins that I need wine for, but all my apps are Linux native.
Trying to get it running under Bottles ... nothing yet. IF you (or anyone else) does successfully, please reply here with details. BUT, yes, native Affinity on Linux PLEASE!!
"Adobe requires a *limited* license" ..global, royalty free, perpetual, sublicenseable, no stated purpose.. I'd hate to see what their definition of an *unlimited* license is then; do they claim ownership of your firstborn?
Adobe created the Acrobat reader. It was good 20 years ago. Then they tried to milk it. Added bunch of unneeded features, cluttered the UI, forced their cloud upon us, to a point, the product is sluggish and can't do basic tasks. For example, certified signature (using ID card) does not work for many users - clicking Sign does nothing. No error message, just dead. This has not been resolved for 5 years now, adobe suggest using their cloud. Meanwhile there are competitive products, that have great UI and just work.
can you recommend an acrobat alternative that has the ability to edit PDF's and has digital signature and commenting in it? I could not find one so far.
@@ferizsolnai from everything I've tried, PDF XChange Editor was the best, so I use it daily. Editing feature is not free, but it's not that expensive and also available on torrent.
Thanks for sharing those photo/design programs! I had a CD purchased from Adobe as a student just before they switched to this monthly subscription that is not a month to month agreement. My Adobe is still operational but outdated. I switched to other software as rendering was much quicker than Premiere. I agree the quality is great with Adobe but on the new software I am also happy with the quality for TH-cam videos. Plus the new software is easier to use imo. The speed to get the final product is much more desirable for me. I don’t want to be waiting an hour to get a short video rendered.
Public companies have a legal responsibility to serve the interests of their shareholders (make money, and Wallstreet has been very happy about companies that are doing AI recently) I appreciate companies like Canva and valve for still being privately held
Companies operating under a capitalist context don't have the obligation to do moral or ethical actions, especially if it directly contrasts with the company's goals for profit or growth.
I’m three minutes in and I’m looking into how to get a refund. I got photoshop like two months ago. They can pro-rate it, but why would I even learn the program at this point?
I would imagine that in EU sooner or later some photos that contain GDPR regulated info will end up in Adobe's machine learning. We could probably solve quite few financial problems if we were to give them decent fine like $100B or something.
It just seems like Adobe was always overeaching but the boom of GAI has made artists pay more attention to who does and doesn't own their work and the people they're working with
Still, you're helping with their branding. Adobe is an industry standard because the masses use it, and they allow widespread use so they can charge organizations higher fees. The only way to beat them is to use an alternative.
Changing the terms of a sale after the sale should be illegal. Imagine you buy a house and then after you buy the house the previous owner says they changed the term and now you are just renting from them and they can enter the house at any time. No one would be ok with that, yet we've been conditioned to accept that for non physical purchases and even some physical devices. Frankly, people don't own much of anything any more.
@@rojorum2433 This is just a problem with all of these "software as a service" type apps. You are allowed to not agree to a terms of service update, however though, because what you were using is a service, they can then block you from accessing that service. Just like with NFTs, you don't buy the actual software, just like you don't buy the actual picture. What you buy is a license to use the software, and that license can be revoked or access denied if you don't agree to the terms of service. So basically, fuck services. They are the legal loophole companies can use to deny you access.
It's a fluid contract. We agreed to the practice for years now, so it has become industry standard. Consumers require some kind of collective advocacy or bargaining representation, but we've been putting up with it for so long things have gotten out of control, which usually happens in life when things are good and firm boundaries aren't set early. Now, it's best to vote with the wallet.
They released an update to Premiere Pro last year (release 24) that was broken on launch... while phasing out their older, functional versions... rendering their product worthless and my payments to them a waste. That was when I knew it was time to say goodbye.
As someone who grew up surrounded by adults who worked at Microsoft, adobe, Apple, Amazon, Boeing, I hate companies so much. I hate the excuses people make for these companies. All of the excuses. The people who work for these companies are often really stupid, complacent people who “just want to put food on the table”, even though they are making buttloads of excess cash to spend as they please. I HAVE NO LOVE FOR THESE COMPANIES, THE PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR THEM, OR THE PEOPLE WHO USE THE PRODUCTS. MAY IT ALL FALL TO RUIN🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
i was uninstalling at "sublicence our rights of your work to 3rd party´s" its another company who wants the rights to my privacy just because i use the their software. no thanks, my privacy is not for sale
You can thank CSA laws for that, that's why the sudden push for AI. They used recently passed AI laws in the US (and EU) to pass for what Apple wanted to do and all companies synchronously pushed to listen, access, scan and use anything you do on your computer....
Well until the project is acquired of course, so you also need to make sure that the governance structure of the project is sufficiently secure against take overs and weird re-licensing.
I cancelled sub after this as well as I don't use Photoshop that much. And well because I am not using it 24/7 so to speak, I am saving myself $15 a month in sub fees.
I would go a step further and delete my account as well. Just because you're not paying, doesn't meant they're not gonna use the content that's already present in your account.
Dear Affinity, please make something similar to After Effects! Just include both light and dark themes. Think about users with eyesight problems. Don’t be Adobe.
Or worse. There have been people that got their livelihoods ruined due to such content being found on a PC they used, but they had nothing to do with it. There have also been such cases where the flagged content was in some way legit. FI, if everyone's mom's photo album got uploaded and scanned, how many false positives would be created? What about the well-documented cases of medical photos causing problems? Government agents have been known to plant CP and such, too. I'm sure there's been instances of faked corporate espionage, and faked security leaks, as well, to get rid of the, "wrong," people. How many times do these things go on, without government or corporate agents getting caught? Targeted spying is just one nefarious/dystopian option.
Old TSO: the content you upload to their server is scanned and you give them rights... New TOS: the content is scanned and you give them rights... It is absolutely different!
This is worse than Amazon telling your auto and health insurance companies when you buy tire chains for snowy weather so they can up your premiums for “risky” behavior.
This is why I got rid of my FitBit watch Owned by google). All these companies (Apple Watch, Amazon with their heart rate monitor, etc) can sell your health information to insurance companies; it's all one big collusion at your expense.
Yes to both! I couldn't believe how much better life was for me when I moved on from Adobe. Resolve is hands down my favorite editor I have used. I just need a company to take over the Lightroom part. It's all that is missing.
@@henryglennon3864 affinity can edit raw photos that isn't the issue. Lightroom provides a workflow that is really second to none as of right now. It's an organization tool, batch editing tool, and provides fast lossless editing. Photoshop and affinity photo are more scalpels with editing great at small details and specific graphics and working with layers, whereas light room is like a factory processing that gives you fast end results for blasting through photos. Trying to do a time lapse edit in Lightroom is simple. Doing that same process is a lot more complicated and sometimes not even possible in the other programs.
@@henryglennon3864 Yes, Photo allows you to edit/import RAW. It doesn't give the browsing/organization of lightroom, but otherwise, it's great for RAW. (Just heard about darktable as a FOSS lightroom replacement. Haven't tried it, yet, and have heard mixed things.)
You mentioned multiple times that the terms arent that new, but one key difference is the old TOS specified that you needed to upload the content. The new ToS does not, which implies that if they can get ahold of it by any means through the software then they own it.
Photoshop doesn't block "anything that looks like money". But all bank notes do contain a very specific pattern that Photoshop, Copy machines and other stuff can easily detect. And there is apparently a legal obligation to prevent the copying of anything that, by the specific pattern, is identified as some form of currency. The same may apply to legal documents.
More than 20 years ago, when we switched to Euros, my father wanted to preserve our "old" money (lira), by scanning some banknotes; our scanner's software (not Photoshop) prevented us from doing so, with an error message. We had no internet and the software didn't use any kind of AI for sure, to detect the banknotes.
for a close source program talking of limited access yeah right , its like ny professional shoplifters just browsing some merchandise and did not take anything when they left and inventory is missing a couple items
Life tip, when team of lawyers with interest in the opposing party says just trust us, don’t. They could have easily put that info in their terms of service. Best case , it was an overreach to see what they could get away with. That’s the direction they heading.
On 4.2, you could even just remove "or improving" and be left with "purpose of operating the Services" - selling content to be able to pay for operations becomes a VERY simple logic step.
It's AMAZING how many scenarios have come up in the last 8 years in which I can quote Albert Cumus (French Philosopher) saying _"The welfare of humanity if always the alibi of tyrants"_ . On a side note thx for the suggestions of Affinity and Photopea. Can't wait to try a free trial. Oh and VERY good video mate! : ]
Can you imagine a pencil factory reserving a proprietary right to your story just because you used their pencil.
The main reason they don't do that is because there's no technology in the pencil that could capture that. Otherwise I'm sure they would have jumped on the hype and put AI in them
@@tomlxyzThere's no technology in the pencil?🤔
@@tomlxyz I hasten to disappoint you, honored one, but it will happen at some point in the future. As soon as technology allows the introduction of advanced elements in every product, that day everything will change. Currently, there is such a thing as, and I quote, *"The Internet of things (IoT)* describes devices with sensors, processing ability, software and other technologies that connect and exchange data with other devices and systems over the Internet or other communications networks." - But it's all on a primitive level. Give corporates time and they will monetize every little moment of it 👌
*Alas, this is one of the downsides of technology. And to avoid it, we need strict standardized laws from the government itself.*
@@coldskoolbeatz did you just.. stop reading after those words? Didn't finish reading their sentence? Too long, too hard to understand?
"You're going to train our AI for us, and you're going to like it. Now pick the pen, dummy, and keep drawing until the neural network is satisfied."
The algorithm gods must be appeased, by sacrificing the working plebs into extinction. All hail our AI overlord.
And you're going to pay for it
you're an employee at that point, but you're the one paying
it's so morally wrong.
but you know what's _always_ morally correct
Companies using user content and not paying us. There must be something done about this. Companies are so prudish about us using their content, but they have all the rights under God to use our content. How much more one-sided can you get?
An Adobe employee tweeting about Adobe not using our contents for AI is NOT legally binding.
Anyone that still has an Adobe account that wants to do some shenanigans, hear me out:
Delete all of your content on your Adobe account and fill it with pictures of poop instead. Please. Poison their data. This is how you defeat AI. I know it's stupid, but it works. Bonus points if you tag it as "beautiful princess" or something like that.
@@adamk.7177😂😂
Even if it was explicitly written into TOS what would prevent them from changing it again in the future?
@@adamk.7177 I thought the same thing, but with dick pics instead of poop pics.
@@Repligon Them putting it in the TOS is at least legally binding til people accept a worse version in future.
ADOBE:
"Hey, customer! You will never own our software. In exchange for your expensive subscription, we get to peek at what you make using our suite and we get to sub-license it to our 3rd party clients" --- One of the MOST one-sided deals in history.
hey customer. you will never own our software. and now you also wont even own your own data anymore.
And guess what these 3rd parties are going to do. Naw, they're not going to train AI algos; and no no no, adobe wouldn't have any ( future) stake in that of course...
Hey, Adobe. Not only do I own your software, but I haven't paid for it.😆
@@Sonya_Makepeacei always felt dirty about that, i take back everything that iv thought after this tho.
60 dollars a month is expensive for all the apps you need?
Lol
I hate being the guy that hates all big companies.
I try so hard not to be.
But they make it so hard.
nobody cares
@@carter8292 but I don't want my work to be used to train my computer replacement!!!!
why do you hate being that guy? there's no such thing as a big publicly traded company that you don't have valid reasons to criticize
I hate being the guy that politizes everything. But it is really hard when we come here every week impressed by the isolated case number #9648434 of companies being evil for profit. Just maybe it is because of capitalism...
@@carter8292 Sure nobody does - About your opinion.
Affinity, please don't screw this up. Make what people want and you automatically win.
They will not win until they start implementing AI features and they won't do that, people have been asking for such a long time and they just don't.
No the fk no one has, buddy...AI in apps hasn't even been a thing for nor than 2 years for art and image manipulation software...Adobe didn't even have it until recently.
So why the fk would Affinity add it when no one else has it, and no one was asking it...
@@DxBlack That's just not true, AI and Macine learning have been here for ages and Adobe have had AI in their softwares since early 2022.
Furthermore AI is a general integration for ALL new phones from last year and going forward and now with Apple as well.
There has been standalone companies and platforms using AI for +4 years for different things, including the creative workspace.
AI implementations are taking off with lightning speed now and Affinity will be left in the dust, if they don't keep up, that is not an opinion or up for debate, that is fact and reality.
So you are wrong, clearly unintelligent, clearly lack knowledge of which you try to preach.
@@DxBlack Affinity is alredy owned by Canva. I am just pessimistic.
Affinity was just aquired by Canva, so dont expect them to save us
There is no way that a company is going to grant itself full legal right over your content and not exploit that to the fullest. Even presuming they have "no current plans" to do so, that won't last very long.
Sure they have no plans. That's because those plans will be made in the next meeting planned Monday morning.
This AI craze is a cancer. Every corporate on the planet is scrambling to violate your privacy in order to get data for their AI project that will never have an actual use case.
@@Patrick-857 Precisely. Every single app I use that added "AI" turned out to add some useless garbage that no one wanted or asked for.
@@Patrick-857 Because they know copyright law is bound to catch up to "AI" tech eventually and they all want to benefit from it as much as they can before that happens.
@@Patrick-857 "will never have an actual use case"
there's one use case for AI : its IP theft plain and simple
I started using Photoshop in 1993.
Switched to Affinity Photo this Monday.
Feelsgoodman, thank you Adobe for helping me make the cut.
Switched years ago to Affinity. Don't like software that is not perpetual and needs a subscription to run .
better use crack one as i do lol without any virus been years
This attitude of "Well yeah, of course they have to have access to scan for illegal content," is straight up dystopian and awful. Stop defending it.
this should absolutely be a bigger concern and I'm surprised there's not been more discussion about it
Especially if they are the ones who define exactly what "illegal content" is.
@@SequentialSnep Today it's all about CSAM, tomorrow it's wrongthink about [whatever]. The idea that it can't / won't be misused is... insane?
no more swear words
I think it's kind of still fair for a company to say: "We scan YOUR content when you upload it to OUR cloud."
- Well then I will not upload to your cloud I guess.
But if they say: "We scan your content when you work with it on our software on your own device... that's a problem.
I really hate their license model by paying every month. But what I hate most about Adobe is that you have to pay a "fee" just to stop using their services. This lead me to never sign up for it again.
Cancelation fees are entrapment and should be illegal.
@@watamatafoyu They are illegal, but those responsible for enforcing it are in on it as well.
@@cujoedamanthe fact that the burden of taking this to court is on citizens is why nothing changes, all governments are blind to it until someone spends their life savings suing a company
US gov is finally suing Adobe for this!
@@cujoedaman the fee is Adobe not giving you back all the money for the duration you already paid for but won't use. That isn't illegal as far as I could find out. Would be different if they make you pay more than what you've already paid
"We're not going to use your content or distribute it or whatever, even though we legally can because we have a license to it, and even though we have done so in the past." - Adobe
Nope. Hard-deleted my Adobe account two days ago. Never again.
It doesn't matter whether they've done it before, any company would do, it's in their nature
consistent.
Same here, I did not just no sub, I deleted my account of probably around 20 years.
Same here, just installed Pop! OS linux for the first time and Krita and am doing just fine without Adobe and Windows.
@f8haus. Sorry to inform you, your account is never completely removed from the adobe server. I worked with adobe for almost 5 years.
it doesn't matter what random employees say. All that matters is the actual document. Companies can change direction at any point. So even if what the employee says is currently true that doesn't mean it wont change 3 months from now.
"Your honor, I'd like to submit exhibit A in my claim that I own my own work. It's a post from a reddit user who claims that he's an employee of Adobe..."
Makes me think of the meme from Arther, "You really think someone would do that? Just go on the internet and lie??" It's hilarious to me that people so completely naive that they think because a person said a thing that it's bound in heaven and earth. I just look at them and say, "Im superman. Huh, how'd I say that just now? Im not superman and yet, I was able to say I was superman even though Im not.... So it's possible to say things are arent true I guess..."
Or tomorrow...
Also what are the chances that any random employee knows? There could always be another department that they have nothing to do with which does train an AI with it
It’s time to move on to Krita, Kdenlive, Gimp, Blender, Unreal Engine, DaVinci Resolve/Fusion, Godot, Darktable, Inkscape, Scribus, Audacity, Reaper, Natron and run it all on Linux instead.
Godot all the way!!! I wish there was a good photo editing software similar to photoshop that is open source, with the same love and quality put into it as godot. Giml is absolute dogcrap. The only thing that comes close is affinity photo, which is not OS, but atleast its one time purchaseable.
@@JuhoSprite photopea, and don't use os to repersant open source use OSS or foss bcz os means operating system.
@@JuhoSpriteGIMP is a very, very, capable piece of software with quite possibly the worst UI/UX of any major package on linux.
@@JuhoSprite RawTherapee works via Flatpak and . DEB which covers effectively all Linux distributions, recommendation from an SO
@@paultapping9510 You have skins for it, plus simply if something is wrong with default set, submit bug tickets and help them shape future.
Nope.... this is a backdoor copyright defense. They're trying to pull a fast one.
Explain. Do you mean they're trying to get initial copyright by publishing users' creative works before the user can? I would consider that unfair and exploitative.
@@watamatafoyu
Just like their terrible subscription model. Final Cut Pro is $300 with consistent updates for life.
Why tf do they need moderation for? they don't need to know what you're doing with the software you're paying for, that's none of their business
cloud platform
It's because of CP Mines. Google photos does the same. No one bat's an eye
@@iamrobot396 I understand it, but it also always feel like: the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse
It's often used against activists like climate and birth control to nuke their work and send them back to the stone age
@@autohmae I guess only saving grace for Google is that they only have view permission not do whatever the f I want permission like adobe here and I heard they dont audit every single file on the drive it's random.
I think the solution is relatively simple - bring back physical downloads with perpetual licences for Adobe products.
And go from 30 to 40 billion a year back to a miserly two or three billion?
@@animatewithdermot
The CEO's bitch wife wants a second yacht! Think of her needs!
Those days are sadly gone, they make way more with subscriptions.
As much as I would like it to - it's not gonna happen - ever!
Physical downloads? What are they? 🤔
You realise that having to pay upfront for a perpetual license would then cost you many hundreds per Adobe app, or several thousands for their entire suite?
I’m not shilling for Adobe, but that’s what you had to pay before they moved to a subscription.
Best to stop using them altogether, and try more reasonably-priced non-subscription software, or open source alternatives, donating to the developer where you can.
You forgot to mention that the old license specifically refers to content uploaded to the Creative Cloud, while the new license doesn't specify that.
Huge difference.
Agree that this is a key difference, and I think it has something to do with product features which cannot be performed locally on the device with the application code. Those "innovative cloud-based features" highlighted at 17:10 are parts of the application, or Service, offering which are an online extension of the local application code. Adobe are asking to upload the contents of an open file to their servers so their remote machine learning features can process your pixels and send the finished result back to you. This is a distinct split from how we expect locally installed applications to work, where we do our work on our device and it stays on our device. And that leaves us as users with a choice. A choice on whether we use these cloud-based features, and a choice on whether we can trust Adobe to communicate the core difference between what their applications perform locally or remotely. I'm not as comfortable with the latter.
It’s not really about using your content (even on your machine), it’s about being able to shutting you down if you don’t go along with the globalist narrative.
Yeah, even having acknowledged that at 5:52, he didn't say more than just "Basically the same thing."
Really, if you didn't upload any content in 2020, you didn't grant them any license, while now, you granted everything since the creation of project.
But, it sounds like Adobe wants you to stay connected and upload your content or stream it to content moderator. Strange. Does this mean no one can use Adobe software offline?
Tbh, I stopped using Adobe since the coming of smart fill in or smart remove. Because I know that it's not just an algorithm, it was already ML since CS6.
Thats what has me wanting out. I just did a shoot for a family friend and I seriously hesitated to load it into bridge like I normally do. All I could think of was how Adobe was going to be taking the pictures as fast as they went into Bridge and then I started worrying if they had access to my whole studio hard drive since I loaded in to bridge directly from it! I dont want to feel like all the files on my computer are being scanned and taken by adobe to use for them, or more importantly, use against me i.e. I voted for the wrong person so now they're turning me in for "hate content." I think people are too naive when it comes to the power these companies have. It's not about the law it's about rhetoric and power, both of which they have.
@@mrkthmn I would be scared too. Good thing that, for work, we don't use anything Adobe.
Removing the word ”cloud” was a massive change. This gave Adobe full access to any file you ever open or come into contact with on an Adobe app. This is a machiavellian move by Adobe and a clear signal of what’s to come. They want to do what Meta did - get the rights, say they’ll never use them and a couple years later just come out and say ”oh by the way, we used the heck out of them”.
Even if Adobe doesn’t have nefarious intentions right now, this blanket policy gives them complete discretion of how to use our images going forward. In the future, no matter what they decide to do with it, they can always claim, “But, you agreed to it."
Human-centipad moment
Except you had to agree to it, in order to access your work. I'd argue that's coercion.
Exactly, We have seen what happened in the Google leaks recently rare previous statements they claimed that they don't do turns out they in fact do those things! You literally cannot trust these companies at all, they lie all the time.
@@Patrick-857 I'd say it's extortion, given they also ask you to pay for all of that.
@@dude9501 Underrated comment
"Adobe does not assume any ownership of customer work" - no, they just require you hand over all the rights that come with ownership. It's a distinction without a difference.
Not quite. They say they can do whatever they like but any liability is yours. Such as for instanc
@@0LoneTech so they can change your work into CSAM and get you in trouble if they wanted? regulators, wya?
Been working in Design on the side for the past 6 years. All of my client's files are in Illustrator and it is a pain having to remake templates and projects that need to remain editable. Having said that though, every day I'm finding reason to justify my decision to move over to Affinity.
At least Affinity can handle Illustrator files, but they do get converted into Affinity files after, so its a one way trip. Worst case you might need a separate machine or an Adobe installation in a VM strictly for maintaining your archive.
@@ghost-user559 so what I've noticed is that when brining in AI files into Designer, it treats them like a PDF because Adobe is protective of their .AI files. Not a total loss but some elements that I need to remain editable will need to be remade. Still, I'm enjoying using Affinity so far
@@richardhaddadau Yeah my files made it through the transfer. It treated them like a PDF but luckily with the layers intact. I’m not sure how it would handle groups within layers however so I’m sure that could get messy. As long as every element is a separate layer it tends to work fine, but I can imagine more complex elements like groups within layers and masks might be a bit more complicated.
@@ghost-user559 Absolutely. Well, it may not be entirely fun but I'm sure by the end of the transfers, I'll have a better handle of Designer 😅
A blog post and an employee tweet telling you to "Trust me bro" is not in anyway suspicious.
Basically I pay for adobe to use their software and in turn they get access to all my adobe data and then use it to train their own AI, Then sell that AI to us which has been trained on our data.
Genius!
They aren't training their AI on your data though. Not unless your data is stored on the cloud and violating laws, in which case the AI will be trained to detect and take down. It's the same thing as TH-cam moderating content on its platform. By even commenting here you are "training" TH-cam's AI.
@@horserorAdobe has no place in reviewing user's content. Adobe isn't social media like TH-cam. That's where your comparison falls flat.
@@Rafael-uk2ut they are only "reviewing" content that's stored to their cloud storage though, not on your machine. They have features where you can share that content with other users as well, so it isn't entirely private. In that way it parallels social media. If you're sharing online something through Adobe systems, it kinda makes sense that they'd automatically scan it to ensure it isn't malicious for example. That's what all the other tech companies are doing. Not sure what the big deal is here.
@@horseror There is no proof that they are or are not using it for AI. Even if they were there is no way for the user to prove it. They say have never before used customers data for AI or to sublicense it (in a fking blogpost) not that they never will use. To use Adobe requires the user to trust adobe which many dont. Anyway, the argument of "everyone is an asshole, so I should be allowed to be an asshole too" doesnt fly im sorry. I dont care if everyone is doing it mainly because everyone else doesnt have my creative works. Adobe does. But also because it is a childish excuse for allowing bad practices.
It's almost as if you were all convinced to call your creations "content" for a reason.
Adobe's response is more proof that the weird loophole with the licensing clause allows them to decide how to train their software on user's data without user's consent, because by agreeing to the TOS the customers gave Adobe a license to all of the work produced with Adobe's software, imported or even just viewed through their apps. What a despicable brush off of the issue at hand. Adobe is trying to cover its ass to use your stuff (or stuff you don't own), by saying that it has a catch-all clause where you license your stuff to them, but it doesn't specifically give you the option to not have that content used for Gen AI when you're not specifically watching them do it!? Why are we even debating about brand loyalty? These TOS are utterly unacceptable. Adobe has no right to sublicense or license, view, edit, modify, or even touch copyrighted, IP, or NDA work made or viewed with their software that you never owned the rights to while you were working on it IN THE FIRST PLACE! Oh and guess what, they're not obligated to notify or pay you, actually you pay them for the privilege of being shagged like that. What a dumpster fire.
Sure. But who will stop them ?
Before couple of years, there were news that facebook (meta) will use the data of WhatsApp in their other services like Facebook and Instagram. And people were panicking.
But dear lord, they don't understand that Meta owns WhatsApp from year 2014. So, all data of WhatsApp is actually data owned by meta. They will use it and we will never know unless we see an effect we can't ignore.
Adobe will simply say that user checked "agree with terms and policies" checkbox, and they have right to use user data. Users themselves given permission to do so. There should be good number of brilliant lawyers who don't care about the money, and just care about the people to stop this basterds.
Adobe "does not" train Firefly Gen AI models on customer content
Adobe "will never" assume ownership of a customer's work
Why they dont say:
"Adobe will never train" and "Adobe will never assume"
Because "does not" is not equal to "will never"
I cancelled my Adobe subscription and cited their licensing as the reason.
Affinity Suite is on sale, and the UI and default keyboard commands are virtually identical to Adobe. And it's a single purchase, not subscription.
as if they're gonna care in the slightest.... sad truth
@@henryglennon3864 thx for the heads up. I was waiting for this.
@@Moresteck One customer? They won't care. But if a significant amount of people cancel, they're forced to care.
@@MechMK1 eh they can afford it. at the very least 50% would have to trash their services, which i don't see happening
Anyone that still has an Adobe account that wants to do some shenanigans, hear me out:
Delete all of your content on your Adobe account and fill it with pictures of poop instead. Please. Poison their data. This is how you defeat AI. I know it's stupid, but it works. Bonus points if you tag it as "beautiful princess" or something like that.
There are also special methods, how to modify picture in order to poison AI training set…🤔
That wouldn't work at all. The first principle of machine learning is to clean the dataset.
@@Raccoon5good luck cleaning millions of files
Buy affinity! Wait for the 50% off sale! Its like 80 for 3 sofrware with a forever license! Or just use gimp and others. Do not patronize a billion dollar company when they f up this bad!
@@strawberriesandcumIt's already done more-or-less automatically by using classifier models, which are already trained. =)
I still stay on CS6. Subscription models always lead to extremely invasive corporate greed that should've only existed in movies.
+1 CS6 is great.
@YISP7 pirates always win!
I have thousands of hours in Ps CS6. Stable and has nearly zero glitches or instability. Can't say the same for CC.
Sail the high seas guys, and you will be saved from all this junk
Torrenting an old PS version is was less sketchy than licence to modify, reproduce and display your content.
You realize that Adobe wouldn't have a such a monopoly if entitled thieves actually supported OSS.
I'm on a cracked version of Ps CS6... they can't delete that off my hard drive or steal my work.
@@JiggyJones0 No need to cry, people can do both.
Please if you’re going to run any cracked versions, do so in an internet disconnected VM
If it needs an internet connection to install/run, you don't own it.
Almost everything needs the internet to install.
I don't even remember the last time I saw something modern use physical installation mediums. Even video games just give you a digital code.
@@Queue3612 bingo
does not invalidate OPs point
Unless you have windows and crack 😂 then Adobe product are not linked to the internet anymore 😂
There is no version of Adobe in which you can't replace a dll file 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
already switched to Affinity products on my machine and open source software at work.
The difference betweeen now and then is massive! The word "Upload" missing is critical! As previously anything that was not uploaded was not covered by their license, now even local files are covered!
If they simply restricted the legal wording for moderation purposes only, this would have blown over much quicker.
But the bettering and enhancing the service part is just too broad, especially in a world where creators don't have the best view of AI generated content.
...and here's the thing: a team of corporate attorneys would have known to add that limiting language if that was their intent. The fact that they didn't add that language ("for moderation purposes only") should tell us that is *not* their intent.
@@alldecentnamestaken yup yup yup.
They may be publicly saying it's not for AI, but at the end of the day, it's what's on the fine-print that matters.
@@alldecentnamestakenactually a team of corporate attorneys is almost certainly always going to write the license in a way that gives their client as much leeway as possible... that way if they ever do something that is even on the margins it is still covered by the license. The terms are written to protect Adobe... not give you rights. They would never write the terms in a way that do anything else.
they are going shut down your 10.000$ account because of swear words
Legal did that on purpose, if Adobe hadn't forced the new terms of service the way they had and got people to actually read the changes it might have taken a little longer for people to notice but the 1 thing I am 100% sure of is the wording is broad on purpose.
Its unbelievable that they say they will police your files for "illegal content" manually or in an automated way. First of all, Adobe is not the police, they should not have this kind of authority. But more importantly, why the hell would adobe freaking care? They are a software company and they presumably want to make money, how does manually reviewing your content for problematic content make them money? The only conclusion is that they are going to use the content for their own purposes (which I guess they literally stated in their own policy) and this is just ammunition for the inevitable lawsuits when someone sues them for damages cause their work was stolen and adobe tells them "it was for the greater good of making us money + thought-policing our customers". Really sick stuff, I'm glad I don't use adobe products.
I hate adobe with every fiber
You should eat more fiber
@@rawallon LMAO
My sister works for Adobe in UK, she told me they hire famous artist for playing music at private concert for the employers and get free food. She works as a laywer within adobe. She also got promoted, but not because of her skills, but because of her look. Terrible company.
they never asked adobe stock contributors if they could use their photos to train their Firefly AI, they just autojoined them into it by some legal loophole..
To be fair adobe stock was literally their assets. The rest of the ai image generators were glorified web scrapers. It seems like adobe is thirstier for data by the minute though..
We reserve the rights to ignore your consent.
I do remember I purchased sketch for 50$ bucks for lifetime. After year or so they forced me to buy subscription as well. And finally having lifetime key and online subscription, I was not able to activate software recently. Brave New World!
Yeah, "lifetime licences" aint as long as you would think these days.
This lasts as long as some local judge allows a local to break arbitration. Walk into small claims and launch a suit for $50 damages
crack it. you legally purchased it.
Lifetime licenses are only trustworthy if there's no DRM.
another super crazy point is their corporate customers.... Are they claiming legal rights/license to stuff made by other large corpos and movie studios?!?!? A lot of big companies use Adobe software in their shops (this include the likes of Sony and Disney). Is Adobe trying to slurp up Disney IP?!?!? That won't end well.
Nah big corpos have customized EULAs and anything they redline adobe usually doesnt even try to keep in. For example, in Disneys EULA you will most likely not find the standard "this licensing agreement can be changed at any point without notice" because you cant have fluid contracts like that. you also wont find the "we can use your creations lol" clause because the individual who agrees to that license might not have legal rights over what they are working on, so adobe cant use it without risking lawsuits.
adobe does this because they want the business. they sell thousands of licenses at a time and its good advertisement too, so they dont mind making these custom EULAs for big corpos.
You're taking this all out of context buddy. Adobe isn't training their AI off of their user's Photoshop projects. This provision in the ToS is strictly for detecting abuse of the products for illegal activities. It's not for training some image generation model. Adobe already has clear policies on how they are doing that and they actually will pay artists if you want to opt in.
This lasts until some local judge allows a local to break arbitration. Walk into small claims and sue
@@Aaron565 sue for what?
@@tatzecom Adobe isn't using anyone's creations for training AI to rip off their intellectual property. The EULA for Disney is the same as any other company or user Adobe works with. The real exceptions would be for medical companies and government agencies which have federal compliances such as HIPAA and FEDRAMP. The differences in those cases are mostly related to how data is encrypted, how access is provisioned, how long data can be retained, etc. These types of policies are all public info and apply to every company, not just Adobe. Someone in Adobe legal just made a change to the ToS and didn't consider how badly it would be misinterpreted by random people on the Internet.
If I rent a house and store drugs in it, the landlord isn't responsible. Not sure adobe should be.
That's a good point, but even if they're not legally responsible, they probably still don't want to host certain types of illegal content. Similar to how TH-cam scans new videos and deletes them if the AI detects that it's porn
It's to protect the company, as they may be liable with the data they're storing in the cloud. Now, the bigger problem is, why are they storing what the customer does with their service in the cloud?
but what if you say swear words in that house ?
cda 230 have been misused by service provider to no end, where editorial action being executed selectively.
Safety is the excuse. What is the actual motivation? You be the judge, but 100%, Big Tech cares not one bit about safety.
Their response STILL doesn't address supposed moderation stuff under NDA.
Imagine you working in movie industry under VERY strict NDA.
Moderator, who reviews cloud stored materials, can leak it. They didn't sign those NDA paper.
Leak can be traced to you and YOU will get in legal troubles, not that chatty moderator!
answer only one - OpenSource Krita
I've been using Krita, can't recommend it enough. Two things that are still in need of work:
1. Align elements (K's align tools are not up to snuff, such a simple thing, wonder what the problem is?)
2. Text (this is apparently in the process of being vastly improved in the next update).
rather have my search leaked and use adobe than use krita
Affinity
I like your answer!
Krita is great for drawing, but not for imagine editing
Affinity has better terms because they’re not the market leader. If they ever do achieve that, those terms will change for the worse.
open source. open source. open source.
Can you tell me a good photo editing that is open source or at least free without an account/internet because I need to edit some pictures for my company in Germany but I literally can't use closed source stuff that connects to the Internet because of data protection.
@@David-ty6myGimp, Krita and Darktable
Community product on the top..
How many pull requests you added to gimp, or how much money you donated to it? Everyone loves to scream OPEN SOURCE, and think there are some fools who will work thousands of hours with no pay for you
Jack Sparrow is much better
I am paying adobe to take my photos and invade my privacy lol
Same with MS Windows and the recall garbage. At least they disabled it by default for now.
If you're doing work-for-hire, you usually don't own the content and can't grant Adobe any license for that content.
It's not an issue since they never used it in the first place though, right? wink wink! They just looked at while you worked on it to admire your work!
(adobe employee mumbling) get the copy quick, we gotta hit the next guy.
(adobe employee with jazz fingers) I was never heeeerrrreeee! Seriously though, good luck proving otherwise...
but, not everyone is "Work-For-Hire",
and if you like to work on your free time creating portfolio and personal work like a lot of other Professionals
, you can no longer do that.
never tolerate the Big Bully, never try to justify their logic,
today they're just nibbling for reaction,
tommorow, they'll hunt you down to the end of the world for owning a PSD file
Guys, whatever Adobe employees are saying about their intent is literally 100% irrelevant for legal purposes.
That is why people pirate their services.
Whst concerns me is that adobe thinks they are the police and can "check if you are committing crimes" with their software.
Exactly. Even the police has no right messing with your private property and what you do with your PC etc unless they have a warrant.
1:48 What if the content you work on isn't yours? What if you are working, let's say on a movie and you get footage to edit that isn't yours,you legally can't allow Adobe to view that content. How would thst work?
Why are we paying Adobe to use their software, when they should be paying us to access our content.
Reminds me of how people are freaking out about windows recall spying on them, not realizing that there has been evidence of Microsoft spying on them for years, lmao
True but anything that gets people to wake up a little more helps
I started using Linux 9 years ago. I will never go back.
@@christophernuzzi2780ive used mac and monix for aboit twenty years now. Dont moss windows though it wasnt that bad
Contrarians pretending the scope is still the same while opening doors for even more vulnerabilities to be found by hackers Shameful.
@christophernuzzi2780 same actually, never been happier when proton first hit the ground running with the steam deck because it meant I no longer had any reason at all to run windows in any capacity
The license they wrote giving themselves perpetual free access to your stuff is bad enough, but they also specify that the license is SUBLICENSEABLE, so they PLAN to sell licenses to YOUR stuff. That is the most egregious F-YOU to their customer base I could imagine.
they are 100% taking your content to train models they will make money on and not paying you for it. that pretty much sums up the license.
I used to feel guilty about using free adobe softwares like ps and pr. Now I no longer do, and glad that I never gave them money
There is no such thing as "cloud" - Cloud is just a word used to describe someone else's computer.
I know I hate marketing people because of this.
So there is such a thing as cloud. You literally defined it.
@@utubepunk
"All of your photos and contacts are saved on the cloud"
"All of your photos and contacts are saved on someone else's computer"
@@electrolyteorb Correct. The cloud. And do we really refer to a company as someone else?
@@utubepunk no, we refer to a company as dad, personal, biological dad
I am rooting so hard for Affinity. I "only" need a Affinity version of lightroom and premiere/after effects. Then I could finally completely ditch Adobe for all my personal work.
1:00 something you NEVER SEE in a free and open source software’s license agreement. The makers of FOSS will not see how you use the software in real time. I’m pretty sure any software that requires internet connection, especially constant, essentially are under surveillance. Roblox and UEFN probably do the same thing, which is why “the mirror” is created on top of the godot engine.
It is not worth it to support their greed.
Hopefully Canva makes affinity work on Linux.
I think we’re all fed up with this shit. I don’t need FOSS I just need it to be mine.
There's a thread about getting their stuff to work on Linux issuing Wine. It might be easier to use Bottles or Lutris to set up a bespoke environment for this but yeah
@@ThePlayerOfGames For now I use Peaphoto and Krita. Those work without translation layers. I only have a few vst plugins that I need wine for, but all my apps are Linux native.
Trying to get it running under Bottles ... nothing yet. IF you (or anyone else) does successfully, please reply here with details. BUT, yes, native Affinity on Linux PLEASE!!
@@LV4EVR Keira and Peaphoto get the job done for me and those have native ways to be run.
Affinity on Linux would be nice… but it won’t be until the next version… which will probably be subscription-based.
Hohum.
"Adobe requires a *limited* license" ..global, royalty free, perpetual, sublicenseable, no stated purpose.. I'd hate to see what their definition of an *unlimited* license is then; do they claim ownership of your firstborn?
Adobe created the Acrobat reader. It was good 20 years ago. Then they tried to milk it. Added bunch of unneeded features, cluttered the UI, forced their cloud upon us, to a point, the product is sluggish and can't do basic tasks. For example, certified signature (using ID card) does not work for many users - clicking Sign does nothing. No error message, just dead. This has not been resolved for 5 years now, adobe suggest using their cloud.
Meanwhile there are competitive products, that have great UI and just work.
can you recommend an acrobat alternative that has the ability to edit PDF's and has digital signature and commenting in it? I could not find one so far.
@@ferizsolnai from everything I've tried, PDF XChange Editor was the best, so I use it daily. Editing feature is not free, but it's not that expensive and also available on torrent.
Thanks for sharing those photo/design programs! I had a CD purchased from Adobe as a student just before they switched to this monthly subscription that is not a month to month agreement. My Adobe is still operational but outdated. I switched to other software as rendering was much quicker than Premiere. I agree the quality is great with Adobe but on the new software I am also happy with the quality for TH-cam videos. Plus the new software is easier to use imo. The speed to get the final product is much more desirable for me. I don’t want to be waiting an hour to get a short video rendered.
Will they use this information to train AI? if its profitable then yes. Guys stop expecting companies to have moral, its just profit, the end.
Only exception to this is Valve tbh
Public companies have a legal responsibility to serve the interests of their shareholders (make money, and Wallstreet has been very happy about companies that are doing AI recently)
I appreciate companies like Canva and valve for still being privately held
Then they shouldn’t expect us to buy their products then.
Piracy all the way.
Companies operating under a capitalist context don't have the obligation to do moral or ethical actions, especially if it directly contrasts with the company's goals for profit or growth.
@@prime12602 jack sparow way, you wont give them a dime or your data
They shouldn't moderate and have conditions for people to use if the people are paying a bloody subscription...
I’m three minutes in and I’m looking into how to get a refund. I got photoshop like two months ago. They can pro-rate it, but why would I even learn the program at this point?
Affinity is currently having a 50% off sale on all licenses, so if there's ever been a time to jump ship it's probably now
When will the US get a GDPR similar system, to protect the personal life (and files) of Americans against big techs?
I would imagine that in EU sooner or later some photos that contain GDPR regulated info will end up in Adobe's machine learning. We could probably solve quite few financial problems if we were to give them decent fine like $100B or something.
It just seems like Adobe was always overeaching but the boom of GAI has made artists pay more attention to who does and doesn't own their work and the people they're working with
Just pirate Photoshop. I am done trying to play the honest game with these companies.
GenP?
@@Dave102693 monkrus
Still, you're helping with their branding. Adobe is an industry standard because the masses use it, and they allow widespread use so they can charge organizations higher fees.
The only way to beat them is to use an alternative.
??? Pirating Photoshop does not help with any of the legal concerns raised in the video.
Lol, makes me wonder about all the malware people are going to get by pirating. Better just get non Adobe software, bonus points if its open source.
Great plug for Affinity.
It's kinda scary that companies reserve the right to modify at any time their terms of on how they use your data.
Adobe: "We have altered the deal. Pray we don't alter it any further!"
Changing the terms of a sale after the sale should be illegal. Imagine you buy a house and then after you buy the house the previous owner says they changed the term and now you are just renting from them and they can enter the house at any time. No one would be ok with that, yet we've been conditioned to accept that for non physical purchases and even some physical devices. Frankly, people don't own much of anything any more.
@@rojorum2433 This is just a problem with all of these "software as a service" type apps. You are allowed to not agree to a terms of service update, however though, because what you were using is a service, they can then block you from accessing that service.
Just like with NFTs, you don't buy the actual software, just like you don't buy the actual picture. What you buy is a license to use the software, and that license can be revoked or access denied if you don't agree to the terms of service.
So basically, fuck services. They are the legal loophole companies can use to deny you access.
It's a fluid contract. We agreed to the practice for years now, so it has become industry standard. Consumers require some kind of collective advocacy or bargaining representation, but we've been putting up with it for so long things have gotten out of control, which usually happens in life when things are good and firm boundaries aren't set early. Now, it's best to vote with the wallet.
welcome to capitalism
They released an update to Premiere Pro last year (release 24) that was broken on launch... while phasing out their older, functional versions... rendering their product worthless and my payments to them a waste. That was when I knew it was time to say goodbye.
We have the rights to own your creations and content, but you do not have the rights to own our products. - Adobe probably.
As someone who grew up surrounded by adults who worked at Microsoft, adobe, Apple, Amazon, Boeing, I hate companies so much. I hate the excuses people make for these companies. All of the excuses. The people who work for these companies are often really stupid, complacent people who “just want to put food on the table”, even though they are making buttloads of excess cash to spend as they please. I HAVE NO LOVE FOR THESE COMPANIES, THE PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR THEM, OR THE PEOPLE WHO USE THE PRODUCTS. MAY IT ALL FALL TO RUIN🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
i was uninstalling at "sublicence our rights of your work to 3rd party´s"
its another company who wants the rights to my privacy just because i use the their software.
no thanks, my privacy is not for sale
This seems to be common wording for a lot of ToS.
You can thank CSA laws for that, that's why the sudden push for AI. They used recently passed AI laws in the US (and EU) to pass for what Apple wanted to do and all companies synchronously pushed to listen, access, scan and use anything you do on your computer....
Only FOSS allows you to avoid such situations.
Well until the project is acquired of course, so you also need to make sure that the governance structure of the project is sufficiently secure against take overs and weird re-licensing.
@@EraYaN This won't have much impact, look at redis & co. Fork & done.
And the Black Pearl.
One complication could be that you could get a copyright strike on a popular media platform just because Adobe used your content before you did.
I cancelled sub after this as well as I don't use Photoshop that much. And well because I am not using it 24/7 so to speak, I am saving myself $15 a month in sub fees.
Check your unsub like a hawk, they've been know to re-sub people who've tried to quit.
@@animatewithdermot Thank you for that info will keep an eye out if they try.
I would go a step further and delete my account as well. Just because you're not paying, doesn't meant they're not gonna use the content that's already present in your account.
Dear Affinity, please make something similar to After Effects! Just include both light and dark themes. Think about users with eyesight problems. Don’t be Adobe.
The amount of return I could have had if I invested instead of purchased Adobe through my lifetime since a student.
Entire team is switching to Capture One and Affinity this week. This was our last straw for Adobe
"Scanning for illegal content" has always been a huge ick for me. Whats to stop the rich person with the right connections from outright spying
Or worse. There have been people that got their livelihoods ruined due to such content being found on a PC they used, but they had nothing to do with it. There have also been such cases where the flagged content was in some way legit. FI, if everyone's mom's photo album got uploaded and scanned, how many false positives would be created? What about the well-documented cases of medical photos causing problems? Government agents have been known to plant CP and such, too. I'm sure there's been instances of faked corporate espionage, and faked security leaks, as well, to get rid of the, "wrong," people. How many times do these things go on, without government or corporate agents getting caught? Targeted spying is just one nefarious/dystopian option.
Old TSO: the content you upload to their server is scanned and you give them rights...
New TOS: the content is scanned and you give them rights...
It is absolutely different!
This is worse than Amazon telling your auto and health insurance companies when you buy tire chains for snowy weather so they can up your premiums for “risky” behavior.
This is why I got rid of my FitBit watch Owned by google). All these companies (Apple Watch, Amazon with their heart rate monitor, etc) can sell your health information to insurance companies; it's all one big collusion at your expense.
@10:00 "Forever" Until they change it to a subscription service and change their terms of service
I’m still on CS6, AFAIK, they’ve put the final nail in the coffin for me to use their software
Never felt so good to cancel a software subscription.
Second.
And LONG LIVE AFFINITY!
And Resolve. God I love Resolve.
For now
Yes to both! I couldn't believe how much better life was for me when I moved on from Adobe. Resolve is hands down my favorite editor I have used. I just need a company to take over the Lightroom part. It's all that is missing.
@@thenightninja13I'm not a photographer, so forgive my ignorance, but doesn't one of Affinity Photo's personnas edit raw camera files?
@@henryglennon3864 affinity can edit raw photos that isn't the issue. Lightroom provides a workflow that is really second to none as of right now. It's an organization tool, batch editing tool, and provides fast lossless editing.
Photoshop and affinity photo are more scalpels with editing great at small details and specific graphics and working with layers, whereas light room is like a factory processing that gives you fast end results for blasting through photos. Trying to do a time lapse edit in Lightroom is simple. Doing that same process is a lot more complicated and sometimes not even possible in the other programs.
@@henryglennon3864 Yes, Photo allows you to edit/import RAW. It doesn't give the browsing/organization of lightroom, but otherwise, it's great for RAW. (Just heard about darktable as a FOSS lightroom replacement. Haven't tried it, yet, and have heard mixed things.)
You mentioned multiple times that the terms arent that new, but one key difference is the old TOS specified that you needed to upload the content. The new ToS does not, which implies that if they can get ahold of it by any means through the software then they own it.
Photoshop doesn't block "anything that looks like money". But all bank notes do contain a very specific pattern that Photoshop, Copy machines and other stuff can easily detect. And there is apparently a legal obligation to prevent the copying of anything that, by the specific pattern, is identified as some form of currency. The same may apply to legal documents.
Exactly. Theo needs to look up EURion Constellation. This is not specific to Adobe products and is a legal requirement.
More than 20 years ago, when we switched to Euros, my father wanted to preserve our "old" money (lira), by scanning some banknotes; our scanner's software (not Photoshop) prevented us from doing so, with an error message. We had no internet and the software didn't use any kind of AI for sure, to detect the banknotes.
"Only as permitted by law" lol no shit
for a close source program talking of limited access yeah right , its like ny professional shoplifters just browsing some merchandise and did not take anything when they left and inventory is missing a couple items
Life tip, when team of lawyers with interest in the opposing party says just trust us, don’t. They could have easily put that info in their terms of service. Best case , it was an overreach to see what they could get away with. That’s the direction they heading.
everyone keeps telling me to move to photoshop, but the more i learn about adobe the happier i am i stuck with gimp all these years
Feel the same, especially with new versions
On 4.2, you could even just remove "or improving" and be left with "purpose of operating the Services" - selling content to be able to pay for operations becomes a VERY simple logic step.
Hallo, Kim, You are practicing crafty legalese lol!
Cant wait for someone to start explaining how bad pirating is again. Arr matey, please do tell me.
It's AMAZING how many scenarios have come up in the last 8 years in which I can quote Albert Cumus (French Philosopher) saying _"The welfare of humanity if always the alibi of tyrants"_ .
On a side note thx for the suggestions of Affinity and Photopea. Can't wait to try a free trial.
Oh and VERY good video mate! : ]