OT - ADOBE TOS change - access to your data and more
cgidesign
Posts: 442
A warning for those using any ADOBE product regardless of where your data is stored.
https://80.lv/articles/people-aren-t-happy-with-adobe-s-spyware-like-terms-of-service-update/
Seems so, you allow ADOBE to access all your data in any way (automated or manually by ADOBE staff) and you allow them to use, alter, sublicence your work in any way they like.
If you don't agree to these terms (they seem to be from Feb. this year) you can't use the software anymore.
This is not limited to data stored in the Cloud, the Eula does not exlude your local data either.
Assume you are working on some art for a client and you signed an NDA with this client. If you use an Adobe product you might have already violated that NDA.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Here's a video about it.
This is merely stating and formalising a longtime practice. Caveat emptor.
Does this apply to the old non-rentware versions like CS6?
That's why I use Affinity software
I buy it, I own it and nothing more to pay. And it doesn't rifle thru my private files.
Check these two clauses:
In 4.1 they write that anything you create with Adobe software is part of the TOS. So not only something you upload to the Adobe Cloud but anything you ever create. E.g. a Photo you edit in PS and store it locally on your disks or maybe upload to your own portfolio site, or a render edit you post in the DAZ gallery; a flyer you create with InDesing for a client, a video you edit with Premiere. Anything is affected.
In 4.2 they write "Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software ..."
But AI image, video, text etc. generation is part of their Services and Software. That means, that Adobe can use anything you make for their AI strategy.
"you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free sublicensable, license, to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, create derivative works base on, publicly perform, and translate the Content".
You allow them to use your data for whatever they want to do with it. They can even give your data to third parties if they think think this is relevant for operating or improving their Service and Software.
Just imagine: you have a client and are making a video with Premiere or a photo with PS for him. And you signed an NDA forcing you to keep the work private and don't give it to third parties. By just using an Adobe product you already violated this NDA.
Or you make a texture set and sell it on Gumroad. They can copy that texture set, give it to third parties, use it to create another texture set, offer it in their AI tool, show it to the public.
And again - the TOS do not explicitely limit this to data you upload to the cloud - it is for anything you create, even local files on your disks.
Pure horror in my opinion.
The older TOS are listed here:
https://www.adobe.com/de/legal/licenses-terms.html
I have gone through the old CS6 TOS because I also still use that CS collection. As far as I can tell (I am not a native speaker) in the CS6 TOS there is no clause that allows Adobe to use your content.
No artist should agree to those terms. Just that perpetuity license clause should have users concerned.
Wtf... then I'll say sayonara to it and continue with Affinity and Gimp.
Many have never used a "cloud" service for just that reason. the potential for ransom.
This is why every creator computer I have is air gapped.
If software requires an internet connection, I don't use it.
(I'm still playing C&C First Decade on an old WinXP computer).
Madness. And maddening. :( I didn't put anything Adobe on my latest computer and now I won't. Too bad. I've liked using some of their programs in the past.
Adobe's has made a response. This guy explains it.
So long Adobe. Nice knowing you.
Where does that guy explain Adobe's response? He blabs for 6 minutes about what we already know, then scrolls past Adobe's response to post comments from angry users.
I'll admit this isn't a good look for Adobe, but aren't there more reasonable explanations for this besides "we're going to steal your content and train our AI with it"? Could this have to do with monitoring extreme content on Behance, something related to cloud data, or that the usage clause applies to content generated by Firefly? I find it almost impossible to believe that the company behind the editing software of ALL editing software would openly steal and monitize user content off their local machines. I can believe they'd train AI with images posted publicly, but there's no getting around that these days - individual AI users on Civit are training loras every day directly from copyrighted content.
People need to cool their jets and wait for more concrete information.
Intentions are irrelevant. It's what adobe's text says that IRS the problem. Our tech overlords are untrustworthy. Sad and true.
Here's some actual clarification and not 10 minutes of rambling from some Youtuber.
https://petapixel.com/2024/06/07/adobe-responds-to-terms-of-use-controversy-says-it-isnt-spying-on-users/
thank you
A few years ago (2 or 3) my system crashed while installing an Adobe update. For me, Adobe is something I cannot and will not live without. I gave the Adobe tech full remote access to my PC (have nothing to hide) and after several attempts they actually downgraded me to the prior version. I have had Adobe 2020 forever. Despite annual renewals for the full subscripton all apps and substance painter, AE, AP, etc, it never updates. Some apps do, Photoshop does not. Not sure what they did to make that happen, but I love it. They actually left three versions on my PC plus an old CC version I owned. Maybe this has to do with the newer AI features that I do not have. Either way I have found Adobe support to be fantastic, and absolutely transparent. No games. No abuse. No test rat crap. If something breaks they allow you to go back. If you want to use older versions you own, no sweat. Genuine awesome company. Been doing business with the since Adobe version 3.0 maybe earlier but I do have boxes and CD's from 1994 version 3.0. Adobe is above and beyond spyware. Chill.
Their blog post isn't reassuring.
Adobe lost me when they went subscription based, so I am glad i don't have to deal with this. I read the artical on petalpixel, and still don't buy it. Sounds like what you say just to get people not to worry, regardless if true or not. Either way, doesn't pertain to me since I don't do adobe any more.
@Artangel: Agreed, never had a problem with them and I've been using Photoshop as long as I can remember it ever being available. Also, I vastly prefer paying $9 a month for it now than having to shell out $600 for an upgrade every year and a half when it came in a box. You always have to weather the initial storm of any internet freakout because it's almost never as bad as it sounds. The language Adobe used was unsettling, but it's pretty silly to think that the maker of the absolute must-have program for anything creative was going to start stealing the art of an average user and then claim it for commercial use in public.
Adobe either need better lawyers or have exactly the lawyers their strategy needs. It's not a good look either way.
All this might be a conflict of interest, but thinking a little deeper it all might be because all want to be connected, all want more, everything needs to go faster, if knowledge is not shared we might stand still. we are often happy getting a solution for our works so I guess that these solutions and answers might exactly be by connecting. It might bring companies on a edge walk being able to provide all the necessary support for all these Individuals. We might speek of a handfull employees trying to give staisfaction to millions with what they offer.
The Individual " God bless " still has the choice, you do not like the Idea, you do not use it. but thinking of it a little further, somehow it might just be a give and take to be able to profit from this specific Item, In a way if you do not give you will not get.
I do not want to derive on this conversation, but allot of compainies have this sort of regulation.
5.3 Permission to Use Your Content. By posting Your Content, you grant RenderHub a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, irrevocable, sub-licensable, perpetual license to use, display, edit, modify, reproduce, distribute, store, and prepare derivative works of Your Content. This allows us to provide the Services and to promote RenderHub, your RenderHub store, or the Services in general, in any formats and through any channels, including across any RenderHub Services, our partners, or third-party website or advertising medium. You agree not to assert any moral rights or rights of publicity against us for using Your Content. You also recognize our legitimate interest in using it, in accordance with the scope of this license, to the extent Your Content contains any personal information.
A sort of a dejavue. Adobe is not the only one holding such terms of services. Humans tend to make things very dramatic, that might lead into total unnecessary situations. We should sometimes evaluate things, if we wish to have something, is it then still possible having these if we don't share.
things should not be just Black and white
Okay, not a lawyer in the slightest, but I've spent a lot of time looking at these over the years...
This is pretty standard across the internet. "Non-exclusive" means you can share your content elsewhere as well. "Worldwide" means literally that: they won't limit the visibility of your content to one country. "Royalty-free" is that they won't charge you (and you won't charge them) to host your image.
"Use, display, edit, modify, reproduce, store and prepare derivative works of" are pretty boilerplate too. If you upload a 1000x1500px image and want other people to see it, that's "use," "display," and "reproduce" (because caches). If they show a thumbnail, then they have to "edit" and "modify" (especially if they put a site logo/watermark over it). If you want them to host it then they definitely need to "store" it.
"Prepare derivative works of" usually means the various ways they can show your image... although these days I admit I side-eye that too, because I have suspicions about just how much heavy lifting that phrase might do in the future.
"Sub-licensable" should mean that if they get acquired, or they acquire someone else, then they too will have the right to show your content. (Not as iffy as it looks: think about DAZ and Tafi.)
The only ones I'm generally wary of are "irrevocable" and "perpetual" because those are saying that if you close your account and ask them to delete your content then they... won't. But then, I'm a writer and you avoid any publisher that wants your books with those terms because good luck getting your rights back if/when they go under.
Ultimately, the biggest issue Adobe has is one they will probably never shake now. Their own users have such a bad impression of them that even if they insist "no, no, there's nothing to see here, this is standard and, by the way, we've been enforcing this the whole time anyway!" no one will believe them any more.
This thread has been locked as the topic does not appear to lend itself to civil discussion.