Adobe users just now getting upset over content scanning allowance in Terms of Use A practically ancient terms-of-use update has landed Adobe in freshly boiled water over how the Photoshop giant gives itself the right to review user content stored in its cloud. The issue kicked off online yesterday when video game concept artist Sam Santala pointed out the February update in a post on X. Santala asked if he …
The moment you upload something to somebody else's system is the moment you no longer have control over it.
Anyone remember the Picasa debacle? I worked at a school and none of the teachers bothered to read the T&Cs\EULA... and started an ad-hoc IT project with it.
"If your business model doesn't have enough money in it to host your own data, that's a sign it's not viable."
"If your business model doesn't have enough money in it to host your own data, that's a sign that you can't afford to host it in the cloud - not for long, anyway.
I've been saying this for years!
If you do not physically control the hardware your data is stored on, you do NOT have control over it.
He/she who owns/runs the hardware, has your data and complete control over it. They can change or take your access away at any time.
"Content stored on a local PC with Adobe software installed won't be scanned, the company said."
The relevant sections of the TOS (2.2 and 4.1) do not make any distinction between data stored locally and that stored on the Cloud. Until this is clarified in Adobe's TOS, I'd take what the company says with a very large grain of salt and maybe a tequila to wash it down.
"Until this is clarified in Adobe's TOS, I'd take what the company says with a very large grain of salt and maybe a tequila to wash it down."
No need for Lemon, as that is *you* for not realising *your* data is open for any use by the S/W owners ... as per usual !!!
:)
> "Content stored on a local PC with Adobe software installed won't be scanned, the company said."
Is there any functionality that automatically uploads content from your local box into the cloud, for your convenience of course...?
Icon is Adobe lifting your wallet from the pocket of your jacket behind your back.
There is no way that could be uploaded. Remember that even though Photoshop CC is based on the cloud (kinda) it is not itself a "cloud service". The TOS says that if your data is on their cloud service then they can do what they want. This is a very important legal distinction. The Photoshop CC software is physically on YOUR computer. Hackers have even managed to make a crack for it so you can use it illegally for free without a license. That's because the software does NOT reside on the cloud, but on your computer. The only cloud or online aspects of it are that it checks for a valid license every time you run the software, so you need to be online every time you start the software.
The only other cloud related thing is that you CAN (if you choose to) save your files to their cloud storage. Now that is a "cloud service", and it is obvious (to anybody who's not a paranoid schizophrenic, who's trying to spread conspiracy theories about Adobe), that the wording in the TOS about scanning your content on the "cloud service" is referring to any files you have saved to their cloud storage. You would think that if it did have sneaky code that scanned your harddrive for files to upload against your will, and automatically uploaded them to the cloud service to be scanned by Adobe, that the same hackers who cracked the software would have discovered this and posted online about it, and it this would end up getting some major press on all the tech blogs and news sites online. But that has not happened. Also they never discovered any code that automatically even uploaded to the cloud against your will the files you manually loaded into the Photoshop software. That kind of thing if they did it would legally NEED to be covered in their TOS.
Remember, Photoshop software is NOT the same, legally speaking as a "cloud service" as referenced in the TOS. The only cloud service Adobe offers you is cloud storage. And even that is not forces. You can still load and save all your picture files to your physical harddrive in your physical computer. The cloud storage is an option that YOU control. If you don't want it, don't enable it. If it's enabled by default, you can disable it.
The relevant sections of the TOS (2.2 and 4.1) do not make any distinction between data stored locally and that stored on the Cloud. Until this is clarified in Adobe's TOS, I'd take what the company says with a very large grain of salt and maybe a tequila to wash it down.
This is one of the reasons I stopped using Adobe and generally hate cloudybollocks. I asked if they had an opt-out to cover NDA work or would indemnify me for any NDA breach outside my control.. and crickets. So obvious solution is not to use any cloud service that grants itself any kind of access rights. Which give the incessant push for SaaS is increasingly difficult.
Hmm.
To me, "The GIMP" is plural and has nothing to do with images. "The Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search", The GIMPS, Prime95 software from https:///www.mersenne.org .
I've never even seen the other one and I've certainly never used it.
Oh, and the name may be "stupid" but it is an acronym for "GNU Image Manipulation Program" which is quite a sensible name as it's what the software does. Maybe, though they could have called it "GNU Licence Image Manipulation Program" or GLIMP?
The use of ML was added to the general Adobe T&Cs in the update on June 16 2016
Prior to that the Our Use section read:
Adobe General Terms of Use
Last updated April 7, 2015. Replaces the June 18, 2014 version in its entirety.
3. Your Content.
3.3 Our Access. We will not access, view, or listen to any of your content, except as reasonably necessary to perform the Services. Actions reasonably necessary to perform the Services may include (but are not limited to) (a) responding to support requests; (b) detecting, preventing, or otherwise addressing fraud, security, unlawful, or technical issues; and (c) enforcing these terms.
When updated, the section read:
Adobe General Terms of Use
Last updated June 16, 2016. Replaces the prior version in its entirety.
3.3 Our Access. We will only access, view, or listen to your content in limited ways. For example, in order to perform the Services, we may need to access, view, or listen to your content to (a) respond to support requests; (b) detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, unlawful, or technical issues; and (c) enforce these terms. Our automated systems may analyze your content using techniques such as machine learning. This analysis might occur as the content is sent, received, or when it is stored. From this analysis, we are able to improve the Services. To learn more about the machine learning we do, go to http://www.adobe.com/go/machine_learning.
Those two read very differently to me. You seem to be saying the wording hasn't 'effectively' changed. Let me paraphrase what I'm hearing:
2016: we will look at your content if we absolutely must in order to do the tasks you set before us
2024: we will only scan and analyze your content if we think it is a good idea.
And an obvious difference: this is 2024 and if we say we might analyze your content, it actually means we WILL run it past our AI. We promise we're just "thinking of the children" and treating you as an assumed reprobate until we prove to our satisfaction you are innocent. We certainly aren't intending to steal your IP in a roundabout way by training an AI on your ideas then asking the AI to burp them back out. A decent lawyer could drive a fully loaded logging truck through that clause as it now reads. The previous version at least gave some mechanism for redress if it turned out the company was using customer data in unnecessary ways.
If they adjusted to (rip off?) PS UX/ GUI, why not?
That seems to be the main thing stopping that migration. Not what it can do, but how user makes it do it...
Plenty of options, just seems that some want to be seen using 'Adobe' products. Can't think why, other than its the 'Tesla' syndrome of 'look what I can afford to buy'.
Luminar Neo, Affinity Photo, ACDSee et al all good options.
After the licensing shambles I experienced I got shut of them, never looked back.
"Luminar Neo, Affinity Photo, ACDSee et al all good options."
If you work alone, they can be great options. If clients require files in PSD/PSB format, not so much. If you use outside retouching services, you may still need PS to be compatible. There's also loads of tutorials for doing things in Adobe products so if you get stuck, chances are good you can find a method to get unstuck. If you are a landscape photographer that does all of your own editing and are sufficiently experienced in editing, the alternatives might work really well.
Monopoly world. Fight back and expand the abilities of the industry. Playing along is suffering monopoly ramifications. Nothing changes.
Breaking monopoly worlds is obviously hard. But it's also required. No competition? No retaliation? You're a masochist. Allowing others to suffer because you didn't retaliate? You're contributing to sadism in your industry. Such is our species. *sigh*
@DerekCurrie The most lovable thing about humans is our weakness. The vast majority of us shrivel up and die if we aren't touched often enough. I believe everything decent about humanity comes from our desire to help others, and that derives from our intuitive understanding that we desperately need other humans to survive. It's a pity we're so easily convinced that we are helping by making others miserable, but zero-sum games are the most easily understood.
"When Adobe went subscription, that should have ended them right then and there."
It was initially a really good deal to get Photoshop and Lightroom for $120/year. It's now double that but still cheaper than the peak boxed price. The problem is you get stuck the wall with a loogie gun since anything you save in their formats and the LR databases are limited if you let the subscription expire.
And let me introduce my partner, Mr Newton.
Now, I don't want to cause you any upset, but we've noticed that you've been using our paint to create your wonderful, expensive, and very well-selling masterpieces. The terms and conditions, which we're sure you read properly, give us full rights over all your works. Please find enclosed our invoice, and a letter from our lawyers requiring you to cease this illegal sale of your work.
The one with paint on it, obviously --->
The part that seemed to have Adobuse victims on my social media timelines vexed was their "licenses to your content" which includes "you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free sublicensable, license, to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, create derivatvie works based on, publicly perform and translate the Content."
Now I don't use Adobe stuff so I can't verify that the screenshot that is circulating is for real, I'm guessing it's either a fabrication that feels believable because it's the kind of thing they would do, or the license is fairly normal in context, but I can understand why people might think this stinks to high heaven.
Ok, what is your alternative to Lightroom?
So far I have not found anything that can do the photo management side of things as well as Lightroom.
I'm sure that there are many who would love to know your alternatives. btw, the answer is not GIMP, at least in its current form.
RawTherapee perhaps? https://www.rawtherapee.com/
DarkTable was something I looked at for a friend a while back. I'm not so into photography that I need something more than the GIMP :)
With the resources Adobe has it's unlikely that anyone can write something as good/complete as Lightroom, but you pays your money and take your choice.
"Ok, what is your alternative to Lightroom?
So far I have not found anything that can do the photo management side of things as well as Lightroom."
I'm in the same boat. I have been using Lightroom for years to manage my photos so I'm very well versed in using it and have built my workflow around it. To change would be a week of translating catalogs if there were another program I could use (Capture One?). LR also integrates very well with PS.
Just stop using the "cloud". And "subscription" software.
No really, just stop.
The argument that this anti-consumer garbage is supposedly "needed" by professionals, that there is no suitable alternative, and that they couldn't possibly do their job without it, is complete and utter horseshit. Most of the best art ever made, for example, was created long before computers even existed. "Need" my ass.
I can only conclude that your average sheeple is an incurable masochist who just really enjoys rewarding bad behaviour.
I've seen street artists produce the most astonishing work, from nothing but a piece of chalk, or upturned plastic buckets and bits of leftover plumbing.
People who are genuinely creative don't need props, they don't need any tool in particular, they can use literally anything to express their art.
The sort of people who claim to be completely debilitated unless they have access to some fashionable toy gadget, are utterly delusional. They're not artists, they're just mindless consumers.
The only way to stop these Silicone Valley gangsters is to stop giving them your money. Stop rewarding bad behaviour.
Stop. Just, stop. You aren't a creative professional and therefore have no leg to stand on in making declaratives that other people need to honor.
I'll say this AGAIN, for at least the 10th time on this forum, because you all think you know everything:
We, that being any creative that builds media that must be shared at some point (electronically or print, and the middle steps taken between getting electronic to print) use Adobe products because the entire media creation subsystem USES ADOBE. When you create a layout designed for print, the print shops are also using Adobe products and it may be necessary to share the .INDD's because of some form of unforeseen complications. We usually can transmit high-res PDF to a print house but, just occasionally, you need collaboration and that means sharing INDD's.
ALSO note that only Adobe's CC has the level of integration between PS and ID, not to mention PP and AE. 'Just switch to X!', you people always spout off, but then WE lose the integrated workflows that Adobe worked on creating over decades. And a HUGE hit to our productivity.
So, just STOP. Unless you have the experience to mouth off with any certainty of what you are talking about, no creative is going to tell a coder to switch to X IDE 'just because we don't like the company' and expect you to honor that rant, and you need to accept the same.
I agree with your point; have a vote.
Those of us that do have a choice should vote with our feet. Sales numbers and profit are the only things corporations are supposed to respond to.
And, for the record, yes teckies do occasionally run into IDE choices made from on high because some executive prefers one company's marketing over another. We've even got a little phrase about it:
We the willing
Led by the unkowing
Have done the impossible
For the ungrateful
We have done so much with so little for so long,
we are now qualified to anything with nothing forever.
I think section 4.2 is the most insidious change. ‘The new terms give Adobe "worldwide royalty-free licence to reproduce, display, distribute" or do whatever they want with any content pro using their software.’ https://x.com/sashayanshin/status/1799118418085380431?s=46&t=u2_Ntx8qP1q7OGzV7XGRzA
"I think section 4.2 is the most insidious change. "
When I was in aerospace, that would hit ITAR restrictions since I was photographing things for work that are export controlled. Currently, there's no way I'd give away my photography. If I were to make an image that a client is paying me good money to create for them that will be used for a big ad campaign, I'd be sued into oblivion if Adobe used or licensed the image out to somebody else. That clause is an attorney boilerplate to CYA and should never be agreed to by any creative. Social media companies have the same thing in their T&C's so anything you post to your InstaPintaTwitFace account is fair game and it has happened. Just say no.
That clause is not there for them to exploit you, and steal your pictures and sell them for profit as if they had made the pictures themselves. Rather, that kind of legalese language is something they have to say that legally, to cover themselves from frivolous lawsuits.
For example, when you load a file into Photoshop, technically it is being accessed and displayed by their software. Therefore their software legally needs to state that it has the right to display your pictures to avoid running into legal trouble. No normal person would actually sue for that because when the picture comes up on the screen loaded in their software, that's what the user WANTS it to do. But if it isn't LEGALLY covered, they open themselves up to FRIVOLOUS lawsuits. Imagine a Photoshop user who was looking for a quick payday, decided to sue Adobe, because their software displayed the picture, arguing that in the Terms of Service Adobe never claimed their software would access and display copyrighted images owned by the user. Stupid argument from a common sense view, but LEGALLY it actually is a valid argument. If a feature that may violate a person's copyright (from a legal perspective) is not explicitly in the ToS, then the person could sue, and maybe win, for an easy (albeit unethical) huge payday against Adobe. Adobe needs to avoid that as a possibility, so they include EVERYTHING the software might do (and even things it doesn't do), to make sure that any frivolous lawsuit would get thrown out by a judge. Yes, this also makes it harder to sue them for ACTUAL wrong things they could do, but you shouldn't be so paranoid as to assume the TOS are written on purpose to allow Adobe to do bad things.
This article only talks about the front door (their applications) which already come with a massive side helping (now new! enhanced!) of privacy violations and an Adobe installation is pretty much like a virus, it's a challenge to fully remove it because it spreads fragments everywhere.
What it misses is that Adobe has also established a firm foothold in online tracking through web fonts.*
I challenge you to build a site with Adobe without falling into the trap of using Adobe webfonts which are ONLY available as on the fly downloads like Google fonts. When you start looking for their equivalents that you can download and install on your site you will discover that Adobe has quietly built a monopoly and bought up all the fonts you'd want - you're forced into that ecosystem whether you want it or not.
Go on, check it. If you're doing anything in webdesign using Adobe, I challenge you to build a site that doesn't leak intel to Adobe. If you thought Google was bad, Adobe is actually much worse because they have been able to keep this out of the limelight. And without webfonts your fancy design won't look quite as fancy, designers are apparently as allergic to standard fonts as they are to comic sans).
* Yes, I know it's not as accurate as the sadly yet again ubiquitous web pixels, but this shouldn't be its business at all without declaring it somewhere.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
