Clarifying Adobe's Terms of Use Update
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 июн 2024
- There has been a lot of concern about an update to Adobe's Terms of Use and as a result Adobe's legal team worked with the community to clarify the parts that caused the most concern by simplifying the terms and putting human readable language into to. These updated Terms of Use were just released on June 18, 2024 and are available here: www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html
While Terry White is NOT a lawyer, he's here to break the changes and updates down for us all. 
Наука
Terry, Adobe Firefly's tag line reads, "SKIP THE PHOTOSHOOT." It does not read, "Adobe is loyal to its photographer customer base."SKIP THE PHOTOSHOOT" means exactly the opposite. Adobe unmasked their intentions themselves. Now, they are trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
These "changes" don't address issues usch as NDA work and work where I the user is not the copyright holder such as client work or work on material under fair use doctrine. Under those terms we have no legal rights to grant Adobe the license they demand.
Sure, many people will simply say "don't use the cloud services" but with Adobe's push to AI how can we know what is being run 100% locally on our machines and not being sent to the cloud for processing?
Rotobrush 3 is local (I think right?) but Firefly is cloud based ... what about video auto transcription? Is that being run locally or on Adobe's cloud? What other tools or services are now or will on the future run on their cloud instead of locally and how will users be made aware of this so that they don't accidentally grant Adobe a license that the user LEGALLY cannot assign either through a lack of legal right to do so or through NDA agreements?!?!
This is a legal liability we can't afford and I expect that larger clients such as government will need to re-evaluate their use of Adobe products (like LiveCycle and AEM as well as creative products such as Premiere, in Design, Photosop ...) since these ToS / EULA are for ALL adobe products! Imagine a lawyer having to worry about granting confidential client info to Adobe because Adobe's new spell checker suddenly runs on the cloud! RIDICULOUS!
Also the constant emphasis of "YOU OWN YOUR CONTENT" ... that was NEVER in question, the contentious part is Adobe blanket granting itself a perpetual license to that content with nothing more than a "Trust me bro."
"We've added it to our ToU" ... just like you retroactively added the right to train your AI on Adobe Stock contributors ... to quote Vader "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."
There are other options and I STRONGLY recommend people look into them.
You are partially mistaken.
While it says that it will only use licensed content, if you read carefully you will notice that you are granting said license for all your work that touches the cloud.
Furthermore, uploading stuff to the cloud is on by default for all your work. For example if you use ligthroom on the iPad, even if you are working on a local library of photos, the software automatically uploads it to the cloud, thus granting them said license to train AI.
You HAVE TO opt out from uploading to the cloud every time you add photos to your catalogue.
Also, the fact that the license allows them to operate the software as intended, I.e. uploading and sharing your work, it doesn’t mean it’s the only thing they are allowed to do.
As is written, they CAN sell, publish and modify in ANY way they want your work. You are just trusting them not to do it, but legally they have the right.
Adding "for example" only suggests one use case, it does not preclude others. "The knife will be used to cut things, for example carrots" does not mean the knife can't also be used to stab you in the back. There are other examples of "reproduce", "distribute", "create derivative works", "publicly display", "publicly perform", "sublicense to third parties on ADOBE's behalf" that are not as innocuous as the cited examples.
Yes. And this is why giving examples is not a substitute for clear legally binding language.
Yes, and the terms of use clearly limits what the license can be used for (operating and improving apps and services).
@@mesh2325 Improving how, exactly? What are the limitations here? Once again, giving examples doesn't constitute a legally enforceable limitation.
Currently generative fill is not good. It needs improvement, therefore your work can be used to improve it by training it, according to the license.
@@mesh2325 Right and Firefly is a service that could be improved by sucking up all your art. Do the terms of service SPECIFICALLY prohibit that or is that just a "trust us bro" post on their socials?
The second option isn't really legally binding.
The other thing I would like to point out ios that in the last update they FORCED people to agree ... no option for "No, I don;t agree, now let me remove all my media and cancel my account". It was agree and until you do you are LOCKED OUT.
So next update, let's say they add in. "BTW, we'll scan all files opened in our products from now on and you agree to let us use anything in your cloud storage for our AI ... click agree" you'd have to agree and grant them whatever license they want before canceling and removing your content.
Adobe was training their generative AI, using our content. There was a checkbox in the settings, that was opted-in, automatically, before they updated it, and removed it, after the backlash.
That’s simply not true. There’s a difference between product improvement and training generative AI models. You content was never used for the latter.
Adobe might also need your explaining skills when addressing the little thing the U.S. regulators want to talk about
“We will not x” means nothing. It comes from PR in full defense mode. What we want is “we cannot x” and we want that in the contractual language.
It is in the terms of use. (specifically about not training gen ai on firefly, on not using your content for marketing, that adobe doesn't own your data).
@@mesh2325 Also in the ToU somewhere "We can change these terms when we want" ... ask any Adobe Stock contributor about having their iomages sucked into Firefly with a retroactive change to their ToS.
@@mesh2325you are partially mistaken.
While it says that it will only use licensed content, if you read carefully you will notice that you are granting said license for all your work that touches the cloud.
Furthermore, uploading stuff to the cloud is on by default for all your work. For example if you use ligthroom on the iPad, even if you are working on a local library of photos, the software automatically uploads it to the cloud, thus granting them said license to train AI.
You HAVE TO opt out from uploading to the cloud every time you add photos to your catalogue.
Also, the fact that the license allows them to operate the software as intended, I.e. uploading and sharing your work, it doesn’t mean it’s the only thing they are allowed to do.
As is written, they CAN sell, publish and modify in ANY way they want your work. You are just trusting them not to do it, but legally they have the right.
Adobe has ripped me off one too many times in the past...this time was the last straw...TOO LITTLE TOO LATE.
Make it easy to understand doesn’t make it right 😢
This explanation is far from satisfactory and all output options are quite hidden or difficult to access.
Just now catching up completely to this Adobe fiasco. Have enjoyed your channel for years and it’s unfortunate that Adobe put you up to doing this video. I agree, it’s a legal issue and you should not have been put in the position to defend it. Stay strong.
Terry, an Adobe shill?!
Why is everyone surprised by this?
Sorry to be blunt, but I call bullshit on this. When challenged in court this vague wording can always be interpreted in favor of Adobe, enabling in fact any kind of theft under the "sub license" heading.
If Adobe wanted to (re-)gain some trust they would
- include options for perpetual software licenses and complete offline operation with exception for specific AI features.
- opt-out for machine learning must be the default.
- document and disclose ALL server traffic to and from the customer's computer (each IP, for what, how often and why).
- provide a two-way conversation for complaints when algorithms falsely claim that the user violated TOS with an AI feature. Without that it is a no less than an insult against honest creatives working within reasonable parameters. (this happens way too often, and there is NO one to talk to and to make it right.)
- Enable a one-click cancellation for subscriptions (NEEDLESS to say! - I hope the lawsuit of the FTC will succeed on this).
As it is now, Adobe has positioned themselves very clearly against the creative community and against their own customers in the most unethical way.
All seemingly good, but too late for me and millions of others. Adobe burned their bridge, zero pun intended.
Thanks for the update. "Generative AI models" is very specific. There are other types of AI models like diffusion models. I would feel more comfortable if Adobe clearly stated that they don't use our work to enhance ANY of their AI models or for machine learning.
They didn't and they won't. Because they are using it for it other models (like their AI brushes and such).
Was this explanation based on the initial recently updated Terms, or were the latest terms that caused everyone grief updated once again to appease everyone and that is what this video is trying to explain?
A little of both. Through all this the terms hadn’t really changed other than a couple of words. However, based on the response it gave us the opportunity to break some sections up, be explicit about what we won’t do, and put in easy to understand examples in plain English.
@@TerryLeeWhite Terry, "easy to understand plain English" is a smoke screen.
@@TerryLeeWhite That's just not true Terry ... sorry. Those 'examples' are nonsense and hold no clout. The legal statement themselves have not changed. They are still horrible. Read closer, please.
I sill don't trust Adobe and all the lawyer wording. Lawyers are skilled with their fancy wording. The cancellation fee was not addressed.
This should have been clarified from the get-go. Artists and designers are the customer base of Adobe. Countless internal use cases in corporate are covered under NDA’s and internal confidentiality. Any tool that violates those conditions is DOA.
i trust Adobe
pirating Adobe is ALWAYS MORALLY CORRECT
Stealing is stealing. You can’t use “morals” in the same sentence. Just because you don’t like a company or its policies or can’t afford it doesn’t justify theft.
@@TerryLeeWhite piracy is NOT stealing, tho.
@@iandegiovani4703 by what definition is it not? Explain that to the people that have gone to jail for pirating.
@@TerryLeeWhite If buying your software and making our own art is not fully ownership, pirating is not theft
@@reborn_neo_art if you take something of value without permission or payment that is defined as stealing and covered by law.
Nice explanation Terry ... just don't trust Adobe now. Been frustrated for a long time with Adobe and its business but this was the last straw for me. I have cancelled my subscription.
Terry, Much Love, you are and always will be a guru to me.
I find it sad you have had to do this for a company that is not as genuine as you are.
As in most things in life, good will and Faith also must be considered, and Adobe are lacking in both.
We all know that there will be the blind followers of Adobe that will do just about anything to convince themselves that all is okay!
It isn't that people hate Adobe, it's just really very difficult, to appreciate and like a company that will treat their customers in this way.
To the fact that they are now having to reel out the stars that made the very software acceptable to explain the disingenuous practices.
Thanks for your explanation.
But I'm sure some of your viewers have realised that, in any relationship when the love and trust, has gone! there is no point in staying !!!!
I'm done! and it seems so are many other people.
Take care Terry.
2:03 Why does everyone from Adobe keep saying Adobe "DOESN'T train generative AI models on your content"? Our question has always been DID Adobe do that, since they opted us in by default.
We know they don't anymore because in the latest software update they removed the checkbox in Photoshop's Product Improvement settings. ruclips.net/video/DkFpWDYwo1k/видео.htmlsi=m72K7D5yoLMy7bxe&t=171
You're not a lawyer yet you spoke like one here.
User content was NEVER USED to train generative AI models. I hope that helps make it clear.
@@TerryLeeWhite There are also other AI models, not only generative ones. There should be full transparency and clarity regarding any AI training.
@@brue4u there is. That falls under the product improvement section which you can opt out of as defined in the terms.
Thank you for doing this informative video. Now, could you do a video about the Adobe split from Pantone? What happened? What's the best workaround? Thank you.
Love it when someone speaks in plain English instead of the legal mumble jumble. Hope all corporations can learn from this that just having a bunch of lawyers to write the terms and conditions can be counter-productive.
So you might be careful next time you sign something without reading and a lovely gentleman behind the counter will give his plain explanation of what you've signed.
It wasn't "mumbo jumbo". It was pretty easy to understand.
Hi Terry. I appreciate you trying to clarify things. However, these Terms changes are are just a trigger. Adobe has lost its way as a Software Company for Creatives a while ago. With the focus on shareholder satisfaction over client satisfaction; with the introduction of subscription models (under the disguise of better features faster, which resulted in less and less program stability and reliability); with worsening customer service and technical service over the year; with spending resources on silly almost unusable . I have been using Adobe PS since version 2 professionally in the early 90s ... and I will keep using Adobe software as long as it does the jobs I need it to. But the introduction of the subscription model marked the end of Adobes focus being on creating great software for the creative community IMHO.
Na bro, I am going Affinity and other alternatives
Thanks for this Terry. Of course, most of us common sense users knew this to be the case already but sadly the internet is rife with those that do not have any common sense and throw a hissy fit at any opportunity. Either out of ignorance or to produce clickbait. The positive in all this, I have seen many RUclips channels literally create hysteria on this issue and I've been able to unsubscribe from their channels and have a damn good clear out!! Thanks again Terry.
I appreciate the clarifications, but I don't think that people who had concerns lack common sense or are ignorant. I think some of the concerns were legit which is why Adobe "clarified" their TOS. So on those points, we can agree to disagree.
@@basilbcf No I think we can agree to agree. I totally support those who had genuine concerns with the ambiguous wording which needed clarification for some people. My criticisms were solely directed and the hysterical RUclipsrs who took this opportunity to stir things up and created even more genuine concern; all in the name of clickbait. I should have made that point a much clearer. 🙏
@@havovubu Certainly some some of them did use it for click bait, but I felt that many were relaying legit concerns that might otherwise have gone unnoticed by many users who (like probably most) don't spend a lot of time reading TOS or other fine print when they sign up for things. I feel like those creators who brought some of these concerns to light were doing the photography community a favor. Whether some of the concerns are truly a concern is of course up to each individual. For me, I'm not overly concerned as I don't use the Adobe cloud anyway. The problem with most TOS is that they are written by lawyers and can thus sometimes be misunderstood by non-lawyers.
As someone who has studied biz law & know how language can be manipulated to serve a company's needs, it is not especially hysterical on the part of users to have even legalese be clarified if it's too loosey goosey or obtuse wrt how it can be interpreted.
@@havovubu totally agree with that, and that's why I don't dabble in that. Users of adobe going back years know better, all this ai stuff requires some more wording and such.
While I may have issues with Adobe from time to time, the amount of paranoia and sheer hate is off the charts out there. Now the DOJ is getting involved, seriously….? I have been awaiting your response to this Terry, thanks for the input.
While the TOS outrage isn’t legit, what the FTC is getting involved with is a valid issue.
The DOJ is getting involved over violations of US Federal laws (ROSCA) on cancelation of services ... has nothing to do with these changes to the ToS.
According to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the defendants have systematically violated ROSCA by using fine print and inconspicuous hyperlinks to hide important information about Adobe’s subscription plans, including about a hefty Early Termination Fee that customers may be charged when they cancel their subscriptions. The complaint alleges that for years, Adobe has profited from this hidden fee, misleading consumers about the true costs of a subscription and ambushing them with the fee when they try to cancel, wielding the fee as a powerful retention tool.
The complaint alleges that Adobe has further violated ROSCA by failing to provide consumers with a simple mechanism to cancel their recurring, online subscriptions. Instead, Adobe allegedly protects its subscription revenues by thwarting subscribers’ attempts to cancel, subjecting them to a convoluted and inefficient cancellation process filled with unnecessary steps, delays, unsolicited offers and warnings.
Hi Terry, there has been so much noise over this.. thanks for explaining this in a way that everybody can understand!
Too LATE .... I've already cancelled Adobe and replaced it with DaVinci & Affinity.
No one uses affinity and the user base for da Vinci is extremely niche.
Greed.. Monopoly.. Silver Tongues.. Holding peoples work and subscriptions to Ransom.. Privacy issues.. Others defending multi billion dollar corperations over users.. Whats not to trust..!
It's funny how Adobe created an explanation for "us idiots" who ate clearly incabable of understanding the original text.
We need a simplified version and Terry's tutorial.
Terry, you were right the first time, when you said no.
Instead if explanation there should be an apology, not this insane PR to the death.
Thank you for this Terry
Thank you Terry, I never had any concerns about that but all those creators using for cheap clickbait content was really getting on my nerves.
If people have legit concerns (And I think they did. which is what the TOS have been "updated") they should be able to express those concerns. Just my humble opinion. Sorry that gets on your nerves.
Nice try on spinning it. The end user would not know that sub licensing on 3rd party server farms was implied, when 3rd party server farms were never mentioned in the original paragraph. Your clarification's are just espousing trust in the ambiguity of the original TOS, Nothing more. Basically, "DON'T YOU TRUST US ?"
"Don't you trust us?" ... points to Adobe Stock contributors who had their rights RETROACTIVELY grabbed for training their replacement (Gen AI) for peanuts in compensation.
And yes, it's to replace photogrpahers ... everyone has seen the "Skip the photoshoot" ad campaign.
It's like they think we're idiots.
Thanks for clarifying terry 😄
Very informative! Thanks!
You miss the point. How much adobe paying you 😂
Exactly!
And using adobe products I get paid.
Well said! Thanks, Terry!
I can't believe people need you to explain this Terry but it's good you did. People got to read the terms for real for real. This was always adobe model from way back. The update still sounds the same to me since creative could came mainstream.
As always, I keep learning from you and today is no exception! Your explanations and clarifications have been quite helpful!!
Keep in mind though, the only problem with your calming clarifications is that the non-lawyer-YooTubers who get increased view counts on their videos by making people panic about their interpretations, will now be getting lower view counts. Thanks for all you do!! #ImATerryFan
Thanks, Terry, for explaining.
DO NOT SAVE TO ADOBE CLOUD!
or to any other adobe service (portfolio, web, etc.)
Don’t save to Google Drive… Don’t save to dropbox… The box… When you get work for higher contracts or employment don’t save to their servers…
I’ve been a long time admirer of you Terry, but am disappointed in your response. To us Adobe’s users and customers these are NOT minor issues as you state! I fail to see the distinction between items that I may store locally vs. in the cloud. Your explanations were vague and left to much grey area as to what Adobe CAN do with our images. I’ll give this time to play out, but as of now, I see myself looking for another company to use for my image editing. Very disappointing, Terry.
Thank you for this update Terry.
Appreciate this, Terry. Glad to hear Adobe is hearing the concerns, and that they have someone like you to explain and recognize creatives!
well.... #I_Notice_A_Pattern. Apple, Adobe, Sony Entertainment etc etc....faceless on-line corporations, ever growing further towards monopolistic positions, slowly morphing into dictator style bureaucracies where customers became an inconvenience. luckily consumers and regulators can have an impact with Adobe still, Apple I'm not so sure.
I simply switched to Affinity and Davinci Resolve. Much lower price, great functions, no subscription
I appreciate the video - however, I dont think your explanation addresses the whole sentiment and behavior about (for example) having to "Opt-Out" instead of "Opt-In" and Adobe doing this "quietly as default". An announcement of default "Opt-In" is NOT how to build/maintain customer loyalty or a community that will continue to "buy" subscriptions. Your video seems genuine but is not a legal statement and does really nothing for those of us with NDA content. Adobe needs to know and understand their customers vantage point, and they should announce policies that lean towards their customers best interests. This policy announcement has "profit motivation and an overly dominant legal positions" written all over it. I am not a lawyer and for me personally it is frustrating enough for me to cancel 2 business subscriptions until Adobe finds it's moral compass.
This whole saga just goes to highlight the pitfalls of cloud computing, AI and endless subcontracting. It destroys trust. As to AI I will only use it for noise reduction
The ADOBE ceo and his execs, need to be filed. This is not a good thing when the feds are now involved.
Thank you Terry. I had no concerns…Love Adobe
Put it in reverse Terry!!!
Why is US government taking Adobe to court then?
That's because of the subscription models. That's a completely separate issue. Basically, if people are wanting to end their Creative Cloud subscriptions, they have found out that they are slugged a 'cancellation fee' equal to the remainder of their subscription which isn't made apparent when you sign up. It's either buried deep within the terms or not in the terms altogether. That's basically what that is about, and I don't blame the consumers either. Adobe quite frankly needs to go back to offering perpetual licenses as an option, in addition to subscription models. If every other company is doing it, why isn't it good enough for Adobe?
The DOJ is getting involved over violations of US Federal laws (ROSCA) on cancelation of services ... has nothing to do with these changes to the ToS.
According to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the defendants have systematically violated ROSCA by using fine print and inconspicuous hyperlinks to hide important information about Adobe’s subscription plans, including about a hefty Early Termination Fee that customers may be charged when they cancel their subscriptions. The complaint alleges that for years, Adobe has profited from this hidden fee, misleading consumers about the true costs of a subscription and ambushing them with the fee when they try to cancel, wielding the fee as a powerful retention tool.
The complaint alleges that Adobe has further violated ROSCA by failing to provide consumers with a simple mechanism to cancel their recurring, online subscriptions. Instead, Adobe allegedly protects its subscription revenues by thwarting subscribers’ attempts to cancel, subjecting them to a convoluted and inefficient cancellation process filled with unnecessary steps, delays, unsolicited offers and warnings.
Adobe is a disgusting company, and has been for a long time.
Gougers, bye bye adobe
Frankly, I think it's a lot of people who just hate Adobe (for whatever reason, good or bad) taking things out of context b/c they either don't understand it fully or just want to bad mouth the company. Adobe and no other company for that matter is perfect, but some people just like to find a reason to gripe and spread lies.
No one hates Adobe to just hate Adobe
@@Opeyemi.sanusi your reading comprehension needs improvement. Nowhere in my comment did I say people hate Adobe just to hate Adobe.
@@reginaldwalton I think you are the one who has an issue with comprehension. Again I say - no body is hating on Adobe just to hate on Adobe
@@Opeyemi.sanusi Teach Ope, Teach!
@@Opeyemi.sanusi True. Everyone likes Adobe. Not only some of them dislike Adobe because of A.I. and the early cancellation fees.
sorry but i cannot endorse a company that rents software to people rather than sells it to own, its just making people at the top more richer answer me this honestly why dont you sell it to own but only hire it at horrendous subscription rates
You should just admit that, same as lots of other people, you think everything should be free.
@@thepurpleufo I didn't see where he suggested it should be free - he just compared renting to being able to purchase it out right (or at least purchasing a license outright) and Adobe used to do just that. He didn't say it should be free. Personally, I don't mind subscribing to Adobe products but it would be nice to have the option to just buy a license for use outright and I think that's a legitimate concern for some people. That's not suggesting it should be free.
oooooh, I get it now! That explains why THE US GOVERNMENT is suing Adobe, thanks Terry for selling out
To be fair, the DoJ lawsuit is about Adobe violating federal law on subscriptions and users ability to cancel them. It's a separate issue.
Video looks more like adobe sponsor but can't blame you your whole channel is based on adobe so you have right to defend it.
but i work in Tech and worked in major company and how shady works they do you don't want to tell people. Most TOS is to protect company from law but everything goes without permission as long as we share data with government.
every company harvesting your data to train Ai and non of them are using legal method it's race to Ai
you can believe whatever you want. 👍
This is Terry White's Channel ... you know ... Terry from Adobe 🤷♂
I work for Adobe so there is that.
@@TerryLeeWhite Yes, Terry...and you are one of the greatest video producers of all time...and have been for many years.
Remember the whole antenna gate what was it with Steve Jobs in the iPhone. This is kind of that. And I don’t understand all this hatred for Adobe because for me it’s help me in my career. It’s the THE tool for what we do in our creative professions. You’re free to use anything you want, but if Adobe makes a mistake, they correct it or revised it and let’s move on.
And for all those that complained about Adobe, owning your content and etc., etc., and all this whining and complaining when we get hired as contractor or permanent employees we are WORK FOR HIRE and an employer can claim ownership and it’s in the contract you sign in the employment agreement that they own everything you produce. Even if you’re like sneak developing your own ideas on their clock if they find out they own it.
So, what’s the difference? WORK FOR HIRE. They OWN your creative work you were hired for. So if we follow the logic creative pros should be also bitching about their employers and biting the hand that feeds them.
Thanks for explaining this to people who don't get it...although I suppose lots of people are so consumed by their hatred for Adobe and think that all businesses are crooked, and so sure that they have "detected" the nefarious uses Adobe has in mind for their content, that they just can't hear the truth. Mostly, they're just not interested in the facts.
I've been using Adobe stuff since 1988, and Adobe stuff has never let me down. Not once. We constantly hear about how "everyone is leaving Adobe for Affinity"...ha ha...I guess that's OK for amateurs, but people working in the professional world know that Adobe is where it's at.
Bottom line: Lotta people don't know what they're talking about.
ai is better than adobe you can get that for free easy
Really interesting take
Live with dignity and honesty not ...whatever this is.
Wow, lotsa paranoid people here!
Please copy/paste the talking points you were given by adobe in the comments. If it quacks it is a duck.
Here ya go since all I did was read it to you: www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html
I have been here since the Macromedia days, I have seen just how greedy Adobe is, I got on the subscription model out of necesity , nos out of necesity I am leaving them
Adobe does not want or need your content. They invented a whole consortium on AI and Ethics why would they waste millions to steal your stuff. The public that are going after Adobe know little about tech and these same entities tried to shut down Rock and Roll and later Hip Hop. Don’t be fooled by a hearing.
Mahalo Terry. 🤙🏽
No thank you. Just like with Microsoft, my trust is destroyed.
So disingenuous. I appreciate that there exists examples that are not nefarious, but the problem is that the TOU does not restrict to these examples. Just because I say "for example" and give an example that is not that bad, this doesn't suddenly mean that nothing bad will happen. If I am attempting to roofie someone and I say "for example, I might need to give you pills if you need Tylenol." and leave it at that example, that doesn't mean that I'm also restricting to this example unless I explicitly say so.
Shame on you Terry White for this exercise in gaslighting.
Yawn ZZZZZZ
Interesting that of all the millions of possible "examples" you could have used, you chose to mention "attempting to roofie someone."
" attempting to roofie someone"
attempting to roofie some one does not fall under operating or improving the app or services. (which are the only two uses Adobe has any license to the content).
Sounds to me that if you had been at the last supper, you'd have asked for chips 🤣
cue shills and apologists it seems
Thanks for the clarifications, Terry. I've been on the internet for many many years - long enough to realize that a large percentage of these amateur "lawyers" are going to pop out of the woodwork anytime a major software producer, or other popular entity makes ANY kind of change to their TOS. As you mentioned, those TOSs are there to protect the software company AND the users. If read with a common-sense frame of mind, they make sense. If read with a "looking for something to go freeky-deeky over" attitude, you can find them on the back of a cereal box. Chill, people. Seriously.
Adobe is SHIT. Never using it again.