Terry, this is ridiculous. Photoshop is the only program that is in fact, incompatible with Lightroom Classic or other versions. I say that because virtually all other editing programs to which you can send a photo from LrC for editing, give you a choice of formats to send it back in ...INCLUDING JPEG! Photoshop is the only program out there that is too archaic to do that. This has been an ongoing problem for years. Each new version of LrC and PS offer new or improved editing tools, so there is simply no need to save bloated PSD and Tiff files if you have just shot a marathon or event with 5000 JPEG photos. When starting with JPEGs why in hell would anyone want to save the PS edit in a format that makes the file 4 to 6 times the size of the JPEG one started with? Adobe is the only company with this problem. All the others work seamlessly with LrC. Adobe is simply so ridiculously ARROGANT they don't consider jpegs to be a valid format. Sure you can 'Save as - JPEG', but it doesn't automatically come back to the catalog like all other program's edits do. You have to IMPORT it directly or through the 'Synchronize Folder' option. That is just plain arrogance instead of customer focus. I just did a 5000 photo marathon shoot and have to go through this shit with every photo I send to PS for editing. Absolutely ridiculous. Adobe is about as customer focused as a drug crazed sniper.
Terry PLEASE show us how to restore things that were removed accidentally. When I hit restore it restores the entire background, and I only need to restore for an example an ear lob and an earring on a person. Help!! Thanks. It used to be readily easy and available but now in 2024 June, it's not easy to find. Thanks.
@@TerryLeeWhite thank you so much for answering. I was able to find it and was able to restore my subject's ear/earring. One would not think to hit "ERASE" to ADD/RESTORE something back, it's a bit oxymoron. Perhaps Adobe can redesign that feature so it will be easy to locate and grasp. Thanks again. Have a great week.
Hi Terry, great review and assessment of Unifi gear. Can you comment on the fan noise level on the Pro Max 24 PoE Switch. I have a client with small rack in their home office about five feet away from their desk with sensitive hearing! Their UDM SE is silent (no drive installed) as well as the USW 24 POE so not looking to ruin it for them and have to take the switch back. If its anything as loud as a Pro-24-POE I might have to look at alternative 2.5 GbE solutions
I noticed you didn't use your Adobe Evangelist Line on this one, I feel your explanation was good but bias and when I hear someone say "Technically" In my opinion its a way of escaping any wrong doing due to loop holes with certain wordings that can mean 1 thing or a million things, later to be argued from ones interpretation . As an Adobe user since 2005, and a cloud subscriber since 2016, I have decided not to renew my subscription at first I was afraid I wondered if it would cost me business? But times are changing and people are finding out that if we stop empowering these companies to just do whatever they want and feel they suffer no consequences, I have to relate this to @gamersnexus They just called out ASUS for there bs RMA scam, If the leaders of the industry do not get forced to change then the underlying competitors will certainly follow the big companies, it works both ways. Adobe forced to change means all the other companies dont think twice, checks and balances also the fact that adobes stock in the last 6 months fell up to about 25% percent has got to say something? I could see if adobe said flat out look we don't use your content to teach our software , Ok but I doubt that would happen they would probably throw in the word "Technically". Im willing to stay if CC for all apps 100gb for 29.99 a month for life. My final offer! =)
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.
I had Velux shades installed on my skylights a few years ago. I can manually shut them with my iPhone app or set up a time schedule to close and open during these hot Texas summer days.
Awesome brother Terry every time I see you talk about your smart house I get excited because as I may of told you already I’m a electronic guy I got an electronic degree and I also like technology and gadgets, my Terry White folder is filling up fast that’s my life knowledge database, or maybe I should say my geek knowledge Database, catch you later much love brother.
@@TerryLeeWhite well currently I’m not in my house of the future yet , so I have not started on any of this smart home stuff hadn’t given it a whole Lotta thought until I met Terry White, and since I like electronic stuff now I want all of it ,but I must wait until I get to that house that I want to fix up to be my forever home cave, but I should hurry up and get settled into my final home because I’m 58 1/2 already
Thank you for taking the time to break everything down and explain it to us. I think many people simply do not understand how a giant organization like Adobe, which deals with people’s intellectual property, must cover the Terms of Use (TOU) in such minute detail to operate and legally define and protect its service boundaries. I didn’t freak out because it was “out of character” for Adobe to do what people thought it did. My critical thinking and experience using its services and interacting with tech support, customer service, and evangelists like yourself over decades led me to believe that what most people were freaking out about wasn’t actually happening. I’ve dealt with many contracts in my full-time and freelance roles throughout my career, and the amount of clarification and definition required to avoid interpretational risks and loopholes is unimaginable to laypeople. We often take this for granted, even as small business owners. I’m glad you, Jason, Paul, and others have made videos explaining the situation because people can relate to you much better than to Adobe as a giant company. We’ve built trusting relationships with you over the years, and it has been meaningful to hear from these trusted sources rather than just receiving TOU update notifications. At the end of the day, people respond better when there is a human touch. Adobe’s responses were very immediate, and I’m impressed and happy to see the great job you all did to ensure we can continue to trust our professional services to Adobe. Maybe in the future, Adobe can proactively create layperson-friendly explanatory videos before TOU updates roll out, anticipating possible misunderstandings and concerns in advance. You could explain TOU updates involving AI functionality, content ownership, licensing, sublicensing, duplication, etc. Anyway, thanks for being the human bridge to the giant mountain that is Adobe.
Thanks Terry! Watching the replay, ah, years later! I use portfolio for my website. Can I add a pop-up somehow? I don't see how. Is there a plug-in I can use? Html code I can embed? Thank you!
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.
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. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DkFpWDYwo1k.htmlsi=m72K7D5yoLMy7bxe&t=171 You're not a lawyer yet you spoke like one here.
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.
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
You are so good at teaching in a simple and direct manner. Thank you so much for this! Great resource for those of us who are already pretty graphic savvy and looking to add one more tool to our belt. Thank you for your time!
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.
It’s pretty interesting mine connects to Bluetooth automatically when I enter my model X I just have to Flick on the WiFi. And everything runs smoothly What year Tesla do you have ? Maybe it’s a older model
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..!
And since you're not an Adobe lawyer, you should bring one onto the video with you and let them create a legally binding explanation. It'll be great when Adobe stops doing all these extraneous services.
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. 🤙🏽
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
