well if you read a bit further they do at least say they won't use it for ai training without your consent, but otherwise they basically can act like they own your stuff.
@@andrewgreeb916 Yeah, see, that's just the thing. The way the terms are worded? It's no longer your work to begin with. They have a liscence that they can use however they see fit.
@@andrewgreeb916I am almost sure they have it all already fed to their AI,they are just waiting for this controversy to blow over to change that part of the TOS.
What’s scarier than the point made here is that thousands of business use Adobe to create pretty sensitive documents that contain everything from patterned and licensed products to SOPs, company secrets, etc…
To Thor. Instead of being a parrot, try being a parrot's bottom. for it is useful but has something that we don't need. i.e spitting seed on excrement that can't grow it.
The issue is if you accuse them of theft and it's the other thing they are "technically" innocent. Understanding exactly what you're accusing them of and sticking only to the facts gives them less wiggle room.
I wish, so badly, that this was on a pop-up as soon as we opened any social media. Almost every single argument i see online is from two people, getting the details of each of their points slightly wrong, and getting angry about the overall argument. If you just KNEW what you were talking about, you'd be so much less angry. Or, at the very least, you'd more accurately have identified a problem, and can then figure out a solution.
@@djmintyfreshful Enlighten me; While more accurate yes, how is *Signing the rights to EVERYTHING you make with the program over to Adobe* not worse? I mean, a TOS is not legally enforcable, but you'd still have to take them to court to force them to give it the claim. And a lot of people can't afford that.
@@The_Keeper foresight. Say, people are trying for governments to outlaw using other people's art and data to feed it into AI developing, so by claiming they have every single right to your content creation, they can legally feed it into their own AI and they can sell it to other people to feed it into their own models. Not to mention anything you create can now be used by Adobe to turn into ads and whatnot.
@@djmintyfreshful it was definitely worse, having it be solely for the use of improving their AI would be sorta OK, the other part means they can steal your work and use it however they like
Imagine charging a monthly fee in perpetuity to use your software. While simultaneously claiming the right to use all art the customer creates while using it. Utter insanity
it used to be a trade off. one or the other. free internet services were free because you understood they were selling your data. Now they want to charge you a monthly fee while ALSO selling your data.
@JasonBourne-hu1ox I believe on the ISS the various modules are owned by different countries, and each countries laws apply to it's module, but not the others.
@@TatsuZZmageyet. Give them a few more years. There is a dead planet core floating in between Jupiter and Mars, that core has loads of precious metals on it
Yes. Not only this, but in the past you could buy a copy instead of renting it. And that's where I stop respecting your intellectual property rights all together.
In reality it means that if you're working under NDA you just can't use Adobe products anymore. Because as the person being contracted it's your responsibility to ensure the agreement is kept. If anything leaks to the public, even if it's not your fault, you can and will be held legally responsible.
@@nightknight498 omg, this! I came here to say pretty much this. The reality is that, Adobe just shot themselves in both feet. A LOT of businesses are just gonna stop using their stuff altogether. They'll probably backpeddle hard once that revenue stops coming in. But, it'll be way too little and way too late at that point. x_x
@@nightknight498yeah, we are moving away from Adobe right now for this reason, about 1500 licenses. In fact security ft so sketched by it, they informed our contracting partners (that the nda was signed with) of the TOS change as a potential security breach.
@@tarrker Great time for someone to step up to the plate and be a better alternative. One of the competing suites could make some bank off of this, if they play it right.
Adobe took the meme of no one reading the terms of service too seriously because there are literally people who base their entire channels on reading those.
@@lorddaegoth Probably don't know they exist and/or don't want to change their workflow. Krita, Inkscape, GIMP, FireAlpaca are 4 different Adobe-esque software I know of that could replace an Adobe product.
Meanwhile savage interactive who made procreate Openly stated during one of their events none of there apps are design to “phone home” and the only places your work will exist are where you want it to
I didn't even think of A.I. till like a day later. Imagine creating or simply opening copyrighted, legal, or classified documents in Adobe and they decide, "We can do whatever we want with this."
Jesus, I never even thought of our government potentially opening a classified document in Photoshop, but... Yeah, that's totally plausible. Good lord, we are doomed.
I infrequently worked with very sensitive data. There's a reason I use open source office software and avoid cloud services. If it's built in, I will go so far as to change the OS on devices. Even if they aren't abusing their authority, if they get hacked or requested to share by a gov, you might never know it. And what happens if you worked on a contract for a country? It's an absolute breach of trust and respect for their sovereignty. I'd never work with a bad actor but those high morale limitations don't change your responsibilities.
@@normduchYou probably know this but for those that don't open source doesn't mean it's secure or uncompromised. It at least protects you from having account details stolen bc there is no account but it doesn't mean much else.
@@Pfish1000 The thing about open source software is that the code and documentation is public, meaning you know exactly what does and doesn't happen behind the scenes.
@@Pfish1000 sure, but it does at least mean it probably isnt pre-compromised by the publisher and all the devs, rather than upfront declared and super likely.
Talk about an emotional roller coaster. "Adobe is taking people's content and training their AI with it." "Now hold on, it's not what you think... Look for the proof before you start spreading rumors. You have to see the actual TOS to know that they can use your content for *anything*, not just AI, and that's worse."
It's basically "Look at the stab wound they inflicted" and then Thor goes "Have you looked at the entire thing? His head got removed by a Shotgun, and you're blaming the Knife?!" But yeah Adobe basically Kurt Kobain'ed themselves with this, Anyone with and NDA or bound by Privacy Laws to protect and secure information can no longer use them, which is pretty much the Entire corporate market
@esobelisk3110 Hopefully, this didn't already go through. Kurt Kobain was the front-man and lead singer for the 90s grunge band Nirvana. He allegedly removed himself from this world by removing his cranium with a combustion actuated projectile launching device. Thanks a lot, U-tube, for making me say that so weird.
@@cjmunnee3356 ty, Seems I also ran afoul of That particular thing, It's something people at times refer to as a meme, Dark Humour being a powerful thing
People are cynically thinking, they are going to use it to train AI to make shit you make claiming its AI made... No, they can use exactly what you made, how ever they wish with this TOS, so its much much worse... And i predict magically piracy will blow up in editing community... Older pre TOS versions get cracked, since its cheaper to pay potential piracy claim for software than loose your whole project to Adobe...
@@KennethJordangnosthiseauton what it's meant to do: "we don't prevent you from using your own art wherever you want" What it CAN do: "it's Our art now"
😂 Now you're on a list and their AI is gonna go after you and do things that ought not be done to your creations. I just skipped out of their trash a decade ago and will never go back. There's a list of alternatives you can find (the Affinity software is the best imo. So, so good). Cheaper (all of them), better quality ( DaVinci Resolve), and less hardware intensive.
@@woodworkerroyer8497 not sure how im gonna be on a list, im like fifth in the chain of downloads for this particular torrent. hell i didnt even touch the actual torrent, a friend of mine put the file on their dropbox for me.
No, we allowed you to temporarily rent the hammer for a bit to make the house. But when you stop renting the hammer, we confiscate the deed to the house and take your keys.
One of Thor's catchphrases just being "eat my entire ass" but only using it when talking about people in a position of power that they're abusing is awesome EDIT: I'm entirely aware that he didn't invent the phrase, as catchphrases don't and have never required. He just says it more often than I've heard from anyone else and he says it with good impact
its not even that its kinda the oposite because theres people out there who use ai image generators who dont want there ai art to be used as training data now its like saying your not allowed to learn from my art because its mine even though my art is generated from years of learning from other artists
@@Sarge92 The use of customer files to train AI is alleged- it is possible under the TOS's wording but there is no hard proof. What the TOS does explicitly state is that Adobe can take anything you make on an Adobe product, which covers anything in PDF format, and do the following: -Copy it -License it to another company -Publicly display it -Distribute it -Modify it -Derive other works from it All of these can be done without your knowledge, notification, or compensation. Things normally made or utilized on Adobe products, which these Terms of Service cover all of, include but are not limited to: -Artwork -Manuscripts -Internal Corporate Documents -Legal Documents -Printable Patterns and Stencils -Personal Photos -Personal Documents The only catch is that Adobe may only use them "Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the services and software." So, basically, if they decide using your work will make their products better, they can use it in whatever way they want.
The part two is stupid that it exists, but it's basically standard for every service that let's users upload their stuff to it (in this case Adobe cloud). It's lawyer speak for "you let us put your images to the cloud and make modified thumbnails of them when you upload them and do whatever else copying is necessary to provide the service". Is it worded overly broadly? Yes, they typically are so the service provider doesn't have to worry about how exactly they are handling your copyrighted content when making the service. Google Photos for instance has basically equivalent terms. By using the service you give Google worldwide, non exclusive, royalty free license to host, reproduce, distribute, communicate, use, publish, publicly perform, publicly display, modify and translate your content. And to sublicense these rights to other users and contractors. Google's terms page does tell the reason why it asks for these rights, unlike Adobe's, but as I said these are basically in every cloud, gallery and hosting provider's terms.
@@tylisirn it’s one of the reasons I hate cloud services for everything. I don’t want all my data being collected by companies. Some of it I just want to handle locally.
@Tudas no, but they're sure making it annoying and difficult not to! Microsoft and Google both love to give you "Reminders" in their OSes to back up your files to their cloud, even though you never even opened the corresponding app and Apple to my knowledge doesn't (or used to not) provide a simple, standard way to copy your files from your iPhone to your PC/MAC via USB.
The A.I. is the least of your troubles. They can just take your work and put it into anything they want and not pay any artist for it. It’s like someone buying an airbrush and the airbrush manufacturer says because you used our product to make your product it is ours to do what ever with.
This is what I don't understand and is what scares me, because I'd totally write that off as the company trying to cover every single base, basically saying "by using our product, you agree we're always right and never wrong." I don't use adobe; how would they gain access to stuff you create? When you save, does it go to a server they have access to? Because I'd just shrug and go "Yeah, whatever, Adobe, it's not like I'm submitting my files to you for review anyway. Accept."
@@nerdygamer11 I don't use PS but I imagine to enforce the subscription it needs to connect to the internet at some point. Or the adobe cloud thing. The AI fear mongering is just disney panicking because their 2 dollar an hour sweatshop animators can now go make disney-esque replication models and sell them.
@@nerdygamer11 I could be wrong (because I don't use current Adobe software), but all the Adobe products are "CC," or creative cloud. Essentially, the product is always connected to Adobe's servers and likely had an auto-save feature enabled or pushed on the users under the cover of protecting unsaved work. In reality, you are either saving your files to a cloud, or saving them locally and a copy is being made in the cloud for Adobe to snatch up at any point in time. I am unsure if Adobe's CC products allow you to use them without an internet connection, but I would be surprised if they did.
I mean, using your work for AI is stealing your potential 10+ years of artistic skill you've built up. and the worst part is, you won't even know they are using it, unlike with just blatantly using your work. And they're going to use it to make sure you can never get an art job, just so companies can spend less on art
And the crazier part is that they want art you might not even own yourself. If you work for a company, everything you do for them belong to the company. You simply may not have rights for what Adobe want you to agree to.
People focused on AI are actual artists who use Adobe products. GenAI services are salivating to get their hands on Artists' works to feed their AI and make money in their expenses. You can't just brush it off like it's not a problem lol.
The Ai is literally the least bad thing about this, which is crazy. They can literally take your own complete work and do whatever they want with it, literally.
@@serghonest9 it is a problem but it's definitely not the worst part about this and shouldn't be getting most of the focus. this gives them access to private information. it's things like legal, classified, copyrighted, medical, ect, documents that they can access if you use acrobat, that's the massive problem. they did update their tos again after the backlash but it's still not great
The most interesting thing is this would not even work because there would be so many lawsuits from other companies who actually paid artists for their work and have those works copyrighted. This would create so many lawsuits against Adobe against major studios and corporations. Would love to see the result of that.
"They're using our work for generative AI!" "Nah, we're probably not using it to train AI. We're just straight up taking it. Your work? Nah, _OUR_ work."
Note that many companies also operate this way. Working for Apple, so I hear, is almost like Disney in that they claim everything you say or do creatively, even off-hours, to be theirs forever. Hugely toxic terms of employment.
Technically, the term "non-exclusive" stops short of them being able to say it's their work. But, in terms of what they can do with it, there's little difference, because they're saying they can take it, use it for whatever they like, and even license it to others to do whatever they like.
Yeah, i was definitely glued to the "we can literally do whatever we want with your creations" part... AI was waaaaaaaaaaay at the back of my mind when I saw that paragraph XD
"You have to pay us to use our services, but also we're going to take your work as our own and never pay you a cent for it. You can thank us for the privilege." Is what it feels like.
@@terryvans1420 People unfortunately put up with it when not salaried. C418 the creator of the original Minecraft sound track would not make any more music for the game because Microsoft's lawyers wanted full control, and he was unwavering in his artistic rights. Everyone else that continued to make the Minecraft OST after that gave up there rights for those songs.
It's like going to a hardware store and buying a hammer only to find out that the manufacturer of the hammer has rights to use anything you build with that hammer.
@@joshuawing4766 When the exploding tool set does finally produce something worth its bits of data in storage, that thing is now owned and useable by Adobe. Um, thx Adobe, you're really doing me a solid here /s
Never underestimate the power of social media. We literally bullied a movie studio into changing the design of a movie character (Sonic). Social media allows people to come together for change far more easily, but it requires awareness, and requires pressure.
Thor, please never stop, these things may seem obvious to you, but you are really opening eyes and helping people, at least me, think critically. I love the way you explain things and your perspective 🔥💪
And you have to jump through hoops to cancel the subscription without the cancelation fee. I just did it, but it's quite annoying. You have to change subscription plans, then cancel the new plan to cancel your payment to Adobe.
I just read the TOS. It does explicitly state under 4.3 the following, “We will not use these rights to train generative AI models on your Content and will not use the sublicense rights to have anyone else train generative AI models on your Content, except at your specific request (like you asking us to train a custom model on your Content).” Although they apparently wouldn’t use it for AI, they can still use it for other things. They do also mention that it can’t be used for marketing, but I personally don’t think they should be allowed to use it for anything.
That was only added after the controversy had started already and their damage control failed. It is there now though, yes. However, this also says "will not" and not "have not", so it may be that they have trained their AI on it in the past. It is speculation but I dont trust them enough for the benefit of the doubt.
I think that either a) they change these tos slightly later on when people get used to this current tos to allow marketing and/or AI training, or b) they use it for training generative AI or marketing through another layer for that legal grey area, such as selling to a third party AI company that Adobe have a stake in, or c) selling to advertisers.
If they won't use it for marketing, and won't use it for LLMs, then what? Are they framing all the dick pics and putting them on a wall? Is said wall next to a wall decorated with confidentiality violations? Is Adobe tanking itself over a kink?
As another commenter pointed out, they may just be trying to boil the pot slowly once they were called out. I also think they'll still totally use it for AI, hell, maybe even doing it right now while they wait to see if OpenAI manages to get away with it.
The hilarious part is that Adobe is being sued by the US government.... and it's not EVEN FOR THIS. That's how shady they're being about SO MANY things.
@@binsoku6 That is incorrect. As of Monday, June 17th, the United States government (on referral of the FTC) filed suit against Adobe. The lawsuit paperwork can be found on ftc.gov (and was linked on CNET).
I will say that I wish GIMPs UI had some attention given to it. Its painful to go to GIMP from photoshop and a lot of things don't feel intuitive. I frequently find myself googling how to do some basic stuff. But it is still fully capable of doing almost everything photoshop can.
Honestly even if they weren’t using it for AI that’s still them saying we can use your content for whatever we want without compensation. Basically them saying we own everything you make on our platform that you pay for. Absolutely deranged.
Imagine just opening a confidential contract or otherwise classified document in Acrobat and they now legally own a copy of that... to say that's "problematic" is the understatement of the century.
@@ImAlsoMerobiba that’s true but other sites like social media at least have a reason. Social media lawyers put that in so that there’s no question that the things developers need to do to make the service work are allowed (I.e. you might need the right to modify and create derivative works to create a lower res version of an image). The problem for adobe is that this clause doesn’t only include things shared intentionally, but all content made using their software. Adobe should only need those rights for things you choose to share with them (like putting something on Adobe Stock or whatever).
@@ImAlsoMerobiba the problem is how vague adobe’s terms are on top of it being an expensive service. That’s also the reason I don’t use Facebook, it’s about the trade off. Instagram has a similar policy but it’s a free service that can be good for getting exposure.
the current TOS is still scary. no.1 that should be an at will thing you can opt into if people even want to do that, and no.2 people use Adobe services to create confidential files, like for health care or business info or different things ppl need to protect. how does Adobe know that they aren't dipping into files with information they shouldn't be accessing? if the use files with health information on it, they could be in huge trouble. Adobe needs to be a lot more transparent with what information they're collecting and how they're doing it. I don't think that I can even trust that they aren't at least looking at files that they aren't supposed to
@@matthewcharles9813 except unfortunately the way the law is written, it's the hospital/doctors/staff who used the adobe products that would have violated hippa, by giving confidential data to adobe, a third party who does not claim to protect it to hippa standards. The law doesn't allow for individuals with privileged information to just forcibly dump that info onto a third party and then make it that third party's responsibility to protect it, that'd be a little silly if it did work that way. Instead it's now up to all health care service providers to ensure they are no longer using adobe products to handle any sensitive information. Just as it will be up to businesses to make sure that they aren't using adobe software with any trade secrets / private info.
Simple, if you are working under contract for a company (in a case where the company holds the copyright for you work) or work with confidential files, you should stop using it until they get sued for having illegal TOS
I worked in Disneyland Ca back in the late 80s and early 90s. Every single park worker from show writers to street sweepers had to sign a paper with a lot of small print.I doubt many read it fully. It stated that ANY work you created during your employment at Disney was their property. Any and all. I don't know that it was ever used but, knowing Disney, it probably was.
It was maliciously. The artists made soooo much porn of the characters and Disney kept it all and own it. Since it was made by the official artists it is all technically canon.
Once did an event FOR EA GAMES. I took pictures of winners, and event. Every event after they added another part to their packet. Stating to take pictures of the event, and winners.
Except that is totally unenforcable in CA. Of all the states, doing your own work on your own time with your own materials is 100% your work, regardless of what you signed. But how are you going to fight Disney in court?
yeah... that's a giant overreach. Claiming essentially all rights to someone's work under any circumstances cannot have any kind of moral basis. It's theft, encoded into the contract.
Reread what he highlighted. It's much worse than 'oh we're feeding it to our AI!' It's essencially them saying you sell them the copyright of anything you make on adobe for free. No royalties, no taking them to court for any kind of theft, and they are free to use it wherever. And, even better, they can turn around and sell your whatever under a license listed later on, and can modify and make derivatives, which they can claim as their own and resell without license. This is literally them saying we own your products.
The funny thing is that all art AI was doing this anyways, including them. This is just them covering their legal bases, by having you agree to both the training and usage.
This is literally the equivalent of buying tools and building a home, only for the company you bought the tools from saying they own the house as well. The hurdles that developers and artists have to go through to own their own work is ridiculous. Much love to the community and the effort you all put in, its always appreciated ❤
This is why I love watching him explain things. He zeroed in on the EXACT spot where the problem was and explained it like a teacher. "Youre not wrong, but i can tell you havent fully read it." Kind of vibes where others would have just gone off on the controversy and kept fueling the fire.
Issue is that he didnt give the full extent of what even happened. It seems he probably just read the headlines as well. Like usually. Its a shame really because people take his word as gospel.
@@shoyupacket5572 No idea how that relates to anything. I am not talking about the length but what's being said. Unless you're implying that shorts inherently do not need be accurate.
@@TunaIRL it's short clip taken from a stream, so go watch the stream vod? the irony of you not correcting him yet saying he's not being accurate also, please enlighten us.
@@ysbrann3059 They were very hesitant on adding the AI lines in their tos, and even when they did it does not exclude them having used your stuff in the past for their AI. Besides, the adobe stock marketplace IS being used for AI according to their own words. Adobe wants your stuff for their AI without paying for it, period
@@SpinningSideKick9000 They literally claimed all rights to any works made with any Adobe product. You have to be brain damaged if you think it's for AI (or at least only AI). They can literally sell your works to a company that could freely redistribute it without ever asking, crediting or paying you. But your fear of AI is so strong that you'd be perfectly fine selling yourself into slavery, so long as it's not going to be for AIs. Maybe learn to have some priorities before you open your gob on the topic.
@@SpinningSideKick9000 They quite literally take an identical copyright to yours over anything you make with Adobe products and you think they want to use it exclusively for AI? You fell for the smokescreen there.
This is what immediately came to mind for me as well, basically the company saying that if you create something that gets super popular, they get to take it and shaft you.
Ever seen those memes that put people who actually reads the TOS of anything? Here you go, a prime example and yes, he holds that kind of -goblin- power.
It really is the equivalent of an arts and craft store saying "even though you paid for all the brushes and paint, we still have the right to any art that you may produce."
It's worldwide too. They effectively give themselves the right to sell your content and derivatives of your content anywhere in the world, not just where you are located.
LOL not a lie, YT played a photoshop ad right after this short. Bros, we’re living in a literal dystopian future with none of the benefits. No flying cars, no awesome augmentations, no replicants or cyborgs. It’s like a dollar store cyberpunk 2000 or Russian Bladerunner
I know everyone's too lazy to look it up, so here is the updated 4.2: "As between you and Adobe, you (as a Business User or a Personal User, as applicable) retain all rights and ownership of your Content. We do not claim any ownership rights to your Content." And that's it
Check 4.3, they've swapped 4.2 and 4.3 around. They've basically reworded it, they mean they redistribute and publically display based on your direction through the cloud via sharing and what not
@@piotr004 They do. They need your permission (via the ToS) to store it, so you can use the cloud and similar services, some of which arr ingrained in the software. Same reason your phone is constantly asking permission to track you, handle your calls, access your camera and photos etc. It's literally only so they're able to do what you're paying for, that's it. Not everything is a conspiracy.
