Adobe Terms of Service - June 2024 | FACTS NOT CLICKBAIT 

For those who mis-understand the Terms of Service here's a VERY simplified 'revised wording' Terms of Service ... www.adobe.com/uk/legal/terms.html and to help with that even more here's a video from Terry White giving examples of what each of the Terms mean ... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FB-UVLncSTM.html

I've seen where they're reconsidering their terms by June 18. But I would like to say -- a blog post "clarifying" something is not a binding agreement. They also weren't training AI initially on Adobe Stock, until they updated their terms of service to do so years after most people had already uploaded their content there with no intention of it being used that way. Sure, they could take it down -- but the point here is that Adobe retroactively changed the agreement and took advantage of their users to essentially replace them and put them out of work. You don't need stock photographers when you can just generate an image. And they built firefly on the backs of stock photographers, who are their customers. Markets shift and change sure, but don't bite the hand that feeds you. And just because Google or Amazon does something, doesn't make it right that Adobe does. Charging users a substancial fee every month to not own their software and exploiting their work is wrong. Don't accept it because other companies do it. We should all be skeptical when a company does stuff like this.

The fact that Adobe has had to promise to come out with a revised Terms of Service next week suggests that they know the complaints have some substance to them. Hopefully the new terms will be written in a way that puts the more serious concerns, especially regarding privacy and the very vague mention of "machine learning" (not generative AI) to rest. We shall see.

So where is the Decline option on the screen that popped up?

Tony showed his books to underline in what difficult position he was in: concerning terms of service you don't want to recommend and at the same time being heavily invested in the product.

Blog posts clarifying terms of service are not legal agreements. So they can say whatever they want in the blog, if it isn't in the terms of service it doesn't matter.

Well, not to take the "both sides" approach to this, but it is a bit rich to criticize Northrup for his work and his monetization of it while defending Adobe, which in spite of producing an outstanding product, consistently ranks among one of the greediest corporations out there. I didn't see Northrup's video, nor will I bother as I don't really feel impacted by this issue, but I do know Tony and Chelsea Northrup have generated some really fantastic content over the years. He could be off the mark with his criticism of Adobe, I don't know. But it's hard to question his depth of experience and knowledge. He has educated A LOT of photographers, so I guess I'm willing to give him a pass on this one. I of course remain a fan of your work Glyn!

First let me say, that I've been an Adobe customer for over 20 years at this point. I LOVE Photoshop & Lightroom. But here are some of the MAJOR issues with these terms of service as I see them. "Owning your content" means absolutely nothing if you can't enforce usage rights. Copyright owners get to say how, when, where and for how long their intellectual property can be used and there's always an invoice attached to that. Licensing our work is how artists make a living. So Adobe forcing its customers to agree to grant Adobe (Clause 4.2) "a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free sublicensable, license, to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, create derivative works based on, publicly perform, and translate the Content" is completely unacceptable, monopolistic behavior. Only copyright owners get to say how their intellectual property is used, not Adobe. And I don't know about everyone else, but I sure as hell don't remember seeing a check in the mail from Adobe for the overly broad usage we're being forced to grant them to use our work. Clause 4.2 needs to be fixed ASAP. (Which they are apparently working on). They state that "Adobe does not train Firefly Gen AI models on customer content." Adobe can let you opt out all you want, but at the end of the day it really doesn't matter because the broad use license we're being forced to grant Adobe in Clause 4.2 seems to provide them with the ability to override our opt out any time they wish. The fact is, based on this agreement us creatives are being forced agree to terms that will allow Adobe to use our intellectual property to train Firefly Generative AI and Adobe is simply asking the entire creative industry to trust them that they won't. Adobe also states that they DO use your work for machine learning. There needs to be a CLEAR distinction between machine learning and Adobe Firefly generative AI. Do we trust them becomes the question. Between Adobe's recent "Skip the Photoshoot" campaign (aimed at promoting businesses use Adobe Firefly Generative AI instead of hiring photographers) and recent updates to Adobe's terms of service, I've lost a LOT of trust with this company in recent months. Check out ASMP's open letter to Adobe: www.asmp.org/press-release/an-open-letter-to-adobe/ Big Tech is out of control right now! Every company is in an A.I. arms race and there is no real legislation in the United States at this time that prohibits the scraping of our personal data, images, videos and documents for machine learning and AI. These monopolistic companies are getting away with absolute murder. Look at Meta, you can't even opt out of AI training if you wanted to here in the United States of America....Only if you live the U.K. (www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/how-to-opt-out-of-instagram-and-facebook-using-your-posts-for-ai)

log into your Adobe account online, Adobe account > Account and security > Data and privacy settings - turn off desktop app usage and content analysis. Then open Photoshop Edit > Preferences > Product improvement - untick product improvement participation. This automatically unticks permission for Adobe to use your images and data to train AI. Of course you only have Adobe's word that they won't use your data, but that's the same for any software you use. It's worth making sure they don't have your permission for future legal cases. It only takes one well-known user to have their data used without permission to trigger a class-action lawsuit. The thing I find annoying about these type of things is that these options should be "opt-in" by default, not the other way around. I'm paying for Adobe software. If they want to utilise my data they should ask for permission and offer an incentive or compensation.

NO, you do not have "the choice to opt out" because you cannot open your own files if you do not expressly agree to Adobe's new conditions. Meaning that they are blackmailing you to agree, or you are locked out of your own content.

4.1 says we grant them a license of our work…then they say we remain owners of our work…you realize those two things aren’t mutually exclusive, right? And yes, I read the “for the sole purpose of…”, but that’s not much a confort…

that's just a blog post. Have they changed the Terms of Service? NO. In the end they can say what they want on the internet, but the terms of service - ie the contract- is the only document that stands up in court.

Adobe got called out and now have to backtrack.

Sorry but I should say nonsense, adobe has been changing for a while, you want to keep defending it, it is your choice but the way you are doing it is very unprofessional! Yes adobe backtracked, the reason that they came with that statement! To adobe, please throw out the sales people instead of promoting them and bring back professionals that used to run the company!

This is clickbait by accusing others of clickbait. It didn’t really bring any FACTS. Northrup did not to promote a product but to demonstrate he is an avid user and supporter of Adobe but finds it deeply troubling to recommend and promote a company and product that is not trustworthy.

What does it matter that Tony hasn't raised privacy concerns on other companies you mentioned?

Glyn, for a video that is called "Facts not clickbait" you have given very little facts and just enough of clickbait.

Clearly you own Adobe stocks! 😂

Thanks for the gaslighting🤦‍♂️

The real problem is that so many tech companies have abused their users and taken liberties that the end user did not intend that we don't know who we can trust anymore. After seeing the keynote for WWDC, I immediately felt this same distrust even though I have virtually nothing on my phone that Apple doesn't know about already. This issue goes well beyond Adobe and is now firmly seated in the zeitgeist of corporations vs consumers. What can be done to rebuild this bridge? That's the question that Adobe and other big tech companies need to be asking.

Why are you attacking the man and not what he mentioned in the video???? it is very strange and Unprofessional

You are now the Mark Hamill of photography!

Adobe sent this dude a check

Hey Glyn, I'm a long time subscriber and watch all of your content, but, I have to say you have taken a clip of Tony's out of context. Maybe you weren't aware of the context of Tony's video, maybe you were just sent a clip and you are reacting. But, that is not what Tony is doing. If you have actually watched his video and feel this way then maybe you have misunderstood his message. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with Tony a lot. But in this instance he is not calling out Adobe and then promoting their product. I have to say you are wrong mate. Watch his whole video and then comment 👍

Finally... a video on the ToS update that isn't just a giant pile of clickbait for the sake of selling shite or getting more AdSense revenue! I was on the fence, but I've gone ahead and given you my Sub now :)

Adobe in their initial update to their terms of service stated that they could access our images using both machine and via actual people. They did not state that this only applied to images that were uploaded to their cloud servers. So for clarity, you are saying that they will only look at images that have been uploaded (i.e. they cannot access images on my PC). Also in terms of this "opting out" of their product development program, how does one do this? I can't see any obvious, stand out button that allows me to opt out on my CC Desktop App.

Adobe's new terms of service still don't retract them saying they can give away our content to third parties.

Thank you so much for making this. I just watched another youtuber talk about it for 20mins and they got every single point wrong.

What adobe wrote is an interpretation of the terms of service by someone from adobe. Unless this is clarified in actual terms of service this can be interpreted differently by someone else from adobe. The way it is phrased suggests that adobe could use your work as by signing the agreement you gave them royalty free license for it. I give 0 ducks about what someone says in their social media when it comes to the legal terms unless this would be legally binding them to that statement, which it probably doesn't, blog posts are just as helpful in clarification. If you meant it the way it's not phrased in terms of service, jus CHANGE TERMS OF SERVICE, the reason they go in such roundabout way about it is because they want you to shut up and give them data. There is literally no reason for them NOT to change ToS if they mean it like they wrote on the blog post xD

Adobe should change the terms of service not make cheap excuses. Louis Rossmann shares my point of view, maybe you should watch his video ...

I stopped looking at Tony's RU-vid channel years ago. It seems as his modus operandi is to to rant about some brand of this or some brand of that. I'm not saying he's right or wrong. It became difficult to say what was true or what was essentially and advert for a product. Ranting to get clicks got very old for me.

How much did Adobe pay you to gaslight like this?

Tony Northrup has no friends.

I mean the context of Tony's mention of his book was to show that he has been using the software quite a lot. Enough to write a book about it in fact. And whether or not Adobe are ultimately going to look at his pictures, the ToS as they stand will allow them to do so. They are as far as I'm aware not yet updated. And rogue employees doing dumb things exist in any company the size of Adobe so just having the option to look through those files for any reason is cause for concern. The title may sound clickbaity but it's appropriate IMO when the ToS literally say "we have the right to look at/listen to all of your content". I hope Adobe makes this right. There is a large number of people that can't easily make the switch and they shouldn't be subject to such abusive terms. Adobe has not earned the good will of the community, rather they did the opposite, using pictures uploaded to Adobe Stock to train generative AI that aims to replace the artists that created that content in the first place. I don't see any grounds to give Adobe the benefit of the doubt. All we can go by is the ToS and as long as they are the way they are, I will assume they will look at everything that their software ever touches.

Adobe disrespects artists!

Nice, rational analysis. I've been an Adobe client forever and love their stuff. Unfortunately, I can't ditch it easily because my clients EXPECT work to be done and passed back to them using Adobe CC tools: Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign. The AI "rules of engagement" are intrusive and really make me wonder, but as their competitors will employ AI to remain competitive, who says they will be more "hands-off?" This is one of several Adobe issues that IMHO makes them completely anti-customer. Things Adobe should do (and they are simple): 1. AI "ownership" of your stuff (local, cloud, or both?): Place responsibility back on the user with regard to unsavory artwork. Their spokeslawyer kept on mentioned the worst (child porno) in her three-part response video. As most anti-Adobe reviewers say this isn't a new problem. Keep humans out of it and make the whole upload, verify, reporting of bad stuff automated and self-policing. If another client complains about your uploaded stuff, do something about it (ex: take it down, correct it, …). 2. Make it easy to cancel an annual subscription. Some other pissed-off videos state the terror (waste of time) it takes to cancel a subscription. It's easy to sign onto an Adobe's subscription, so keep humans out of it as they attempt to talk you out of canceling. OK, when you cancel online, prompt them that there is a cancellation fee based on some pro-rated formula and show the calculations. If you still want to cancel, click Cancel, and your credit card will be charged $x amount. 5 minutes. Easy in, easy out. Sometimes we all make mistakes and have buyer's remorse. 3. Reduce this nightmare of restricting personal computer installations. I have four computers (3 macs and 1 pc) and I have licensed two subscriptions that require DIFFERENT email addresses. Not only expensive, this lack of trust approach towards licensing is really out of date. Just because I am a computer junkie and go out in the field a lot and need Adobe software on a couple of other laptops, doesn't mean I'm going to attempt to run Photoshop on more than one computer at the same time. Do what Escape Motions (Rebelle), Sketchbook, The Omni Group (OmniGraffle), TechSmith (Camtasia Pro), and Microsoft Office does: allow basically up to 5 or so computers to have your stuff installed. Their online licensing software can check to see if more than one or two computers are using Adobe apps (based on IP addresses) at the same time. Almost all of us are honest customers. Otherwise, why make this so difficult? Surprisingly, compared to many reviewers, I don't have a problem with subscriptions. Adobe puts a lot of work enhancing and supporting their software. And that costs money. OK. But to avoid Adobe from becoming "Big Brother" to their creative community, they can become user-centric overnight and do some basic repositioning of their business practices. "Attention to user needs" always wins in the long run. This DOJ issue is the wake-up call I guess most of us need. It seems like there are a LOT of unhappy customers out there with this latest AI fiasco. One final note (sorry!) … When licensing, terms of use, and legalese become a larger issue than using the software, you have already lost. Explaining, re-explaining, and re-simplifying "what you really mean" wears most of us out. Many great tech companies have realized that true customer trust is much more important than exploiting revenue opportunities. AI appears to be the current excuse. I'm going to rethink continuing to use Adobe CC, too. It's not a good thing. I find it to be GREAT software. Now, if only Adobe can rethink what it means to be a GREAT company. Best, Ken Bellingham, WA USA

Thanks Glyn!

Thankyou Glyn for the video

Great video, thanks for an unbiased, common sense, view of the situation. However, one point that was left out is that a lot of us use Adobe's cloud as a mechanism to keep our mobile devices and desktop in sync. Another point is that these ToS were put into effect in February, but Adobe just did the mandatory click to continue. Now, although Adobe recognizes that we own our material, this agreement secures them a sub-license to your work (in the cloud) to do anything they want with it.

That is completely opposite to what they said in the original post.

The Issue here is Adobe(mostly intentionally) created Loopholes in Licensing (ownership is not required in this context). Comment will be long Please read through... and I am not a legal advisor . By the way, "legally" by agreeing to the Updated Terms and Conditions, they(Adobe) have Royality free license to use any work opened using their software. If there is any dispute in the future(Say for example, Your work which is under an NDA is used by Adobe and the other party sue you for the breach of NDA) , they can and will show that "you have agreed to the terms and conditions" and can find a way out of it. And at the time blog posts might not be valued by the Court of Law. This is clearly a Loophole Created by Adobe and they are playing "Trust me bro" Card... (It Is not a new thing,But it is now being noticed by everyone ). The thing is to solve this, the contents should be directly put in Terms and Conditions So that the loophole is not there for Adobe to use.

Of course Tony will promote his own stuff.. I personally have not watched him for years. To me, he's always doing thing to create a havoc in the photo community to gain clicks and views.

Thanks Glyn, I appreciate you have tried to plot a sensible way through something that may be a big deal or may not. And your contribution is more factual and observational than loaded. I am glad I have missed most of the other posts. Hilarious that other commenters seem to see some sort of personal agenda in your video, arrgghh. Lot more conspiracy theories than there should be I reckon. Keep up the good work.

Excellent observations on Tony's motivations and Adobe's Ts & Cs. It looks like you have prodded the hornets' nest. Peace!

You are the one and only one on here is genuinely "clickbaiting" Just the mention of Tony Northrup sends your views up. He on the other hand has written books on Adobe products and has so much more to lose when as they are with HIS wake up call unsubscribing to Adobe products. You on the other hand are just riding the wave later than most. Northrup is the eyes and ears of his and his wifes massive photographic community. If nothing else is gained from his heads up, folk have now switched off adobes auto theft and read the T&C's properly, like me for the first time. Glyn? Welsh? that fits thens

Thanks Glyn, but what do these terms actually mean?

Tony Northrup the same guy who went after Steven McCurry a few years ago. People need to chill out.

yup the like to dislike ratio tells me everything

As someone who has used Adobe products since buying Photoshop 7, I would prefer to stay with them if possible so would appreciate a video explaining what to do to use Adobe products without any problems. For instance, what do I do to remove photos from adobe cloud and the best way to keep them safe on external drives etc. I’m now in my mid 70’s and getting my head round these things is getting more difficult. Let alone learning new software from other vendors.

I'm not here to defend Tony but in my humble opinion... I've think your clip of Tony's books is totally out of context and misleading to anyone who hasn't watched his video... Also, as someone who makes a living from youtube, he has every right to monetize his videos, whatever the topic. Most people watch his Photography channel to hear his takes on photography related matters, not all of the stuff you listed at the end. Adobe have enough resources to make sure they get the wording right first time. They have clarified things only in response to the (some say justified) uproar. Anyway, I'm off to do some editing in Lightroom...

Northrup is a hack and seems to mainly put out click baity opinionated prattle these days

Thank you for sharing and clearing up the misinform information.

The law to a degree is about interpretation. Even if Adobe did not intend to overstep what is fair, that the very same terms can be interpreted as such opens up a very real possibility that Adobe itself could one day act out of expected bounds and say, look it’s part of what’s in the terms you clicked agreed on. Beyond terms, IMO and TBH, Adobe has done very little to show that there are proactive and robust measures in place to ensure that there are no backdoor or avenues for access abuse whether to their cloud service or otherwise. Yes no one can guarantee 100% but the onus is on them to give a damn and put just as much effort, resource and time towards safeguarding customers from bad actors in the actual security and the clear and consistent communication of this implemented safeguards. Adobe has eroded trust with its decisions, is it really surprising that folks have doubts about where they stand with Adobe. That they could well be fodder rather than important customers

You can't do anything on court with a blog post.

2 things I've noticed, firstly Clause 4.2 is pretty damning though not new, no amount of clarification so far has addressed this,. Secondly the generative AI and neural filters have moderation on them when uploaded to the cloud for processing, which means they do look at your private content. Now as a I specialize in art nude photography this is problem, often gen AI and neural filter processes are rejected because of the content rendering a section of photoshop useless. Of course there are ways to avoid this but it goes to show the intrusiveness of Adobe and their 'moderation', when you are editing an art nude shoot of about 100 images or more then the last thing you want is to spend extra time and editing to get past the cloud moderation. All in all it's not good.....my subscription is valid til Aug 25, after that, unless something changes, I'll be considering other options to Adobe with the intent of removing their software.

I don't always agree with Tony but you got it wrong here mate.

Thank you!

Well done Glyn, thanks for the info

Adobe do overstep the mark. Adobe is not the police. We subscribe to pay to use the software for what we want to use it for, so long as that is legal. We do not subscribe to comply with Adobe’s “values”, whatever these may be. This is not just a matter of their terms and conditions, take for example the restrictions on what Adobe will and will not permit generative fill to be used for. If it is legal, the user should be allowed to use the software for whatever legal purpose the user likes, unrestricted by the pious, sanctimonious wokerati buried deep in the bowels of Adobe who try to impose their values on everyone else, agree with them or not.

Well Done Glynn!

Sorry Glyn, but this video is a bug nothingburger. Why make it 4 minutes ? just say "Trust Adobe and move on" it`s probably just me but the fact that you don`t know who Tony is is concerning.

Tony Northrup and his wife Chelsea have been a great source of consistent, thoughtful, and experienced advice to photographers and the creative community. You could have done your homework better on this one, Mr. Dewis.

Click bait is it, Gwen. Hmmm... perhaps consider the new slogan for Firefly. It reads, "Skip the Photoshoot." I don't know about you, but I interpret that to mean "Skip the Photoshoot". So, here we have a company with millions of photographers in their customer base, and they are suggesting the work those customers do ...can be skipped.". You may feel that's customer focused. I do too, but I recognize it is not focused on their photographer customer base and is instead focused on their 'production clients and new clients, at the expense of their photographer customer base, who they are literally putting out of business. So, you go ahead and interpret their intentions as you wish, and when your own customers decide to take Adobe's advice and ,'Skip YOUR Photoshoots', come back and remind us how well intentioned they are.

Im just gonna start editing my photos in DaVinci hahahah i will quite Adobe Tonight

I have to say. Just because Adobe say they are not going to have rights to your work doesn't mean to say that they won't. I am absolutely thrown by this whole matter. My clients will not be happy (especially NDA work) that this is even on the table. What are Adobe thinking? None of the other NLE's I use have anything like this in place. And the fact that I have to pay every month for the privilege of using their software is jaw dropping.

Declare your interest

I stopped Adobe's paid acrobat Photoshop this is error unlicensed

So you bashed another RU-vidr, Tony, and said there is a new Adobe ToS. That's all. No deep clarification or discussion. Please do an in depth clarrification of their new ToS.

wow. some real BS advocacy from Glyn. If something is just a clickbait, so is THIS video.

Just watched Tony's video and it's a bunch of self promo.

I'd like to know if this other youtuber has uploaded a new disclaimer video, well above those 8 minutes including a latest minute update of his promotional content... Don't know if you get me but I'm just joking (or not?) 😅 More on this AI training with private content, Meta apps like FB & IG, do intend to do it literally unless you oppose to it.

Virtue signaling here.

If you'd have watched all of Northrup's video you'll have got the point he was making about his books...he wasn't advertising as he can make a million videos to do that.

Thank you for this video. I cancelled quite some YT Subs after that "uproar" one of them being Tony and Chelsea Northrup.

Thanks for the video Glyn!

You are an Adobe trainer, so tell me why should we take your word at face value trying to put in a good word for a multi billion company, instead of, say, Tony's? Adobe has lied before. Did Adobe ask all the Adobe Stock contributors if they actually wanted to opt in to feed their stuff into Firefly? You also left out the part where Adobe automatically sublicences all of our content made by their products. How could a creative like you possibly defend that?

I found two software pdf editor and photo editor same

I’m confused about the whole tos issue. I haven’t been prompted to agree to new tos recently. Also I think a MS Word Track Changes document with all markup would clear up all the mis/disinformation. Finally , I’m not a fan of the Northrup channel either (they seem very wealthy lol) but mentioning other channels just adds to the confusion.

Others here have addressed Adobe's mealy mouthed use of the ToS expression, "you own your own content". Well, gee, thanks a lot Adobe. That's like photo contests that tell you it's your photo, they don't get ownership of it, BUT they can use it however they want if you participate in the contest! That's baloney. Adobe should have to pay a license fee & get per image written permission if they would like to request use of someone's intellectual property in any capacity. Also, how the heck will Adobe access users' personal intellectual property under these revised ToS's? Will they invade all subscribers' personal CC "cloud" content? Or inject bugs into our personal computing devices and run amok through all the personal data on them? Thank God, if that's their plan, no large US firms ever get hacked by proverbial evil-doers.... 😮 So, what do folks out there think of Affinity as an alternative to Ps?

I have to agree that Tony has a well-oiled ranting machine going, which is why I stopped watching most of his videos. and i also fell in with both feet on this one. That said, does the internet really need another mud-throwing video? if we are going to discuss the Terms of Use, shouldn't we only look at the actual Terms of Use document from Adobe and steer away from personal opinions or or a blog post? After all, we don't sign up for those.

Finally!

Agreeing or disagreeing with Adobe’s legal position and EULA is one thing. And this is worth discussing. Throwing mud at another RU-vidr is a completely different thing. For the latter you lost me as a subscriber.

I don’t envy your comment feed, Glyn!! What I find mildly amusing is that people are getting hot under the collar about an app they use to edit the photos they put on Instagram and Facebook…🤯

Toneh has been, allegedly, less than charitable to those who disagree with him. Is that ‘breaking news!’? (Removes spectacles in a cringe inducing, amdram style)

Oh, come off it Mate.

Adobe shill

Thanks for this. Let me repeat you staing that the Northrups have always been like that, and there are many clones of them...

If Adobe paid you to do damage control for them, they just wasted their money. The way you respond to comments, your sheer indifference to what the actual issue is, lame deflection tactics, and your resort to throwing personal attacks on Tony instead of addressing what he is talking about is deeply concerning. Do better.

4.2 Licences to Your Content. Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free sublicensable, licence, to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, create derivative works based on, publicly perform and translate the Content. That gives adobe the right to use your content however they want and pay you NOTHING for it. guess you missed that bit

You’ve said nothing in this video. Get to the facts out and actually comment on Adobe’s deception and manipulation. It seems that you are not interested in protecting your viewers or making them aware of Adobe’s use of our art for A.I. training.

Adobe is not the industry standard anymore.

Though what about the files on the Adobe Cloud? They only mentioned files stored locally.

The one who is misunderstanding and gaslighting is you. He clearly provided solutions for adobe and also demonstrated the issues. This attempt was rather sad

Correctly stated sir...I've unsubscribed recently from quite a few "photography" channels for this very reason. Whist we live in a commercial world and everyone has to make a living, what I hate so much is people constantly telling the audience that they aren't doing it for that reason but will plug anything to get clicks or sale commissions and don't really care at all if the people have got useful information, enjoyment or tutorials from viewing. Some are so sharp that it takes a few videos to click. There are plenty of genuine channels that earn a decent living but give their viewers/customers value for their time and intake of vile advertisements...Just unsubscribe from those channels, vote with your wallet, the currency being your time.

From long time hi is giving wrong information. I don't like his channel .

You are so funny. You tell we need to check the facts. I think it is other way round. YOU need to check the facts.. what adobe say now is "generative AI" that is miniscule sub area. Of what is in TOS. show me the opt out. You seem to have a very limited comprehension of what is taking place and interpreting the fire fighter posts by ADOBE

Until Adobe gives subscribers the ability to turn off auto renew, I will be skeptical that Adobe doesn't put profit over their user's best interest.

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..! I do Luv the tools offered by Adobe.. But Adobe itself is just another example in our lives of overreach and greed.. And the company knows its done wrong. An isnt it lovely they made '..the wording simple..' ..for us laymens out there.

Dude, are you on Adobe payroll ?

Tony have 1,6mln subscribers and 17 years on YT his don’t need tricks for promoting his book .