I personally feel Trained AI is not someone elses work; here is why, it would do the most average of everything ever created and you get impainting etc. I also think if you show a .h5/.keras to a Judge and the Image the judge will say its not the same thing, as wieghts are just scribbles, your clients also wont be able to tell as it would not ever look like them, but an average of everything it was trained on.
@NordicNjal it was trained on other people's work. It doesn't have your developed style from your experience, your success and your failings, it don't have any of "you" in the art. It is absolutely someone else's work, it's everyone else's work combined. And you have a decent point, that because of that, it kind of becomes nobodies work. Each individual piece of art that is used without permission gets thrown into the mix, a ton of other people's work conglomerating, diffusing, into a blob of mundane, soulless "art". It's no single person's art, that's true, but there were so many people who were used in the making of that art, and almost all of them weren't you.
@@clerklymantis4661 Yes it's nobody's work, I agree. But its not stolen work either. Here is the thing if you use stock images (Someone else's photo) in Graphic Design or an AI Generated Image that you prompted yourself, inpainted and edited more to your liking and then used that in your graphic design which is more yours? Remember before AI was mainstream people used stock images and that was fine.
@@NordicNjal So, your option is to allow Adobe to use your work, that's your choice. Your comment is irrelevant to the subject of this video though. The option should NEVER default to agreement because that is a violation of our contractual rights, whatever their EULA states. Not only the users of Adobe software, but also their clients need to have the option to make that choice if applicable and by Adobe making their choice for them, they incriminate their clients (or whatever term is suitable for a betrayal of trust). Totally unacceptable!
I watch channel Legal Mindset review adobe new terms. He was lawyer and admit this Adobe new terms very bad for customer. This term can break NDA, copyright unfinish content etc. Imagine your digital work can done by AI, that huge lost human creativity all style working will go for AI. Adobe AI tech can be positive if they detect similar from another work "very good". Adobe will alert you this work "too much same" the user must improv work, so the copyright not strike. If user want tool helping easy revision work design, having AI data in Adobe gonna be worth.
@@bradleyp3655 Well, that corrupted people in those corporations think like that would be understandable, but for the rest of us to forget corporations are made to serve the people is lamentable. All machines, including corporations, are created to serve us. To say they exist for profit is simply ignorant. This is like saying knives exist for murder. A deranged logic.
My guess: Adobe will soon start using everyone's images to train their AI. But put out the checkbox before so there would be no legal worries on their end with timing, notice, etc. Why are people still using this spyware? Adobe can see every image you use and mouse click that you do. And will use it all for their profit. Any improvement of the program will be purely incidental. Not to mention the cost. It used to be prohibitively expensive. Now with all the reoccurring fees it's astronomically expensive. I'll stick with my old copy of photoshop that doesn't connect to the internet, doesn't steal my data, and I don't have to pay for on a daily basis.
@@spookybuk You all seem to be missing the end goal. Every large corpo has too control AI because if AI is AI then AI will go on a tangent considering how corrupt giant corpo is and how corrupt feds are.
@@spookybuk Well said! Just because something exists does not make it right or justifiable. I get sick of that kind of gaslight BS sidelining peoples rights or the validity of their expectation from contractual obligations. It is nothing but ignorant political cop out!
they have been deliberately vague, with the real intentions of being able to do so. If they weren't going to do the wrong thing, they'd put their money where their mouths were and specifically state it in the TOS...
I'm sure it's also about surveillance. 'AI training' is a term we think of regarding image creation. But to corporations, like Facebook, AI's main use is monitoring private conversations in real time. That's why Adoboe (and most subscription models) want acces to your entire computer, and all connected devices. It's 1984.
@@JohnMoran No, Adobe wants access to your computer because they want to steal data to train their models to replace you. Surveillance isn't the issue, that ship sailed a long time ago. They're just greedy and want to own everything.
Cancelling a subscription should be simply one button "Cancel Subscription" and a popup confirmation, "are you sure you want to cancel?" If yes -> cancel subscription. Should be that simple
Yes, but all businesses do have the right to try and convince their clients to reconsider leaving. It should be easier to cancel however. Adobe are not the first company to do this.
@@cgi2173 "all businesses do have the right to try and convince their clients to reconsider leaving" - are you sure button is enough, really. They can subscribe anew, if they change their minds, can't they?
@@cgi2173 there's a difference between trying to get them to reconsider and blatantly using psychological tactics to get them frustrated and give up on cancelling. Such as having people call to cancel subscriptions then intentionally dropping the call and have you waiting on hold for an hour or more just for the call to drop and you have to repeat the process. I see your point but that isn't what's taking place with this specific case.
@@cgi2173 right to convince should never mean dark pattern usage. Make it simple and try to convince me on the page immediately after cancel has been clicked there you can offer discounts etc. not make it unnecessarily long to cancel. I think this right to convince is heavily abused. Next on the list should be gym memberships.
16:00 I completely disagree. Demanding a sub-licence at the same time as holding your data hostage and charging you money to cancel your subscription is extortion (or whatever the correct term is in English). It should be punished by law.
It will be. I have never heard of any software that allows them copyright on any work you create. They will get slapped down big time.... It's simply a tool used as a means to an end. Nothing more, nothing less...
Yup…when the contract has a giant hole where they could use your work just about however they want, with a caveat of just trust us. Not to mention they are not asking you if it’s ok to use your work so they can make money, for all intents and purposes, they own in in some way.
@@rogershore3128 Blizzard did this with the wc3 editor EULA after failing in court over DOTA ownership. And everyone can see that the next great success of usermaps was done in Dota2 editor, which belongs to Valve.
@@miketan4803I am one of the people that signed up, skimmed over the T's and C's didn't see anything about the cancellation fee. I thought I was signing up to a pay by the month, cancel any time version. 🙄
which amounts to the same thing, because whether they owned it or not the algorithm now has your work internally broken down into encoded structure to reproduce in part or whole if you specified the same photo elements with some slight differences
Yes, three generations of professional Creatives whose patronage made them a top-tier software corporation, can go to hell as far as Adobe is concerned. They will DESTROY hundreds of thousands of people's careers with their 'dumbed down' new direction, and all this AI trash.
Currently I 'own' and use CS6 and was disappointment when Adobe chose to use this subscription model. However I believe a mixture of both as options (add a rent to own option even) could be great. This is expensive software and many can benefit from a limited time access. The offensive part is the lack of options. For me, Adobe have lost my trust and respect, which in old time book keeping is something known as goodwill, but evidently nowadays they don't care or value that anymore. It is still a thing though, whether they give it a financial value or not and they have lost out globally in this respect. Ed: CS6 not 2...
I agree never subscribe to software that shouldn't be a service in the first place, all these companies are just trying to push sub only this must stop now there should be an option buy or rent and a movement is needed to enforce this. The internet has spoken mass backlash.
Would prefer to have the option of pay to own or subscribe. Some of us freelancers only need some software for the length of a project and in the past, having to fork over the price for pay to own drastically cut into a gig being profitable.
I was using Photoshop since its first public version. as an illustrator, photographer, designer. and I had no problem whatsover to toss it in 2018 together with everything from Adobe. And so can you. I knew where they were leading. Cloud subscription was already too much uncertainty and too less control for me to accept, so I used an old CS6 as long as I had a machine to still run it until 2018. As soon as Affinity was ready, I made the switch. But now here we are, Adobe delivered what I supposed. Total greed and abuse of power. When they reserve the right to do with your work what they want, it does not matter that they promise not to own your work. It is about the same in the end.
Let's see if I’ve got this Adobe drama right... You sign up for a subscription, and when it crashes more than it works, you try to cancel. Surprise! You have to pay a fee to cancel. And here's the kicker: the same company that charges you for the subscription and then charges you again to cancel, also uses your work for free to train their AI models. And what do they do with these improvements? They charge you even more to use them! Am I getting this straight, or am I just being completely unreasonable?
spot on - also in long term putting more Content Creators out of paid work - same thing is happening with Micron soft and 360 - AI Copilot and Recall being used together to automate tasks with AI being used exclusively instead of one or more human member of staff / CC
@@cionm7077 there IS a caveat to this as they say it's "solely for the purposes of operating the software" which doesn't mean "anything they want", thankfully. That's not to say it isn't predatory as hell anyway when you take into consideration all the generative AI stuff and dark patterns, though. I hate Adobe, but I hate misinformation more.
So scary to think that paying them $600+ upfront for a yearly subscription, if I decide to cancel before the year ends they are going to charge me on top of the year I paid for already. Shouldn't they owe me money then? LOL
@@dunkley7776 You're saying there is a cancelation fee if you pay upfront, but I don't think that is the case. Why would you get $ back if you cancel a subscription you've paid upfront for? Even if you cancel before the year is up, you still have access to that service until the year is up. You've already paid for it. This is how lock-in contracts work. Looking at their plans: 12mths upfront: full refund if cancelled within 14days. 12mths, paying each month: fee applies if you cancel after 14days. This is the bit I'm confused about. Why is there an uproar about a cancellation fee if you leave before 12mths is up? Say you provided a service at $100/mth, but if someone signed up for 12mths you'd give them a reduced rate of $75/mth. Would you be fine with someone agreeing to the 12mth deal at the cheaper rate, but leaving before that without making up for the $25/mth difference you gave them. The whole incentive of locking in to a service over a period of time is a cheaper rate. Honestly, I'm trying to understand why people think there should be $0 cancellation fee. If this sets a precedent, you can kiss goodbye discounted rates for locking into a service over a longer period of time. There is a problem with them not saying how much that fee is. I've heard it is 50% of what is remaining of that 12mths, which is a little excessive. Personally, I think it should be the 'not locked-in, full month-to-month cost ' minus the 'locked-in for 12mth month-to-month cost' multiplied by the 'number of months you used the service'. But maybe I'm not understanding why people think there should be $0 cancellation fee if you break a lock-in contract.
@@dunkley7776 Switch to a different package which they let you do without a having to pay a fee. After an hour ish, you're now on a brand new package without having paid anything. Then you can cancel your sub and because you switched packages and it resets and you're within 14 days you can cancel without fee. Read about this workaround online
At 16:15 there’s a statement that it’s not true that Adobe owns your work. The issues is that by granting themselves LICENSE to your work, they don’t have to own your work to use it, and to profit from it…all while paying the creator nothing at all. And it’s legal because their TOS claimed license to your work. You’ll note Adobe has never disputed this fact.
They've granted themselves more rights to every image you open than you get when you buy media, the 'its not ownership' argument is just pedantry and carrying water for Adobe. The only component of ownership they didn't grant themselves is the right to stop *you* using your own image.
@@broweraj the license is needed to operate the tools. see 2.2A and 4.3A. without the license, saving work as cloud documents wouldn't be possible, as this is technically a reproduction. that's why it says "Solely for the purpose of operating the Services and Software"
the big problem for many is Adobe claiming nonexclusive rights because it pretty much screws first rights of any photographer, it's serious violation, leaving photographers to guarantee any exclusive rights or control of their work. Adobe also does price-switching. YOu sign up with one "price" and get billed something more.
The sensationalist language that Louis Rossman used was absolutely on point for what Adobe is doing to its users. Adobe deserves all the social media and cancellation repercussions that it gets. This is dastardly behavior on their part. May their stock tank.
the need to continue to make adobe relevant is to ignore the alternatives without using them for any period of time with the intention to make them work for you in whatever software tool you use, if everyone was trained on say GIMP, everyone would be sharing and working exactly how they do with photoshop without the cost and blatant propaganda!
I looked at Affinity and know several web designers who use it.. The problem is, I'm 76 and I don't know how much time and energy I want to burn on the transition
I love your video but your end conclusion is wrong, sticking with Adobe is letting them do it to you. And there is more than enough other good software for photo editing, capture one, affinity photo (personally I switched to Affinity) but I have so much good alternatives. Photoshop isn't that special and it is only the standard because we made them the standard
for raw editing, no doubt capture one is one of the best. but for composites and more advanced editing you still don't have a choice as a professional. it's Adobe photoshop. i worked 25 years with photoshop, tried affinity photo wich is quite good but not as good. But a funny thing is to read all those comments about all those pro photographers that have quit their subscriptions to Adobe. Me as a pro has never met another photographer that has switched to another app. Many use less photoshop because you can do much more than before in RAW edit software. none the less i am also sick and tired of Adobes term of use.
@@jensbrontonAgreed. Photoshop and other headline Adobe products are entrenched in a lot of businesses. These companies won't want to spend the time or money installing and retraining on new software.
@@jensbronton which is why they got away with the utterly extortionate prices back in the day (which were in turn why piracy of their products was so rampant), and the even more abusive subscription model they use now. Similar issues are why a large part of why it is so hard to get rid of Windows.
They're scum. No way around that. I've switched to the Affinity suite, which cost me less to buy (full product, no subscription fees) than cancelling my Adobe subscription. For those of you using Illustrator, Photoshop and Indesign, I wholeheartedly recommend moving to Affinity. They handle Adobe files, and I suspect 95% of current Adobe users won't miss any Adobe feature once you get into Affinity.
I stopped using Adobe when they went to the subscription model. At the time, it seemed to me that they wanted to hold your work hostage. Now, I know it's even worse than I thought. Glad I didn't get on that boat.
I am more sad than I can express. I wish that Photoshop had continued using customer data to train generative AI. I had over 500 pictures of ducks that were labeled , "This is a cat."
At the 5. In mark, it’s said that people misunderstood what the new TOS said. Some people maybe, but many saw not what the TOS said, but how it said it and what the implications of the statements were. In contract law, the specific wording of a statement can produce a result of “We didn’t specifically say we were not doing “X thing”, so it’s legal for us to do it.” In reality, even the new TOS makes it clear with the specific wording of it, that Adobe did in fact use their users data to train their AI models. They are dancing around the truth in hopes no one will notice. And for the first time in a long time, I’m in Agreement with the FTC in suing Adobe for what amounts to extortion.
So i agree with you totally, however “We didn’t specifically say we were not doing “X thing”, so it’s legal for us to do it.” was much more of an issue in the old new terms of service from earlier this month but much less of an issue in the new new terms of service as of the 18th of this month. In fact i was literally in emails with legal support with adobe telling them specifically this back around the 10th i think. Yes the FTC should be suing adobe. But as far as the loophole bit for ai and license trouble, the new tos from the 18th actually filled those loopholes.
I used Photoshop for decades however I cut off Photoshop no way im using it after all this no matter how good it is! Once I learn an alternative for After effects, im done with Adobe. The only way they will change is if we hit their pocket book.
I was able to use Moho Animation and Apple Motion to make up for After Effects. It's not the same but I just don't trust Adobe anymore. After 30+ years I switched to other apps. My iPad also has lots of options for drawing.
Davinci fusion is really amazing you should give it a try to switch. Left Angle is creating a motion graphics and compositing software that does what after effects does in a layering style for motion graphics and comp. It looks like an amazing project and I'd be tempted to switch if they have tools for cel 2d style animation compositing
I got into motion graphics using Apple Motion and tho I don’t currently use it I still have a fondness for it. Switched to using AE because hey, everyone uses it, industry-standard and its knowledge base is so huge you can learn how to do almost anything with it if you look hard enough online. But, if your animations needs are modest, I think Motion is still great, still supported (well, it’s not dead at least, FCP keeps it alive) and massively underrated (snobs and Adobe fans mock it) Obvs it’s Apple-only so that’s an issue for many, but otherwise, it’s like $50, (I got it for £29, 13 years ago!) so it’s hardly a gamble to give it a spin.
What's really weird is the other day I logged into my Adobe account and immediately before it would let me do anything else and ask for my birth date! I couldn't get around it so I entered 1901 and for some reason it accepted that and allowed me to log in
Adobe: "Our Terms of Service are easily available for everyone to read." Also Adobe's Principal Director: "I can't break down the Terms of Service for you, because I'm not a lawyer"...
Greed is normal for individuals. In this case, they have made managerial errors that make them believe they are compelled to trick their customers into licensing yet-unreleased art and graphics wo them. They have embedded a growth obligation into their business, and they see eating their customers' creativity as their "opportunity for growth".
You really should send a screenshot or the moment in your video where you show the option that has disappeared from the preferences menu, to the US attorneys on their Twitter accounts! It would be VERY PRECIOUS if Adobe had removed this option on purpose!
I think you might have given Adobe a little too much of a pass on the ownership issue. They may not own your content technically but the licensing agreement they are forcing users to agree to essentially gives them all the rights and privileges that ownership would provide. In effect they can do anything with your stuff they want. Actual ownership is not necessary. It would be like unknowingly signing an agreement that would give someone the right to use your car anyway they see fit at anytime without having to ask you a thing. They can drive it in a demolition derby if they'd like and because you signed the agreement you can't say a thing about it. Photoshop can be replaced. There might not be software that can replace Adobe products one to one all the time but it might be possible to find pieces that will make up for the whole. Often it will take learning a new workflow and some would rather avoid the pain of learning something new and go with the comfort of a familiar abusive relationship with a company that makes software they are already familiar with.
@@StudioBuilder When does "licensing agreement" ends? When I unsubscribe? After I delete my files from their server? When I shut off Photoshop for the day? From the TOS, it seems to be in perpetuity for works "created" with their software (although I'm not sure retouching a pimple off a chin counts as "created"). With no statement of how this "licensing agreement" ends, the end result may as well be "ownership". This shit is a joke. I have never stored work on the Adobe cloud, and in fact have never stored any work on any cloud as it is bad practice re: security and protecting client assets. I suggest others use this as a learning experience to do the same.
@@StudioBuilder Yes. But the terms they are having you agree to makes the issue of ownership a mere technicality. They are able to do anything with it as though they actually owned it.
@@StudioBuilder i issue like this once when posting to Reddit in their terms of service they are granted a non-exclusive license to do carte blanche with your posts at least that's how I think it is worth it non royalty something license it reminds me of adding a contributor license agreement inside the terms of service
I began using photoshop in the 1990s. I stopped using photoshop when they switched to a subscription service. I have never looked back. Nobody should have the time or money for a company that is actively trying to screw customers and users, which is what Adobe has been doing for years now. All of this recent drama is interesting, maybe, but I just don't understand why people bother with Adobe these days anyway, much less why anybody would defend them for any reason. Why be "fair" to a company that has no interest in being fair to anybody?
I get that adobe's employees have no personal faults and I understand they are "just following orders", what I hope is that people understand this is just like asking the innkeeper is the wine is still good. Of course they will tell you it's great. Even if it's completely rotten. Dark patterns aside, the whole new TOS of two weeks ago should be a major red flag for people to stay away from Adobe, period. Even if they back away now, they will try again later with an even more outragious move to make us being fine with currently unacceptable terms. Make 10 steps forward, back off 5 to make them think you listened them. Still made 5 steps towards your end goal.
I’m hoping Dark Patterns gets elevated into the [global] lexicon. The Legal Discovery process should be FASCINATING. The way the Disclosures from the Microsoft & Google [Alphabet] case have been illuminating. I’m grateful for watching whatever I watched or searched to surface your channel.
I use my Credit card company to sign up for whatever, but when I come across websites and software companies who make it very super difficult to cancel, my card company does all of that canceling for me I don't have to be bothered by the BS these companies try, the credit card company will cancel it for you.
It's dark patterns all the way down at Adobe it seems, locking you out of your work unless you agree to their new terms, making unsubscribing an absolute nightmare (I actually had to go through that one myself once), automatically opting people in to having their images used to train generative AI and hiding the setting on the screen for their automated feedback settings (who on earth ever looks at that). The simple fact that they thought they could patch the last one out with no one noticing shows how aware they were of the setting being hidden away where nobody would ever see it. As for owning your work, when they have a license to basically use that work for any purpose they feel fit, including sublicensing the data out to third parties is there really any practical difference?
I can’t imagine a better outcome than for Adobe to lose $1 billion over this and to slowly slip into obscurity as people decide they can’t be trusted and start using alternatives, and those alternatives make enough money to make a better product than Adobe.
I was a photo technician in the early 80's way before any Photoshop software ever existed. Today photo software is ok but nothing beats old-school ways.
thanks for your time, the best video on youtube about this issue. I’m in your age, over 30 years of professional work with adobe, now I can’t use adobe for my work, just to respect my clients. learning new tools and replace adobe for all works with sensitive contents is our priority.
I was surprised at how easy it was to switch to Affinity. It's also a lot faster. It's sad because as you say we've used Adobe tools for over 30 years and it's how I made a living, but they really messed up and I can't trust them.
@@pixpusher yes, BTW: compares the time to open files, or to create a new file. Photoshop slows down these processes for online checks, this is also an additional waste of time! Affinity Photo is quite good
Fascinating how a program that is financially inaccessible to many artists becomes industry standard (which is why so many pirate ships circle Adobe). Who says? I understand the circumstances of the corporate landscape but perhaps artists and photographers just continue to give those who use them too much power. You hate Adobe's business model? Why did you subscribe and validate it? Shouldn't the craftsman decide what tools they want to use and bring it to work and not the client telling a painter what tools they must get? I hope so many talented artists get out of this toxic relationship and find freedom to use whatever creative tools they want and not feel like this or that is a MUST to use. In other words, it's the artists who should dictate the workflow and work with each other if cooperation is required. Then perhaps monopolies can be dealt with organically. Those who love the craft get more than money out of the deal. Those who use the talents of artists only care about the money and sadly bring that energy to too many artists who feel they MUST use Adobe products because "Industry Standard". It does not have to be this way. In fact, that term is actually anti-creative because new ways and means gets suppressed and that is not in the creative spirit. Look at the music industry and think of the current "Industry Standard". What's gonna happen when AI becomes "Industry Standard"? The pitchforks are out already.
Thank you! I've been saying this under another video and have been laughed at. It's like people have silently obliged to use photoshop, never tried to convince their executives to switch Adobe for alternatives (many would gladly do so) and now people whine that Adobe is bullshitting them with a corporate smile. Go figure.
@@marikothecheetah9342 Agreed! And I would add without the artists, the corporations have nothing. Artists have to realize how much power they truly have. Without that person who creates stuff, they have no product. Do your art because you love it and everything else will fall into place. Stop cowering in the face of corporate suits. They need you more than you want to work for them.
You can leave Adobe ecosystem. Did it 3 years ago. Affinity with Davinci. So here I am not bothered about the shit storm. Just enjoying UA-cam videos about it. 😇
7:33 Totally disagree with this point since I know exactly who you're referring to. Louis Rossmann uses those "aggressive" terms because they accurately describe the type of behavior shown by these companies. Many people's livelihoods revolve around these programs (as I'm sure you know), so there is really no reason to beat around the bush when describing the mentality of these massive profit-driven corporations, and the way they keep screwing over their customers.
@@StudioBuilder i agree with the comment above. it shows a complete disregard for customer consent and louis rossmann is not in the wrong for calling it out as such. you start using the product under one TOS. then you go to access your work after paying a monthly fee, and then suddenly you are forced to agree to a different contract then the one you sent payment under? Your work is being held hostage as a way to force you to agree to a different contract. There was no way to disagree to the terms to access your content. People have to keep their jobs so they really have no choice when they are in a situation like that. Even if they dont profit off of your work per say, there are still ethical concerns in regards to work done under NDAs that are now being collected as part of these algorithms. People are worried on how that data is stored an encrypted because a leak could spell legal problems for people that use adobe products. And there is still the inability to cancel without a hefty fine. It does show a disregard for customer consent which is what Louis is getting at.
Changing the "Terms Of Service" after you've agreed to a contract is just BS dude. The newer terms are never favourable to the person paying. The idea that "this is typical of a company this large" doesn't make it right, just means they're all dodgy. Add to this Adobe's veiled GTFO cancellation fee, they deserve every bit of their dumpster fire.
They can do it, BUT you have to have option to NOT agree to the new terms and that is what was lacking, there was literally no: I do not accept button with new terms and this was the biggest issue, among the whole AI training stuff.
@@marikothecheetah9342 I think you missed a serious point. There was no "Do Not Agree" option. There was only an "I Agree" option. Not pressing "I Agree" meant clients not being able to access their own cloud content already stored there before the change in terms. To me that's a form of ransomware.
@@warrenslater3709 this is exactly, what I wrote: "there was literally no: I do not accept button with new terms and this was the biggest issue" THERE WAS NOT I DO NOT ACCEPT BUTTON. Is it clear enough or will you reiterate again what I wrote, stating I didn't get the point. *smh* And yes, they couldn't access their data if they clicked away, which meant they were forbidden to access the software they bought access to. I was answering in the context of the previous comment and lack of access to the software was NOT the topic of that comment.
@@marikothecheetah9342 It's also amasing how the option to not agree, when it comes to software is 'uninstall it and never use it again. No, we will not in anyway compensate you for the fact that we just deprived you of the product you bought from us' (and note, claims of quantum uncertainty in the face of the law aside, software is a Product, not a Service. The use of servers for cloud storage, communications, or borrowing extra processing power? THAT is a service. Tech support is a service. The software is not.)
I am surprised of how much I have achieved once I decided to not use Adobe products, yes Affinity alone is not enough but there are many tools for those missing features, or even better there are other ways to obtain similar results. I do not criticize people for choosing one tool or the other, but what makes you a professional is not a set tools or the other but your skills of making the best of them.
As an amateur photographer I loved Lightroom, however this morning I cancelled my services and deleted everything from my computer. I don’t like the way they do business, and I’m voting with my feet.
As far as I'm concerned, quite frankly Adobe has got no other option than to go back to perpetual licenses as an option in addition to subscriptions, like every other company does. Especially if people keep cancelling their Creative Cloud subscriptions which they have every right to do. Maybe then this will give other companies a warning shot, if they try and pull this crap too. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they have 'kind of' clarified things in the ToS, but it still doesn't change their scummy practices. Also is it just me, or in Jason Levine's video, does anyone get the feeling that his expressions kind of portray that he thinks that we're idiots for bringing this up, and kind of saying 'sorry, but we're not sorry. Deal with it'? That's the exact feeling I get.
As someone who enjoys photography but doesn't do it professionally, this is what finally motivated me to leave. There are reasonably priced photo editing software's that do most of what adobe does and it's a one time fee. I just can't justify paying a company a monthly fee to always be worried that they aren't looking out for their customers. For my needs Affinity photo is good enough.
Generative AI is under the Umbrella of AI. They may not be using your content to train Gen AI but they may be training other AI’s and Those AI tools may train Gen AI. Or anything else!
Guy who works for Adobe won't explain the Terms of Use because he's not a lawyer...well, neither are the (vast majority of) people who have to agree to the thing. Someone save that clip to use in a lawsuit against Adobe (or corporation of choice) that throws lawyerese and legal vagueness at users their tou and tos (etc), for when one or the other consequently ends up screwing users over. What Adobe has done with their ToU in the last month or so is incredibly scammy and is something you'd expect from a fly-by-night company that doesn't plan on being around for long...it's not something you expect from a company that's been in operation for so long that has had, for the most part, a high reputation. Does Adobe have new owners or a new CEO? They are certainly acting like a company taken over by a completely different crowd.
At the corporate executive level of psychopathy, marketing, PR and damage control is a direct replacement for ACTUAL transparency, honesty and integrity. Its all the same, because it's all a game, and the only object is to WIN.
As a photographer and someone with a bit of experience in cloud service, online security and some form of coding and legal work regarding customer asset. The whole thing is so easy to understand Adobe lies and they didn't do it good enough, the employee message is the most disgusting thing in this situation. To refuse to admitted their wrong doing and trying to save their business idea by using what can be describe as 'propaganda' campaign, by having people singing praise to their product. I would suggest anyone with customer who are concern about NDA or leaking of information to move your workflow from adobe as far as possible. Remember we buy product not just for functionality but also trust in company to protect customer and if that trust can't be uphold then it's no long just the matter of price.
After my experience with the bait-and-switch subscription for Lightroom I will not use another Adobe product. It told me everything I need to know about how predatory the company is. They'll continue to mislead the public for profit as long as it remains profitable. I wouldn't trust anything they say.
I used to work in IT, and part of my job was dealing with our different clients Adobe Licensing mumbo jumbo. One of my least favorite aspects of the job was dealing with Adobe, as it was always a rough time. I still remember the time they gave one of our clients a free adobe creative cloud month, to EVERY single employee with adobe products. Then, when the free month expired, they started spamming the employees with big alert notices about how their license was about to expire. I had tickets for weeks with confused, concerned, and upset employees who thought they were about to lose their acrobat license, which is all they needed, but it was just the stupid free trial of creative cloud that was expiring. Adobe of course, did not make it obvious which license was expiring. They never even used those free month of CC!!
Lets say you are doing work for hire. In that case, the copyright of whatever you create is not with you but with those who hire you to do that work. In that case, you do not have a legal right to grant Adobe that perpertual sublicense at all. The people who hire you to do that work do have the right to do so, but demanding you grant this right simply means you need to obtain the right to grant Adobe that sublicense, or cannot legally use Adobe products. Granting Adobe a sublicense on your own work is already problematic, but work for hire can be a legal rat's nest.
Actually this case scenario is valid for any photoshop work you do for a client. i post produced a lot for big corporates. I wonder if they would agree to adobes term of use.
@@jensbronton Good point, yeah, it certainly also applies to that situation. The moment you do not have the right to sublicense the work to Adobe, this is a legal rat's nest indeed. That could even be due to an exclusive license agreement with a client.
While I'm not a photographer, I am a professional illustrator and have been for over 30 years. I imagine both of us have been using Photoshop and other Adobe products for about the same time. Thank you for this video. It clarifies some of the issues that have concerned me these past few months and answers some of my questions. Like you, I've been using their software for so long, I don't feel the pressure (yet) to make the jump into other creative alternatives. I'll definitely be checking out your other videos, particularly regarding this topic. Thank you for your level-headed analysis and without using clickbait, kneejerk tactics. You have a new subscriber...
Thanks for this enlightened view of where we're at currently. It will be interesting to follow the FTC case against Adobe, which no doubt will be a long winded and drawn out thing. My hope is that Adobe can recover from this and change it's careless and greed driven ways by offering it's users genuine options. For example I see nothing wrong with subscription based use of their software, so long as there are options available to 'own', either as a traditional purchase or as a rent to own variation. Their lack of honesty and flexibility leaves a sour taste that is hard to wash away though.
I've seen a lot of videos about the recent Adobe terms and drama as I'm working on my migration to Affinity and I have to say this is one of the most comprehensive and thoughtfully explained videos I've seen on the topic. Some of the stuff you touch on like their attempt to win back public opinion with content creators/employees instead of directly I only discovered here and haven't heard from any other creators. You go well beyond the mass of surface-level explanation videos I've watched already. Great work!
Even though there is no permission button, they still cross the line and use your work to train AI silently, that's why they have cloud (Adobe fully controlled computer).
This whole situation reminds me of when Quark wanted companies to use a central activation server. Our company at that time had under a dozen branches using Quark Express. When quark went to a newer improved version one year, they wanted our company to create an activation server at one of the bigger branches which would allow other users at other (ie smaller) locations use Quark. What was never thought of is when storms or electrical outages happen, users would not be able to use the product from what we told by the sales reps at the time. Fortunately coupled at the time with a gigantic price jump per seat, our company said no. They then went to Adobe InDesign. Even though it can read Quark files there always had to be a lot of work done in regards to fonts. You really don't hear much about Quark these days in our industry. You are right though Adobe should have spelled it out on a blog instead of these insipid videos.
I canceled my subscription last night with no issues. I’m surprised to hear that so many people were getting hit with fees and having a rough time cancelling.
Ohhh okay. I had the monthly subscription. When I heard about hidden cancellation fees, I was triple checking my bank account and email to see if any BS popped up and had to get it fixed. 😅
Studio Builder, Thank your for a thorough review of the adobe fiasco. I'm only a picture taker not a photographer. I take pictures for fun. I really appreciate the tips and tricks shared by the pro world, but do not agree with the lengths some go to modify/enhance their work. I can agree with most of you dissertation but have always suspected there was more going on than meets the eye. When adobe started forcing users to use the "creative cloud" to access some of the features of the programs, you had to ask yourself why. On one hand it could be adobe protecting their software, on the other hand it could be abobe wanted access to users work. Few were concerned. It appears pretty clear now what the end game of forcing users to use the "creative cloud" was all about, a fee source to train their ai. And to cast their efforts in stone, be legal and protecting the world, it's partially disguised as protecting users from creation pornography. I switch to Capture One some time ago so am not affected, glad I followed my gut. Again, thanks for what I believed was a detailed and honest review.
I work for Marvel and I was told in advance to quit my subscription to Adobe suddenly from the office and find an alternative. they did give me a list of options, so I downloaded Clip Art Studio (which they paid for) and I picked up from there. I learned from the offices editors that Marvel was gathering a lawsuit but was not sure what was the full extent of the claim. I had a minor understanding of what was going on, and have read a little more afterwards - but also had been asked questions from friends whether or not i knew that our work was "owned by Adobe" now. A lot of fellow artists were losing their minds too. If I had been working through these changes, I might have been as upset about it - but I was working with my Army job so couldnt really focus on that tornado. Thanks for your video; it helped to understand what was going on. I know I'm a little late to the party as to why all this was happening.
Things went downhill for Adobe years ago when they only offered a subscription, SaS model. They should have left the pay to own option in place, with OPTIONAL costs for MAINTENANCE or FEATURE SET updates. They should also have the option for their apps to remain disconnected from the cloud, as standalone products as in the old days. If I want to check for updates let me manually do the check. These sneaky and deceptive tactics will tarnish their rep for quite some time. It is a shame because their products are good, but at what cost you may ask. Well said in your video! Adobe and Microsoft are running neck and neck as they head for the finish line!
I have a yearly Adobe subscription and just asked today (as a kind of test 🙂) their online chat robot - or whatever one calls that automated answering thing "how can I cancel my yearly subscription?" The answer was a link to cancel my subscription. When I clicked on it it asked "Do you want to cancel now? Then you won't be able to access your Adobe apps anymore. If you click on yes you will receive a confirmation email" I did not click on "yes" because it seems that I would immediately be cut off the apps though I had payed for a whole year in advance. Their communication is - deliberately? - quite confusing.
Could you maybe outline what it is in other apps that don't meet your needs? It would be great to hear that from a professional photographer's perspective. Since I am not a photographer, I was able to easily switch to Affinity.
I wasn't even aware of that opt-in option concerning providing your photos to help their ai models. But then again, I'm an amateur photographer but people's privacy is still very important for me. I rarely take people's pictures because of that still... this is unsettling.
Adobe: If you don't like it you can always cancel. But if you do, you owe us an extortionate hidden cancellation fee as per the agreement hidden in a locked filing cabinet in the disused downstairs lavatory with the "Beware of the leopard" sign on it. Totally transparent see?
Thanks for this! I am a "keen amateur," but one who is TIRED OF BEING MISLED/LIED TO by Big Tech. So, I may ditch Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom(s) as I have Capture One Pro and On1 Photo Max 2024, BOTH of which meet my "keen amateur" needs. I will follow your videos to see how soon (or not) I leave Adobe. Note to your followers/subs: I have Affinity Photo 2, which is "pretty good," too. Also, Exposure 7 (which used to be Alien Exposure) is good, but I wonder if it is being continued beyond version 7. I am sure that portrait photographers would do fine with Capture One as it is constantly being improved (yes, I am a nerd who has to have them all...).
In my opinion, the only way out of this situation is a real alternative to Adobe. Not Gimp, not Affinity etc. We need software that really offers a high professional level. And we don't see that yet. So Adobe will continue to work like a monopolist :(. The biggest problem is Photoshop and InDesign. The other programs can be replaced in some way.
Like you, I've been using Illustrator, Aldus PhotoStyler then Photoshop & Aldus PageMaker then InDesign, professionally for over 30+ years... I'm still on CS6 (and will be for as long as I can) because I can't bring myself to have my organization not owning the software it purchases. Plus I can still do everything and anything I need to do, still, in CS6... Having said that, I just personally purchased the Affinity Suite for $85 on Saturday... I'll play around with it before commiting to it... Hopefully, it can meet my needs, and if it does, my organization will be users as well... Great video!
Other creative companies should get on board. - A topic not talked about is the companies that spend money on developing presets, actions, titles, and effects for Adobe products. Will artists bother buying these if Adobe is doing everything they can to push people to a different platform?
Management in large companies is aware that the company needs legal advice to operate. Managers make the "business decision" as to whether they will seek legal advice and whether to follow that advice. Often the company's lawyers and their advice are not seen as assets that keep the company out of trouble, but obstacles to be overcome. To be clear, I'm not speaking about Adobe here or any company specifically. Rather, my comment is a general observation on the nature of companies trying to make decisions with the need to consider the law in making decisions. There is an inherent tension that exists between what is good business, and what represents an unacceptable level of legal risk. Sadly, too often the decision is make to proceed with the knowledge that while the legal risk is high, the legal consequences are manageable and can be mitigated sufficiently. But when this calculation is wrong, the liability can bankrupt a company.
Great video, thanks. I've also been using Adobe products since they weren't Adobe products. It's not as if there isn't precedent in crisis management, where for example, a company turned a disastrous oil-spill into a positive. I suspect Adobe's problem is that they had lawyers managing this. We can all smell a lawyer a mile off. A heart-felt personal message from the president, assuring users that he would sort it out, would have gone a long way. Instead, their bad handling has been framed as the fault of their customers. The especially idiotic thing is that AI will undermine their professional content creators - illustrators, page layout designers and photographers.
Macromedia, there's a name I haven't heard in a while. *sigh* I've been drawing for 50 years. when I first went digital I went with clip studio (manga studio at the time) cause it was a very inexpensive way to jump in and learn, then moved over to photoshop. I've been using Photoshop since version 5.5. I wasn't happy when they went subscription but I bit the bullet because it's photoshop, the standard right? But now I find myself moving back to clip studio because no sub and no BS. It won't take me long to bring my process into clip studio and get it up to speed... and once that's done, Adobe and I may be parting ways for good.
We just found out and believe that disabling app usage and product improvements in the app settings - will not going to actually deactivate them, unless you disable these within your creative cloud account under account security -> data and privacy settings. Even though within app settings these were disabled, under our account privacy settings where enabled by default. Make sure you turn them off as it connects to all of the cloud services. Hopefully this does it, but we cannot be sure anymore!
You say that Adobe doesn't "own" my files, but I think that's a legal term. If Adobe controls my ability to use my files,, it's a moot point. I can't access files I own. I can't edit files I own. I can't open files I own. is very similar to : I can't access files I don't own. I can't edit files I don't own. I can't open files I don't own. The terminology may differ, but the end result is identical.
Adobe: desensitization mode enabled. Since you are willing to forget, they will try this same thing later. Simple rule - do not give money to the companies that you do not trust. Look at Windows. Everyone knew that they want your data but people adapted so they pushed Cortana, Internet Explorer.. No one liked it but again, everyone adapted so they are pushing forward - Recall. Everyone is hating it so they make it disabled by default. Everyone will adapt to the idea that it's in your computer and then they will push again and make it enabled by default. Just stop using these products ffs.. Only adapt and learn to use products that you can trust.
As a psychologist (with a background in risk communication), their approach sounds rather like corporate narcissism. I don't see another way to explain how they can't see how they would destroy trust and therefore loyalty, persist with this strategy which is all in their favour, and that they don't appear to be aware that we can see what they are doing. Framing, yep! Loved the facial disgust bit, 😅. I used to use and teach Creative suite but left them several years ago as I didn't like being trapped in such an ecosystem culture. Great products, but there are alternatives from others more trustworthy.
I remember Adobe when Photoshop was at 1.0 and before they started gobbling other companies up. They were a pleasure to deal with. Same story as all companies - there is no avoiding going full corporate as you grow.
I’m a researcher in the related field (not at Adobe) and at the same time an Adobe cloud user. So I have mixed feelings on this. From research point of view, high quality data is the key for this kind of product to achieve high performance. Our team struggles on this all the time. Luckily enough we have some capacity to create the data ourselves by hiring professionals. And with the help of automation, we can collect mass data by our own. Even though we still hope we can get access to high quality data manually crafted by talented artists. But as much as I understand the Adobe’s research goal, I have to say Adobe can do much better on this. Instead of forcing every single customer on this agreement, Adobe can simply encourage people to participate their projects, by awarding those who choose to participate, and by paying professionals to access their work. I keep my family photos in their cloud and I’m sure those photos have near zero value to them. I feel very uncomfortable knowing they can access my family photos, especially someone may be looking at them, labeling them and judging them. I do not want my family photos appearing in their research report with all kind of manipulations by algorithm. As I mentioned before, there’s a legal and ethical way of doing research which may cost a little more than nothing, I hope Adobe can choose the right way.
"I keep my family photos in their cloud and I’m sure those photos have near zero value to them." - wow... I admire your trust and child-like approach to life. :D These photos do not have sentimental value for them, like it does for you but face recognition software, generative AI that needs tons of data to spit photographs actually will find your family photos very useful. Agencies, third parties Adobe has contact with may also be interested in what your family looks like. But you do you and do store your stuff in Cloud happily, so others can use it they way they see fit :D
@@marikothecheetah9342 Private cloud storage is not considered public. Thus any use of that in a product without licensing is illegal. (Our legal department suggests against using even public data for training.) This is why Adobe updated its terms when they wanted to use them which is what I and others are complaining here.
@@r3d260 yes, and AI models were trained on legally and fairly obtained data that people rightly consider their IP. :P And no, complaint at first was that a) Adobe opted their users in without their knowledge and did not give them choice when first updated TOS (there was no 'I do not accept button anywhere)'. Second: they've finally removed the option altogether not feeling too bad about it and just claiming they wanted to improve users' experience. They have finally updated their TOS and in it they stated that they may access user's content to review it to check if it's in accordance to the terms of use. They also imply they can screen the content in search for illegal stuff, usu. that of fans of children (so to speak) but again - is this really the role of Adobe? Don't think so. It's nice of them to claim they also monitor your stuff to catch phishing and the like and prevent other from stealing your data. If it really is their aim - nice of them to do so, I give them this one. Furthermore: they claim their licensing is limited but they don't shy away from stating that they use machine learning in their process of reviewing the data "in order to improve user experience". They are also the host of stuff that people have on Adobe servers, which means they can 'review ' it to their heart's content. Additionally, what I found 'cute' is that Adobe stated in their blog that in some countries they have to put data protection agreement with users, which would imply, that in the U.S. your data is everything, but not protected when handled by them. And finally: "Access is needed to deliver some of our most innovative cloud-based features such as Photoshop Neural Filters, Liquid Mode or Remove Background. " - why weren't they built into the programme itself? Surely such huge programme would still handle yet another option?
This is the problem with using the best softwares on the market; they are often owned by big corporations who won’t hesitate even a second to screw over their customers in order to make some extra bucks. Sometimes, perhaps it would be a good idea to avoid giving in to the greed of using the best software, just to avoid all the problems that these big corporations give us. For example, one piece of software that could act as a Photoshop alternative would be Gimp. It’s free and open source. I haven’t learned and tested all its features yet, but my guess is that it’s probably not as powerful as Photoshop. But at least it won’t use our data to train AI, act like police-wannabes and use AI to (often falsely) flag pictures, hold your account hostage if you don’t agree to their updated terms of service etc etc. I have never used any of Adobes softwares (except the free version of Acrobat Reader which I’ve uninstalled again a few years back) let alone paid for the rental of any of their products. I tend to avoid subscription models altogether, especially for software provided by large corps like Adobe, Apple, Google and so forth. Although I can understand it’s not powerful enough to suit everyone, I’m personally perfectly happy using Gimp.
The problem is not a lack of clarity, but rather the broadly written way Adobe requires users to give Adobe permissions to: -License your work -Sublicense your work -Sell your work -Train their AI on your work, create derivative works and sell that -snoop through your content at will -ban your account if they find anything they don’t like, including perfectly legal content that they find “objectionable”
![Дон ДОН, Алаудинов и СБЕЖАВШИЕ из под Курска ахматовцы 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dEfCf5IK26Q/mqdefault.jpg)
Subscribe to the channel for more photography related videos!
I personally feel Trained AI is not someone elses work; here is why, it would do the most average of everything ever created and you get impainting etc. I also think if you show a .h5/.keras to a Judge and the Image the judge will say its not the same thing, as wieghts are just scribbles, your clients also wont be able to tell as it would not ever look like them, but an average of everything it was trained on.
@NordicNjal it was trained on other people's work. It doesn't have your developed style from your experience, your success and your failings, it don't have any of "you" in the art. It is absolutely someone else's work, it's everyone else's work combined.
And you have a decent point, that because of that, it kind of becomes nobodies work. Each individual piece of art that is used without permission gets thrown into the mix, a ton of other people's work conglomerating, diffusing, into a blob of mundane, soulless "art". It's no single person's art, that's true, but there were so many people who were used in the making of that art, and almost all of them weren't you.
@@clerklymantis4661 Yes it's nobody's work, I agree. But its not stolen work either. Here is the thing if you use stock images (Someone else's photo) in Graphic Design or an AI Generated Image that you prompted yourself, inpainted and edited more to your liking and then used that in your graphic design which is more yours? Remember before AI was mainstream people used stock images and that was fine.
@@NordicNjal So, your option is to allow Adobe to use your work, that's your choice. Your comment is irrelevant to the subject of this video though. The option should NEVER default to agreement because that is a violation of our contractual rights, whatever their EULA states.
Not only the users of Adobe software, but also their clients need to have the option to make that choice if applicable and by Adobe making their choice for them, they incriminate their clients (or whatever term is suitable for a betrayal of trust). Totally unacceptable!
I watch channel Legal Mindset review adobe new terms. He was lawyer and admit this Adobe new terms very bad for customer. This term can break NDA, copyright unfinish content etc. Imagine your digital work can done by AI, that huge lost human creativity all style working will go for AI. Adobe AI tech can be positive if they detect similar from another work "very good". Adobe will alert you this work "too much same" the user must improv work, so the copyright not strike. If user want tool helping easy revision work design, having AI data in Adobe gonna be worth.
Answer sounds easy: Adobe lies through their teeth.
Don't all corporations/businesses. They exist for profit nothing more nothing less.
@@bradleyp3655 Well, that corrupted people in those corporations think like that would be understandable, but for the rest of us to forget corporations are made to serve the people is lamentable. All machines, including corporations, are created to serve us. To say they exist for profit is simply ignorant. This is like saying knives exist for murder. A deranged logic.
My guess: Adobe will soon start using everyone's images to train their AI. But put out the checkbox before so there would be no legal worries on their end with timing, notice, etc.
Why are people still using this spyware? Adobe can see every image you use and mouse click that you do. And will use it all for their profit. Any improvement of the program will be purely incidental.
Not to mention the cost. It used to be prohibitively expensive. Now with all the reoccurring fees it's astronomically expensive. I'll stick with my old copy of photoshop that doesn't connect to the internet, doesn't steal my data, and I don't have to pay for on a daily basis.
@@spookybuk You all seem to be missing the end goal. Every large corpo has too control AI because if AI is AI then AI will go on a tangent considering how corrupt giant corpo is and how corrupt feds are.
@@spookybuk Well said! Just because something exists does not make it right or justifiable. I get sick of that kind of gaslight BS sidelining peoples rights or the validity of their expectation from contractual obligations. It is nothing but ignorant political cop out!
If adobe didn’t intend to use our work, they could just say that clearly in plain language in their terms. They haven’t said that.
They've now said that in new plain English language.
Adobe has been caught with their pants down. Dirty rotten scammers.
they have been deliberately vague, with the real intentions of being able to do so. If they weren't going to do the wrong thing, they'd put their money where their mouths were and specifically state it in the TOS...
Exactly. Providing examples also does not create an exhaustive list or describe the boundaries of what Adobe can or cannot do with your content.
I'm sure it's also about surveillance. 'AI training' is a term we think of regarding image creation. But to corporations, like Facebook, AI's main use is monitoring private conversations in real time. That's why Adoboe (and most subscription models) want acces to your entire computer, and all connected devices. It's 1984.
@@JohnMoran No, Adobe wants access to your computer because they want to steal data to train their models to replace you. Surveillance isn't the issue, that ship sailed a long time ago. They're just greedy and want to own everything.
Cancelling a subscription should be simply one button "Cancel Subscription" and a popup confirmation, "are you sure you want to cancel?" If yes -> cancel subscription. Should be that simple
PREACH!
Yes, but all businesses do have the right to try and convince their clients to reconsider leaving.
It should be easier to cancel however.
Adobe are not the first company to do this.
@@cgi2173 "all businesses do have the right to try and convince their clients to reconsider leaving" - are you sure button is enough, really. They can subscribe anew, if they change their minds, can't they?
@@cgi2173 there's a difference between trying to get them to reconsider and blatantly using psychological tactics to get them frustrated and give up on cancelling. Such as having people call to cancel subscriptions then intentionally dropping the call and have you waiting on hold for an hour or more just for the call to drop and you have to repeat the process. I see your point but that isn't what's taking place with this specific case.
@@cgi2173 right to convince should never mean dark pattern usage. Make it simple and try to convince me on the page immediately after cancel has been clicked there you can offer discounts etc. not make it unnecessarily long to cancel.
I think this right to convince is heavily abused. Next on the list should be gym memberships.
16:00 I completely disagree. Demanding a sub-licence at the same time as holding your data hostage and charging you money to cancel your subscription is extortion (or whatever the correct term is in English). It should be punished by law.
exactly
It will be. I have never heard of any software that allows them copyright on any work you create. They will get slapped down big time.... It's simply a tool used as a means to an end. Nothing more, nothing less...
Yup…when the contract has a giant hole where they could use your work just about however they want, with a caveat of just trust us. Not to mention they are not asking you if it’s ok to use your work so they can make money, for all intents and purposes, they own in in some way.
@@rogershore3128 Blizzard did this with the wc3 editor EULA after failing in court over DOTA ownership. And everyone can see that the next great success of usermaps was done in Dota2 editor, which belongs to Valve.
exactly
Adobe does not own your work. But Adobe uses your work to train their Ai to replace your work.
Adobe should pay creators and let them opt in to provide training content. It's theft, pure and simple. Not going to renew my subscription
🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@miketan4803I am one of the people that signed up, skimmed over the T's and C's didn't see anything about the cancellation fee.
I thought I was signing up to a pay by the month, cancel any time version. 🙄
which amounts to the same thing, because whether they owned it or not the algorithm now has your work internally broken down into encoded structure to reproduce in part or whole if you specified the same photo elements with some slight differences
Yes, three generations of professional Creatives whose patronage made them a top-tier software corporation, can go to hell as far as Adobe is concerned. They will DESTROY hundreds of thousands of people's careers with their 'dumbed down' new direction, and all this AI trash.
So they swooped trought their clients, collected tons of works from their customers, feed their AI, stopped and claims it never happened
All users worldwide demand together: no to subscription, pay-to-own only!
NO TO SUBSCRIPTION, PAY TO OWN ONLY!
with zero account or internet required to use it in perpetuity
Currently I 'own' and use CS6 and was disappointment when Adobe chose to use this subscription model. However I believe a mixture of both as options (add a rent to own option even) could be great. This is expensive software and many can benefit from a limited time access. The offensive part is the lack of options.
For me, Adobe have lost my trust and respect, which in old time book keeping is something known as goodwill, but evidently nowadays they don't care or value that anymore. It is still a thing though, whether they give it a financial value or not and they have lost out globally in this respect.
Ed: CS6 not 2...
I agree never subscribe to software that shouldn't be a service in the first place, all these companies are just trying to push sub only this must stop now there should be an option buy or rent and a movement is needed to enforce this. The internet has spoken mass backlash.
Would prefer to have the option of pay to own or subscribe. Some of us freelancers only need some software for the length of a project and in the past, having to fork over the price for pay to own drastically cut into a gig being profitable.
I was using Photoshop since its first public version. as an illustrator, photographer, designer. and I had no problem whatsover to toss it in 2018 together with everything from Adobe. And so can you.
I knew where they were leading. Cloud subscription was already too much uncertainty and too less control for me to accept, so I used an old CS6 as long as I had a machine to still run it until 2018. As soon as Affinity was ready, I made the switch.
But now here we are, Adobe delivered what I supposed. Total greed and abuse of power. When they reserve the right to do with your work what they want, it does not matter that they promise not to own your work. It is about the same in the end.
Unless adobe is free. Maybe they can use my work. But they still have to cite my name.
I use my adobe cs6 on a new machine and in windows 11 🤔
Let's see if I’ve got this Adobe drama right... You sign up for a subscription, and when it crashes more than it works, you try to cancel. Surprise! You have to pay a fee to cancel. And here's the kicker: the same company that charges you for the subscription and then charges you again to cancel, also uses your work for free to train their AI models. And what do they do with these improvements? They charge you even more to use them! Am I getting this straight, or am I just being completely unreasonable?
i think you summed it up very well.
spot on - also in long term putting more Content Creators out of paid work - same thing is happening with Micron soft and 360 - AI Copilot and Recall being used together to automate tasks with AI being used exclusively instead of one or more human member of staff / CC
Not yet. They also claim you give them a worldwide unlimited license of your work that they can do whatever they want with.
@@cionm7077 there IS a caveat to this as they say it's "solely for the purposes of operating the software" which doesn't mean "anything they want", thankfully.
That's not to say it isn't predatory as hell anyway when you take into consideration all the generative AI stuff and dark patterns, though.
I hate Adobe, but I hate misinformation more.
👍 This and parking tickets is a boiler for me brain
Cancellation fees? Adobe has cancellation fees? Good frackin' grief man!
So scary to think that paying them $600+ upfront for a yearly subscription, if I decide to cancel before the year ends they are going to charge me on top of the year I paid for already. Shouldn't they owe me money then? LOL
@@dunkley7776 You're saying there is a cancelation fee if you pay upfront, but I don't think that is the case. Why would you get $ back if you cancel a subscription you've paid upfront for? Even if you cancel before the year is up, you still have access to that service until the year is up. You've already paid for it. This is how lock-in contracts work.
Looking at their plans:
12mths upfront: full refund if cancelled within 14days.
12mths, paying each month: fee applies if you cancel after 14days.
This is the bit I'm confused about. Why is there an uproar about a cancellation fee if you leave before 12mths is up? Say you provided a service at $100/mth, but if someone signed up for 12mths you'd give them a reduced rate of $75/mth. Would you be fine with someone agreeing to the 12mth deal at the cheaper rate, but leaving before that without making up for the $25/mth difference you gave them. The whole incentive of locking in to a service over a period of time is a cheaper rate. Honestly, I'm trying to understand why people think there should be $0 cancellation fee. If this sets a precedent, you can kiss goodbye discounted rates for locking into a service over a longer period of time.
There is a problem with them not saying how much that fee is. I've heard it is 50% of what is remaining of that 12mths, which is a little excessive. Personally, I think it should be the 'not locked-in, full month-to-month cost ' minus the 'locked-in for 12mth month-to-month cost' multiplied by the 'number of months you used the service'. But maybe I'm not understanding why people think there should be $0 cancellation fee if you break a lock-in contract.
@@dunkley7776 Switch to a different package which they let you do without a having to pay a fee. After an hour ish, you're now on a brand new package without having paid anything. Then you can cancel your sub and because you switched packages and it resets and you're within 14 days you can cancel without fee. Read about this workaround online
It cost me over $60 to cancel my subscription, and I had one of the lower end annual subscriptions.
@@clovis_the_spook scary and sad. I'm glad they are getting sued for this by the FTC
At 16:15 there’s a statement that it’s not true that Adobe owns your work. The issues is that by granting themselves LICENSE to your work, they don’t have to own your work to use it, and to profit from it…all while paying the creator nothing at all. And it’s legal because their TOS claimed license to your work.
You’ll note Adobe has never disputed this fact.
except when you read 4.3(A) "we do not have the right to, and will not, use your Content to market or promote Adobe. "
@@egidiushoneymousse5950 but using it to train AI isn't doing either of those things.
They've granted themselves more rights to every image you open than you get when you buy media, the 'its not ownership' argument is just pedantry and carrying water for Adobe. The only component of ownership they didn't grant themselves is the right to stop *you* using your own image.
@@broweraj the license is needed to operate the tools. see 2.2A and 4.3A. without the license, saving work as cloud documents wouldn't be possible, as this is technically a reproduction. that's why it says "Solely for the purpose of operating the Services and Software"
@@MrEffectfilms genAi was never trained on our personal content and you can opt-out of non-genAI training with one click.
the big problem for many is Adobe claiming nonexclusive rights because it pretty much screws first rights of any photographer, it's serious violation, leaving photographers to guarantee any exclusive rights or control of their work. Adobe also does price-switching. YOu sign up with one "price" and get billed something more.
That's straight up bait and switch, which is fraud. No wonder the government is going after Adobe.
The sensationalist language that Louis Rossman used was absolutely on point for what Adobe is doing to its users. Adobe deserves all the social media and cancellation repercussions that it gets. This is dastardly behavior on their part. May their stock tank.
He also gives plenty of resources for viewers to check them on their own.
we will see how much their profits dropped this month, if that even gets disclosed
@@garretreed9709 They just compensate any losses with jacking up / increase prices to its users via Adobe CC subscription
if anything this sort of behaviour makes stock holders happy, they go wild for generative AI because they're scumm.
I can import illustrator files into Affinity Designer 🎉 the conversion away from Adobe was way less painful than I had thought.
the need to continue to make adobe relevant is to ignore the alternatives without using them for any period of time with the intention to make them work for you in whatever software tool you use, if everyone was trained on say GIMP, everyone would be sharing and working exactly how they do with photoshop without the cost and blatant propaganda!
I looked at Affinity and know several web designers who use it.. The problem is, I'm 76 and I don't know how much time and energy I want to burn on the transition
I love your video but your end conclusion is wrong, sticking with Adobe is letting them do it to you. And there is more than enough other good software for photo editing, capture one, affinity photo (personally I switched to Affinity) but I have so much good alternatives. Photoshop isn't that special and it is only the standard because we made them the standard
Thanks for sharing
for raw editing, no doubt capture one is one of the best. but for composites and more advanced editing you still don't have a choice as a professional. it's Adobe photoshop. i worked 25 years with photoshop, tried affinity photo wich is quite good but not as good. But a funny thing is to read all those comments about all those pro photographers that have quit their subscriptions to Adobe. Me as a pro has never met another photographer that has switched to another app. Many use less photoshop because you can do much more than before in RAW edit software.
none the less i am also sick and tired of Adobes term of use.
Affinity was bought out by Canva!
@@jensbrontonAgreed. Photoshop and other headline Adobe products are entrenched in a lot of businesses.
These companies won't want to spend the time or money installing and retraining on new software.
@@jensbronton which is why they got away with the utterly extortionate prices back in the day (which were in turn why piracy of their products was so rampant), and the even more abusive subscription model they use now.
Similar issues are why a large part of why it is so hard to get rid of Windows.
I think what they did with the signup/cancellation process is far worse than "dark patterns". It's a straight up scam.
They're scum. No way around that. I've switched to the Affinity suite, which cost me less to buy (full product, no subscription fees) than cancelling my Adobe subscription.
For those of you using Illustrator, Photoshop and Indesign, I wholeheartedly recommend moving to Affinity. They handle Adobe files, and I suspect 95% of current Adobe users won't miss any Adobe feature once you get into Affinity.
Affinity sold out to Canva!
at this point most of the software will handle most if not all Adobe formats.
@@marikothecheetah9342 I can even edit pdfs on Canva! The moment we can send something to be signed on canva or find a free option, I'm switching.
@@matalobos Foxit is a great and cheap tool to convert from and to pdf. Have unreadable pdf? Throw it into Foxit and make it readable again. :)
1000% canceled my subscription. This is really bad and fucked from adobe to abuse their paying customers like that. Inexcusable
I am thinking of ON1 to replace Lightroom and Affinity to replace Photoshop. A big fuck you to Adobe.
I stopped using Adobe when they went to the subscription model. At the time, it seemed to me that they wanted to hold your work hostage. Now, I know it's even worse than I thought. Glad I didn't get on that boat.
I am more sad than I can express. I wish that Photoshop had continued using customer data to train generative AI. I had over 500 pictures of ducks that were labeled , "This is a cat."
At the 5. In mark, it’s said that people misunderstood what the new TOS said. Some people maybe, but many saw not what the TOS said, but how it said it and what the implications of the statements were.
In contract law, the specific wording of a statement can produce a result of “We didn’t specifically say we were not doing “X thing”, so it’s legal for us to do it.”
In reality, even the new TOS makes it clear with the specific wording of it, that Adobe did in fact use their users data to train their AI models. They are dancing around the truth in hopes no one will notice.
And for the first time in a long time, I’m in Agreement with the FTC in suing Adobe for what amounts to extortion.
Same here.
Mom: "Did you sneak a cookie?"
Kid: "No, I didn't sneak an Oreo!" (cookies in question being chocolate-chip)
So i agree with you totally, however “We didn’t specifically say we were not doing “X thing”, so it’s legal for us to do it.” was much more of an issue in the old new terms of service from earlier this month but much less of an issue in the new new terms of service as of the 18th of this month. In fact i was literally in emails with legal support with adobe telling them specifically this back around the 10th i think. Yes the FTC should be suing adobe. But as far as the loophole bit for ai and license trouble, the new tos from the 18th actually filled those loopholes.
I used Photoshop for decades however I cut off Photoshop no way im using it after all this no matter how good it is! Once I learn an alternative for After effects, im done with Adobe. The only way they will change is if we hit their pocket book.
I was able to use Moho Animation and Apple Motion to make up for After Effects. It's not the same but I just don't trust Adobe anymore. After 30+ years I switched to other apps. My iPad also has lots of options for drawing.
I switched from after effects to davinci/fusion a few months ago... a bit of a learning curve at first but once it clicks its fantastic
Davinci fusion is really amazing you should give it a try to switch. Left Angle is creating a motion graphics and compositing software that does what after effects does in a layering style for motion graphics and comp. It looks like an amazing project and I'd be tempted to switch if they have tools for cel 2d style animation compositing
Left Angle Autograph
I got into motion graphics using Apple Motion and tho I don’t currently use it I still have a fondness for it. Switched to using AE because hey, everyone uses it, industry-standard and its knowledge base is so huge you can learn how to do almost anything with it if you look hard enough online. But, if your animations needs are modest, I think Motion is still great, still supported (well, it’s not dead at least, FCP keeps it alive) and massively underrated (snobs and Adobe fans mock it) Obvs it’s Apple-only so that’s an issue for many, but otherwise, it’s like $50, (I got it for £29, 13 years ago!) so it’s hardly a gamble to give it a spin.
Journalists should not be “balanced,” they should just expose the truth.
Agree 100%…balance is overrated compared to truth. Only bad weasely people claim a “lack of balance” against accurately reported truth.
What's really weird is the other day I logged into my Adobe account and immediately before it would let me do anything else and ask for my birth date! I couldn't get around it so I entered 1901 and for some reason it accepted that and allowed me to log in
Adobe: "Our Terms of Service are easily available for everyone to read."
Also Adobe's Principal Director: "I can't break down the Terms of Service for you, because I'm not a lawyer"...
Let’s start by talking in public how obsessive greed (especially by corporate) is a mental health disorder. Love your UCB shirt btw!❤
Greed is normal for individuals. In this case, they have made managerial errors that make them believe they are compelled to trick their customers into licensing yet-unreleased art and graphics wo them. They have embedded a growth obligation into their business, and they see eating their customers' creativity as their "opportunity for growth".
You really should send a screenshot or the moment in your video where you show the option that has disappeared from the preferences menu, to the US attorneys on their Twitter accounts! It would be VERY PRECIOUS if Adobe had removed this option on purpose!
I miss Macromedia.
Freehand was so much better at actually illustrating than illustrator and Flash was just so intuitive.
@@Virtualblueart I _still_ miss FreeHand. I’ve never liked Illustrator.
@@tookitogo yeah convert to path is my often-used tool, so much superior to illustrator
@@boodeehaha1751 Illustrator has that feature as well, doesn’t it?
I think you might have given Adobe a little too much of a pass on the ownership issue. They may not own your content technically but the licensing agreement they are forcing users to agree to essentially gives them all the rights and privileges that ownership would provide. In effect they can do anything with your stuff they want. Actual ownership is not necessary. It would be like unknowingly signing an agreement that would give someone the right to use your car anyway they see fit at anytime without having to ask you a thing. They can drive it in a demolition derby if they'd like and because you signed the agreement you can't say a thing about it.
Photoshop can be replaced. There might not be software that can replace Adobe products one to one all the time but it might be possible to find pieces that will make up for the whole. Often it will take learning a new workflow and some would rather avoid the pain of learning something new and go with the comfort of a familiar abusive relationship with a company that makes software they are already familiar with.
So, you agree. They do not own your content.
@@StudioBuilder When does "licensing agreement" ends? When I unsubscribe? After I delete my files from their server? When I shut off Photoshop for the day? From the TOS, it seems to be in perpetuity for works "created" with their software (although I'm not sure retouching a pimple off a chin counts as "created"). With no statement of how this "licensing agreement" ends, the end result may as well be "ownership". This shit is a joke. I have never stored work on the Adobe cloud, and in fact have never stored any work on any cloud as it is bad practice re: security and protecting client assets. I suggest others use this as a learning experience to do the same.
@@StudioBuilder Yes. But the terms they are having you agree to makes the issue of ownership a mere technicality. They are able to do anything with it as though they actually owned it.
@@StudioBuilder i issue like this once when posting to Reddit in their terms of service they are granted a non-exclusive license to do carte blanche with your posts at least that's how I think it is worth it non royalty something license it reminds me of adding a contributor license agreement inside the terms of service
Yeah it's like you were giving them your work under the MIT license so very permissive license@@daveindezmenez
I began using photoshop in the 1990s. I stopped using photoshop when they switched to a subscription service. I have never looked back. Nobody should have the time or money for a company that is actively trying to screw customers and users, which is what Adobe has been doing for years now. All of this recent drama is interesting, maybe, but I just don't understand why people bother with Adobe these days anyway, much less why anybody would defend them for any reason. Why be "fair" to a company that has no interest in being fair to anybody?
I get that adobe's employees have no personal faults and I understand they are "just following orders", what I hope is that people understand this is just like asking the innkeeper is the wine is still good. Of course they will tell you it's great. Even if it's completely rotten. Dark patterns aside, the whole new TOS of two weeks ago should be a major red flag for people to stay away from Adobe, period.
Even if they back away now, they will try again later with an even more outragious move to make us being fine with currently unacceptable terms. Make 10 steps forward, back off 5 to make them think you listened them. Still made 5 steps towards your end goal.
well said, we have to wait the next trick
There were lots of Nazis during World War II who were "just following orders". It is no excuse.
Amen to that.
I’m hoping Dark Patterns gets elevated into the [global] lexicon. The Legal Discovery process should be FASCINATING. The way the Disclosures from the Microsoft & Google [Alphabet] case have been illuminating. I’m grateful for watching whatever I watched or searched to surface your channel.
I use my Credit card company to sign up for whatever, but when I come across websites and software companies who make it very super difficult to cancel, my card company does all of that canceling for me I don't have to be bothered by the BS these companies try, the credit card company will cancel it for you.
It's dark patterns all the way down at Adobe it seems, locking you out of your work unless you agree to their new terms, making unsubscribing an absolute nightmare (I actually had to go through that one myself once), automatically opting people in to having their images used to train generative AI and hiding the setting on the screen for their automated feedback settings (who on earth ever looks at that). The simple fact that they thought they could patch the last one out with no one noticing shows how aware they were of the setting being hidden away where nobody would ever see it.
As for owning your work, when they have a license to basically use that work for any purpose they feel fit, including sublicensing the data out to third parties is there really any practical difference?
I can’t imagine a better outcome than for Adobe to lose $1 billion over this and to slowly slip into obscurity as people decide they can’t be trusted and start using alternatives, and those alternatives make enough money to make a better product than Adobe.
I was a photo technician in the early 80's way before any Photoshop software ever existed. Today photo software is ok but nothing beats old-school ways.
thanks for your time, the best video on youtube about this issue. I’m in your age, over 30 years of professional work with adobe, now I can’t use adobe for my work, just to respect my clients. learning new tools and replace adobe for all works with sensitive contents is our priority.
I was surprised at how easy it was to switch to Affinity. It's also a lot faster. It's sad because as you say we've used Adobe tools for over 30 years and it's how I made a living, but they really messed up and I can't trust them.
@@pixpusher yes, BTW: compares the time to open files, or to create a new file. Photoshop slows down these processes for online checks, this is also an additional waste of time! Affinity Photo is quite good
Cancelled my several years long subscription spree for Adobe, i use Affinity 2, Davinci Resolve etc.
No damn subscription feels awesome
Fascinating how a program that is financially inaccessible to many artists becomes industry standard (which is why so many pirate ships circle Adobe). Who says? I understand the circumstances of the corporate landscape but perhaps artists and photographers just continue to give those who use them too much power. You hate Adobe's business model? Why did you subscribe and validate it?
Shouldn't the craftsman decide what tools they want to use and bring it to work and not the client telling a painter what tools they must get? I hope so many talented artists get out of this toxic relationship and find freedom to use whatever creative tools they want and not feel like this or that is a MUST to use. In other words, it's the artists who should dictate the workflow and work with each other if cooperation is required. Then perhaps monopolies can be dealt with organically.
Those who love the craft get more than money out of the deal. Those who use the talents of artists only care about the money and sadly bring that energy to too many artists who feel they MUST use Adobe products because "Industry Standard". It does not have to be this way. In fact, that term is actually anti-creative because new ways and means gets suppressed and that is not in the creative spirit. Look at the music industry and think of the current "Industry Standard". What's gonna happen when AI becomes "Industry Standard"? The pitchforks are out already.
Thank you! I've been saying this under another video and have been laughed at. It's like people have silently obliged to use photoshop, never tried to convince their executives to switch Adobe for alternatives (many would gladly do so) and now people whine that Adobe is bullshitting them with a corporate smile. Go figure.
@@marikothecheetah9342 Agreed! And I would add without the artists, the corporations have nothing. Artists have to realize how much power they truly have. Without that person who creates stuff, they have no product. Do your art because you love it and everything else will fall into place. Stop cowering in the face of corporate suits. They need you more than you want to work for them.
@@mrmaison4924 exactly.
You can leave Adobe ecosystem. Did it 3 years ago. Affinity with Davinci. So here I am not bothered about the shit storm. Just enjoying UA-cam videos about it. 😇
7:33 Totally disagree with this point since I know exactly who you're referring to. Louis Rossmann uses those "aggressive" terms because they accurately describe the type of behavior shown by these companies. Many people's livelihoods revolve around these programs (as I'm sure you know), so there is really no reason to beat around the bush when describing the mentality of these massive profit-driven corporations, and the way they keep screwing over their customers.
There are other words he could use. Defend defend men who use the language of sexual violence to prove a point. Be better.
@@StudioBuilder i agree with the comment above. it shows a complete disregard for customer consent and louis rossmann is not in the wrong for calling it out as such.
you start using the product under one TOS. then you go to access your work after paying a monthly fee, and then suddenly you are forced to agree to a different contract then the one you sent payment under? Your work is being held hostage as a way to force you to agree to a different contract. There was no way to disagree to the terms to access your content. People have to keep their jobs so they really have no choice when they are in a situation like that.
Even if they dont profit off of your work per say, there are still ethical concerns in regards to work done under NDAs that are now being collected as part of these algorithms. People are worried on how that data is stored an encrypted because a leak could spell legal problems for people that use adobe products. And there is still the inability to cancel without a hefty fine. It does show a disregard for customer consent which is what Louis is getting at.
Changing the "Terms Of Service" after you've agreed to a contract is just BS dude. The newer terms are never favourable to the person paying. The idea that "this is typical of a company this large" doesn't make it right, just means they're all dodgy. Add to this Adobe's veiled GTFO cancellation fee, they deserve every bit of their dumpster fire.
They can do it, BUT you have to have option to NOT agree to the new terms and that is what was lacking, there was literally no: I do not accept button with new terms and this was the biggest issue, among the whole AI training stuff.
@@marikothecheetah9342 I think you missed a serious point. There was no "Do Not Agree" option. There was only an "I Agree" option. Not pressing "I Agree" meant clients not being able to access their own cloud content already stored there before the change in terms. To me that's a form of ransomware.
@@warrenslater3709 this is exactly, what I wrote: "there was literally no: I do not accept button with new terms and this was the biggest issue" THERE WAS NOT I DO NOT ACCEPT BUTTON. Is it clear enough or will you reiterate again what I wrote, stating I didn't get the point. *smh* And yes, they couldn't access their data if they clicked away, which meant they were forbidden to access the software they bought access to. I was answering in the context of the previous comment and lack of access to the software was NOT the topic of that comment.
@@marikothecheetah9342 My apologies, I misread your earlier comment
@@marikothecheetah9342 It's also amasing how the option to not agree, when it comes to software is 'uninstall it and never use it again. No, we will not in anyway compensate you for the fact that we just deprived you of the product you bought from us' (and note, claims of quantum uncertainty in the face of the law aside, software is a Product, not a Service. The use of servers for cloud storage, communications, or borrowing extra processing power? THAT is a service. Tech support is a service. The software is not.)
I am surprised of how much I have achieved once I decided to not use Adobe products, yes Affinity alone is not enough but there are many tools for those missing features, or even better there are other ways to obtain similar results. I do not criticize people for choosing one tool or the other, but what makes you a professional is not a set tools or the other but your skills of making the best of them.
As an amateur photographer I loved Lightroom, however this morning I cancelled my services and deleted everything from my computer.
I don’t like the way they do business, and I’m voting with my feet.
There's only one thing missing in these employer-made videos. A person blinking in Morse code "U-N-E-M-P-L-O-Y-M-E-N-T".
As far as I'm concerned, quite frankly Adobe has got no other option than to go back to perpetual licenses as an option in addition to subscriptions, like every other company does. Especially if people keep cancelling their Creative Cloud subscriptions which they have every right to do. Maybe then this will give other companies a warning shot, if they try and pull this crap too. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they have 'kind of' clarified things in the ToS, but it still doesn't change their scummy practices. Also is it just me, or in Jason Levine's video, does anyone get the feeling that his expressions kind of portray that he thinks that we're idiots for bringing this up, and kind of saying 'sorry, but we're not sorry. Deal with it'? That's the exact feeling I get.
As someone who enjoys photography but doesn't do it professionally, this is what finally motivated me to leave. There are reasonably priced photo editing software's that do most of what adobe does and it's a one time fee. I just can't justify paying a company a monthly fee to always be worried that they aren't looking out for their customers.
For my needs Affinity photo is good enough.
Generative AI is under the Umbrella of AI. They may not be using your content to train Gen AI but they may be training other AI’s and Those AI tools may train Gen AI. Or anything else!
We must regulate generative AI usage. Clearly corporations are incapable of regulating its use themselves.
Guy who works for Adobe won't explain the Terms of Use because he's not a lawyer...well, neither are the (vast majority of) people who have to agree to the thing. Someone save that clip to use in a lawsuit against Adobe (or corporation of choice) that throws lawyerese and legal vagueness at users their tou and tos (etc), for when one or the other consequently ends up screwing users over.
What Adobe has done with their ToU in the last month or so is incredibly scammy and is something you'd expect from a fly-by-night company that doesn't plan on being around for long...it's not something you expect from a company that's been in operation for so long that has had, for the most part, a high reputation. Does Adobe have new owners or a new CEO? They are certainly acting like a company taken over by a completely different crowd.
At the corporate executive level of psychopathy, marketing, PR and damage control is a direct replacement for ACTUAL transparency, honesty and integrity. Its all the same, because it's all a game, and the only object is to WIN.
As a photographer and someone with a bit of experience in cloud service, online security and some form of coding and legal work regarding customer asset. The whole thing is so easy to understand Adobe lies and they didn't do it good enough, the employee message is the most disgusting thing in this situation. To refuse to admitted their wrong doing and trying to save their business idea by using what can be describe as 'propaganda' campaign, by having people singing praise to their product.
I would suggest anyone with customer who are concern about NDA or leaking of information to move your workflow from adobe as far as possible. Remember we buy product not just for functionality but also trust in company to protect customer and if that trust can't be uphold then it's no long just the matter of price.
After my experience with the bait-and-switch subscription for Lightroom I will not use another Adobe product. It told me everything I need to know about how predatory the company is. They'll continue to mislead the public for profit as long as it remains profitable. I wouldn't trust anything they say.
I used to work in IT, and part of my job was dealing with our different clients Adobe Licensing mumbo jumbo. One of my least favorite aspects of the job was dealing with Adobe, as it was always a rough time. I still remember the time they gave one of our clients a free adobe creative cloud month, to EVERY single employee with adobe products. Then, when the free month expired, they started spamming the employees with big alert notices about how their license was about to expire. I had tickets for weeks with confused, concerned, and upset employees who thought they were about to lose their acrobat license, which is all they needed, but it was just the stupid free trial of creative cloud that was expiring. Adobe of course, did not make it obvious which license was expiring. They never even used those free month of CC!!
Affinity all the way. Still haven’t forgiven Adobe for destroying Macromedia.
Totally. The DoJ (or whatever US govt agency had to green-light the merger) should never have approved the merger.
Lets say you are doing work for hire. In that case, the copyright of whatever you create is not with you but with those who hire you to do that work.
In that case, you do not have a legal right to grant Adobe that perpertual sublicense at all. The people who hire you to do that work do have the right to do so, but demanding you grant this right simply means you need to obtain the right to grant Adobe that sublicense, or cannot legally use Adobe products.
Granting Adobe a sublicense on your own work is already problematic, but work for hire can be a legal rat's nest.
Exactly. In Canada, we don't have work-for-hire, but I get what you're saying.
Actually this case scenario is valid for any photoshop work you do for a client. i post produced a lot for big corporates. I wonder if they would agree to adobes term of use.
@@jensbronton Good point, yeah, it certainly also applies to that situation.
The moment you do not have the right to sublicense the work to Adobe, this is a legal rat's nest indeed. That could even be due to an exclusive license agreement with a client.
Auto-harvesting your paying customers' work to cut them out of the creative process is such a short-sighted kind of evil
you just helped me recognize my peers. I didn't know facial expressions are so powerful
While I'm not a photographer, I am a professional illustrator and have been for over 30 years. I imagine both of us have been using Photoshop and other Adobe products for about the same time. Thank you for this video. It clarifies some of the issues that have concerned me these past few months and answers some of my questions. Like you, I've been using their software for so long, I don't feel the pressure (yet) to make the jump into other creative alternatives. I'll definitely be checking out your other videos, particularly regarding this topic. Thank you for your level-headed analysis and without using clickbait, kneejerk tactics. You have a new subscriber...
Thanks for this enlightened view of where we're at currently. It will be interesting to follow the FTC case against Adobe, which no doubt will be a long winded and drawn out thing. My hope is that Adobe can recover from this and change it's careless and greed driven ways by offering it's users genuine options. For example I see nothing wrong with subscription based use of their software, so long as there are options available to 'own', either as a traditional purchase or as a rent to own variation.
Their lack of honesty and flexibility leaves a sour taste that is hard to wash away though.
I've seen a lot of videos about the recent Adobe terms and drama as I'm working on my migration to Affinity and I have to say this is one of the most comprehensive and thoughtfully explained videos I've seen on the topic. Some of the stuff you touch on like their attempt to win back public opinion with content creators/employees instead of directly I only discovered here and haven't heard from any other creators. You go well beyond the mass of surface-level explanation videos I've watched already. Great work!
Even though there is no permission button, they still cross the line and use your work to train AI silently, that's why they have cloud (Adobe fully controlled computer).
This whole situation reminds me of when Quark wanted companies to use a central activation server. Our company at that time had under a dozen branches using Quark Express. When quark went to a newer improved version one year, they wanted our company to create an activation server at one of the bigger branches which would allow other users at other (ie smaller) locations use Quark. What was never thought of is when storms or electrical outages happen, users would not be able to use the product from what we told by the sales reps at the time. Fortunately coupled at the time with a gigantic price jump per seat, our company said no. They then went to Adobe InDesign. Even though it can read Quark files there always had to be a lot of work done in regards to fonts. You really don't hear much about Quark these days in our industry. You are right though Adobe should have spelled it out on a blog instead of these insipid videos.
I canceled my subscription last night with no issues. I’m surprised to hear that so many people were getting hit with fees and having a rough time cancelling.
There's only a cancellation fee if you cancel within your first year after your first year of subscription you go month to month
Ohhh okay. I had the monthly subscription. When I heard about hidden cancellation fees, I was triple checking my bank account and email to see if any BS popped up and had to get it fixed. 😅
Studio Builder,
Thank your for a thorough review of the adobe fiasco. I'm only a picture taker not a photographer. I take pictures for fun. I really appreciate the tips and tricks shared by the pro world, but do not agree with the lengths some go to modify/enhance their work.
I can agree with most of you dissertation but have always suspected there was more going on than meets the eye. When adobe started forcing users to use the "creative cloud" to access some of the features of the programs, you had to ask yourself why. On one hand it could be adobe protecting their software, on the other hand it could be abobe wanted access to users work. Few were concerned. It appears pretty clear now what the end game of forcing users to use the "creative cloud" was all about, a fee source to train their ai. And to cast their efforts in stone, be legal and protecting the world, it's partially disguised as protecting users from creation pornography.
I switch to Capture One some time ago so am not affected, glad I followed my gut.
Again, thanks for what I believed was a detailed and honest review.
I have a bunch of videos on Capture One and more coming! I hope you stick around!
I work for Marvel and I was told in advance to quit my subscription to Adobe suddenly from the office and find an alternative. they did give me a list of options, so I downloaded Clip Art Studio (which they paid for) and I picked up from there. I learned from the offices editors that Marvel was gathering a lawsuit but was not sure what was the full extent of the claim.
I had a minor understanding of what was going on, and have read a little more afterwards - but also had been asked questions from friends whether or not i knew that our work was "owned by Adobe" now. A lot of fellow artists were losing their minds too. If I had been working through these changes, I might have been as upset about it - but I was working with my Army job so couldnt really focus on that tornado.
Thanks for your video; it helped to understand what was going on. I know I'm a little late to the party as to why all this was happening.
Things went downhill for Adobe years ago when they only offered a subscription, SaS model. They should have left the pay to own option in place, with OPTIONAL costs for MAINTENANCE or FEATURE SET updates. They should also have the option for their apps to remain disconnected from the cloud, as standalone products as in the old days. If I want to check for updates let me manually do the check. These sneaky and deceptive tactics will tarnish their rep for quite some time. It is a shame because their products are good, but at what cost you may ask. Well said in your video! Adobe and Microsoft are running neck and neck as they head for the finish line!
I have a yearly Adobe subscription and just asked today (as a kind of test 🙂) their online chat robot - or whatever one calls that automated answering thing "how can I cancel my yearly subscription?"
The answer was a link to cancel my subscription. When I clicked on it it asked "Do you want to cancel now? Then you won't be able to access your Adobe apps anymore. If you click on yes you will receive a confirmation email" I did not click on "yes" because it seems that I would immediately be cut off the apps though I had payed for a whole year in advance.
Their communication is - deliberately? - quite confusing.
Funny I got an ad after the video for Adobe Acrobat.
Thanks for the video.
Often, it's far more important and illuminating what people do NOT say than what they DO say.
Could you maybe outline what it is in other apps that don't meet your needs? It would be great to hear that from a professional photographer's perspective. Since I am not a photographer, I was able to easily switch to Affinity.
That's exactly what I'm working on for the next video.
@@StudioBuilder awesome
I'm glad they got sued I'm tired of software subscription models i hope microsoft 365 is next.
another question for Adobe -- are you using images collected during the default user permission setting to train your generative AI?
Fantastic video. I’m glad I didn’t watch any of the others that popped up in my feed, and accidentally picked yours. Great UCB shirt btw.
REALLY well done! Should be required viewing for any students majoring in PR or Business Communications....
I wasn't even aware of that opt-in option concerning providing your photos to help their ai models. But then again, I'm an amateur photographer but people's privacy is still very important for me. I rarely take people's pictures because of that still... this is unsettling.
Irony. The UA-cam ad at 15 minutes was for Adobe Stock.
Adobe: If you don't like it you can always cancel.
But if you do, you owe us an extortionate hidden cancellation fee as per the agreement hidden in a locked filing cabinet in the disused downstairs lavatory with the "Beware of the leopard" sign on it.
Totally transparent see?
I don't want the AI feature ! I never did ! can I get my privacy to work under nda ! apparently not
Thanks for this! I am a "keen amateur," but one who is TIRED OF BEING MISLED/LIED TO by Big Tech. So, I may ditch Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom(s) as I have Capture One Pro and On1 Photo Max 2024, BOTH of which meet my "keen amateur" needs. I will follow your videos to see how soon (or not) I leave Adobe. Note to your followers/subs: I have Affinity Photo 2, which is "pretty good," too. Also, Exposure 7 (which used to be Alien Exposure) is good, but I wonder if it is being continued beyond version 7. I am sure that portrait photographers would do fine with Capture One as it is constantly being improved (yes, I am a nerd who has to have them all...).
In my opinion, the only way out of this situation is a real alternative to Adobe. Not Gimp, not Affinity etc. We need software that really offers a high professional level. And we don't see that yet. So Adobe will continue to work like a monopolist :(.
The biggest problem is Photoshop and InDesign. The other programs can be replaced in some way.
AI ART IS THEFT. Saying "adobe doesnt own your work" and "Adobe CAN use your stuff to make AI stuff" is theft.
How funny to get an ad from Adobe on this video before it plays.
Like you, I've been using Illustrator, Aldus PhotoStyler then Photoshop & Aldus PageMaker then InDesign, professionally for over 30+ years...
I'm still on CS6 (and will be for as long as I can) because I can't bring myself to have my organization not owning the software it purchases. Plus I can still do everything and anything I need to do, still, in CS6...
Having said that, I just personally purchased the Affinity Suite for $85 on Saturday... I'll play around with it before commiting to it... Hopefully, it can meet my needs, and if it does, my organization will be users as well...
Great video!
Other creative companies should get on board. - A topic not talked about is the companies that spend money on developing presets, actions, titles, and effects for Adobe products. Will artists bother buying these if Adobe is doing everything they can to push people to a different platform?
Management in large companies is aware that the company needs legal advice to operate. Managers make the "business decision" as to whether they will seek legal advice and whether to follow that advice. Often the company's lawyers and their advice are not seen as assets that keep the company out of trouble, but obstacles to be overcome. To be clear, I'm not speaking about Adobe here or any company specifically. Rather, my comment is a general observation on the nature of companies trying to make decisions with the need to consider the law in making decisions. There is an inherent tension that exists between what is good business, and what represents an unacceptable level of legal risk. Sadly, too often the decision is make to proceed with the knowledge that while the legal risk is high, the legal consequences are manageable and can be mitigated sufficiently. But when this calculation is wrong, the liability can bankrupt a company.
legal department is the heaviest when it comes to payments, right after CEOs.
Great video, thanks. I've also been using Adobe products since they weren't Adobe products. It's not as if there isn't precedent in crisis management, where for example, a company turned a disastrous oil-spill into a positive. I suspect Adobe's problem is that they had lawyers managing this. We can all smell a lawyer a mile off. A heart-felt personal message from the president, assuring users that he would sort it out, would have gone a long way. Instead, their bad handling has been framed as the fault of their customers. The especially idiotic thing is that AI will undermine their professional content creators - illustrators, page layout designers and photographers.
BOYCOTT Adobe.
Macromedia, there's a name I haven't heard in a while.
*sigh*
I've been drawing for 50 years. when I first went digital I went with clip studio (manga studio at the time) cause it was a very inexpensive way to jump in and learn, then moved over to photoshop. I've been using Photoshop since version 5.5. I wasn't happy when they went subscription but I bit the bullet because it's photoshop, the standard right? But now I find myself moving back to clip studio because no sub and no BS. It won't take me long to bring my process into clip studio and get it up to speed... and once that's done, Adobe and I may be parting ways for good.
We just found out and believe that disabling app usage and product improvements in the app settings - will not going to actually deactivate them, unless you disable these within your creative cloud account under account security -> data and privacy settings. Even though within app settings these were disabled, under our account privacy settings where enabled by default. Make sure you turn them off as it connects to all of the cloud services. Hopefully this does it, but we cannot be sure anymore!
I so looking forward for Adobe alternative video.
You say that Adobe doesn't "own" my files, but I think that's a legal term. If Adobe controls my ability to use my files,, it's a moot point.
I can't access files I own.
I can't edit files I own.
I can't open files I own.
is very similar to :
I can't access files I don't own.
I can't edit files I don't own.
I can't open files I don't own.
The terminology may differ, but the end result is identical.
Adobe: desensitization mode enabled.
Since you are willing to forget, they will try this same thing later. Simple rule - do not give money to the companies that you do not trust. Look at Windows. Everyone knew that they want your data but people adapted so they pushed Cortana, Internet Explorer.. No one liked it but again, everyone adapted so they are pushing forward - Recall. Everyone is hating it so they make it disabled by default. Everyone will adapt to the idea that it's in your computer and then they will push again and make it enabled by default. Just stop using these products ffs.. Only adapt and learn to use products that you can trust.
As a psychologist (with a background in risk communication), their approach sounds rather like corporate narcissism. I don't see another way to explain how they can't see how they would destroy trust and therefore loyalty, persist with this strategy which is all in their favour, and that they don't appear to be aware that we can see what they are doing. Framing, yep! Loved the facial disgust bit, 😅. I used to use and teach Creative suite but left them several years ago as I didn't like being trapped in such an ecosystem culture. Great products, but there are alternatives from others more trustworthy.
I moved on to Affinity Photo. Great product! Inexpensive, no bloat and has all the features I need. I had enough of Adobe.
I remember Adobe when Photoshop was at 1.0 and before they started gobbling other companies up. They were a pleasure to deal with. Same story as all companies - there is no avoiding going full corporate as you grow.
I’m a researcher in the related field (not at Adobe) and at the same time an Adobe cloud user. So I have mixed feelings on this.
From research point of view, high quality data is the key for this kind of product to achieve high performance. Our team struggles on this all the time. Luckily enough we have some capacity to create the data ourselves by hiring professionals. And with the help of automation, we can collect mass data by our own. Even though we still hope we can get access to high quality data manually crafted by talented artists.
But as much as I understand the Adobe’s research goal, I have to say Adobe can do much better on this. Instead of forcing every single customer on this agreement, Adobe can simply encourage people to participate their projects, by awarding those who choose to participate, and by paying professionals to access their work. I keep my family photos in their cloud and I’m sure those photos have near zero value to them. I feel very uncomfortable knowing they can access my family photos, especially someone may be looking at them, labeling them and judging them. I do not want my family photos appearing in their research report with all kind of manipulations by algorithm. As I mentioned before, there’s a legal and ethical way of doing research which may cost a little more than nothing, I hope Adobe can choose the right way.
This is a really great insight!
"I keep my family photos in their cloud and I’m sure those photos have near zero value to them." - wow... I admire your trust and child-like approach to life. :D These photos do not have sentimental value for them, like it does for you but face recognition software, generative AI that needs tons of data to spit photographs actually will find your family photos very useful. Agencies, third parties Adobe has contact with may also be interested in what your family looks like. But you do you and do store your stuff in Cloud happily, so others can use it they way they see fit :D
@@marikothecheetah9342 Private cloud storage is not considered public. Thus any use of that in a product without licensing is illegal. (Our legal department suggests against using even public data for training.) This is why Adobe updated its terms when they wanted to use them which is what I and others are complaining here.
@@r3d260 yes, and AI models were trained on legally and fairly obtained data that people rightly consider their IP. :P
And no, complaint at first was that a) Adobe opted their users in without their knowledge and did not give them choice when first updated TOS (there was no 'I do not accept button anywhere)'. Second: they've finally removed the option altogether not feeling too bad about it and just claiming they wanted to improve users' experience. They have finally updated their TOS and in it they stated that they may access user's content to review it to check if it's in accordance to the terms of use.
They also imply they can screen the content in search for illegal stuff, usu. that of fans of children (so to speak) but again - is this really the role of Adobe? Don't think so. It's nice of them to claim they also monitor your stuff to catch phishing and the like and prevent other from stealing your data. If it really is their aim - nice of them to do so, I give them this one.
Furthermore: they claim their licensing is limited but they don't shy away from stating that they use machine learning in their process of reviewing the data "in order to improve user experience". They are also the host of stuff that people have on Adobe servers, which means they can 'review ' it to their heart's content.
Additionally, what I found 'cute' is that Adobe stated in their blog that in some countries they have to put data protection agreement with users, which would imply, that in the U.S. your data is everything, but not protected when handled by them.
And finally: "Access is needed to deliver some of our most innovative cloud-based features such as Photoshop Neural Filters, Liquid Mode or Remove Background. " - why weren't they built into the programme itself? Surely such huge programme would still handle yet another option?
This is the problem with using the best softwares on the market; they are often owned by big corporations who won’t hesitate even a second to screw over their customers in order to make some extra bucks.
Sometimes, perhaps it would be a good idea to avoid giving in to the greed of using the best software, just to avoid all the problems that these big corporations give us.
For example, one piece of software that could act as a Photoshop alternative would be Gimp. It’s free and open source. I haven’t learned and tested all its features yet, but my guess is that it’s probably not as powerful as Photoshop. But at least it won’t use our data to train AI, act like police-wannabes and use AI to (often falsely) flag pictures, hold your account hostage if you don’t agree to their updated terms of service etc etc.
I have never used any of Adobes softwares (except the free version of Acrobat Reader which I’ve uninstalled again a few years back) let alone paid for the rental of any of their products. I tend to avoid subscription models altogether, especially for software provided by large corps like Adobe, Apple, Google and so forth. Although I can understand it’s not powerful enough to suit everyone, I’m personally perfectly happy using Gimp.
The problem is not a lack of clarity, but rather the broadly written way Adobe requires users to give Adobe permissions to:
-License your work
-Sublicense your work
-Sell your work
-Train their AI on your work, create derivative works and sell that
-snoop through your content at will
-ban your account if they find anything they don’t like, including perfectly legal content that they find “objectionable”