You said that "Adobe doesn't train generative AI on your data". Can you assert that Adobe (or any other third party which might have received user data from Adobe) has never, does never, and never will train generative AI on user data under past or present ToS?
From the TOS: We will not (and cannot) grant a sublicense to a third party that is greater than the rights you give us. For further clarification on training, see Section 4.3, sub-section C Parts 1 & 2. www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html
@@jasonlevinevideo "We will not use these rights to train generative AI models on your Content and will not use the sublicense rights to have anyone else train generative AI models on your Content, except at your specific request (like you asking us to train a custom model on your Content)." I feel like the language is still weak here. "We won't do it and can't sublicense it." In principal covers the bases, but it's shy of an actual prohibition. Adobe say they won't do these two specific things. There is probably a lawyer somewhere who can loophole that. "to HAVE anyone else".. but could they *permit* someone else? I am not a lawyer, but I do see a distinction between Having my neighbor remove a tree from the yard (I paid for this) vs permitting them to remove a tree (they wanted to and I didn't stop them). Maybe the law sees it differently, but it feels weak. I would rather something much stronger and firmer: "Adobe does not have the right to perform any form of AI Training on your Content in this agreement except the option to improve adobe product and services, which may use machine vision and can be opted out of at any time. No Adobe partner, contractor, sub contractor, vendor, supplier, affiliate, employee or any other business relation has any right to perform any form of AI Training on your content under this agreement. Adobe explicitly agrees not to perform or permit any business relation to perform such training on your Content without prior approval. Adobe may offer to create custom AI Models for You, based on your Content. Any such training will be governed by a separate and dedicated agreement for that function at the time such training is requested." You know, the kind of thing a lawyer writes when they want it to be absolutely certain that no one, anywhere, will survive in court if they try something stupid. Make it absolutely clear that there's no realm where it will be permitted and take responsibility for ensuring that.
what a sneery condescending video. And you clearly cannot comprehend that “examples” are not limiting; it doesn’t matter what examples you can cite for the various permissions being granted, if the EULA does not specifically constrain Adobe for ONLY THOSE PURPOSES then your “examples” are completely meaningless. Plus, you lied. Adobe has been usimg customer images for generative AI. There have been preference settings to specifically request this. Adobe Stock images are well understood to have been used to train AI. Adobe’s documentation specically says that stuff on Behance can be used for AI training. Perhaps what you and oher Adobe reps mean when you say ‘we do not use customer images to train AIs’ is ‘we do not use customer images to train AIs without permission’… but Adobe has a track record of sneakily obtaining that permission by using opt out flags that got turned on in our preferences, and Adobe Stock users got completely blindsided by Adobe stealing their jobs, alhough I’m sure you can point to a Adobe Stock EULA clause that Adobe uses to justify the use of the Adobe Stock library to train AI… it just wasn’t in the EULA as a clause that said ‘you agree to let Adobe destroy your livelihood’ and didn’t get noticed. Instead, it was hidden in innocuous sounding ‘common boilerplate’ just like now, and you are sneering as you misinterpret this current lot of boilerplate. Again, it doesn’t matter if the doc says: ‘like’ or for example’ or ‘such as’, it needs to say ‘soley for these specific purposes’. Or it means nothing.
I think the anger is over the vague way this was presented in the first place. Users need complete transparency, not legal jargon. These terms of service should be written so the average user can understand EXACTY what they are signing. None of these specific aspects of the agreement should leave room for interpretation. I'm a professional editor and have been very frustrated by the lack of clarity. User's like myself, who spend nearly a thousand dollars a year with Adobe, just want honesty. Thanks for clarifying this, but you shouldn't have had to do this in the first place had the terms been clearly defined and not open to interpretation. I do think all users should read this newly updated agreement as it finally spells out what the terms mean.
I appreciate the comment, Stryk, and I can't disagree with the point you're making. Hopefully this does provide a little more clarity, now and moving forward. Thanks.
@@jasonlevinevideo Thanks Jason. I've loved all the progress Premiere has made over the past few years. I also use Resolve and Avid, but Premiere has been my favorite for quite awhile. I'm hoping that all of this blows over soon. Moving forward, I'm hoping that the higher ups at Adobe can try their best to but the client first. That is the mindset I have when I edit my projects, and it would be a giant disservice if Adobe makes more moves to alienate its fanbase.
0:25 Ok, Adobe people need to stop telling us Adobe DOESN'T train generative AI models on our content. The community's question has always been whether Adobe DID do that when they opted us in by default. We already know they don't anymore because the checkbox in Photoshop's Product Improvement settings has been removed since the latest software update. ua-cam.com/video/DkFpWDYwo1k/v-deo.htmlsi=m72K7D5yoLMy7bxe&t=171 Also, my condolences to all Adobe Stock contributors.
Your sanctimonious tone is not a good reflection on Adobe. I’m pretty sure Adobe didn’t need you to lecture customers, and make this disaster even worse.
"We don't train generative AI models on your data." - Jason Levine "I give Adobe permission to use my images and associated data to train Adobe's generative AI models." - Adobe Am I going to believe my lying eyes or Adobe and Jason Levine?
I am certain of Jason Levine's integrity. It's disheartening to see Adobe deploying their chief evangelists in an effort to extricate themselves from this predicament. Jason, it's unlikely you'll read this, but as with most things, it boils down to trust and integrity-qualities that Adobe, your employer, seems to have forfeited. I fully grasp that you must promote their interests and ensure the flow of Adobe's revenue. Your tone suggests a disconnect from the customers' sentiments and a lack of transparency. I believe future reflections on Adobe will reveal the company's opaque tactics in customer relations. Consequently, after years of utilizing and instructing with Adobe Premiere, I've transitioned all my professional and personal software to DaVinci Resolve, leaving no trace of Adobe applications behind. Keep Well, stay true to your heart.
Can you define the word "generative"? And how is a "generative AI" different from _other_ types of AI? Can you just say "we don't train any AI models with your data?" It really irks me when people don't use words correctly. So difficult to tell if ignorant or malicious.
Hey Jason, We met in person at Max. Great overview! We’re having a livestream event for our members of Adobe Premiere Pro Editors (on FB). Hoping to have this video play during the presentation if that’s okay with you. Is there a ‘proper’ way to ask for permission? TIA
Hey A.P.P.E.! Nice to meet you...again. Thanks for the comment; and yes, by all means feel free to play this video. Any additional clarity we can bring to communities is awesome.
Love it when someone speaks in plain English instead of the legal mumble jumble. Hope all corporations can learn from this that just having a bunch of lawyers to write the terms and conditions can be counter-productive.
@@codykonior Even a verbal agreement, in plain english is legally binding, just so you know. Now whether the other party will challenge the agreement in court is another matter. But that applies to any agreement, no matter how it was written.
@@codykonior The 'plain english' is purely for people who don't understand the legal terminolgy. 'IF' there was a legal case the lawyers would use the legal terminology ... which translates to what Jason explained. When I learned French in school the teachers would say "In English this French word means ...." but when I'm in France I would use the French word ... not the English version / explanation. Vous Comprenez?
Sorry Jason, Adobe lost a lot of customers with their latest move. I loved learning from you for over a decade now. Thank you for your contributions but Adobe can kiss our collective butts.
Hi Patrick. I sincerely appreciate the comment all the same, and I understand where you're coming from. We're trying to provide clarity for the community, but it should have been more clear from the onset.
Probably, trying to convey an "everything is fine, you guys are making a big deal out of nothing" attitude, you ended up sounding a little condescending, in fact.
@@jasonlevinevideo Your tone, delivery, and wording suggest otherwise. Every bit of this is condescending. Either you shouldn't have used that AI to write your script or you should've had someone else do the video. This kind of delivery will not calm your customers, it'll piss them off. Here, let me give you an example of how you probably could have done this better: "Hi, I'm Jason, from Adobe. We recently planned to update our terms of service and it hasn't gone over well. We made some mistakes and I think everybody does. To start on fixing that, we're releasing new terms of service which will go into effect one month from now on XX/XX/XX. We hope this will give you, our community, ample time to read them over and make the best decision for your creative projects and businesses. I'm here today to walk through the new terms of service. Joining me is not one of our lawyers, but an outside lawyer, unaffiliated with Adobe, except to answer questions for this video. You should get similar answers from talking with most lawyers. There may be some variances from jurisdiction to jurisdiction so take this as a general explainer more than legal advice. We're not giving that out today. There have also been some concerns about the Product Improvement section of your Adobe Account. For privacy reasons, I can't show you the live improvement system, but we have a testing system made with data created entirely in-house so we can validate new features before they go live. You can see here that we're using some machine vision to detect places where the magic wand tool didn't work as well as we would have liked. The system is gathering data to help our engineers improve the magic wand. Sometimes we need to take a human look at this type of content, such as this image here. The system thinks there's an error in how the colors are setup in this document. Data from this will help us decide if we should change how and where document color settings are displayed. (Or whatever relevant part of that you can actually display) We do train AIs, but we are trying to be ethical about it. This is a complex subject and as with all new technological developments, there will be growing pains. Our Firefly AI was trained entirely in-house on data from our Adobe Stock program. We used only content submitted to Adobe Stock, which you have to sign up for, agree to terms for, and then specifically upload to there. Nothing you upload to your Creative Cloud storage or that you make with Photoshop, Premiere, Illustrator, or our other tools is being automatically used in any AI processing. You can use the link below to access your Adobe Account and opt out of our product improvement. I hope you won't, but the choice there is yours. There will also be a link below for cancelling your creative cloud or other Adobe Subscription. I hope you won't do that either, but we need to be a customer first company and the first step in that process is making your creative life easier even if it's parting ways. I said this was how we start fixing the trust we lost with the community. We will be watching your feedback, reading the comments on this video, and deciding what other steps we take going forward. We want to integrate AI tools and give you better creative technology, we just need to do it in a way that works for you." Yea, that's a longer script. It's also a more informative, friendly, and entertaining script. I could maybe compare you to someone like Gamers Nexus. Your video makes me think worse of Adobe for how you talk to your customers and how you approached this entire thing. Gamer's Nexus on the other hand, presents clear, data-backed, demonstrative material for the subjects of his videos. People walk away from a GN video with trust in his integrity and commitment to the audience. I came away from your video wondering if I really need to keep Premiere around when Resolve has a perpetual license for the studio version. You keep saying "as any creative knows" "anyone in the music industry knows". I think I can turn that line around for you and the rest of adobe: As any business professional knows, losing your customers is the most direct route to bankruptcy.
Good clarification. I could tell from some of the uproar when this originally was picking up steam that a lot of the language was obviously related to hosting content in Adobe's cloud and was reasonable in that context. I think there is still a concern in general though. Those were all great examples of reasonable things Adobe may do with user content but is not the limit or extent. I believe the limits or what Adobe agrees NOT to do are much less defined, so there could always be much less reasonable liberties being taken that are not stated. I also think there were some other concerning paragraphs that weren't addressed here but I'd have to go back and refresh my memory.
I appreciate that. The link is in the description with the full updated TOU and new explanations to accompany the language. If you have more specific Qs not answered there, let me know and I can run them up the flagpole.
First of all thank you Jason for all you do. A lot of people’s anger and distrust was amplified by Adobe’s slow response to the TOS statement. It made users feel that Adobe doesn’t care. It’s an ongoing perception that this did not help. Adobe has a long way to go to build user trust back. If they want to get on top of this they should wave the cancellation fees and nip the FTC investigation and this PR disaster in the bud
Im not a expert in facial expressions recognition… But you are definitely disgusted with adobe users…all in behalf of adobe… 2:52 I wouldn’t forgive adobe a grain of rice after this video… poor representation of defense…
I can't disagree, Wes. Moving forward, I'm hoping we can avoid these issues with better language and clearer explanations upfront. Appreciate the comment!
Funny thing is in this particular video of all others where one would want to project a more “honest” look You are wearing these glasses which reflect this blue computer / led light? right over your eyes as a spooky android kind overlay giving the complete opposite subliminal message… needed a more organized setup.
Guys it’s not the glasses fault per se. Just needed some prep work on how this setup comes out on camera, adjusting the lighting source etc. Especially for this issue which is quite different than all the great a/v tutorials you make where we focus on the app UI etc.
@@EvanFotis It would have been so easy to just use a softbox instead of whatever harsh light that is. Which, it's ironic as hell. How many times did he say "as any X would know." Any videographer would know: be careful where you put the sharp lights if you have shiny, reflective things on set. Which I feel like it's almost universally known. It's so rare that I see someone with such sharp reflections in their glasses these days. Even common lights for zoom calls I think are softer and more diffuse.
I miss using CS, workflow worked great for me. I spent thousands on CS a bit as a pro but most just for myself because it brought me joy. I’m disabled and on limited income. But even if I were like I use to have a fulfilling career I would never go subscription. My last purchase was grandfathered CS6 that is now unusable unless I go back to an old OS. To me art is therapeutic and losing this has been a major blow to me. Adobe you suck, yes there are other alternatives. Your software are great but your morality and ethics are loathsome.
Many, but not all creators care deeply about others' use of their content. Thanks for explaining the updated TOS. Sharing ain't always easy, but when we sound like these guys we're doing something wrong... :D ua-cam.com/video/x6XT7FDSdn8/v-deo.html
*First Adobe screws customers with their restrictive and punitive subscriptions. **Then they change the unreadable terms to give themselves a licence to your work. ***Then they get some smug git who looks like an Afghan Hound to give us a condescending lecture about how we just didn't understand the big words they used. THIS is why thousands of us are leaving Adobe as fast as we can and going out of our way to learn different tools. See ya!
And deleting comments.. I commented twice that got deleted. Once just pointed out that Adobe's language has loopholes. And they could have used much stronger words on their AI stance.
are they paying you enough to humiliate you like this?
OK so apart from patronising people what guarantees do you have that you won't use people's work for AI?
So why was there a checkbox, about training your generative AI, in settings, before it was updated, and removed?
You said that "Adobe doesn't train generative AI on your data". Can you assert that Adobe (or any other third party which might have received user data from Adobe) has never, does never, and never will train generative AI on user data under past or present ToS?
From the TOS: We will not (and cannot) grant a sublicense to a third party that is greater than the rights you give us. For further clarification on training, see Section 4.3, sub-section C Parts 1 & 2. www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html
@@jasonlevinevideo You didn't answer his question.
@@jasonlevinevideo Thanks, but that doesn't answer my question. Could you please address those concerns?
According to TOS link he provided, they used the stock images to train the AI and still do.
@@jasonlevinevideo
"We will not use these rights to train generative AI models on your Content and will not use the sublicense rights to have anyone else train generative AI models on your Content, except at your specific request (like you asking us to train a custom model on your Content)."
I feel like the language is still weak here. "We won't do it and can't sublicense it." In principal covers the bases, but it's shy of an actual prohibition. Adobe say they won't do these two specific things. There is probably a lawyer somewhere who can loophole that.
"to HAVE anyone else".. but could they *permit* someone else? I am not a lawyer, but I do see a distinction between Having my neighbor remove a tree from the yard (I paid for this) vs permitting them to remove a tree (they wanted to and I didn't stop them). Maybe the law sees it differently, but it feels weak.
I would rather something much stronger and firmer:
"Adobe does not have the right to perform any form of AI Training on your Content in this agreement except the option to improve adobe product and services, which may use machine vision and can be opted out of at any time. No Adobe partner, contractor, sub contractor, vendor, supplier, affiliate, employee or any other business relation has any right to perform any form of AI Training on your content under this agreement. Adobe explicitly agrees not to perform or permit any business relation to perform such training on your Content without prior approval.
Adobe may offer to create custom AI Models for You, based on your Content. Any such training will be governed by a separate and dedicated agreement for that function at the time such training is requested."
You know, the kind of thing a lawyer writes when they want it to be absolutely certain that no one, anywhere, will survive in court if they try something stupid. Make it absolutely clear that there's no realm where it will be permitted and take responsibility for ensuring that.
what a sneery condescending video. And you clearly cannot comprehend that “examples” are not limiting; it doesn’t matter what examples you can cite for the various permissions being granted, if the EULA does not specifically constrain Adobe for ONLY THOSE PURPOSES then your “examples” are completely meaningless. Plus, you lied. Adobe has been usimg customer images for generative AI. There have been preference settings to specifically request this. Adobe Stock images are well understood to have been used to train AI. Adobe’s documentation specically says that stuff on Behance can be used for AI training. Perhaps what you and oher Adobe reps mean when you say ‘we do not use customer images to train AIs’ is ‘we do not use customer images to train AIs without permission’… but Adobe has a track record of sneakily obtaining that permission by using opt out flags that got turned on in our preferences, and Adobe Stock users got completely blindsided by Adobe stealing their jobs, alhough I’m sure you can point to a Adobe Stock EULA clause that Adobe uses to justify the use of the Adobe Stock library to train AI… it just wasn’t in the EULA as a clause that said ‘you agree to let Adobe destroy your livelihood’ and didn’t get noticed. Instead, it was hidden in innocuous sounding ‘common boilerplate’ just like now, and you are sneering as you misinterpret this current lot of boilerplate. Again, it doesn’t matter if the doc says: ‘like’ or for example’ or ‘such as’, it needs to say ‘soley for these specific purposes’. Or it means nothing.
I think the anger is over the vague way this was presented in the first place. Users need complete transparency, not legal jargon. These terms of service should be written so the average user can understand EXACTY what they are signing. None of these specific aspects of the agreement should leave room for interpretation. I'm a professional editor and have been very frustrated by the lack of clarity. User's like myself, who spend nearly a thousand dollars a year with Adobe, just want honesty. Thanks for clarifying this, but you shouldn't have had to do this in the first place had the terms been clearly defined and not open to interpretation. I do think all users should read this newly updated agreement as it finally spells out what the terms mean.
I appreciate the comment, Stryk, and I can't disagree with the point you're making. Hopefully this does provide a little more clarity, now and moving forward. Thanks.
@@jasonlevinevideo Thanks Jason. I've loved all the progress Premiere has made over the past few years. I also use Resolve and Avid, but Premiere has been my favorite for quite awhile. I'm hoping that all of this blows over soon. Moving forward, I'm hoping that the higher ups at Adobe can try their best to but the client first. That is the mindset I have when I edit my projects, and it would be a giant disservice if Adobe makes more moves to alienate its fanbase.
Totally get it, and I'm with you. They are watching/listening and taking this feedback very seriously. Thanks again.
Wonderful. Hey, if somebody buys royalty-free music and the company folds, can you still use the music??
0:25 Ok, Adobe people need to stop telling us Adobe DOESN'T train generative AI models on our content. The community's question has always been whether Adobe DID do that when they opted us in by default.
We already know they don't anymore because the checkbox in Photoshop's Product Improvement settings has been removed since the latest software update. ua-cam.com/video/DkFpWDYwo1k/v-deo.htmlsi=m72K7D5yoLMy7bxe&t=171
Also, my condolences to all Adobe Stock contributors.
wow this video makes me want to unsub even more, shame I cant without a BS cancellation fee
Your sanctimonious tone is not a good reflection on Adobe. I’m pretty sure Adobe didn’t need you to lecture customers, and make this disaster even worse.
Your tone is reminiscent of someone ridiculing a bunch of subscribers for being concerned. We don't know you like that and it actually hurt.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm speaking as I normally speak, merely trying to inform.
@@jasonlevinevideo
Ok.
"We don't train generative AI models on your data." - Jason Levine
"I give Adobe permission to use my images and associated data to train Adobe's generative AI models." - Adobe
Am I going to believe my lying eyes or Adobe and Jason Levine?
I am certain of Jason Levine's integrity. It's disheartening to see Adobe deploying their chief evangelists in an effort to extricate themselves from this predicament.
Jason, it's unlikely you'll read this, but as with most things, it boils down to trust and integrity-qualities that Adobe, your employer, seems to have forfeited.
I fully grasp that you must promote their interests and ensure the flow of Adobe's revenue.
Your tone suggests a disconnect from the customers' sentiments and a lack of transparency. I believe future reflections on Adobe will reveal the company's opaque tactics in customer relations.
Consequently, after years of utilizing and instructing with Adobe Premiere, I've transitioned all my professional and personal software to DaVinci Resolve, leaving no trace of Adobe applications behind.
Keep Well, stay true to your heart.
Can you define the word "generative"? And how is a "generative AI" different from _other_ types of AI? Can you just say "we don't train any AI models with your data?" It really irks me when people don't use words correctly. So difficult to tell if ignorant or malicious.
Hey Jason,
We met in person at Max.
Great overview!
We’re having a livestream event for our members of Adobe Premiere Pro Editors (on FB). Hoping to have this video play during the presentation if that’s okay with you.
Is there a ‘proper’ way to ask for permission?
TIA
Hey A.P.P.E.! Nice to meet you...again. Thanks for the comment; and yes, by all means feel free to play this video. Any additional clarity we can bring to communities is awesome.
Love it when someone speaks in plain English instead of the legal mumble jumble. Hope all corporations can learn from this that just having a bunch of lawyers to write the terms and conditions can be counter-productive.
Thanks so much, Peter!
The plain English isn’t legally binding.
@@codykonior Even a verbal agreement, in plain english is legally binding, just so you know. Now whether the other party will challenge the agreement in court is another matter. But that applies to any agreement, no matter how it was written.
@@codykonior The 'plain english' is purely for people who don't understand the legal terminolgy. 'IF' there was a legal case the lawyers would use the legal terminology ... which translates to what Jason explained. When I learned French in school the teachers would say "In English this French word means ...." but when I'm in France I would use the French word ... not the English version / explanation. Vous Comprenez?
Sorry Jason, Adobe lost a lot of customers with their latest move. I loved learning from you for over a decade now. Thank you for your contributions but Adobe can kiss our collective butts.
++
The industry still uses Adobe and doesn't care about this sensationalist "backlash" by UA-camrs
@@Left_it LOL. The "industry". Delusional.
@@Left_it Obviously Adobe knows it is a big deal otherwise they wouldn't be rolling out this damage control campaign.
Hi Patrick. I sincerely appreciate the comment all the same, and I understand where you're coming from. We're trying to provide clarity for the community, but it should have been more clear from the onset.
You seem kind of spitefull....How about taking customers worries seriously?
Nothing spiteful from my side. Just providing some clarity on the terms.
Probably, trying to convey an "everything is fine, you guys are making a big deal out of nothing" attitude, you ended up sounding a little condescending, in fact.
@@jasonlevinevideo Your tone, delivery, and wording suggest otherwise. Every bit of this is condescending. Either you shouldn't have used that AI to write your script or you should've had someone else do the video. This kind of delivery will not calm your customers, it'll piss them off.
Here, let me give you an example of how you probably could have done this better:
"Hi, I'm Jason, from Adobe.
We recently planned to update our terms of service and it hasn't gone over well. We made some mistakes and I think everybody does. To start on fixing that, we're releasing new terms of service which will go into effect one month from now on XX/XX/XX. We hope this will give you, our community, ample time to read them over and make the best decision for your creative projects and businesses.
I'm here today to walk through the new terms of service. Joining me is not one of our lawyers, but an outside lawyer, unaffiliated with Adobe, except to answer questions for this video. You should get similar answers from talking with most lawyers. There may be some variances from jurisdiction to jurisdiction so take this as a general explainer more than legal advice. We're not giving that out today.
There have also been some concerns about the Product Improvement section of your Adobe Account. For privacy reasons, I can't show you the live improvement system, but we have a testing system made with data created entirely in-house so we can validate new features before they go live. You can see here that we're using some machine vision to detect places where the magic wand tool didn't work as well as we would have liked. The system is gathering data to help our engineers improve the magic wand. Sometimes we need to take a human look at this type of content, such as this image here. The system thinks there's an error in how the colors are setup in this document. Data from this will help us decide if we should change how and where document color settings are displayed.
(Or whatever relevant part of that you can actually display)
We do train AIs, but we are trying to be ethical about it. This is a complex subject and as with all new technological developments, there will be growing pains. Our Firefly AI was trained entirely in-house on data from our Adobe Stock program. We used only content submitted to Adobe Stock, which you have to sign up for, agree to terms for, and then specifically upload to there. Nothing you upload to your Creative Cloud storage or that you make with Photoshop, Premiere, Illustrator, or our other tools is being automatically used in any AI processing.
You can use the link below to access your Adobe Account and opt out of our product improvement. I hope you won't, but the choice there is yours.
There will also be a link below for cancelling your creative cloud or other Adobe Subscription. I hope you won't do that either, but we need to be a customer first company and the first step in that process is making your creative life easier even if it's parting ways.
I said this was how we start fixing the trust we lost with the community. We will be watching your feedback, reading the comments on this video, and deciding what other steps we take going forward. We want to integrate AI tools and give you better creative technology, we just need to do it in a way that works for you."
Yea, that's a longer script. It's also a more informative, friendly, and entertaining script.
I could maybe compare you to someone like Gamers Nexus. Your video makes me think worse of Adobe for how you talk to your customers and how you approached this entire thing. Gamer's Nexus on the other hand, presents clear, data-backed, demonstrative material for the subjects of his videos. People walk away from a GN video with trust in his integrity and commitment to the audience. I came away from your video wondering if I really need to keep Premiere around when Resolve has a perpetual license for the studio version.
You keep saying "as any creative knows" "anyone in the music industry knows". I think I can turn that line around for you and the rest of adobe:
As any business professional knows, losing your customers is the most direct route to bankruptcy.
Good clarification. I could tell from some of the uproar when this originally was picking up steam that a lot of the language was obviously related to hosting content in Adobe's cloud and was reasonable in that context.
I think there is still a concern in general though. Those were all great examples of reasonable things Adobe may do with user content but is not the limit or extent. I believe the limits or what Adobe agrees NOT to do are much less defined, so there could always be much less reasonable liberties being taken that are not stated.
I also think there were some other concerning paragraphs that weren't addressed here but I'd have to go back and refresh my memory.
I appreciate that. The link is in the description with the full updated TOU and new explanations to accompany the language. If you have more specific Qs not answered there, let me know and I can run them up the flagpole.
so you think adobe subscribers are dumb with the facial expressions huh
First of all thank you Jason for all you do. A lot of people’s anger and distrust was amplified by Adobe’s slow response to the TOS statement. It made users feel that Adobe doesn’t care. It’s an ongoing perception that this did not help. Adobe has a long way to go to build user trust back. If they want to get on top of this they should wave the cancellation fees and nip the FTC investigation and this PR disaster in the bud
Appreciate the comment, Ron.
Im not a expert in facial expressions recognition…
But you are definitely disgusted with adobe users…all in behalf of adobe… 2:52
I wouldn’t forgive adobe a grain of rice after this video… poor representation of defense…
A long way from Cool Edit.
Why didn't the TOS just explain it like you just did? Would have saved a lot of heartburn.
I can't disagree, Wes. Moving forward, I'm hoping we can avoid these issues with better language and clearer explanations upfront. Appreciate the comment!
Funny thing is in this particular video of all others where one would want to project a more “honest” look
You are wearing these glasses which reflect this blue computer / led light? right over your eyes as a spooky android kind overlay giving the complete opposite subliminal message… needed a more organized setup.
It sucks wearing glasses. Getting old sucks.
don't worry, @EvanFotis... one day you'll be able to professionally edit a video too. until then, keep reaching! #excelsior
Guys it’s not the glasses fault per se.
Just needed some prep work on how this setup comes out on camera, adjusting the lighting source etc. Especially for this issue which is quite different than all the great a/v tutorials you make where we focus on the app UI etc.
@@EvanFotis It would have been so easy to just use a softbox instead of whatever harsh light that is. Which, it's ironic as hell. How many times did he say "as any X would know."
Any videographer would know: be careful where you put the sharp lights if you have shiny, reflective things on set.
Which I feel like it's almost universally known. It's so rare that I see someone with such sharp reflections in their glasses these days. Even common lights for zoom calls I think are softer and more diffuse.
@@RazgrizAlphaONE Ok guys, point taken.
I miss using CS, workflow worked great for me. I spent thousands on CS a bit as a pro but most just for myself because it brought me joy. I’m disabled and on limited income. But even if I were like I use to have a fulfilling career I would never go subscription. My last purchase was grandfathered CS6 that is now unusable unless I go back to an old OS. To me art is therapeutic and losing this has been a major blow to me. Adobe you suck, yes there are other alternatives. Your software are great but your morality and ethics are loathsome.
Many, but not all creators care deeply about others' use of their content. Thanks for explaining the updated TOS. Sharing ain't always easy, but when we sound like these guys we're doing something wrong... :D ua-cam.com/video/x6XT7FDSdn8/v-deo.html
Thanks, Scott.
What the heck??
You want to tell me that Adobe doesn't look at the logo I designed and admire it??? shame!
lol
Thanks boss
You're most welcome, TSS.
*First Adobe screws customers with their restrictive and punitive subscriptions.
**Then they change the unreadable terms to give themselves a licence to your work.
***Then they get some smug git who looks like an Afghan Hound to give us a condescending lecture about how we just didn't understand the big words they used.
THIS is why thousands of us are leaving Adobe as fast as we can and going out of our way to learn different tools. See ya!
And deleting comments.. I commented twice that got deleted. Once just pointed out that Adobe's language has loopholes. And they could have used much stronger words on their AI stance.
Yuck! I feel slimed after watching this video. I think I'll move on from Adobe products.
seems fine to me.
Thanks, Quaker.
It doesn’t need a video 😂 no one cares
hot take
The first time I saw one of those Adobe cry babies (who just hate on everything that breathes Adobe), I was like: "Can't wait for Jason's video" 😂
Haha. Thanks, Dutch:)