I think Adobe has demonstrated they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. If they want to assure their users that this license won't be used to train their AI or license their data to other AI companies, they can put that into their TOS in an enforceable manner. Saying trust us bro in a blog post is worth nothing.
Yup, Microsoft is also desperate for farming AI content. The internet is full of garbage info and farming data from businesses and personal accounts that are of value is the next mining grab.
Exactly. What the guy in this video says is simply false. I suppose he is too close to Adobe to admit that you do indeed give Adobe full rights for your work. That is the contract. They can sweet talk around it, but the facts tell something different. And with all the abuse we already know from Adobe you can be sure they will use their rights whenever and however they want.
@@designobservatory 100% To begin with, this whole video came off as a series of advertisements as far as I could tell. But in regards to Adobe, it's great that a bunch of people that work for Adobe post on their social media profiles (that usually say "my views are my own"...yadda yadda) to say "just trust us guys, we won't do anything shady, we promise", but for me if Adobe wants us to trust them they should put what it won't be used for in its TOS rather putting out a statement saying they wont do anything untrustworthy while having a EULA that completely maintains their right to do all of those things.
As long as they still force cretive cloud into their production, You know they wont quit their AI generator dream anytime soon. SO the wise choice is cancel their subscribe and find alternate tool. Better safe than sorry
I completely disagree - if you read the ToS, it plainly says a range of things. There’s plenty of stuff in there that make working under NDA impossible. The blog is not binding, neither is “context” by Adobe via Twitter etc. The ToS are binding, as written.
I came here to say this! Their disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason. A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to: + reproduction, + public display, + publicly perform, + distribute, + modify, + creat derivative work base on your content . That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
Scott Belsky from Adobe says one thing, but the TOS says another. The terms are written so broadly they could just train another AI not called “firefly” and it’d be within their rights to use customer data. “But why risk such a hostile move toward their own customers?” Offering AI to their own customers is a hostile move to begin with, I have no barometer for how far they’ll go now. Reddit rugpulled us last month, META is rugpulling us this month. Windows 11 soon. All software that touches the internet is just one update away from taking your data.
If the data doesn't belong to you to begin with (if your client owns all rights to it), then it doesn't matter what the TOS says. You can't give away something that isn't yours.
@@markborok4481 The point is technicalities like that don’t matter when training a AI model is extremely opaque to the end user. Every piece of text, image, and audio can be stolen and used to train a model without definitively knowing it was used. Every time you use generative fill, the entire canvas is sent to Adobe servers. Any file in any cloud storage is vulnerable. Even if the company says Trust Us, even if theres an “opt out” option, we have 20yrs of caselaw showing tech companies don’t care. Every tech company has a history of abusing their position and just paying the fine later. A class action lawsuit is just the cost of doing biz. If your files touch the internet, look for encrypted options and hope it works. Previously you only had to worry about 3rd party theft of your published content being stolen to train a model. Now you have to worry about the platform you use (adobe, IG, windows) stealing your private content to train their models. It’s absurd, and by the time laws are made against this it will be too late.
It's time for Adobe alternatives to step up, i think every single designer is truly tired of Adobes greeed and constant bs. Time to dismantle Adobes monopoly on graphic design.
The price incentive is there. The thing the alternatives should work on is integration to become real competitors. Illustrator to AE is easy. I don't know if there's another pipeline like it.
It feels like SoM completely downplayed the danger posed by these TOS which can be changed at any time with no ability to opt out/decline or even uninstall the software/access work until you agree
I always try to err on the side of skepticism and clarification but with Adobe's recent behavior (price hikes pretty directly correlated with AI features many users may not want for instance) paired with the broad language (always a red flag) used in the TOS update that was shared, I think everyone is right to be questioning Adobe. As someone in an industry filled with contracting, reading the legal language is key. I can appreciate the clarification brought by Adobe but would encourage SOM to not brush off this sort of thing--sure some people can blow things out of proportion but this was an absolute red flag based on the broad language Adobe presented.
How interesting that a podcast that relies on selling their education for Adobe products is downplaying the TOS controversy. Completely ignores the fact that Adobe could describe exactly HOW they intend to use the files the user is granting Adobe a license for.
I came here to say this! Their disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason. A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to: + reproduction, + public display, + publicly perform, + distribute, + modify, + creat derivative work base on your content . That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
Do you believe adobe's BS because you don't understand legalese? Their explanation is a lie because it isn't a legal agreement, the TOS is. Loving Affinity and Davinci now.
I came here to say this! Adobe disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason. A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to: + reproduction, + public display, + publicly perform, + distribute, + modify, + creat derivative work base on your content . That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
My aversion to Adobe started long before Feb's TOS changes. I think that reading between the lines of user feedback, we can see that the outrage is not at Adobe currently scraping user's content to train AI, but instead about the legal framework to do so in the future without repercussions. We have seen Adobe over and over put profits over the user base, ignore feedback from the community about basic features and UX, and increasingly subject users to pay models that are unsustainable for artists. We aren't incised over the current act of training AI, but instead a pattern of abuse from a company that forces creatives into terms that victimize the end-users, and ultimately will train their AI models on customer's work. We used to call that spyware. Now it's "standard practices for cloud-based businesses". We already suspect that firefly was built on pre-2024 Photoshop TOS that quietly opted-in PS users to allow Adobe to train their AI models on user images. I'm not even against AI- but I am against sketchy TOS that force users into difficult moral situations that they have little influence over.
I came here to say this! A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to: + reproduction, + public display, + publicly perform, + distribute, + modify, + creat derivative work base on your content . That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
I came here to say this! Their disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason. A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to: + reproduction, + public display, + publicly perform, + distribute, + modify, + creat derivative work base on your content . That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
I came here to say this! A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to: + reproduction, + public display, + publicly perform, + distribute, + modify, + creat derivative work base on your content . That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
New part of my Monday morning ritual - Feels honest to goodness informative and has been for the past three weeks I've tuned in. Keep it up SOM team, great stuff.
I came here to say this! Their disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason. A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to: + reproduction, + public display, + publicly perform, + distribute, + modify, + creat derivative work base on your content . That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
Scavenger is also on Netflix for those who are curious and want to watch it. I started it last night and the "animation" is wonderful. And now that I know they used Moho I'm completely blown away because I thought this was tradition hand drawn animation. They did a crazy great job!
Im glad you take the time to make these videos, As a motion designer that has been working from home without a team for the last 4 years, i don't get ANY interaction with other motion designers, so this helps me stay connected with what is going on in the world of motion design.
Whoa... did you actually read the second part? that we give Adobe perpertual licenses to whatever it is that we have? they discarded this with a blog-post... a blog post is not a legal document, until they clearly state what they said in their blog post unto their license... Adobe is gonna do it, you and I know it, and this is the end game of monopolies. I am stepping away, this is the last straw for me.
This guy defends Adobe then advertises AI products. The indirect way to admit, Adobe is indeed use this new ToS to feed customer's content to train their AI.
I cannot understand why Adobe would risk that much for an unclear outcome. What is it that is so valuable they would get in a case of success that they would risk their entire brand and reputation for it?
Most people have wanted to get rid of Adobe tools for their subscription stance anyway. The TOS is open ended, people should assume be it firefly or some as yet announced AI tool from Adobe that the TOS do require your content to train AI tools. SOM uses Adobe software extensively in their courses so of course they are biased to Adobe.
I came here to say this! A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to: + reproduction, + public display, + publicly perform, + distribute, + modify, + creat derivative work base on your content . That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
Hey guys! Just a heads up.. not sure if you're testing it - but the Motion Mondays video is "unlisted" on UA-cam. The link in the emailer works but couldn't find it on UA-cam search..
The issue with the new terms of service is that they used to specify CLOUD SERVICES and that has been removed. This is significan't because using some of adobee's new tools are not REALLY cloud services as we tend to understand them like hosting files on line or tools purely on the web but do send data to adobe to temprarily understand them to modify them be that voice isolation or generative AI used for things like generative fill. The app I am using is local, my files are local but I do send data to adobee temprarily so it can analyse the image and then do a genrative fill to expand ashot for example. The issue comes when you are doing work for hire or work. Let's say I am editing images for a photographer ... the photographer is the rights owner, not me and as such I LEGALLY CANNOT GRANT ADOBE A LICENSE TO THE PHOTO! I am NOT the rights holder so have no legal right or authority to gran the rights Aodbee wants to those images. Another example would be me working on an article and using images THAT ARE NOT MINE in a FAIR USE WAY. I need to edit some of the images and I make sure that MY use of the images falls uner fair use doctrine but since I don't own the rights to the image I CANNOT give Adobee the rights they want to those images! Those are just 2 BLANTANTLY obvious examples. The other issue is that the terms of sirvice simply state "to improve our services" so we grant Adobee the right to use our media to improve their services well their GenerativeAI is a SERVICE. Sure they say in a tweet that they won;t use it to train their generative AI but a tweet isn;t the same as a contract / agreement. The agreement can be read to disagree with the tweet. I dropped adobe when they introduced CC. My last version was CS6. We have much better options now, we don't need Adobee. Affinity, DaVinci, Reaper ... so on, so forth. It's time for people to tell Adobe "Enough already!".
@solarydays I don't I dropped Photoshop when they went cloud. Also they don't NEED to run on the cloud. They could run locally like magic mask and rotobrush do. We have local implementations of diffusion models. You just need a beefy rig to run them. Heck someone even made a plug-in for Krita that allows you to do more advanced stuff that Firefly does locally on your machine right inside Krita.
@@solarydaysI assumed the same at first and avoided using their cloud features. But, sorry to say, this is actually not true. It even says so in their clarification of their terms. When using certain tools, AI focused tools or otherwise, your images may be sampled to provide the full functionality of certain tools while working in their apps. They offered using tools that provide suggestions as a normal part of their function as an example. I read the new TOS. It’s even worse than the internet says it is.
@@solarydays Relax, we're all friends here. Contrary to what is often stated online and according to Adobe's own language, they're scanning files that are stored on their server as well as files that are stored locally while those files are open in their apps. That in itself is not a problem. The problem is their vague ToS. No one on UA-cam can claim to know the extent of their sampling and how they actually use it to improve their toolset. I work in the film industry, and like many other Adobe customers, I am routinely under NDA and frequently have no option but to use Adobe software in an established production environment. Their ToS is not a problem for everyone, but it's a legitimate concern for many. Adobe should be able to clearly state where they draw the line when using their customers' data if there's no impropriety. "We won't scan your stuff to build our AI models." Done!
@@solarydays ua-cam.com/video/tpbbschYKjE/v-deo.htmlsi=MN191MDP8GuAj7bJ&t=201 I'm sorry; there's just no value in me hating people on UA-cam. You're more than welcome to your confident opinions on Adobe, of me, your engineering degree or anything else in life. I don't know you, I have no problem with you personally, and I wish you well. I just want people to understand fully what's taking place at Adobe, which is why I even bothered posting here in the first place... And why am I now sharing this link? Watch it for several minutes if you really want to understand the problems with Adobe's apps. For an even deeper understanding, read all of Adobe's fine print, not just the ToS.
Idk trust with Adobe is very thin these days. The tos is so broad that if they wanted to, they could train an ai with user files if they want to, without getting in legal trouble. If they wanted reassure users they would state in the tos.
I suspect this stuff is going on everywhere with training models. Grammerly was 'free' for ten years, but I strongly suspect that all your writing habits were collected and used to train learning language models. It's free in the sense that you got to use it for ten years and then afterwards you pay with your job and livelihood. Of course, in Adobe's case if this accusation is true, it would be particularly damning since you paid them upfront and they still extracted your skills. In other words, you paid them to steal from you. Crazy. If true...
I also quickly wanted to chime in to the Adobe section. I feel like keeping a cool-headed approach to things is correct, but I felt like Joey went over it quite dismissive of the problems this time around. To summarize it in points: 1. A blog post that tries to "clarify" things without providing enough detail is -not- equal to the terms of service 2. The blog post didn't actually address all of the concerns of the community (automatic AND MANUAL scanning of your content, the ability to sublet your work) 3. Legally speaking, because the ToS is written so loose, Adobe can definitely do exactly what people fear. Sure, it's not moral, but by signing the contract, it is legal. 4. In the blog post they mention that they always allow for the option to "opt-out", but in this case, either you agreed to the ToS or were completely locked out of their software. Are they going to abuse this? Maybe not. Can they? Quite possibly. And given the track record of big companies doing shady things, they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. The artist community SHOULD be careful of giving software owners any more rights than absolutely necessary and should demand the ToS to be extremely clear, not need a half-assed blog post "clarifying" things. I think a message of "Keep an eye out for news" on the Adobe thing would have been a lot better than the quite disappointing dismissive attitude.
Appreciate the comment. Maybe I was a little too flippant in the video, but the truth is that the TOS didn't really change... some language did but the terms, updated in February, are effectively identical to the old terms. IMO the outrage over this is about something else, something unrelated to the actual content and intent of the TOS. I think it's about Adobe's very aggressive implementation of AI, and thje fact that they have close to a monopoly over certain segments of design and animation. The facts are: the TOS do not allow Adobe to train their models on your work, and they have publicly said very plainly that they aren't, and there's no reason to believe they're lying. If they were, and got caught, it would be the biggest class-action lawsuit in history, and they are very smart so that won't happen. I probably should have been less dismissive of everyone's concerns... that's fair... but it's also true that those concerns are, in this case, unfounded. FWIW this has spurred Adobe to completely revamp their TOS, and write them in plain english so users can understand exactly what they mean. That's a great development!
@@joeykorenman I think you're totally right saying that the outrage is about something else, though I imagine it might not have to do only with Adobe. A whole lot of tech companies have been abusive with customer data, doing very questionable things, then doing crisis management or rolling them back. As more companies try to claw their way to any and every data that they possibly can, anything that even points in that direction raises a lot of controversy really fast. As a consequence, I feel like the mentality (including mine) has shifted to being very careful and skeptical of believing anything from companies, which is not legally binding. This also ties into the class-action lawsuit part of the comment, most of the time they're just not impactful enough. Midjourney and OpenAI have both been caught just stealing data left and right and there's no real consequences. Further giant tech companies have repeatedly leaked customers' data, collected inappropriate parts of it, misused their position in an X number of ways, yet they're all still operating to this day. The problem with the blog post from Adobe is that it didn't answer all of the concerns, while also not being legally binding in any way. But, if the ToS revamps make everything clearer and use more specific language (limiting Adobe's options when it comes to utilizing the data of consumers), I do agree that it's a great thing, and I imagine this should all blow over with most people having peace of mind.
Why would Adobe need royalty-free sub and transferrable worldwide license to creators work? Royalties are profits paid to copyright holders, agreed between two parties entering into a for profit contract. If Adobe aren't making profits from said content, its redundant to have that included in the clause. Unless of course....
Yeah let me guess there're a way that they aren't making profit from said content: use those content to train AI generator, then making the profit from the AI generator itself. DOne, according to the law, they making the profit from the AI generator not from user's content.
If you're working on a project for a client who owns all rights to your work (work-for-hire), or which includes assets that belong to that client (e.g. a logo), then it doesn't matter if you agree to give Adobe the rights to do anything with that work, since it's not yours to begin with. Such an agreement would be null and void.
I came here to say this! Adobe disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason. A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to: + reproduction, + public display, + publicly perform, + distribute, + modify, + creat derivative work base on your content . That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
Have you ever considered the possibility that quite some AI have already been trained on this data? Its common practice to beg for forgiveness rather than permission. The fire might not be the ToS, the ToS might be to put out the fire of illegally having sold put already.
I came here to say this! Adobe disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason. A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to: + reproduction, + public display, + publicly perform, + distribute, + modify, + creat derivative work base on your content . That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
I came here to say this! Adobe disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason. A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to: + reproduction, + public display, + publicly perform, + distribute, + modify, + creat derivative work base on your content . That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
I came here to say this! Adobe disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason. A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to: + reproduction, + public display, + publicly perform, + distribute, + modify, + creat derivative work base on your content . That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
I came here to say this! Their disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason. A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to: + reproduction, + public display, + publicly perform, + distribute, + modify, + creat derivative work base on your content . That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
I came here to say this! Adobe disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason. A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to: + reproduction, + public display, + publicly perform, + distribute, + modify, + creat derivative work base on your content . That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
Who says they won't? It's a vers 1.0....also I bet Adobe AE is the largest chunk of their business so it may not even be cost effective to support another program.
Exactly correct. For me, you can never be a a true artist, designer or learning to be one if you depend on Ai. It just a plain common sense that Ai is doing the work for you and not by you.
I came here to say this! Adobe disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason. A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to: + reproduction, + public display, + publicly perform, + distribute, + modify, + creat derivative work base on your content . That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
Was very excited to see this. A great subject and seriously important part of hip hop culture but maaaaan… the way this is edited sucks all energy out of piece. So slow and with lifeless. I’ll check out others in the series and hope this was a one off.
They say they don't train their AI on people's uploaded content...but they already did. If you uploaded stuff to Behance (and/or Adobe Stock), they already used your content to train their AI models. They used your own work in an effort to make you obsolete. It's some of the most underhanded shit I've ever seen. Adobe can't be trusted. Full stop.
They literally are watching . That's how they caught that teacher giving her students cookies with c man on them. Adobe saw the files as they worked on em and reported it
Please elaborate. I havent heard of this one. Edit: Ok found it. Gross. I see what you meant by c man. Literally used “teacher caught cookies c man” in search terms and google served immediately. Im not aware of the technical aspects of this case however.
@engineeringandscience6238 at the time when the case first came about when they were initially arrested the news was reporting that adobe itself had reported the abuse when they saw the video was being edited with premiere pro. I cannot find the initial arrest articles only the main ones you found.
@@SR_PRODUCTIONS i thought it was a CVS photo dropoff that got him busted. Thats what i read. I wouldnt be surprised though. Theres definitely some visibility on their end to structure of what you are doing. People have been getting creepy emails: “hey we see youve been using actions panel, please let us know.” Beyond that theres always a back door. People were called crazy loons until Snowden revealed the scope of that.
Sad how quickly people will bootlick and trust a company that already trained on stock. And people were blissfully unaware of what vague “product improvement” legalese meant. Being this dismissive is appalling and irresponsible frankly. Hows the boot taste?
Good for Kyle! This AI push by Adobe is ridiculous. Add to that the new TOS and it's fast becoming a bridge too far. Good thing I NEVER put ANYTHING into "the Cloud".
I came here to say this! A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to: + reproduction, + public display, + publicly perform, + distribute, + modify, + creat derivative work base on your content . That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
I have always regretted paying for a dribbble account. It genuinely was a whole lot of nothing especially during the pandemic. I don't really have any faith in it going free but opened to be wrong on that.
The 'About' clearly states that Cara is against AI in it's current state, but doesn't seem to to be against it in the future. Just give it time, it'll be like every other social media platform out there once enough money enters the picture.
Oh no... nuance and a reasoned stance instead of jumping on the uninformed bandwagon and taking a black or white position! The horror of it all! Personally, I give them mad respect for that.
You should do some research about Jingna Zhang, the founder of Cara. She is an artist and also victim of AI company. SHe 've win her lawsuit again plagiarism after 2 year of hardship. If you rather trust the "innocent" of Adobe with their new Tos than trusting Jingna Zhang and Cara, it's up to you though.
@@wangelite5279 You should do some research about Jingna Zhang, the founder of Cara. She is an artist and also victim of AI company. SHe 've win her lawsuit again plagiarism after 2 year of hardship. If you rather trust the "innocent" of Adobe with their new Tos than trusting Jingna Zhang and Cara, it's up to you though.
8:06 if they charge for Cara as a subscription that will make em tank. People are tired of all these subscriptions. One time okay, every month for life 😅 no
Not surprised to see School-of-Motion do mule work for their big-company partners. Such a cringe to watch, though. I might have considered a school-of-motion course at one time. Never give it a thought now.
6:59 speaking of which, why do some artists expect free services when they don't sell all their art as "free"? Research costs of creating this platform.
We understand what side your bread is buttered on sir, but a moral panic? After all the $4!7 Adobe has pulled? Or tried to [cough]Figma[cough]? People are just becoming Aware of what a small number of us warned you about back when they started the "everything is now Netflix" trend.
@@lorenkoski2714 Don't get me wrong! Dreams is amazing, but Moho is really full-featured in comparison. I think they both have their place in productions.
:38 secs is way too breakneck. Let's normalize a little more calmness and appreciation when showcasing our work. Another minute out of your life isn't gonna kill you or seriously impact the time you spend doomscrolling.
I think Adobe has demonstrated they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. If they want to assure their users that this license won't be used to train their AI or license their data to other AI companies, they can put that into their TOS in an enforceable manner. Saying trust us bro in a blog post is worth nothing.
Yup, Microsoft is also desperate for farming AI content. The internet is full of garbage info and farming data from businesses and personal accounts that are of value is the next mining grab.
Exactly. What the guy in this video says is simply false. I suppose he is too close to Adobe to admit that you do indeed give Adobe full rights for your work. That is the contract. They can sweet talk around it, but the facts tell something different. And with all the abuse we already know from Adobe you can be sure they will use their rights whenever and however they want.
Agree!
@@designobservatory 100% To begin with, this whole video came off as a series of advertisements as far as I could tell. But in regards to Adobe, it's great that a bunch of people that work for Adobe post on their social media profiles (that usually say "my views are my own"...yadda yadda) to say "just trust us guys, we won't do anything shady, we promise", but for me if Adobe wants us to trust them they should put what it won't be used for in its TOS rather putting out a statement saying they wont do anything untrustworthy while having a EULA that completely maintains their right to do all of those things.
As long as they still force cretive cloud into their production, You know they wont quit their AI generator dream anytime soon. SO the wise choice is cancel their subscribe and find alternate tool. Better safe than sorry
I completely disagree - if you read the ToS, it plainly says a range of things. There’s plenty of stuff in there that make working under NDA impossible. The blog is not binding, neither is “context” by Adobe via Twitter etc. The ToS are binding, as written.
exactly
Exactly
I came here to say this! Their disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason.
A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to:
+ reproduction,
+ public display,
+ publicly perform,
+ distribute,
+ modify,
+ creat derivative work base on your content .
That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
Scott Belsky from Adobe says one thing, but the TOS says another. The terms are written so broadly they could just train another AI not called “firefly” and it’d be within their rights to use customer data. “But why risk such a hostile move toward their own customers?” Offering AI to their own customers is a hostile move to begin with, I have no barometer for how far they’ll go now. Reddit rugpulled us last month, META is rugpulling us this month. Windows 11 soon. All software that touches the internet is just one update away from taking your data.
If the data doesn't belong to you to begin with (if your client owns all rights to it), then it doesn't matter what the TOS says. You can't give away something that isn't yours.
@@markborok4481 The point is technicalities like that don’t matter when training a AI model is extremely opaque to the end user. Every piece of text, image, and audio can be stolen and used to train a model without definitively knowing it was used. Every time you use generative fill, the entire canvas is sent to Adobe servers. Any file in any cloud storage is vulnerable. Even if the company says Trust Us, even if theres an “opt out” option, we have 20yrs of caselaw showing tech companies don’t care. Every tech company has a history of abusing their position and just paying the fine later. A class action lawsuit is just the cost of doing biz. If your files touch the internet, look for encrypted options and hope it works. Previously you only had to worry about 3rd party theft of your published content being stolen to train a model. Now you have to worry about the platform you use (adobe, IG, windows) stealing your private content to train their models. It’s absurd, and by the time laws are made against this it will be too late.
It's time for Adobe alternatives to step up, i think every single designer is truly tired of Adobes greeed and constant bs. Time to dismantle Adobes monopoly on graphic design.
The price incentive is there. The thing the alternatives should work on is integration to become real competitors. Illustrator to AE is easy. I don't know if there's another pipeline like it.
@@royboyshaw3332 Premier to AE too.
It feels like SoM completely downplayed the danger posed by these TOS which can be changed at any time with no ability to opt out/decline or even uninstall the software/access work until you agree
I always try to err on the side of skepticism and clarification but with Adobe's recent behavior (price hikes pretty directly correlated with AI features many users may not want for instance) paired with the broad language (always a red flag) used in the TOS update that was shared, I think everyone is right to be questioning Adobe. As someone in an industry filled with contracting, reading the legal language is key. I can appreciate the clarification brought by Adobe but would encourage SOM to not brush off this sort of thing--sure some people can blow things out of proportion but this was an absolute red flag based on the broad language Adobe presented.
How interesting that a podcast that relies on selling their education for Adobe products is downplaying the TOS controversy. Completely ignores the fact that Adobe could describe exactly HOW they intend to use the files the user is granting Adobe a license for.
I disagree with Joey's take on terms and services. Its a fire if they don't refine the language. The TOS are too broad.
Yea "All smoke and no fire". Dude is the living embodiment of that "This is fine" meme.
@@chrischiles6263 Haha, basically. Don't worry guys, it's just Adobe suffocating the industry.
I came here to say this! Their disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason.
A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to:
+ reproduction,
+ public display,
+ publicly perform,
+ distribute,
+ modify,
+ creat derivative work base on your content .
That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
Do you believe adobe's BS because you don't understand legalese? Their explanation is a lie because it isn't a legal agreement, the TOS is. Loving Affinity and Davinci now.
I came here to say this! Adobe disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason.
A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to:
+ reproduction,
+ public display,
+ publicly perform,
+ distribute,
+ modify,
+ creat derivative work base on your content .
That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
My aversion to Adobe started long before Feb's TOS changes. I think that reading between the lines of user feedback, we can see that the outrage is not at Adobe currently scraping user's content to train AI, but instead about the legal framework to do so in the future without repercussions. We have seen Adobe over and over put profits over the user base, ignore feedback from the community about basic features and UX, and increasingly subject users to pay models that are unsustainable for artists.
We aren't incised over the current act of training AI, but instead a pattern of abuse from a company that forces creatives into terms that victimize the end-users, and ultimately will train their AI models on customer's work. We used to call that spyware. Now it's "standard practices for cloud-based businesses". We already suspect that firefly was built on pre-2024 Photoshop TOS that quietly opted-in PS users to allow Adobe to train their AI models on user images.
I'm not even against AI- but I am against sketchy TOS that force users into difficult moral situations that they have little influence over.
I came here to say this! A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to:
+ reproduction,
+ public display,
+ publicly perform,
+ distribute,
+ modify,
+ creat derivative work base on your content .
That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
I came here to say this! Their disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason.
A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to:
+ reproduction,
+ public display,
+ publicly perform,
+ distribute,
+ modify,
+ creat derivative work base on your content .
That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
I really appreciate these summaries instead of having to read another e-mail! Thank you for doing these!
I came here to say this! A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to:
+ reproduction,
+ public display,
+ publicly perform,
+ distribute,
+ modify,
+ creat derivative work base on your content .
That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
New part of my Monday morning ritual - Feels honest to goodness informative and has been for the past three weeks I've tuned in. Keep it up SOM team, great stuff.
I came here to say this! Their disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason.
A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to:
+ reproduction,
+ public display,
+ publicly perform,
+ distribute,
+ modify,
+ creat derivative work base on your content .
That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
Scavenger is also on Netflix for those who are curious and want to watch it. I started it last night and the "animation" is wonderful. And now that I know they used Moho I'm completely blown away because I thought this was tradition hand drawn animation. They did a crazy great job!
They used moho in select shots. The majority is frame by frame animated in other softwares.
Im glad you take the time to make these videos, As a motion designer that has been working from home without a team for the last 4 years, i don't get ANY interaction with other motion designers, so this helps me stay connected with what is going on in the world of motion design.
It’s all fire bro. You’re out of your mind
he sounds like an Adobe shill.
Whoa... did you actually read the second part? that we give Adobe perpertual licenses to whatever it is that we have? they discarded this with a blog-post... a blog post is not a legal document, until they clearly state what they said in their blog post unto their license...
Adobe is gonna do it, you and I know it, and this is the end game of monopolies. I am stepping away, this is the last straw for me.
I think they have already done it. This is their way to cover their ass.
This guy defends Adobe then advertises AI products.
The indirect way to admit, Adobe is indeed use this new ToS to feed customer's content to train their AI.
I cannot understand why Adobe would risk that much for an unclear outcome. What is it that is so valuable they would get in a case of success that they would risk their entire brand and reputation for it?
Share holder is their customer, not user. All user are just cattle to feed their incoming AI generator
And I wish Maxon actually made a proper standalone compositor with nodes / timeline and open FX plugins.
May be for our kids😢
Hot take from game dev world.. Adobe has done a great job with Substance recently. :D
I see where Affinity Photo is on sale for half price.
Most people have wanted to get rid of Adobe tools for their subscription stance anyway. The TOS is open ended, people should assume be it firefly or some as yet announced AI tool from Adobe that the TOS do require your content to train AI tools.
SOM uses Adobe software extensively in their courses so of course they are biased to Adobe.
"common practice" is not an excuse.
I came here to say this! A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to:
+ reproduction,
+ public display,
+ publicly perform,
+ distribute,
+ modify,
+ creat derivative work base on your content .
That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
Whatever the terms say is what the terms are.
Hope Kyle makes cool stuff for Krita.
Time to Nightshade the s.hit out of every AI art program
Unless it's in the terms of service then you can't trust Adobe.
Motion Mondays are gems
SoM always has the most recent news of the best stuff 🙌 👏👏
Hey guys! Just a heads up.. not sure if you're testing it - but the Motion Mondays video is "unlisted" on UA-cam. The link in the emailer works but couldn't find it on UA-cam search..
Thanks! We fixed it.
The issue with the new terms of service is that they used to specify CLOUD SERVICES and that has been removed. This is significan't because using some of adobee's new tools are not REALLY cloud services as we tend to understand them like hosting files on line or tools purely on the web but do send data to adobe to temprarily understand them to modify them be that voice isolation or generative AI used for things like generative fill. The app I am using is local, my files are local but I do send data to adobee temprarily so it can analyse the image and then do a genrative fill to expand ashot for example.
The issue comes when you are doing work for hire or work.
Let's say I am editing images for a photographer ... the photographer is the rights owner, not me and as such I LEGALLY CANNOT GRANT ADOBE A LICENSE TO THE PHOTO! I am NOT the rights holder so have no legal right or authority to gran the rights Aodbee wants to those images.
Another example would be me working on an article and using images THAT ARE NOT MINE in a FAIR USE WAY. I need to edit some of the images and I make sure that MY use of the images falls uner fair use doctrine but since I don't own the rights to the image I CANNOT give Adobee the rights they want to those images!
Those are just 2 BLANTANTLY obvious examples.
The other issue is that the terms of sirvice simply state "to improve our services" so we grant Adobee the right to use our media to improve their services well their GenerativeAI is a SERVICE. Sure they say in a tweet that they won;t use it to train their generative AI but a tweet isn;t the same as a contract / agreement. The agreement can be read to disagree with the tweet.
I dropped adobe when they introduced CC. My last version was CS6. We have much better options now, we don't need Adobee.
Affinity, DaVinci, Reaper ... so on, so forth. It's time for people to tell Adobe "Enough already!".
@solarydays I don't I dropped Photoshop when they went cloud.
Also they don't NEED to run on the cloud. They could run locally like magic mask and rotobrush do.
We have local implementations of diffusion models. You just need a beefy rig to run them.
Heck someone even made a plug-in for Krita that allows you to do more advanced stuff that Firefly does locally on your machine right inside Krita.
@@solarydaysI assumed the same at first and avoided using their cloud features. But, sorry to say, this is actually not true. It even says so in their clarification of their terms. When using certain tools, AI focused tools or otherwise, your images may be sampled to provide the full functionality of certain tools while working in their apps. They offered using tools that provide suggestions as a normal part of their function as an example. I read the new TOS. It’s even worse than the internet says it is.
@@solarydays Relax, we're all friends here. Contrary to what is often stated online and according to Adobe's own language, they're scanning files that are stored on their server as well as files that are stored locally while those files are open in their apps. That in itself is not a problem. The problem is their vague ToS. No one on UA-cam can claim to know the extent of their sampling and how they actually use it to improve their toolset. I work in the film industry, and like many other Adobe customers, I am routinely under NDA and frequently have no option but to use Adobe software in an established production environment. Their ToS is not a problem for everyone, but it's a legitimate concern for many. Adobe should be able to clearly state where they draw the line when using their customers' data if there's no impropriety. "We won't scan your stuff to build our AI models." Done!
@@solarydays ua-cam.com/video/tpbbschYKjE/v-deo.htmlsi=MN191MDP8GuAj7bJ&t=201
I'm sorry; there's just no value in me hating people on UA-cam. You're more than welcome to your confident opinions on Adobe, of me, your engineering degree or anything else in life. I don't know you, I have no problem with you personally, and I wish you well. I just want people to understand fully what's taking place at Adobe, which is why I even bothered posting here in the first place... And why am I now sharing this link? Watch it for several minutes if you really want to understand the problems with Adobe's apps. For an even deeper understanding, read all of Adobe's fine print, not just the ToS.
Idk trust with Adobe is very thin these days. The tos is so broad that if they wanted to, they could train an ai with user files if they want to, without getting in legal trouble. If they wanted reassure users they would state in the tos.
I suspect this stuff is going on everywhere with training models. Grammerly was 'free' for ten years, but I strongly suspect that all your writing habits were collected and used to train learning language models. It's free in the sense that you got to use it for ten years and then afterwards you pay with your job and livelihood. Of course, in Adobe's case if this accusation is true, it would be particularly damning since you paid them upfront and they still extracted your skills. In other words, you paid them to steal from you. Crazy. If true...
I also quickly wanted to chime in to the Adobe section. I feel like keeping a cool-headed approach to things is correct, but I felt like Joey went over it quite dismissive of the problems this time around. To summarize it in points:
1. A blog post that tries to "clarify" things without providing enough detail is -not- equal to the terms of service
2. The blog post didn't actually address all of the concerns of the community (automatic AND MANUAL scanning of your content, the ability to sublet your work)
3. Legally speaking, because the ToS is written so loose, Adobe can definitely do exactly what people fear. Sure, it's not moral, but by signing the contract, it is legal.
4. In the blog post they mention that they always allow for the option to "opt-out", but in this case, either you agreed to the ToS or were completely locked out of their software.
Are they going to abuse this? Maybe not. Can they? Quite possibly. And given the track record of big companies doing shady things, they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. The artist community SHOULD be careful of giving software owners any more rights than absolutely necessary and should demand the ToS to be extremely clear, not need a half-assed blog post "clarifying" things.
I think a message of "Keep an eye out for news" on the Adobe thing would have been a lot better than the quite disappointing dismissive attitude.
Appreciate the comment. Maybe I was a little too flippant in the video, but the truth is that the TOS didn't really change... some language did but the terms, updated in February, are effectively identical to the old terms.
IMO the outrage over this is about something else, something unrelated to the actual content and intent of the TOS. I think it's about Adobe's very aggressive implementation of AI, and thje fact that they have close to a monopoly over certain segments of design and animation.
The facts are: the TOS do not allow Adobe to train their models on your work, and they have publicly said very plainly that they aren't, and there's no reason to believe they're lying. If they were, and got caught, it would be the biggest class-action lawsuit in history, and they are very smart so that won't happen.
I probably should have been less dismissive of everyone's concerns... that's fair... but it's also true that those concerns are, in this case, unfounded.
FWIW this has spurred Adobe to completely revamp their TOS, and write them in plain english so users can understand exactly what they mean. That's a great development!
@@joeykorenman I think you're totally right saying that the outrage is about something else, though I imagine it might not have to do only with Adobe. A whole lot of tech companies have been abusive with customer data, doing very questionable things, then doing crisis management or rolling them back. As more companies try to claw their way to any and every data that they possibly can, anything that even points in that direction raises a lot of controversy really fast.
As a consequence, I feel like the mentality (including mine) has shifted to being very careful and skeptical of believing anything from companies, which is not legally binding. This also ties into the class-action lawsuit part of the comment, most of the time they're just not impactful enough. Midjourney and OpenAI have both been caught just stealing data left and right and there's no real consequences. Further giant tech companies have repeatedly leaked customers' data, collected inappropriate parts of it, misused their position in an X number of ways, yet they're all still operating to this day.
The problem with the blog post from Adobe is that it didn't answer all of the concerns, while also not being legally binding in any way. But, if the ToS revamps make everything clearer and use more specific language (limiting Adobe's options when it comes to utilizing the data of consumers), I do agree that it's a great thing, and I imagine this should all blow over with most people having peace of mind.
I love Motion Mondays! Mostly because they make me want to explore the unexpected
Why would Adobe need royalty-free sub and transferrable worldwide license to creators work? Royalties are profits paid to copyright holders, agreed between two parties entering into a for profit contract. If Adobe aren't making profits from said content, its redundant to have that included in the clause. Unless of course....
Yeah let me guess there're a way that they aren't making profit from said content:
use those content to train AI generator, then making the profit from the AI generator itself.
DOne, according to the law, they making the profit from the AI generator not from user's content.
If you're working on a project for a client who owns all rights to your work (work-for-hire), or which includes assets that belong to that client (e.g. a logo), then it doesn't matter if you agree to give Adobe the rights to do anything with that work, since it's not yours to begin with. Such an agreement would be null and void.
I came here to say this! Adobe disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason.
A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to:
+ reproduction,
+ public display,
+ publicly perform,
+ distribute,
+ modify,
+ creat derivative work base on your content .
That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
Have you ever considered the possibility that quite some AI have already been trained on this data?
Its common practice to beg for forgiveness rather than permission.
The fire might not be the ToS, the ToS might be to put out the fire of illegally having sold put already.
I came here to say this! Adobe disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason.
A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to:
+ reproduction,
+ public display,
+ publicly perform,
+ distribute,
+ modify,
+ creat derivative work base on your content .
That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
Keep these updates coming! I've learned so many things to pass onto my team.
I came here to say this! Adobe disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason.
A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to:
+ reproduction,
+ public display,
+ publicly perform,
+ distribute,
+ modify,
+ creat derivative work base on your content .
That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
Dad joke at the end 😂
Adobe does NOT deserve the benefit of the doubt. Please look into this situation and don't take their word for it
I came here to say this! Adobe disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason.
A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to:
+ reproduction,
+ public display,
+ publicly perform,
+ distribute,
+ modify,
+ creat derivative work base on your content .
That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
This video is one of the few that speaks AI as tool instead of threat.
Starting to like Mondays more with this new series of videos.
Corridor dropped another good Gaussian Splat video just yesterday
this is what 'content' should be. packed full of value, things viewers actually might be interested in. Great work sir - I salute
I came here to say this! Their disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason.
A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to:
+ reproduction,
+ public display,
+ publicly perform,
+ distribute,
+ modify,
+ creat derivative work base on your content .
That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
Much appreciated!
READ THE TOS. No, artists are NOT overreacting if someone performs a rights grab.
Boy! You really glossed over the controversy.
Thank you for your sanity Joey
Great wrap! Interesting with the search term for motion design vs graphics vs mograph, glad my handle isn’t trending out…! 😁
I came here to say this! Adobe disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason.
A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to:
+ reproduction,
+ public display,
+ publicly perform,
+ distribute,
+ modify,
+ creat derivative work base on your content .
That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
Maxon shoulda made that Studio also for Blackmagic Fusion
Who says they won't? It's a vers 1.0....also I bet Adobe AE is the largest chunk of their business so it may not even be cost effective to support another program.
There was fire tho. They even admitted it was written too broadly . Starting to sound like a shill for daddy Adobe.
Exactly correct. For me, you can never be a a true artist, designer or learning to be one if you depend on Ai. It just a plain common sense that Ai is doing the work for you and not by you.
I came here to say this! Adobe disclaimer blog stop at section 4.1 and dont talk about 4.2 for a reason.
A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to:
+ reproduction,
+ public display,
+ publicly perform,
+ distribute,
+ modify,
+ creat derivative work base on your content .
That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
Was very excited to see this. A great subject and seriously important part of hip hop culture but maaaaan… the way this is edited sucks all energy out of piece. So slow and with lifeless. I’ll check out others in the series and hope this was a one off.
thank you for the update:)
They say they don't train their AI on people's uploaded content...but they already did. If you uploaded stuff to Behance (and/or Adobe Stock), they already used your content to train their AI models. They used your own work in an effort to make you obsolete. It's some of the most underhanded shit I've ever seen. Adobe can't be trusted. Full stop.
I diasgree, tech companies have a habit of asking firgiveness instead of permission.
They literally are watching . That's how they caught that teacher giving her students cookies with c man on them. Adobe saw the files as they worked on em and reported it
Please elaborate. I havent heard of this one. Edit: Ok found it. Gross. I see what you meant by c man. Literally used “teacher caught cookies c man” in search terms and google served immediately. Im not aware of the technical aspects of this case however.
@engineeringandscience6238 at the time when the case first came about when they were initially arrested the news was reporting that adobe itself had reported the abuse when they saw the video was being edited with premiere pro. I cannot find the initial arrest articles only the main ones you found.
@@engineeringandscience6238I remember it didn't create a big buzz because everyone overlooked who reported it given the story.
@@SR_PRODUCTIONS i thought it was a CVS photo dropoff that got him busted. Thats what i read. I wouldnt be surprised though. Theres definitely some visibility on their end to structure of what you are doing. People have been getting creepy emails: “hey we see youve been using actions panel, please let us know.” Beyond that theres always a back door. People were called crazy loons until Snowden revealed the scope of that.
this is great, thanks joey
Great overview!
Defends Adobe then advertises AI products lol this guy
The indirect way to admit, Adobe is indeed use this new ToS to feed customer's content to train their AI.
Sad how quickly people will bootlick and trust a company that already trained on stock. And people were blissfully unaware of what vague “product improvement” legalese meant. Being this dismissive is appalling and irresponsible frankly. Hows the boot taste?
Good for Kyle! This AI push by Adobe is ridiculous. Add to that the new TOS and it's fast becoming a bridge too far. Good thing I NEVER put ANYTHING into "the Cloud".
Love Emonee!!!
not bad 👏
Lottie... oh look it's flash 3 circa 1998....
This is not a bad thing... but man I miss Flash capabilities that still don't exist anywhere else.
Really well put together, informative and no extra bs. Appreciate the hard work brother.
I came here to say this! A royalty-free sublicense in Section 4.2 means they don't own the image but can sell it with NO OBLIGATION to pay the owner. What does it matter who owns it if they have infinite rights that are BETTER than the owner's? And take into account their right to:
+ reproduction,
+ public display,
+ publicly perform,
+ distribute,
+ modify,
+ creat derivative work base on your content .
That's alot of power over the customer content or even more.
I have always regretted paying for a dribbble account. It genuinely was a whole lot of nothing especially during the pandemic. I don't really have any faith in it going free but opened to be wrong on that.
156 Silence \m/
Savage band.
The 'About' clearly states that Cara is against AI in it's current state, but doesn't seem to to be against it in the future. Just give it time, it'll be like every other social media platform out there once enough money enters the picture.
Oh no... nuance and a reasoned stance instead of jumping on the uninformed bandwagon and taking a black or white position! The horror of it all!
Personally, I give them mad respect for that.
I bet they are in talks with canva or adobe for a purchase. Maybe Figma. They all need a product that is branded human made
You should do some research about Jingna Zhang, the founder of Cara. She is an artist and also victim of AI company. SHe 've win her lawsuit again plagiarism after 2 year of hardship.
If you rather trust the "innocent" of Adobe with their new Tos than trusting Jingna Zhang and Cara, it's up to you though.
@@wangelite5279 You should do some research about Jingna Zhang, the founder of Cara. She is an artist and also victim of AI company. SHe 've win her lawsuit again plagiarism after 2 year of hardship.
If you rather trust the "innocent" of Adobe with their new Tos than trusting Jingna Zhang and Cara, it's up to you though.
8:06 if they charge for Cara as a subscription that will make em tank. People are tired of all these subscriptions. One time okay, every month for life 😅 no
Not surprised to see School-of-Motion do mule work for their big-company partners. Such a cringe to watch, though. I might have considered a school-of-motion course at one time. Never give it a thought now.
6:59 speaking of which, why do some artists expect free services when they don't sell all their art as "free"? Research costs of creating this platform.
We understand what side your bread is buttered on sir, but a moral panic? After all the $4!7 Adobe has pulled? Or tried to [cough]Figma[cough]?
People are just becoming Aware of what a small number of us warned you about back when they started the "everything is now Netflix" trend.
11:48 Moho…. Looks good, but procreate dreams does all that
Procreate Dreams doesn't have any rigging tools. Moho has a full FK / IK system.
@@joeykorenman well it's got basic rigging with anchor points n stuff, but I see what you mean there
@@joeykorenman imma check it out 😊 appreciate the response kind sir
@@lorenkoski2714 Don't get me wrong! Dreams is amazing, but Moho is really full-featured in comparison. I think they both have their place in productions.
:38 secs is way too breakneck. Let's normalize a little more calmness and appreciation when showcasing our work. Another minute out of your life isn't gonna kill you or seriously impact the time you spend doomscrolling.
nice joke hehe!
14:50 this is crap. So Maxon has lost to Blender. Nice.