Skip to main content

Adobe's New Terms of Service: A Threat to Creative Control and Intellectual Property?

 

Adobe's recent update to its Terms of Service for Creative Cloud has sparked widespread concern among the creative community. The changes grant Adobe unprecedented access to users' projects, raising questions about privacy, copyright, and the very ownership of creative work. In this post, we'll delve into the key objections and legal implications of these new terms, and what they mean for professionals and individuals alike.


Access to User Content: A Privacy Concern?

Adobe's updated Terms of Service grant the company the right to access users' projects through automated and manual methods. While Adobe justifies this access as necessary for responding to support requests, detecting technical issues, and addressing security concerns, many users are uneasy about the potential for privacy violations and the unauthorised use of copyrighted material. This lack of transparency has led to fears that Adobe may use users' work to train its AI systems without their consent, potentially violating non-disclosure agreements and copyright laws.


Licensing and Ownership: Who Holds the Reins?

The Terms of Service grant Adobe a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, create derivative works, publicly perform, and translate users' content. This has significant implications for creators, as it raises questions about the ownership and control of their work. The lack of clear language in the Terms of Use to prevent unauthorised AI training has added to the concern and mistrust among users.


Lack of Transparency and Trust: A Breakdown in Communication?

The absence of clear language in the Terms of Use to prevent unauthorised AI training and the inability to contact support staff without agreeing to the new terms first have added to the concern and mistrust among users. The mandatory approval process, which forces users to accept the new terms to continue using Adobe's services, has been seen as coercive and has further fuelled the outrage.


Impact on Professional Users: A Threat to Confidentiality?

The changes have significant implications for professionals under non-disclosure agreements, as Adobe's access to their content could potentially violate these agreements, leaving users in a difficult position. Photojournalists, in particular, are concerned about the liability this poses for their work.


Legal Implications: A Minefield for Creators?

The updated Terms of Service have raised questions about the legal implications for creators, including the potential for copyright infringement and the unauthorised use of their work. The reduction in the dispute resolution period from 60 days to 30 days has also been seen as a concern.


Conclusion: A Call to Action for Creators?

Adobe's new Terms of Service have sparked a heated debate about the balance between creative control and the use of cloud-based services. As the creative community continues to grapple with these changes, it is essential for users to understand the implications of these terms and to demand greater transparency and accountability from Adobe. Alternatively, and a position I undertook over a decade ago, find alternative software vendors, and always read the Terms Of Service first.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Whispers in the Machine: Why Prompt Injection Remains a Persistent Threat to LLMs

 Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming how we interact with technology, offering incredible potential for tasks ranging from content creation to complex analysis. However, as these powerful tools become more integrated into our lives, so too do the novel security challenges they present. Among these, prompt injection attacks stand out as a particularly persistent and evolving threat. These attacks, as one recent paper (Safety at Scale: A Comprehensive Survey of Large Model Safety https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05206) highlights, involve subtly manipulating LLMs to deviate from their intended purpose, and the methods are becoming increasingly sophisticated. At its core, a prompt injection attack involves embedding a malicious instruction within an otherwise normal request, tricking the LLM into producing unintended – and potentially harmful – outputs. Think of it as slipping a secret, contradictory instruction into a seemingly harmless conversation. What makes prompt inj...
Post a Comment
Read more

Podcast Soon Notice

I've been invited to make a podcast around the themes and ideas presented in this blog. More details will be announced soon. This is also your opportunity to be involved in the debate. If you have a response to any of the blog posts posted here, or consider an important issue in the debate around AGI is not being discussed, then please get in touch via the comments.  I look forward to hearing from you.
Post a Comment
Read more

AI Agents and the Latest Silicon Valley Hype

In what appears to be yet another grandiose proclamation from the tech industry, Google has released a whitepaper extolling the virtues of what they're calling "Generative AI agents". (https://www.aibase.com/news/14498) Whilst the basic premise—distinguishing between AI models and agents—holds water, one must approach these sweeping claims with considerable caution. Let's begin with the fundamentals. Yes, AI models like Large Language Models do indeed process information and generate outputs. That much isn't controversial. However, the leap from these essentially sophisticated pattern-matching systems to autonomous "agents" requires rather more scrutiny than the tech evangelists would have us believe. The whitepaper's architectural approaches—with their rather grandiose names like "ReAct" and "Tree of Thought"—sound remarkably like repackaged versions of long-standing computer science concepts, dressed up in fashionable AI clot...
Post a Comment
Read more