Adobe Faces Wrath Of Creatives With Updated ‘Spyware’-Like Terms Of Use
Photo 100052720 © J P | Dreamstime.com, background generated on AI
A storm in the Adobe cloud has stirred awake, with the industry leader in creative software facing widespread backlash from users following an update to its General Terms of Use. The new rules have sparked concerns about user privacy and ownership, with some going as far as calling them “spyware-like.”
Last updated in February, the terms now mandate users to grant the company unrestricted access to their projects for “content review” and other unspecified purposes. This broad access provision includes all projects, and presumably even those that are legally shrouded in secrecy by non-disclosure agreements (NDAs).
So am I reading this, right? @Adobe @Photoshop
— Sam Santala (@SamSantala) June 5, 2024
I can't use Photoshop unless I'm okay with you having full access to anything I create with it, INCLUDING NDA work? pic.twitter.com/ZYbnFCMlkE
The terms of use define “content” as any creative work, encompassing audio files, videos, electronic documents, and images, that users upload, import, or create within the software.
Here it is. If you are a professional, if you are under NDA with your clients, if you are a creative, a lawyer, a doctor or anyone who works with proprietary files - it is time to cancel Adobe, delete all the apps and programs. Adobe can not be trusted. pic.twitter.com/LFnBbDKWLC
— Wetterschneider (@Stretchedwiener) June 5, 2024
Fueling anxieties further, the updated terms outline Adobe’s ability to access and scrutinize user creations through both automated and manual methods, including the use of machine learning. This has raised suspicions about the firm intending to leverage all user-generated content to train its artificial intelligence models.
I feel like using machine learning for “content moderation” is a sneaky way of saying “were installing spyware to train machine learning off everything you do”
— Ghoul ♡ 18+ artist (@Ghoulmommie) June 5, 2024
Of note is Section 4.2 of the documentation, which has stipulated that subscribers grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, and sublicensable license to “use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, create derivative works based on, publicly perform, and translate” their creations. Many users have interpreted this clause as a blatant disregard for their ownership rights, finding it particularly offensive.
Hey @Photoshop what the hell was that new agreement you forced us to sign this morning that locked our ap until we agree to it? We are working on a bloody movie here, and NO, you don’t suddenly have the right to any of the work we are doing on it because we pay you to use…
— Duncan Jones (@ManMadeMoon) June 5, 2024
WTF? Is this for real? I’ve been using Photoshop less and less in my workflow, but still kept it for doing photo manipulation and adjustments. I guess it’s time to cancel my subscription, move to alternatives and have some money saved. Profit
— Sleepy (@hi_iam_sleepy) June 5, 2024
To add insult to injury, frustrated users have discovered they can’t uninstall Adobe programs like Photoshop without first agreeing to the revised terms.
Also, hilarious that I can't even get ahold of your support chat to question this unless I agree to these terms beforehand.
— Sam Santala (@SamSantala) June 5, 2024
Realising I also need to agree to the terms if I want to sign in and cancel my subscription pic.twitter.com/rCXHOkbWy0
— Sam Santala (@SamSantala) June 5, 2024
In response to the outcry, Adobe’s design leader Scott Belsky has clarified that the company “does NOT train any GenAI models on customer’s content,” and emphasizes the existence of “tight security” surrounding any entry to user content.
Belsky acknowledges that Adobe’s role in storing cloud documents necessitates “some degree of access” under specific circumstances, such as indexing files for search functionality or updating areas within Creative Cloud libraries.
The incident does show that users have become warier of the fine print and about what rights they could be surrendering before clicking “accept.”
The terms as described are so broad that they would allow training on user content. If that’s not the intent why is it written this way? Also “Content” as defined in the policy could be easily interpreted to include files on a user’s computer as well.
— Kwik (@TJackLeigh) June 5, 2024
[via The Stack, 80 Level, Niche Gamer, images via various sources]
