I agree. Training ai with people's work is one of the things they could do. That section shown in thors video shows a far bigger problem imo

well if you read a bit further they do at least say they won't use it for ai training without your consent, but otherwise they basically can act like they own your stuff.

@@andrewgreeb916 Yeah, see, that's just the thing. The way the terms are worded? It's no longer your work to begin with. They have a liscence that they can use however they see fit.

​@@andrewgreeb916I am almost sure they have it all already fed to their AI,they are just waiting for this controversy to blow over to change that part of the TOS.

​@@naamadossantossilva4736 The AI feeding is a thing that was there before and needed to be opted out of.

It's still good to get things correctly

Haha, love your example

The issue is if you accuse them of theft and it's the other thing they are "technically" innocent. Understanding exactly what you're accusing them of and sticking only to the facts gives them less wiggle room.

What you described sounds like an Ace Attorney case.

And a few other more... messed up things along the way.

Kind of like how even if you pay off the house(mortgage), you can still lose it if you neglect the property tax.

Yes. Not only this, but in the past you could buy a copy instead of renting it. And that's where I stop respecting your intellectual property rights all together.

Still would not use an excavator to make a house tho

@@im-a-trailblazer renovating a decrepit property, digging etc

No

if they can steal my work, i can pirate their software.

​@zeonos "if purchase isn't ownership, then piracy isn't theft"

​@@zeonosLike, this is really baffling. They know everyone already pirates their products, and instead of doing something against it, they actually make pirating an ever stronger choice. That's not just greedy and evil, that's plain stupid.

This is yet another reason why they wanted to go to cloud subscriptions.

@@Garwinium It isn't. Pirating is copyright infringement.

it used to be a trade off. one or the other. free internet services were free because you understood they were selling your data. Now they want to charge you a monthly fee while ALSO selling your data.

​@@FablestoneSeriesThey're not just selling your data, they're selling your WORK as if you had done it under contract for them

Just use GIMP, at least they don't charge you for the privilege to have your data and work stolen

​@@laytonjr6601and claim it as their own BECAUSE it was used "with Adobe tools" litterally full blown theft

It's appaling people are ok with this

People are cynically thinking, they are going to use it to train AI to make shit you make claiming its AI made... No, they can use exactly what you made, how ever they wish with this TOS, so its much much worse... And i predict magically piracy will blow up in editing community... Older pre TOS versions get cracked, since its cheaper to pay potential piracy claim for software than loose your whole project to Adobe...

Soldier: "No..."

What he said wasn’t worse, it was more accurate.

@@djmintyfreshful Enlighten me; While more accurate yes, how is *Signing the rights to EVERYTHING you make with the program over to Adobe* not worse? I mean, a TOS is not legally enforcable, but you'd still have to take them to court to force them to give it the claim. And a lot of people can't afford that.

​@@The_Keeper foresight. Say, people are trying for governments to outlaw using other people's art and data to feed it into AI developing, so by claiming they have every single right to your content creation, they can legally feed it into their own AI and they can sell it to other people to feed it into their own models. Not to mention anything you create can now be used by Adobe to turn into ads and whatnot.

@@djmintyfreshful It definitely was worse while also being more accurate.

​@@djmintyfreshful it was definitely worse, having it be solely for the use of improving their AI would be sorta OK, the other part means they can steal your work and use it however they like

The one place not corrupted by capitalisim.

@JasonBourne-hu1ox I believe on the ISS the various modules are owned by different countries, and each countries laws apply to it's module, but not the others.

​@@TatsuZZmageyet. Give them a few more years. There is a dead planet core floating in between Jupiter and Mars, that core has loads of precious metals on it

@@TatsuZZmage jeff bezos has entered the chat

They'd probably argue the definition of "worldwide."

In reality it means that if you're working under NDA you just can't use Adobe products anymore. Because as the person being contracted it's your responsibility to ensure the agreement is kept. If anything leaks to the public, even if it's not your fault, you can and will be held legally responsible.

@@nightknight498 Correct. Guess you just use GIMP. (been using if for over a decade now)

@@nightknight498 omg, this! I came here to say pretty much this. The reality is that, Adobe just shot themselves in both feet. A LOT of businesses are just gonna stop using their stuff altogether. They'll probably backpeddle hard once that revenue stops coming in. But, it'll be way too little and way too late at that point. x_x

​@@nightknight498yeah, we are moving away from Adobe right now for this reason, about 1500 licenses. In fact security ft so sketched by it, they informed our contracting partners (that the nda was signed with) of the TOS change as a potential security breach.

@@tarrker Great time for someone to step up to the plate and be a better alternative. One of the competing suites could make some bank off of this, if they play it right.

Jesus, I never even thought of our government potentially opening a classified document in Photoshop, but... Yeah, that's totally plausible. Good lord, we are doomed.

I infrequently worked with very sensitive data. There's a reason I use open source office software and avoid cloud services. If it's built in, I will go so far as to change the OS on devices. Even if they aren't abusing their authority, if they get hacked or requested to share by a gov, you might never know it. And what happens if you worked on a contract for a country? It's an absolute breach of trust and respect for their sovereignty. I'd never work with a bad actor but those high morale limitations don't change your responsibilities.

​@@normduchYou probably know this but for those that don't open source doesn't mean it's secure or uncompromised. It at least protects you from having account details stolen bc there is no account but it doesn't mean much else.

@@Pfish1000 The thing about open source software is that the code and documentation is public, meaning you know exactly what does and doesn't happen behind the scenes.

@@Pfish1000 sure, but it does at least mean it probably isnt pre-compromised by the publisher and all the devs, rather than upfront declared and super likely.

Could you name those channels? That seems really useful

Louis Rosssman for starters​@@mindlessscientist3772

Don't get why people use it instead of open source programs that are basically the same, like Krita.

@@lorddaegoth Probably don't know they exist and/or don't want to change their workflow. Krita, Inkscape, GIMP, FireAlpaca are 4 different Adobe-esque software I know of that could replace an Adobe product.

Yea pls name one of those channels that read the tos

Sometimes we get this stuff, other times he teaches us about the mouse being wonky. Always a coin flip.

@@bighonkies I mean.. he calls it cursed knowledge... So technically he's still giving knowledge/ teaching something

@@Brave_Falmingo i never said he wasn't. I even used the word "teaches" when talking about the wonky mouse lol

Unfortunately, it was Adobe's secret plan to get to eat Thor's ass. It's what they wanted all along!

This is what happens when people only read the headline

Issue is that he didnt give the full extent of what even happened. It seems he probably just read the headlines as well. Like usually. Its a shame really because people take his word as gospel.

@@TunaIRL it's a youtube short buddy

@@shoyupacket5572 No idea how that relates to anything. I am not talking about the length but what's being said. Unless you're implying that shorts inherently do not need be accurate.

@@TunaIRL it's short clip taken from a stream, so go watch the stream vod? the irony of you not correcting him yet saying he's not being accurate also, please enlighten us.

Yarrr harrr! Avast me hearties!

Or "Gargle my hairy beanbag"

It's basically "Look at the stab wound they inflicted" and then Thor goes "Have you looked at the entire thing? His head got removed by a Shotgun, and you're blaming the Knife?!" But yeah Adobe basically Kurt Kobain'ed themselves with this, Anyone with and NDA or bound by Privacy Laws to protect and secure information can no longer use them, which is pretty much the Entire corporate market

@@Voron_Aggrav “Kurt Kobain’ed”?

​​@@esobelisk3110 Kurt was the frontman and singer for Nirvana. He allegedly removed himself from this world in the 90s by suck-starting a 12ga.

​@esobelisk3110 Hopefully, this didn't already go through. Kurt Kobain was the front-man and lead singer for the 90s grunge band Nirvana. He allegedly removed himself from this world by removing his cranium with a combustion actuated projectile launching device. Thanks a lot, U-tube, for making me say that so weird.

@@cjmunnee3356 ty, Seems I also ran afoul of That particular thing, It's something people at times refer to as a meme, Dark Humour being a powerful thing

😂 Now you're on a list and their AI is gonna go after you and do things that ought not be done to your creations. I just skipped out of their trash a decade ago and will never go back. There's a list of alternatives you can find (the Affinity software is the best imo. So, so good). Cheaper (all of them), better quality ( DaVinci Resolve), and less hardware intensive.

Piracy piracy piracy piracy. I love that word, it turn me on

@@woodworkerroyer8497old copies of Photoshop can’t obtain your image though

i recall, and this is "Internet bullshit", but i recall adobe has been warning people about using their old software, whatever that means

@@woodworkerroyer8497 not sure how im gonna be on a list, im like fifth in the chain of downloads for this particular torrent. hell i didnt even touch the actual torrent, a friend of mine put the file on their dropbox for me.

Funny thing is that they aren't wrong and both things are base covering for the same purpose.

Well they’re making it illegal to build your own house so….,

And not just your house, but every house that looks like yours.

And the crazier part is that they want art you might not even own yourself. If you work for a company, everything you do for them belong to the company. You simply may not have rights for what Adobe want you to agree to.

It's because it's idiots on a witch-hunt. They only know "AI bad" everything else is permissible.

People focused on AI are actual artists who use Adobe products. GenAI services are salivating to get their hands on Artists' works to feed their AI and make money in their expenses. You can't just brush it off like it's not a problem lol.

The Ai is literally the least bad thing about this, which is crazy. They can literally take your own complete work and do whatever they want with it, literally.

@@serghonest9 it is a problem but it's definitely not the worst part about this and shouldn't be getting most of the focus. this gives them access to private information. it's things like legal, classified, copyrighted, medical, ect, documents that they can access if you use acrobat, that's the massive problem. they did update their tos again after the backlash but it's still not great

its not even that its kinda the oposite because theres people out there who use ai image generators who dont want there ai art to be used as training data now its like saying your not allowed to learn from my art because its mine even though my art is generated from years of learning from other artists

@@Sarge92 The use of customer files to train AI is alleged- it is possible under the TOS's wording but there is no hard proof. What the TOS does explicitly state is that Adobe can take anything you make on an Adobe product, which covers anything in PDF format, and do the following: -Copy it -License it to another company -Publicly display it -Distribute it -Modify it -Derive other works from it All of these can be done without your knowledge, notification, or compensation. Things normally made or utilized on Adobe products, which these Terms of Service cover all of, include but are not limited to: -Artwork -Manuscripts -Internal Corporate Documents -Legal Documents -Printable Patterns and Stencils -Personal Photos -Personal Documents The only catch is that Adobe may only use them "Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the services and software." So, basically, if they decide using your work will make their products better, they can use it in whatever way they want.

It's not even that. It's "I made the paintbrush, so the Mona Lisa is mine"

People get obsessed with these weird hype trains in the news media and completely lose the real plot.

The part two is stupid that it exists, but it's basically standard for every service that let's users upload their stuff to it (in this case Adobe cloud). It's lawyer speak for "you let us put your images to the cloud and make modified thumbnails of them when you upload them and do whatever else copying is necessary to provide the service". Is it worded overly broadly? Yes, they typically are so the service provider doesn't have to worry about how exactly they are handling your copyrighted content when making the service. Google Photos for instance has basically equivalent terms. By using the service you give Google worldwide, non exclusive, royalty free license to host, reproduce, distribute, communicate, use, publish, publicly perform, publicly display, modify and translate your content. And to sublicense these rights to other users and contractors. Google's terms page does tell the reason why it asks for these rights, unlike Adobe's, but as I said these are basically in every cloud, gallery and hosting provider's terms.

@@tylisirn it’s one of the reasons I hate cloud services for everything. I don’t want all my data being collected by companies. Some of it I just want to handle locally.

​@@TehKarmalizerNo one is stopping you, from using your data locally.

@Tudas no, but they're sure making it annoying and difficult not to! Microsoft and Google both love to give you "Reminders" in their OSes to back up your files to their cloud, even though you never even opened the corresponding app and Apple to my knowledge doesn't (or used to not) provide a simple, standard way to copy your files from your iPhone to your PC/MAC via USB.

This is what I don't understand and is what scares me, because I'd totally write that off as the company trying to cover every single base, basically saying "by using our product, you agree we're always right and never wrong." I don't use adobe; how would they gain access to stuff you create? When you save, does it go to a server they have access to? Because I'd just shrug and go "Yeah, whatever, Adobe, it's not like I'm submitting my files to you for review anyway. Accept."

@@nerdygamer11 I don't use PS but I imagine to enforce the subscription it needs to connect to the internet at some point. Or the adobe cloud thing. The AI fear mongering is just disney panicking because their 2 dollar an hour sweatshop animators can now go make disney-esque replication models and sell them.

@@nerdygamer11 I could be wrong (because I don't use current Adobe software), but all the Adobe products are "CC," or creative cloud. Essentially, the product is always connected to Adobe's servers and likely had an auto-save feature enabled or pushed on the users under the cover of protecting unsaved work. In reality, you are either saving your files to a cloud, or saving them locally and a copy is being made in the cloud for Adobe to snatch up at any point in time. I am unsure if Adobe's CC products allow you to use them without an internet connection, but I would be surprised if they did.

I mean, using your work for AI is stealing your potential 10+ years of artistic skill you've built up. and the worst part is, you won't even know they are using it, unlike with just blatantly using your work. And they're going to use it to make sure you can never get an art job, just so companies can spend less on art

I mean, I am concerned that Thor wants powerful people to eat his arse It’s the strangest kink

It's a millennial thing. We all say that.

@@redsonja84 I know a lot of millenials and I've heard them maybe say that once ever. Him, dozens of times

Or a giant space angler fish. Those too.

Or chat when someone requests him to disrespectfully recline.

this is gold

this is gold

This is gold

This is gold

This is gold

THIS

For me it just goes in the pile of corporate theft.

Note that many companies also operate this way. Working for Apple, so I hear, is almost like Disney in that they claim everything you say or do creatively, even off-hours, to be theirs forever. Hugely toxic terms of employment.

Technically, the term "non-exclusive" stops short of them being able to say it's their work. But, in terms of what they can do with it, there's little difference, because they're saying they can take it, use it for whatever they like, and even license it to others to do whatever they like.

No no, it's more like paying 300$ for a tool set that randomly explodes and the manufacturer gets whatever you make whenever they want

@@joshuawing4766 When the exploding tool set does finally produce something worth its bits of data in storage, that thing is now owned and useable by Adobe. Um, thx Adobe, you're really doing me a solid here /s

"You have to pay us to use our services, but also we're going to take your work as our own and never pay you a cent for it. You can thank us for the privilege." Is what it feels like.

I even disagree with it as a salaried employee. It's still theft. People just put up with it because they need the jobs.

@@terryvans1420 People unfortunately put up with it when not salaried. C418 the creator of the original Minecraft sound track would not make any more music for the game because Microsoft's lawyers wanted full control, and he was unwavering in his artistic rights. Everyone else that continued to make the Minecraft OST after that gave up there rights for those songs.

Never underestimate the power of social media. We literally bullied a movie studio into changing the design of a movie character (Sonic). Social media allows people to come together for change far more easily, but it requires awareness, and requires pressure.

@@calvindibartolo2686 There's a non-zero chance that ugly sonic was for marketing.

That was only added after the controversy had started already and their damage control failed. It is there now though, yes. However, this also says "will not" and not "have not", so it may be that they have trained their AI on it in the past. It is speculation but I dont trust them enough for the benefit of the doubt.

I think that either a) they change these tos slightly later on when people get used to this current tos to allow marketing and/or AI training, or b) they use it for training generative AI or marketing through another layer for that legal grey area, such as selling to a third party AI company that Adobe have a stake in, or c) selling to advertisers.

If they won't use it for marketing, and won't use it for LLMs, then what? Are they framing all the dick pics and putting them on a wall? Is said wall next to a wall decorated with confidentiality violations? Is Adobe tanking itself over a kink?

As another commenter pointed out, they may just be trying to boil the pot slowly once they were called out. I also think they'll still totally use it for AI, hell, maybe even doing it right now while they wait to see if OpenAI manages to get away with it.

I'm reading 4.3 on the screen right here right now in this video, and nothing like that is there at all. So that's new.

Hmm, this valve should be airtight. Lets see what AI knows about airtight.

"do not parrot things off the Internet" best advice ever, chat, always keep in mind.

"do not parrot things off the Internet", thanks for the advice, will keep in mind

Didn't you just...

That lawsuit has likely been brewing for months if not years

@@WizardofWestmarch Very good point!

Not sued, they only are being accused. There is no lawsuit.

@@binsoku6 That is incorrect. As of Monday, June 17th, the United States government (on referral of the FTC) filed suit against Adobe. The lawsuit paperwork can be found on ftc.gov (and was linked on CNET).

Cries in macos

My photoshop doesn't have internet access 🎯🎯🎯

Yeah anything that doesn't have a simple cancel button in my mind is a scam.

I think they are getting sued for this.

@@NexusARC I bet they are, such practices can be sued in european union easily

Adobe really wants their products to get pirated, uh?

​@@michasokoowski6651They're not even being sued by the EU, but the freaking US. You know it's bad when that government gets involved.

Full*, with the ability to make unlimited copies without your consent.

It was maliciously. The artists made soooo much porn of the characters and Disney kept it all and own it. Since it was made by the official artists it is all technically canon.

@@Vampyrr DAYUM das based asf

Once did an event FOR EA GAMES. I took pictures of winners, and event. Every event after they added another part to their packet. Stating to take pictures of the event, and winners.

Pro tip: EULA's are not the law and often contradicting the law or even claiming things that are out right illegal.

Except that is totally unenforcable in CA. Of all the states, doing your own work on your own time with your own materials is 100% your work, regardless of what you signed. But how are you going to fight Disney in court?

Imagine just opening a confidential contract or otherwise classified document in Acrobat and they now legally own a copy of that... to say that's "problematic" is the understatement of the century.

Honestly that’s nothing new. There’s a reason I deleted my Facebook account nearly a decade ago.

Have you read TOS for other sites and programs? Not that Adobe is in the right here, but there are many others in the wrong too.

@@ImAlsoMerobiba that’s true but other sites like social media at least have a reason. Social media lawyers put that in so that there’s no question that the things developers need to do to make the service work are allowed (I.e. you might need the right to modify and create derivative works to create a lower res version of an image). The problem for adobe is that this clause doesn’t only include things shared intentionally, but all content made using their software. Adobe should only need those rights for things you choose to share with them (like putting something on Adobe Stock or whatever).

@@ImAlsoMerobiba the problem is how vague adobe’s terms are on top of it being an expensive service. That’s also the reason I don’t use Facebook, it’s about the trade off. Instagram has a similar policy but it’s a free service that can be good for getting exposure.

Check 4.3, they've swapped 4.2 and 4.3 around. They've basically reworded it, they mean they redistribute and publically display based on your direction through the cloud via sharing and what not

@@gooze9368finally someone who understands

@@gooze9368 I don't see anything in 4.3 that's problematic. Every single line includes "at your direction".

@@Zanian19 Why is that "at your direction" even needed? Adobe should not have any rights to your content. Period.

The funny thing is that all art AI was doing this anyways, including them. This is just them covering their legal bases, by having you agree to both the training and usage.

Honestly could be a huge hippa violation.

@@matthewcharles9813 except unfortunately the way the law is written, it's the hospital/doctors/staff who used the adobe products that would have violated hippa, by giving confidential data to adobe, a third party who does not claim to protect it to hippa standards. The law doesn't allow for individuals with privileged information to just forcibly dump that info onto a third party and then make it that third party's responsibility to protect it, that'd be a little silly if it did work that way. Instead it's now up to all health care service providers to ensure they are no longer using adobe products to handle any sensitive information. Just as it will be up to businesses to make sure that they aren't using adobe software with any trade secrets / private info.

Simple, if you are working under contract for a company (in a case where the company holds the copyright for you work) or work with confidential files, you should stop using it until they get sued for having illegal TOS

So did they change the TOS showed in the short or you're refering to the previous TOS before that?