Watch this, your not telling the whole story here

Also a nude is not pornography

And deleting comments.. I commented twice that got deleted. Once just pointed out that Adobe's language has loopholes. And they could have used much stronger words on their AI stance.

Thanks, Scott.

Appreciate the comment, Ron.

Hey A.P.P.E.! Nice to meet you...again. Thanks for the comment; and yes, by all means feel free to play this video. Any additional clarity we can bring to communities is awesome.

From the TOS: We will not (and cannot) grant a sublicense to a third party that is greater than the rights you give us. For further clarification on training, see Section 4.3, sub-section C Parts 1 & 2. www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html

@@jasonlevinevideo You didn't answer his question.

@@jasonlevinevideo Thanks, but that doesn't answer my question. Could you please address those concerns?

According to TOS link he provided, they used the stock images to train the AI and still do.

@@jasonlevinevideo "We will not use these rights to train generative AI models on your Content and will not use the sublicense rights to have anyone else train generative AI models on your Content, except at your specific request (like you asking us to train a custom model on your Content)." I feel like the language is still weak here. "We won't do it and can't sublicense it." In principal covers the bases, but it's shy of an actual prohibition. Adobe say they won't do these two specific things. There is probably a lawyer somewhere who can loophole that. "to HAVE anyone else".. but could they *permit* someone else? I am not a lawyer, but I do see a distinction between Having my neighbor remove a tree from the yard (I paid for this) vs permitting them to remove a tree (they wanted to and I didn't stop them). Maybe the law sees it differently, but it feels weak. I would rather something much stronger and firmer: "Adobe does not have the right to perform any form of AI Training on your Content in this agreement except the option to improve adobe product and services, which may use machine vision and can be opted out of at any time. No Adobe partner, contractor, sub contractor, vendor, supplier, affiliate, employee or any other business relation has any right to perform any form of AI Training on your content under this agreement. Adobe explicitly agrees not to perform or permit any business relation to perform such training on your Content without prior approval. Adobe may offer to create custom AI Models for You, based on your Content. Any such training will be governed by a separate and dedicated agreement for that function at the time such training is requested." You know, the kind of thing a lawyer writes when they want it to be absolutely certain that no one, anywhere, will survive in court if they try something stupid. Make it absolutely clear that there's no realm where it will be permitted and take responsibility for ensuring that.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm speaking as I normally speak, merely trying to inform.

@@jasonlevinevideo Ok.

You're most welcome, TSS.

I can't disagree, Wes. Moving forward, I'm hoping we can avoid these issues with better language and clearer explanations upfront. Appreciate the comment!

Thanks so much, Peter!

The plain English isn’t legally binding.

@@codykonior Even a verbal agreement, in plain english is legally binding, just so you know. Now whether the other party will challenge the agreement in court is another matter. But that applies to any agreement, no matter how it was written.

@@codykonior The 'plain english' is purely for people who don't understand the legal terminolgy. 'IF' there was a legal case the lawyers would use the legal terminology ... which translates to what Jason explained. When I learned French in school the teachers would say "In English this French word means ...." but when I'm in France I would use the French word ... not the English version / explanation. Vous Comprenez?

lol

It sucks wearing glasses. Getting old sucks.

don't worry, @EvanFotis... one day you'll be able to professionally edit a video too. until then, keep reaching! #excelsior

Guys it’s not the glasses fault per se. Just needed some prep work on how this setup comes out on camera, adjusting the lighting source etc. Especially for this issue which is quite different than all the great a/v tutorials you make where we focus on the app UI etc.

@@EvanFotis It would have been so easy to just use a softbox instead of whatever harsh light that is. Which, it's ironic as hell. How many times did he say "as any X would know." Any videographer would know: be careful where you put the sharp lights if you have shiny, reflective things on set. Which I feel like it's almost universally known. It's so rare that I see someone with such sharp reflections in their glasses these days. Even common lights for zoom calls I think are softer and more diffuse.

@@RazgrizAlphaONE Ok guys, point taken.

Thanks, Quaker.

Haha. Thanks, Dutch:)

I appreciate that. The link is in the description with the full updated TOU and new explanations to accompany the language. If you have more specific Qs not answered there, let me know and I can run them up the flagpole.

I appreciate the comment, Stryk, and I can't disagree with the point you're making. Hopefully this does provide a little more clarity, now and moving forward. Thanks.

​@@jasonlevinevideo Thanks Jason. I've loved all the progress Premiere has made over the past few years. I also use Resolve and Avid, but Premiere has been my favorite for quite awhile. I'm hoping that all of this blows over soon. Moving forward, I'm hoping that the higher ups at Adobe can try their best to but the client first. That is the mindset I have when I edit my projects, and it would be a giant disservice if Adobe makes more moves to alienate its fanbase.

Totally get it, and I'm with you. They are watching/listening and taking this feedback very seriously. Thanks again.

Nothing spiteful from my side. Just providing some clarity on the terms.

Probably, trying to convey an "everything is fine, you guys are making a big deal out of nothing" attitude, you ended up sounding a little condescending, in fact.

@@jasonlevinevideo Your tone, delivery, and wording suggest otherwise. Every bit of this is condescending. Either you shouldn't have used that AI to write your script or you should've had someone else do the video. This kind of delivery will not calm your customers, it'll piss them off. Here, let me give you an example of how you probably could have done this better: "Hi, I'm Jason, from Adobe. We recently planned to update our terms of service and it hasn't gone over well. We made some mistakes and I think everybody does. To start on fixing that, we're releasing new terms of service which will go into effect one month from now on XX/XX/XX. We hope this will give you, our community, ample time to read them over and make the best decision for your creative projects and businesses. I'm here today to walk through the new terms of service. Joining me is not one of our lawyers, but an outside lawyer, unaffiliated with Adobe, except to answer questions for this video. You should get similar answers from talking with most lawyers. There may be some variances from jurisdiction to jurisdiction so take this as a general explainer more than legal advice. We're not giving that out today. <Q & A with the lawyer> There have also been some concerns about the Product Improvement section of your Adobe Account. For privacy reasons, I can't show you the live improvement system, but we have a testing system made with data created entirely in-house so we can validate new features before they go live. You can see here that we're using some machine vision to detect places where the magic wand tool didn't work as well as we would have liked. The system is gathering data to help our engineers improve the magic wand. Sometimes we need to take a human look at this type of content, such as this image here. The system thinks there's an error in how the colors are setup in this document. Data from this will help us decide if we should change how and where document color settings are displayed. (Or whatever relevant part of that you can actually display) We do train AIs, but we are trying to be ethical about it. This is a complex subject and as with all new technological developments, there will be growing pains. Our Firefly AI was trained entirely in-house on data from our Adobe Stock program. We used only content submitted to Adobe Stock, which you have to sign up for, agree to terms for, and then specifically upload to there. Nothing you upload to your Creative Cloud storage or that you make with Photoshop, Premiere, Illustrator, or our other tools is being automatically used in any AI processing. You can use the link below to access your Adobe Account and opt out of our product improvement. I hope you won't, but the choice there is yours. There will also be a link below for cancelling your creative cloud or other Adobe Subscription. I hope you won't do that either, but we need to be a customer first company and the first step in that process is making your creative life easier even if it's parting ways. I said this was how we start fixing the trust we lost with the community. We will be watching your feedback, reading the comments on this video, and deciding what other steps we take going forward. We want to integrate AI tools and give you better creative technology, we just need to do it in a way that works for you." Yea, that's a longer script. It's also a more informative, friendly, and entertaining script. I could maybe compare you to someone like Gamers Nexus. Your video makes me think worse of Adobe for how you talk to your customers and how you approached this entire thing. Gamer's Nexus on the other hand, presents clear, data-backed, demonstrative material for the subjects of his videos. People walk away from a GN video with trust in his integrity and commitment to the audience. I came away from your video wondering if I really need to keep Premiere around when Resolve has a perpetual license for the studio version. You keep saying "as any creative knows" "anyone in the music industry knows". I think I can turn that line around for you and the rest of adobe: As any business professional knows, losing your customers is the most direct route to bankruptcy.

++

The industry still uses Adobe and doesn't care about this sensationalist "backlash" by KZfaqrs

@@Left_it LOL. The "industry". Delusional.

@@Left_it Obviously Adobe knows it is a big deal otherwise they wouldn't be rolling out this damage control campaign.

Hi Patrick. I sincerely appreciate the comment all the same, and I understand where you're coming from. We're trying to provide clarity for the community, but it should have been more clear from the onset.

hot take