Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Michael's take on Adobe CC  (Read 10293 times)
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1100



« Reply #120 on: May 10, 2013, 05:06:47 PM »
ReplyReply

There is nothing really unusual about the TOS.  Some of the terms likely are not enforceable if push came to shove. 
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2332


« Reply #121 on: May 10, 2013, 05:53:31 PM »
ReplyReply

With all due respect, you have still done nothing to show why you think so.

I don't give LR lessons, talk to Jeff  Smiley

With all due respect, when you do nothing to support your claims we should ignore them ;-)
Logged
Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #122 on: May 10, 2013, 06:30:19 PM »
ReplyReply

"Got to agree with Mark, that's not a useful reply. If there's some nasty bits there, let's see em. Since I don't play a lawyer on TV, I'd appreciate too, having someone point out something I should be pissed about."

See my post at #46, but I'll take a stab at what should cause mild disappointment in the TOS.

1. No refunds, never, no matter what even if it crashes.

2. No requirement for support, never. 

3. Adobe can cancel your subscription for a reason or for no reason.

4. If, Shudder/Shake and Content Aware doesn't quite operate the way it's advertised and destroys the 15 layers you've been working on Tough Sh..  Ain't Adobe's problem.

5.  If you are rude with support because you can't understand the dialect, you can be permanently cut off from support with no recourse with a permanent license and no refunds if you're in the "Cloud" rent mode.  Nevertheless, your credit card will be wacked for 50% of the amount remaining unpaid on a one year subscription.

6.  Adobe says SantaClara county is the only venue for litigation, and if you commence an action against them for a warranty breach, you must first pay them $1000 because you have agreed that they have given you no warranty of any kind for any purpose.

So there you are, on a deadline for delivery of of your product and, as we have experienced, CS 6 won't launch because of the most recent "update" that requires me to pay attention to the days remaining.  If I don't, Adobe program manager self-destructs and I can't even download a copy from my own account because it tells me I have to contact support.  I wait for 45 minutes, and then get told to leave a phone number and someone will contact me within 48 hours.   What's my recourse?

Well for example, if I'm a New York resident and have the bucks to pay a lawyer, that Adobe Warranty Waiver is null and void unless it was signed before the purchase.  There are other escapes from the Warranty Waiver in almost every other state, but Adobe's legal "beagles" as Mr. Schewe likes to refer to them, have placed some discouraging language and threatening financial penalties in the Purchase/TOS agreement.  Unfortunately, there are, as Mr. Schewe has characterized them, snakes who, like Adobe's beagles, like to eat and therefore have to charge a fee that will easily exceed the purchase price of your Adobe software.

Other than these minor objections, I see nothing wrong with Adobe's agreement


Ken Richmond

Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8067



WWW
« Reply #123 on: May 10, 2013, 06:48:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Ken, interesting.

While none of the bullet points are something to applaud, most don't seem too surprising. Certainly not #1 or #3, I'd kind of expect that from most companies. #5 seems weird to me but not a deal breaker. #6 is standard stuff and understandable. #2 of all seems a bit out there. I might not fully understand the fine points.

I don't see anything from your fine paraphrase that is outrageous and odious. I was expecting something akin to "we own your images" or something really over the top.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #124 on: May 10, 2013, 07:04:45 PM »
ReplyReply

The reality is that Adobe's counsel KNOWS that the Warranty Waiver terms are not enforcible in most jurisdictions.  They put the language in there to actively discourage someone from taking justified action.  There is a terse acknowledgement that the  waiver of "Warranty of Merchantability and Fitness for a Particular Purpose may not be applicable in 'some' states.  See post #46 and the link there.  

Here is the point:  You, as a well know photographer and having excellent blog on color management obviously work for clients.  Would you
give your client a purchase agreement with Adobe's terms?

I really want to know?

Thanks,

Ken Richmond
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8067



WWW
« Reply #125 on: May 10, 2013, 07:12:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is the point:  You, as a well know photographer and having excellent blog on color management obviously work for clients.  Would you
give your client a purchase agreement with Adobe's terms?

Don't know, really. Probably not.

I have two kinds of clients. One group (other photographers and such) no contracts (I've yet to be screwed but don't tell anyone).

The other client is pretty big companies who send me their contracts and I'm back in the camp of "little guy photographer who wants the job <g>. Again, I've yet to be screwed by them ether. Like I said, I don't play a lawyer on TV.

I've clicked YES to a lot of EULA over the years. I've read a few as best I can.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
johnvr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #126 on: May 10, 2013, 07:35:15 PM »
ReplyReply

As much as I'm upset about Adobe's CC move, or at least the lack of choice given to us, I don't think the terms are much different from the terms of most services we use. That's a dead end to me.
Logged
Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #127 on: May 10, 2013, 07:52:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I've clicked through as many "waivers" as the rest, and because I'm held to a higher standard, my waivers are really "waivers". The software consumer contract practices are detestable from an ethics standpoint.  They could never get away with the EULA with the government or any enterprise wide software sale.  I've seen many web design firms attempt to impose what some here mis-characterize as "boilerplate".  It reflects very negatively on the "character" of those who adopt it.  No client of mine will ever agree to such terms.  "Boilerplate" is language that has survived and withstood court challenge successfully.  Adobe's EULA has not been challenged simply because it's not economical to do so.  

Ken Richmond
Logged

AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1100



« Reply #128 on: May 10, 2013, 08:19:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Adobe's EULA has not been challenged simply because it's not economical to do so.

And there's your opportunity to get into class action ligitation.  It's insanely lucrative for the winning lawfirm.
Logged

BrianWJH
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


« Reply #129 on: May 10, 2013, 09:39:37 PM »
ReplyReply

More concerning to me is this exclusion that implies that your agreement (as 'The parties') to their EULA also agrees to the following condition, which attempts to put Adobe outside international conventions:

"23.1 Venue. ...The parties specifically disclaim the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods."
Logged
rogan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 119


« Reply #130 on: May 10, 2013, 11:04:11 PM »
ReplyReply

If any pro who makes his/her money of of usage has a problem with this they are a hypocrite. This is exactly how I make my money off of photos so it make sense to me. I have zero problem with it and think the $19 and $49 monthly deals are totally fair.
And imagine you are an ad agency that has 300 employees and your freelancers vary between 10 and 200. You can turn of licenses and back on month to month as needed.

The only thing that bothers me about this at all is that I actually agree with Schewe on something.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #131 on: May 11, 2013, 01:29:10 AM »
ReplyReply

The only thing that bothers me about this at all is that I actually agree with Schewe on something.

OMG...I am so sorry if agreeing with me is causing you discomfort.

:~)
Logged
Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1861


WWW
« Reply #132 on: May 11, 2013, 09:03:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Specifically, which part do you find so outrageous and odious?

Mark,

I did not state "and odious." You did that.

I usually don't respond to this kind of question but I have some free time this morning, so here is a partial listing. The most outrageous of their terms is that Adobe grants itself permission to use your content, without notice or compensation. But read on. Comments come from the source quoted. I encourage all to actually read the terms.

The following content is from: http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html


First: The renter must agree in advance to any changes Adobe makes. You may not read the changes in advance.

3.3 Adobe may require you to provide consent to the updated Terms before further use of the Services is permitted. Otherwise, your continual use of any Service constitutes your acceptance of the changes.
---------------------------


Second: Adobe has no obligation to provide services or materials, even after it's paid for. They can charge you for nothing, and they have no liability if they decide to discontinue software without notice.

6.5 Adobe may modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the Services or Materials, or any portion thereof, with or without notice. You agree that Adobe shall not be liable to you or anyone else if we do so.
---------------------------


Third: Adobe can make arbitrary demands for arbitrary information at any time for any reason of their choice. All they have to do is add it under "Account Information."

Adobe may require that you change your Account Information or certain parts of your Account Information at any time for any reason.
---------------------------

Fourth: Anything Adobe arbitrarily determines to be objectionable, “otherwise objectionable” is required to be available to them.

a) Make Available any Material that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, tortious, defamatory, libelous, vulgar, obscene, child-pornographic, lewd, profane, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable;
---------------------------

Fifth: termination or content removal for “no reason” or “any reason”.

Adobe can shut off your account and shut you out, and you’ll have no way to open those files you created.

15.1 Adobe, in its sole discretion, may (but has no obligation to) monitor or review the Services and Materials at any time. Without limiting the foregoing, Adobe shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to remove any of Your Content for any reason (or no reason), including if it violates the Terms or any Law.

19.3 Termination or Suspension of Services. Adobe may also terminate or suspend all or a portion of your account and/or access to the Services for any reason (subject to Additional Terms for certain Services). Except as may be set forth in any Additional Terms applicable to a particular Service, termination of your account may include: (a) removal of access to all offerings within the Services; (b) deletion of Your Content and Account Information, including your personal information, log-in ID and password, and all related information, files, and Materials associated with or inside your account (or any part thereof); and (c) barring of further use of the Services.

19.4 You agree that all terminations for cause shall be made in Adobe’s sole discretion and that Adobe shall not be liable to you or any third party for any termination of your account (and accompanying deletion of your Account Information), or access to the Services and Materials, including Your Content.
---------------------------

Sixth: No choice and no notice on software updates.

11.4 The Software may automatically download and install updates from Adobe. These updates are designed to improve, enhance and further develop the Services and may take the form of bug fixes, enhanced functions, new Software modules, and completely new versions. You agree to receive such updates (and permit Adobe to deliver these to you with or without your knowledge) as part of your use of the Services.
---------------------------

Seventh: You give Adobe access to your content for their advertising and you get nothing for it.

17. Advertising and Your Content.

You agree that Adobe may display advertisements adjacent to Your Content, and you agree that you are not entitled to any compensation.

The manner, mode, and extent of advertising or other revenue generating models pursued by Adobe on or in conjunction with the Services and/or Your Content are subject to change without specific notice to you.
---------------------------

Anyone who considers the kind of terms noted above, as example, to be acceptable practice, would benefit themselves by studying what is commonly referred to as Stockholm syndrome.
Logged

MarkM
Full Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 231



WWW
« Reply #133 on: May 11, 2013, 02:19:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Justan, I read the blog post. I was hoping you would explain which part was patently offensive rather than simply reproducing the post. So let's just take the first point:

"Adobe may require you to provide consent to the updated Terms before further use of the Services is permitted. Otherwise, your continual use of any Service constitutes your acceptance of the changes."

If that's where we draw the line in the sand then I have to cancel:
AT&T service: "AT&T may change or modify the Terms from time-to-time without notice other than posting the amended Terms on the Site."
Netflix: "Netflix reserves the right, from time to time, with or without notice to you, to change these Terms of Use"
Wordpress: "Automattic reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to modify or replace any part of this Agreement. It is your responsibility to check this Agreement periodically for changes"

You get the point—I didn't have to search for these, I just randomly picked services I use. Ken Richmond is probably right that boilerplate is the wrong word, but it is certainly ubiquitous. To single out Adobe and cry foul is simply confirmation bias—the writer of that post is upset with Adobe and seeking anything that will support his/her feelings.

If you have a problem with this, you have a problem with most of corporate America. And you might have point, these really aren't great terms. As Ken mentions above, I would never try to get a client to sign this. But you have to pick your fights and this one is a little quixotic at best. You can choose to not ever sign a user agreement with this language, but that will leave you with very few tools and services to choose from. There are reasons to be upset with changes Adobe is making, but this at the far periphery.

The same argument is possible with every one of these points.

Also, the one you pointed specifically as "Adobe grants itself permission to use your content, without notice or compensation" is a misreading and an exaggeration in my opinion. It sounds like they will have an online service where you can see your content. They will also have ads on this service. There are ads on this page next to your content. To read this as a rights grab—as using your content—I think is a stretch.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8067



WWW
« Reply #134 on: May 11, 2013, 03:16:10 PM »
ReplyReply

You get the point—I didn't have to search for these, I just randomly picked services I use. Ken Richmond is probably right that boilerplate is the wrong word, but it is certainly ubiquitous.

Agreed (although 10 wrongs don't make a right) <g>.

Wonder about iTunes, of course, I've never looked.

It should make us ponder just how many EULA's or whatever you want to call them we have agreed to without reading.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #135 on: May 11, 2013, 03:47:46 PM »
ReplyReply

If any pro who makes his/her money of of usage has a problem with this they are a hypocrite.

Only, and I repeat, if they only sell their wares through a time limited usage agreement. If they sell prints, is that not a perpetual license? Adobe's clients really aren't upset with the cloud concept or because they can't grasp the concept of licensing terms ... they are pissed that Adobe will no longer sell us "prints" or an infinite usage rights like we have become accustomed to buying in the past. There's really no hypocrisy.  It would be the same if any photographer who has been selling prints, albums, etc. for decades then overnight changed their policies in such a drastic fashion ... they too would face some disgruntled customers ... though photographers actually have to face very real competition and can't dictate the fortunes of an entire industry.

Regardless of the semantics over who is and who is not a hypocrite, if the executives at Adobe had though this through and included photographers' concerns in the process or offered an amicable and equitable exit strategy in the mix ... even though apparently we should never had been using Photoshop in the first place ...this would all be a non-issue ... perpetual licensing would have been dropped due to a lack of interest ... not because it was too difficult to support.
Logged
robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 324


WWW
« Reply #136 on: May 11, 2013, 03:49:05 PM »
ReplyReply


Now Rent to Own is a different model and one I think could work here since I seriously doubt Adobe is going to back down on a subscription model. They could allow someone who rents (subscribes) to CC for a minimum of 1 year to buy out that version (locked, no updates) for what I suspect would be a pretty high fee. Like $20 per month for 12 months then buy out at $699. Now before you say "but Andrew, that's a lot more money than just buying Photoshop today" and you'd be right, Adobe isn't going to change anything to end up where they were before the CC debacle in terms of generating the same amount of cash. A buy out would at least give people an end point and option for a perceptual license and, if they want to get back onto the subscription train, they start over again at $20 per month for one year plus.

I don't see why rent to own could only work if the buy out price is exorbitant.  Presumably, there will be some, perhaps many, CC users who decide that they actually prefer the subscription model with its continuous updates.  Adobe could continue to draw steady revenue from them while also selling perpetual licenses at reasonable prices to those who prefer to own the software outright.  That way, most people will be happy, and Adobe will avoid pissing off a sizable proportion of their customers.

Adobe may have a virtual monopoly on the image editing market for now, but the door to the vault has been cracked open ever so slightly, and I expect that there are any number of developers feverishly seeking levers, large and small, to pry it open further.  Nothing lasts forever, and great companies sometimes overreach.

Rob
Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573


WWW
« Reply #137 on: May 11, 2013, 03:53:35 PM »
ReplyReply

It should make us ponder just how many EULA's or whatever you want to call them we have agreed to without reading.
99.99% probably.  I think I've read maybe two or so completely but the others I just look at the headers and click on accept.  My computer is still running fine. Grin
Logged

Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #138 on: May 11, 2013, 04:14:25 PM »
ReplyReply

..."If you have a problem with this, you have a problem with most of corporate America."  Not so fast on that statement.  Let's take Canada and Pratt and Whitney, could they sell a turbine with that warranty waiver language (Mr. Segal?)  Could Gulfstream (Mr. Segal?), Honda, General Motors?  Appliance Division or Aerospace divisions of General Electric, Boeing, Ford, Amana, Levi, Canon, Nikon, Hasselblad, Phase, Toyota, Met Life, (or any other life or casualty company) Epson,  Hewlett Packard, or any pharmaceutical firm or medical appliance manufacturer that you care to mention.  As for telecommunications, and Cable, interruption in services have to be credited under FCC and other regulations.  How about vacuum cleaner manufacturers?

There's no particular bias as far as Adobe is concerned except for their consumer promotional efforts.  Not one industry (corporation) would stoop the the level of "consumer bias" that Adobe does as an unregulated monopoly.  At least Microsoft guarantees support within a "reasonable" amount of time.

Ken Richmond
Logged

Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #139 on: May 11, 2013, 04:23:31 PM »
ReplyReply

And BTW,  I actually applaud the concepts and integration that Adobe is attempting and will be joining CC because two clients are being serviced by site developers who will be providing progress updates using Be as a contract requirement.   Just because we've become accustomed to the miserable performance, early releases, insufficient testing and specification by software companies, does not mean they should continue to get away with it.   

Ken Richmond
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad