Apple made a nearly identical rights claim change in its Terms of Service at the end of March, worded in much the same way but far more vaguely. But no one noticed. Perhaps that's why Apple has never clarified what it means, either. My guess is the same as Adobe's, but like them, Apple ( and everyone else) needs to be clearer on it.
"Except to the extent prohibited by law, you hereby grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nonexclusive license to use the materials you submit within the Services and related marketing as well as to use the materials you submit for Apple internal purposes. Apple may monitor and decide to remove or edit any submitted material, including via automated content filters and/or human review."
There are too many questions surrounding how our data is being used across all LLM training and delivered AI services. Companies try to avoid discussing it unless the questions become too public. For Adobe they did.
Er ... except that the context for those Apple terms is totally different: "Our Services may allow you to submit or post materials such as comments, ratings and reviews, pictures, videos, and podcasts (including associated metadata and artwork)." That's totally different from what we thought Adobe was claiming.
Anyone can read it here in context:
K. YOUR SUBMISSIONS TO OUR SERVICES
Our Services may allow you to submit or post materials such as comments, ratings and reviews, pictures, videos, and podcasts (including associated metadata and artwork). Your use of such features must comply with the Submissions Guidelines below, which may be updated from time to time, and if we become aware of materials that violate our Submission Guidelines we will remove them. If you see materials that do not comply with the Submissions Guidelines, including any offensive, abusive, or illegal content, please let us know at reportaproblem.apple.com or by contacting Apple Support. Except to the extent prohibited by law, you hereby grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nonexclusive license to use the materials you submit within the Services and related marketing as well as to use the materials you submit for Apple internal purposes. Apple may monitor and decide to remove or edit any submitted material, including via automated content filters and/or human review.
GatorGuy would make an excellent CNN reporter. Enough said.
Apple made a nearly identical rights claim change in its Terms of Service at the end of March, worded in much the same way but far more vaguely. But no one noticed. Perhaps that's why Apple has never clarified what it means, either. My guess is the same as Adobe's, but like them, Apple ( and everyone else) needs to be clearer on it.
"Except to the extent prohibited by law, you hereby grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nonexclusive license to use the materials you submit within the Services and related marketing as well as to use the materials you submit for Apple internal purposes. Apple may monitor and decide to remove or edit any submitted material, including via automated content filters and/or human review."
There are too many questions surrounding how our data is being used across all LLM training and delivered AI services. Companies try to avoid discussing it unless the questions become too public. For Adobe they did.
Er ... except that the context for those Apple terms is totally different: "Our Services may allow you to submit or post materials such as comments, ratings and reviews, pictures, videos, and podcasts (including associated metadata and artwork)." That's totally different from what we thought Adobe was claiming.
Anyone can read it here in context:
K. YOUR SUBMISSIONS TO OUR SERVICES
Our Services may allow you to submit or post materials such as comments, ratings and reviews, pictures, videos, and podcasts (including associated metadata and artwork). Your use of such features must comply with the Submissions Guidelines below, which may be updated from time to time, and if we become aware of materials that violate our Submission Guidelines we will remove them. If you see materials that do not comply with the Submissions Guidelines, including any offensive, abusive, or illegal content, please let us know at reportaproblem.apple.com or by contacting Apple Support. Except to the extent prohibited by law, you hereby grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nonexclusive license to use the materials you submit within the Services and related marketing as well as to use the materials you submit for Apple internal purposes. Apple may monitor and decide to remove or edit any submitted material, including via automated content filters and/or human review.
GatorGuy would make an excellent CNN reporter. Enough said.
And here I was thinking a Fox News entertainer, because of the ridiculous levels of whataboutism, deflection, denial, low-key histrionics, lack of substantiating facts, and blatantly manipulating the context. (Also, who the eff unironically uses “Enough said” like it’s some kind of snappy mic-drop? Gag me with a spoon.)
PS - Continually restating false statements after being roundly de-bunked, that was another red flag.
The important sentence fragment: "as well as to use the materials (photos, videos et al) you submit for Apple internal purposes" Those internal purposes are left open-ended and unspecified. Review by a human, hopefully an Apple employee and not a contractor, may also be just as much an issue, or non-issue, for those under an NDA as it might be at Adobe.
The point here is that these conditions apply to material submitted to media services, like reviews and user contributions, not to the content of you iCloud disk or iPhone or Mac. They are pretty standard conditions for these kind of submission.
By the way, what Adobe says doesn't matter at all; legal terms are legal terms, and providing a worldwide exclusive license have a precise meaning, that no amount of explication from Adobe can change. I don't think Adobe has bad intentions here, i think they just choose the bad lawyer to write the text. But the text is there, and it holds if you accept it.
Unfortunately gator seems unable to grasp the difference you just explained. I’d just ignore him until he gets it.
Apple made a nearly identical rights claim change in its Terms of Service at the end of March, worded in much the same way but far more vaguely. But no one noticed. Perhaps that's why Apple has never clarified what it means, either. My guess is the same as Adobe's, but like them, Apple ( and everyone else) needs to be clearer on it.
"Except to the extent prohibited by law, you hereby grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nonexclusive license to use the materials you submit within the Services and related marketing as well as to use the materials you submit for Apple internal purposes. Apple may monitor and decide to remove or edit any submitted material, including via automated content filters and/or human review."
There are too many questions surrounding how our data is being used across all LLM training and delivered AI services. Companies try to avoid discussing it unless the questions become too public. For Adobe they did.
Please provide the specific Apple link from where that quote was drawn. I'd like to see the context for the word "submit" mentioned multiple times in your quote. That word is not in the Adobe quotes shown in the article.
Here’s why he didn’t share the link for context. CNN indeed! It’s under section K:
K. YOUR SUBMISSIONS TO OUR SERVICES … like reviews, comments, etc.
The important sentence fragment: "as well as to use the materials (photos, videos et al) you submit for Apple internal purposes" Those internal purposes are left open-ended and unspecified. Review by a human, hopefully an Apple employee and not a contractor, may also be just as much an issue, or non-issue, for those under an NDA as it might be at Adobe.
The point here is that these conditions apply to material submitted to media services, like reviews and user contributions, not to the content of you iCloud disk or iPhone or Mac. They are pretty standard conditions for these kind of submission.
By the way, what Adobe says doesn't matter at all; legal terms are legal terms, and providing a worldwide exclusive license have a precise meaning, that no amount of explication from Adobe can change. I don't think Adobe has bad intentions here, i think they just choose the bad lawyer to write the text. But the text is there, and it holds if you accept it.
Unfortunately gator seems unable to grasp the difference you just explained. I’d just ignore him until he gets it.
Post 12.
It's you who doesn't yet get it. Some readers did.
Last time I had to rent adobe software, I did the shortest window possible. Month to month I believed, however, ofcourse they demanded I pay the entire year when I wanted to cancel it 3 months in… At no point was this made clear beforehand ofcourse.
However, when you upgrade to a different tier, in essence you are getting into a new “contract” that you can cancel within 14 days. I suggest this for anyone stuck in there to get out instantly wout paying their insane year long exploitative contracts.
Then buy or use any of the high quality apps you can outright just buy or download open source for free.
Apple made a nearly identical rights claim change in its Terms of Service at the end of March, worded in much the same way but far more vaguely. But no one noticed. Perhaps that's why Apple has never clarified what it means, either. My guess is the same as Adobe's, but like them, Apple ( and everyone else) needs to be clearer on it.
"Except to the extent prohibited by law, you hereby grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nonexclusive license to use the materials you submit within the Services and related marketing as well as to use the materials you submit for Apple internal purposes. Apple may monitor and decide to remove or edit any submitted material, including via automated content filters and/or human review."
There are too many questions surrounding how our data is being used across all LLM training and delivered AI services. Companies try to avoid discussing it unless the questions become too public. For Adobe they did.
Er ... except that the context for those Apple terms is totally different: "Our Services may allow you to submit or post materials such as comments, ratings and reviews, pictures, videos, and podcasts (including associated metadata and artwork)." That's totally different from what we thought Adobe was claiming.
Anyone can read it here in context:
K. YOUR SUBMISSIONS TO OUR SERVICES
Our Services may allow you to submit or post materials such as comments, ratings and reviews, pictures, videos, and podcasts (including associated metadata and artwork). Your use of such features must comply with the Submissions Guidelines below, which may be updated from time to time, and if we become aware of materials that violate our Submission Guidelines we will remove them. If you see materials that do not comply with the Submissions Guidelines, including any offensive, abusive, or illegal content, please let us know at reportaproblem.apple.com or by contacting Apple Support. Except to the extent prohibited by law, you hereby grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nonexclusive license to use the materials you submit within the Services and related marketing as well as to use the materials you submit for Apple internal purposes. Apple may monitor and decide to remove or edit any submitted material, including via automated content filters and/or human review.
Thanks for the link. And as you noted, the first sentence is key. It's stuff you submit to Apple, rather than YOUR work while using one of THEIR productivity applications being hoovered up for whatever they want.
Apple made a nearly identical rights claim change in its Terms of Service at the end of March, worded in much the same way but far more vaguely. But no one noticed. Perhaps that's why Apple has never clarified what it means, either. My guess is the same as Adobe's, but like them, Apple ( and everyone else) needs to be clearer on it.
"Except to the extent prohibited by law, you hereby grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nonexclusive license to use the materials you submit within the Services and related marketing as well as to use the materials you submit for Apple internal purposes. Apple may monitor and decide to remove or edit any submitted material, including via automated content filters and/or human review."
There are too many questions surrounding how our data is being used across all LLM training and delivered AI services. Companies try to avoid discussing it unless the questions become too public. For Adobe they did.
Er ... except that the context for those Apple terms is totally different: "Our Services may allow you to submit or post materials such as comments, ratings and reviews, pictures, videos, and podcasts (including associated metadata and artwork)." That's totally different from what we thought Adobe was claiming.
Anyone can read it here in context:
K. YOUR SUBMISSIONS TO OUR SERVICES
Our Services may allow you to submit or post materials such as comments, ratings and reviews, pictures, videos, and podcasts (including associated metadata and artwork). Your use of such features must comply with the Submissions Guidelines below, which may be updated from time to time, and if we become aware of materials that violate our Submission Guidelines we will remove them. If you see materials that do not comply with the Submissions Guidelines, including any offensive, abusive, or illegal content, please let us know at reportaproblem.apple.com or by contacting Apple Support. Except to the extent prohibited by law, you hereby grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nonexclusive license to use the materials you submit within the Services and related marketing as well as to use the materials you submit for Apple internal purposes. Apple may monitor and decide to remove or edit any submitted material, including via automated content filters and/or human review.
Thanks for the link. And as you noted, the first sentence is key. It's stuff you submit to Apple, rather than YOUR work while using one of THEIR productivity applications being hoovered up for whatever they want.
To avoid any possible alternative use of your images, don't submit them to Adobe for cloud processing. That means, for example, using Lightroom Classic instead of Lightroom CC, and storing your own content on your own system rather than using Adobe servers as the storage container. They can't use what you don't send to them.
There's no Hoovering, but there can be a charge for the convenience of using their resources instead of your own.
Comments
PS - Continually restating false statements after being roundly de-bunked, that was another red flag.
K. YOUR SUBMISSIONS TO OUR SERVICES
… like reviews, comments, etc.
It's you who doesn't yet get it. Some readers did.
However, when you upgrade to a different tier, in essence you are getting into a new “contract” that you can cancel within 14 days. I suggest this for anyone stuck in there to get out instantly wout paying their insane year long exploitative contracts.
Then buy or use any of the high quality apps you can outright just buy or download open source for free.
There's no Hoovering, but there can be a charge for the convenience of using their resources instead of your own.