gatorguy

Maurizio said:

gatorguy said:

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 an worldwide exclusive license have a precise meaning, that no amount of explication from Adobe can change.

 Quote

flydog said:

gatorguy said:

What would Apple say if you asked them?

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.

Apple's terms are nothing like Adobe's new terms, which is why "no one noticed." 

melgross said:

gatorguy said:

It's not yet clear if they are taking our content and using it for their own AI training purposes or just poorly explaining that they need the permissions to do what users request of their AI. Since there is no "Opt-Out," as I presume the EU would require if they were accessing your private data, I suspect it's the latter.

Adobe needs to explain things far better, and soon.
Now if you were talking about Meta instead, yeah they really are claiming ownership of your Facebook interactions for training their LLM models. 

The terms are vague enough so that they can claim we accepted the usage.

9secondkox2 said:

charlesn said:

Honestly... and I'm not trying to be hyperbolic here... this feels like criminal extortion. Many creative professionals earn their living--or run their whole business--on Adobe. There isn't really an option to just stop on a dime when you're all in on Adobe. So this is Adobe using that leverage to extort its user base into agreeing to its egregious and outrageous new and novel demands for continued use of its products. In effect, Adobe made its user base an offer they couldn't refuse. This needs to go to court asap, and also speaks to the much greater problem of out-of-control terms buried in dense, book-length legalese in technology user agreements. Its like owners of new GM cars getting blindsided by skyrocketing auto insurance rates because their cars--thanks to what they signed in all the paperwork at the time of purchase--were busy collecting detailed data on how they drove, then transmitted it to GM, which then sold that data to insurers who jacked up their rates. 

Agreed. Wouldn’t be surprised to see a class action. And I’d be on board. There must be an opt out - or it definitely reeks of extortion.