Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Michael's take on Adobe CC  (Read 24119 times)

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11529
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #120 on: May 10, 2013, 08:12:30 PM »

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

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #121 on: May 10, 2013, 08:35:15 PM »

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
    • Richmond Fine Photography
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #122 on: May 10, 2013, 08:52:58 PM »

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: 1460
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #123 on: May 10, 2013, 09:19:31 PM »

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: 181
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #124 on: May 10, 2013, 10:39:37 PM »

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: 169
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #125 on: May 11, 2013, 12:04:11 AM »

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
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5926
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #126 on: May 11, 2013, 02:29:10 AM »

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: 1928
    • Justan-Elk.com
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #127 on: May 11, 2013, 10:03:28 AM »

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.

MarkM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
    • Alaska Photographer Mark Meyer
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #128 on: May 11, 2013, 03:19:08 PM »

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.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11529
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #129 on: May 11, 2013, 04:16:10 PM »

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

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 569
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #130 on: May 11, 2013, 04:47:46 PM »

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: 388
    • Robert Goldstein Photography
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #131 on: May 11, 2013, 04:49:05 PM »


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: 1950
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #132 on: May 11, 2013, 04:53:35 PM »

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. ;D
Logged

Ken Richmond

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
    • Richmond Fine Photography
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #133 on: May 11, 2013, 05:14:25 PM »

..."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
    • Richmond Fine Photography
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #134 on: May 11, 2013, 05:23:31 PM »

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

robgo2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 388
    • Robert Goldstein Photography
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #135 on: May 11, 2013, 05:31:15 PM »

Just make an export user-preset that will export a full resolution TIFF without output sharpening to the folder that contains the RAW files.

It's really really easy to maintain both LR catalog and TIFF work products.
Assuming that Lightroom also goes to a subscription model and I were a Lightroom user, that is not what I would do.  If I had an image previously edited in LR/ACR that I wanted to revise, I would take the original raw file, re-edit it from scratch in another raw convertor and almost certainly come up with a better result.  (ACR is a mediocre raw convertor IMO, but that is beside the point.)  Realistically, this not likely to be a frequent problem, but when it arises, there are simple solutions.  For images that are "perfect" as is, convert to TIFF or JPEG and use them as you please.  As with CS6, the day will come when the latest version of Lightroom will not run on future operating systems.  Then users will face the big conundrum.  All of their LR edits will be beyond reach without signing up for a subscription.  Perhaps now is the time for people to wean themselves off of Adobe completely. 

Of course, there is no guarantee that other software companies will not eventually adopt the subscription model as well.  It will all depend on how profitable it turns out to be.  As long as Adobe has a near monopoly on the image editing market, they can probably make it work.  If serious competition develops, they may have to change their imperious ways. 

Rob
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11529
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #136 on: May 11, 2013, 05:32:24 PM »

If they sell prints, is that not a perpetual license?

License for what?
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11529
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #137 on: May 11, 2013, 05:38:48 PM »

I don't see why rent to own could only work if the buy out price is exorbitant.
Rob

Doesn't have to be exorbitant although that what constitutes exorbitant is anyone's opinion. It has to be more than what Adobe was getting in the past, or they have no reason to consider it. One year subscription plus full price might, one year subscription plus 50% of what the original perceptual license might lure them. One year plus $79 isn't going to fly. I have no idea what price Adobe feels the market should pay for this and I have no idea what the market will consider exorbitant or not. The alternative, what we have now is they can just ignore any option for a perceptual license. Those that don't think any of the options above are exorbitant have one less option.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 857
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #138 on: May 11, 2013, 05:48:03 PM »

License for what?

Andrew...maybe license is the wrong term. 

You buy a print.  You "own" that print....have the right to view it forever, sell it, will it to your heirs.  You cannot copy or reproduce it in any form. 

What would you call it?  Simple term, please.
Logged
John

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 857
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #139 on: May 11, 2013, 05:53:01 PM »

Doesn't have to be exorbitant although that what constitutes exorbitant is anyone's opinion. It has to be more than what Adobe was getting in the past, or they have no reason to consider it. One year subscription plus full price might, one year subscription plus 50% of what the original perceptual license might lure them. One year plus $79 isn't going to fly. I have no idea what price Adobe feels the market should pay for this and I have no idea what the market will consider exorbitant or not. The alternative, what we have now is they can just ignore any option for a perceptual license. Those that don't think any of the options above are exorbitant have one less option.

 :) Actually, it has to be more than what they will get if people are really unhappy with the CC concept/pricing....which, in reality, could be on a dive to zero.
Logged
John
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9   Go Up