Help Me With Adobe Creative Cloud "Terms of Use"
Help Me With Adobe Creative Cloud "Terms of Use"
You now have a subscription to Adobe CC and will be working with sensitive, proprietary materials.
I'm worried about a past incident from the '80s.
A message was sent while logging in: "Updated Terms of Use – We've made some changes to the Adobe General Terms of Use regarding the use of Software and Services, including clarified access methods such as automated and manual review (Sections 2.2 and 4.1)..."
Please let me know if you need further clarification.
Understanding the complete terms clarifies it, as they reference sections 2.2 and 4.1.
I've also received feedback from users who are worried about these passages. The purpose seems to be screening material at the government's discretion, which is understandable in today's context. But the approach clearly goes beyond that. It appears Adobe could access any content under a CC license without needing justification, which feels excessive and unfair. My audience doesn't handle highly sensitive or confidential information, yet we still own and protect copyrighted material. These points are also worth considering from other perspectives.
My workplace chose to leave Adobe due to these ridiculous terms of service, as our projects require strict NDAs. While we explore other possibilities, it's frustrating that Adobe made this decision that violates confidentiality. To put it simply: "If I were Adobe, I’d still use the data for AdSense profits, assuming I’m not bound by ethics."
Not a legal expert, but this is just my perspective.
The situation with Adobe's terms stems from lawsuits that broadly cover any activity linked to civil or criminal matters, aiming for financial resolution.
The main goal appears to be securing settlements through various legal processes.
It’s clear Adobe has the authority but not the duty to act—this seems more of a protective stance.
Still open enough to let Adobe pursue additional actions...
Other companies may already be following similar paths or planning to do so.
Please note, I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll rely on legal experts for accuracy.
But if that's the situation, it would imply that Adobe had indeed obtained some information for whatever reason in this context, and I don't perceive a solid justification for them to do so, unless the particular instance involved authorities requesting them due to suspicion of illegal activity (general complaints wouldn't be enough, since published content already indicates the issue). So why not simply mention "we can access your content if needed during a legal investigation" in the terms of service?
This kind of concern had caused worldwide attention ten years ago when it was reported that Apple had embedded a backdoor for government requests.
It highlights how such matters were already contentious (even if now more urgent).
Adobe's claim to access any material without cause is problematic and sets a poor precedent.
This is likely the important section. They aim to use customer files as an AI training set to provide them with AI capabilities. Similar to how Chat GPT reviewed a large amount of content and everything appeared fine until it began repeating copyrighted sections.
I’m not suggesting that your innovative widget design will suddenly become universally helpful advice from AdobeAI in others’ projects, but the issue arises with sensitive information. The idea of simply saying “I don’t see any real harm if we grant access” isn’t the right approach. Those who handle such data clearly prefer it stays where it is, without unnecessary movement.
They do offer an opt-out choice.
The challenge lies in the fact that these opt-out options often reset automatically, requiring you to remember to re-select them. Meanwhile...
It’s acceptable since “Adobe values your privacy.” This phrase is used consistently whenever a company releases a statement about a major data breach, and it seems to fit perfectly here.