This past week Adobe launched beta of Photoshop Express, a little over 1 year since Adobe announced its intention to put Photoshop online (see Photoshop In A Software As A Service (SaaS) Model?). Unfortunately for Adobe what proved to be most noteworthy about this new application is not its functionality, but the rights grab they’re making for each image that is processed in the online application.
Adobe makes available a very short and general Terms of Use document for Adobe Photoshop Express users to review. What new Express users see initially during the registration process is only the higher level Adobe.com Terms of Use. Surprisingly Adobe buries their Photoshop Express Terms of Use in a link from their general Terms of Use document concealing the following information:
8. Use of Your Content
a. Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, with respect to Your Content that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed.
For myself a few questions came to mind immediately after reading this.
1. “What the hell is Adobe thinking?”
2. “Are corporate lawyers really this out to lunch?”
3. “Why wasn’t greater thought put into supporting the rights of their users and managing the trust behind the Adobe brand?”
4. “Why would Adobe bury the meat of the Terms of Use as they’ve done?”
For the sake of full disclosure I have worked with creative agencies that have done work for Adobe in the past. It’s been a over 18 months since I last worked on anything Adobe related, but one thing is well known about Adobe… they take their brand very serious. By “brand” I mean the corporate perspective of what Adobe stands for and the reputation that they project. From a “brand” perspective this rights grab dramatically undermines the foundation in which their brand had been built upon namely “trust” and “empowering the creative professional”.
I’d like to think that Adobe’s lawyers made a mistake, but knowing how corporate lawyers work every clause of a contract is meticulously reviewed and approved. Nothing a corporate legal team does is an accident. Someone defined, reviewed and approved the terms with a lot of thought. What is certain is that effort was not brought in line with those that manage Adobe’s brand and products. With out a doubt Adobe’s staff was likely under the gun to produce and to give credit where credit is due… to turn out a product like this in a little over a year is an impressive feat. I have the greatest respect for Adobe to accomplish this, but with out hesitation I can say that Adobe really dropped the ball with their Terms of Use. In this day and age as an amateur or professional creative it is nearly impossible to not use Adobe software on a project. To this point an implicit bond and trust has been in place between Creatives and Adobe. If you can’t trust Adobe then who can you trust?
To quote Adobe from their Acquisition of Macromedia FAQ:
“What is Adobe’s mission?
Our mission is to revolutionize how the world engages with ideas and information. By acquiring Macromedia, we are strengthening this mission by making it easier for customers to create, manage, and deliver their ideas and engage with information of all types — in print, on the web, in video, and across mobile devices. We believe in enabling powerful, effective, and meaningful digital experiences across multiple operating systems in the broad span of diverse industries we serve.”
Adobe consistently walks a fine line on many issues facing their customers and partners, but in this instance they have egregiously treaded on their customers rights. To give Adobe credit they’ve recognized their mistake and are trying to make right as noted in John Nack’s blog post A note about PS Express terms of use. None the less once treaded on users undoubtedly will be and should be sensitive to this point and should rightfully keep a close eye even on Adobe.
I hope that Adobe is able to avoid making this mistake twice and given their leading role in this industry perhaps to re-establish their trust and leadership they could take it upon themselves to spearhead defining thoughtful standards and Terms of Use that are respectful of the rights of Creatives; standards and terms that other companies might then adopt as the norm rather than the exception.
Now to watch how quickly Adobe moves to revise and correct their Terms of Use. How fast they move surely will be a sign of how serious they’re taking the issue.
Kudos to fellow JMG-Galleries blog reader Ben Bailey for raising my awareness to this development.
[tags]Adobe, Photoshop Express, rights, copyright, software, technology, web, terms of use, rights grab[/tags]
Adobe has already posted a sort of retraction in the Photoshop Express forums.
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/messageview.cfm?forumid=74&catid=683&threadid=1349051&enterthread=y
Ooops. You already have that linked in your post. Never mind!
Pingback: Adobe wants your pictures? | Ben's Photography Thoughts
I really agree with your four questions, especially with the very interesting first one, “what the hell is Adobe thinking?” – This question points to another serious question, the question of intent. WHY were the Terms of Use put in place like this?
Having worked for large corporations in the past, I *know* that legal departments do not come up with terms and conditions just “out of the blue”. They are usually reactive, drafting legal clauses from the input provided by (and often in close cooperation with) the product teams. I.e., Adobe’s legal team did probably NOT say, “hey, why don’t we just grab for the rights of the images that people upload ot the site? This way we could earn an extra buck or two at a later point in time.” – No. A legal team typically listens to the input by the product team and then comes back with an appropriate legal wording. It might well be that the product team in this case WANTED or NEEDED to grab for the rights and asked the legal team to hide the fact as good as possible. The legal team complied and buried the terms somewhere in the general T&C.
I strongly believe that the product team thought they could get away with this. After all, they are putting up a FREE product that may harm revenues from their stand-alone software. But they realized (too late) that this was a mistake. Once they realized their mistake, it was easy to blame the lawyers for this. But the problem is probably with the product teams.
Note: I have no insights into Adobe, so I admit that all this is pure speculation.
Very sneaky on Adobe’s part. I can’t imagine any of their professional photographer advisors support such a claim on photo rights.
Wow. It was one thing to see this from Facebook, but Adobe! Come on…I would guess that over 80% of the Photoshop licenses that Adobe sells are from professional who make some portion (if not all) of their living with the help of the software. And now Adobe is trying to sneak away with the assets that these same people create to make their living?!?
Adobe has to clarify and rectify this quickly…
Pingback: Home Office Warrior » Re-Tweeted - Top Post Titles
Pingback: puntiglio.com » Something completely different…
@Mark Adobe is a much bigger company that it was in the past so at this point it wouldn’t surprise me if the legal team was completely out of touch with the product marketing team. Tough to tell and frankly as long as they address the issue the internal details are irrelevant.
@Richard assuming they have such advisors 🙂 I’m sure if they do they’re not burdening them with this type of information.
@Greg This product is really targeting the novice rather than the professional. The impact is the same none the less… the difference is the novice will have no awareness to look out for these types of things. In that regard this really is blind siding the most vulnerable. I hope that Adobe corrects itself quickly on this. I think the ripple effect could certainly impact other customer demographics if they don’t.
Pingback: johnmilleker.com » Blog Archive » Friday Links #6
Pingback: Weekend Perusing | Your Photo Tips
Pingback: Landscape Photography and Nature Photography by Jim M. Goldstein - JMG-Galleries - Adobe Photoshop Express: ToU Update Now More Confusing