Be VERY Afraid …

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

The New Forums are looming and there is currently a thread on the Demo version of which everyone who contributes to the Photography Forum need to VERY aware:

<http://adobeforums.adobe.com/thread/336898?tstart=0>

Please read it carefully … and be forewarned.

:(

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

So don't post any images.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Point well taken, Ann.

However, this applies to these "old" forums as well, not just the proposed inevitable new ones.

Usually, I post a screenshot or two in order to illustrate a post. Adobe is welcome to my screenshots of their software. :p

The one area of concern would be whatever gets posted here in the photography forum, so as of yesterday I've taken to superimposing an annoying watermark diagonally across the images.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Both, Lawrence.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Is this currently in place even for this forum, or for the changeover?

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

This Forum would lose its whole point without Photographs.

Adobe needs to get that Clause 8 of theirs re-written because they have no right to purloin the Copyright of images posted on other people's web sites — regardless of whether Links are provided in these Forums.

It would be wise to re-read the Forum Terms of Service and see exactly what Clause 8 says.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

They did re-write their even more onerous clause to that effect in their Photoshop.com site after a wave of outraged protests.

[-sh...@adobeforums.com]

So don't post any images.

Yep...or, I mean, nope. Won't post any. Probably should have been more discretionary about that all along. 8/

I think I'll have more time in my day as well---don't see myself visiting here much in the future. Never had any real complaints about the forums or Adobe before---always considered it a privilege to have this place to come to. But it appears that the powers that be at Adobe have a certain level of disrespect for the very audience which supports it.

Don't like the look of the new forums at all---too messy.

In case it changes soon, thanks everyone for being here. It's been fun.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Not only "Messy" but glacially slow and totally inefficient. Truly a disaster.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

glacially slow and totally inefficient

Agreed, and it's getting worse by the hour with increasing load. Posting a message takes an eternity. >:(

[pfigen]

If they don't change the wording of their agreement, it will likely mean the end of their forum. It was undoubtedly written by an idiot corporate lawyer who never read his words from a different point of view.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

The way I read it, I can see that their lawyer could make a case demanding your hi res version of what you posted to "fulfill" their needs as outlined.

[Dirk]

Oh' shit, my hard drive just crashed. Sorry, no stinkken hi res image for you

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

It is thoroughly pernicious.

I would like to think that it was not intentional but …

[pfigen]

Section 10 is just as bad as Section 8. This is the typical corporate crap that makes us hate big companies. They've got to know it's going to piss off anyone with the slightest ability for critical thought, and yet they still try to sugar coat it with the incredibly poorly written "layman's" clause. In my mind, that's even more insulting.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

See the annoying watermark and never post anything over 600 pixels. High res no that would be a different image so they can't have that and I can't imagine them going to court over it.

However, if they used an image of yours that you thought was inappropriate and damaged say your professional reputation regardless of what that claus says then one could take Adobe to court. For instance altering it or up rezing it so that it did no longer expressed the quality of your work, then you would probably be entitled to damages. They say they have the right use it scale it, which does not men you have to provide them with anything other then you posted, if they failed to do so in a way that is acceptable to you, well they just painted themselves in a corner and I suggest they undo it.

there is no reason for adobe to use any image posted on the forum for any apparent reason i they intend to use such images for their promotional and advertising efforts then they would have to state so it is not now stated as such and it does not imply it as well and they were very careful not to imply it. In being so smart the lawyers screwed it up.

They actually virtually left no reason for them to use it by being so vague otherwise you are stating you really have no reason to use it.

And if they get smart you can drag them into small claims court or do it in the state court as a pro se. They are not going to spend three grand to defend something that might cost them half that for a royalty and if they started using the images like that regularly then everyone should simply drag them into court. That would proabbly make them either kill the forum or remove the claus which is faulty anyway.

[pfigen]

All I can say is to really read the fine print, and remember that not all uses need high res images. Add to that they they can sub license and modify to their heart's content and use any way they might want for EVER.

It doesn't matter what someone might say their intent is now. It only matters what is written in their terms and that they can change it any time they want.

It actually sounds like they've employed credit card company lawyers as well.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

there is no reason for adobe to use any image posted on the forum for
any apparent reason

Agreed.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

Peter they can write what they want but if they do not define the terms in a specific way it ha no meaning.

Take a look at a photo models release it makes clear the intent without any bars held.

Trying to cover you ass without specifying your intent means you are being deceitful and on purpose and therefore has no meaning.

They can scale it as they say but in order to scale it they cannot ruin your photo so they may only be able to scale it down.

They cannot no what ever they like no matter what they write.

[two...@adobeforums.com]

can any one recomend another nntp news group that we can all move over to, I
cannot understand why adobe is doing what its doing, I use outlook express
for checking posts etc, the notion of having to login to there site etc lol

any way

if any one knows of a good nntp fourm please let me know

k

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

try this one:

<http://adobeforums.adobe.com/community/design_development/photography>

[two...@adobeforums.com]

can i use rss in outlook express

k

[Ozp...@adobeforums.com]

My understanding is that the wording is intended, whatever it looks like, simply to enable them to display a photo posted on the forum whenever anyone goes to that page.

I've suggested putting in words like "in the context in which is was posted on the forum" so that if they display the photo, they have to do it in the forum - which is what is wanted, no?

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

The TOS wording itself simply MUST be cleaned-up or clarified.

A court of law would judge it on what it actually SAYS and not by what they might have intended us to think that they meant!

putting in words like "in the context in which is was posted on the forum"
so that if they display the photo, they have to do it in the forum - which
is what is wanted,

Exactly! But it needs to be worded with precision in the TOS by Adobe Legal so that there is no margin of error nor leeway for them to construe its meaning in any other way.

[pfigen]

Oz,

What is needed is language that clearly states that Adobe does not own any copyright, cannot modify images, sublicense, or use the images in ANY other manner without the express written consent and license from the original author. Anything less is really unacceptable.

While Adobe does host this site, they also are very clear that it's a USER to USER forum, and not an official voice of Adobe. For Adobe to maintain that premise while saying that they basically own everything (even non-exclusively) is an attitude that can only cause suspicion of their motives.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

Just watch management and the legal boffins wreck what was one of the better places for information exchange on the Web......

I expect questions on the use of gaming mice, steroidal graphics cards and giant plasma screens to be the standard for the new Adobe forums.

[L...@adobeforums.com]

It's hard to understand why a forum as well thought out as this one has to be replaced. I guess people feel that they must make changes.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Who knows what hidden agenda really fuelled this: but the "official" story is that WebCrossing (who power the present Adobe Forums) doesn't have the ability to merge and support the old Macromedia ones with the Adobe ones.

[Ozp...@adobeforums.com]

I know I'm one who has ascribed a hidden agenda to the change, but the more I hear in unofficial channels the more I'm convinced that there is in fact no Grand Design apart from the need to change as described in frank terms at <http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b7e47b/13> - worth a read. And I've seen that Adobe are not the only ones making the move from WebX to Jive. OK, being logical, maybe more than one corporation is making a big mistake, but being optimistic, maybe more than one corporation has gone through the alternatives very carefully and determined that this is the way to go. I'm not aware of anyone at Adobe claiming it's the ideal way to go, though. It's the best for the job that is currently available (Adobe's definition of 'job' of course).

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

Kinda like CS3 printing was "the way to go".....? :-(

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

maybe more than one corporation is making a big mistake, but being optimistic,
maybe more than one corporation has gone through the alternatives very
carefully and determined that this is the way to go.

Regarding the unfathomably evil and incompetent individuals running large corporations, already JFK remarked while he was president that "all businessmen are s.o.b.'s".

The current performance of the S&Ls under Reagan and the entire housing and financial sectors under Bush reinforce my belief that they are imbeciles too. I see no justification to believe or hope that the top leaders of the gargantuan, unresponsive Adobe bureaucracy would be any different. :/

[mr...@adobeforums.com]

Just watch management and the legal boffins wreck what was one of the
better places for information exchange on the Web.

amen

[John Joslin]

The requirement to "merge" the Adobe and MM sides is weak. Certainly there are minor advantages for suite owners but, as I stated elsewhere, the "justification" for the whole move to jive looks like a post decision rationalisation of a bad move at the top.

The result: we are not happy losing the user-friendly and speedy WebX forums and MM people are not happy losing NNTP.

And the fat cats who created this situation are blissfully unaware of the consequences.

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

jfk sounds [in Ramón's quotation] like a hypocrite with a hidden agenda
and the accusations of imbecility,.. simple minded.

I hope that the "mind" of adobe will prevail.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

The actual quote:

"In a moment of anger, my father once said that all businessmen are s.o.b.'s and I have to admit that more than once during this process I couldn't have agreed with him more," he said to laughter. "That feeling has passed, and now I am one of them."

From the NYT 1995

<http://tinyurl.com/dcpedd>

Doesn't look like a hidden agenda to me. Otoh the fact that a hidden agenda might be present is itself possibly hidden.

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

the rest of the quotation was hidden : )
and I couldn't care less; I know what jkSr did for a… fortune
and who benefited from it and its connections

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

All the way back tot the Rothchilds, and earlier....

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

jkSr. was the most unashamed businessman ever
and the best connected to both the government and the mob

jfk owed him a lot

larry, I'm only posting this because you're diluting the subtopic with… wine : )

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

JFK, the president, scribbled on a piece of paper while he was president, indeed quoting his father, Joe..

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

In any event, it doesn't matter who said it first. Businessmen that lead big corporations are indeed s.o.b.'s and, these days, also imbeciles.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

More like drinking it. :-)

And not Rothchild, Lynch Bages.....

Did you actually see the note, Ramon? Were you there when he did it? Would be a nice bit of history to have seen it.

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

"Businessmen that lead big corporations are indeed s.o.b.'s and, these days, also imbeciles."

I now know another one of Ramón's many opinions : )
(I don't share it, but it's good to know)
I kindah like the new CEO of AIG; he blushes too much, but he made a good point in congress.
wait a minute! I think that most congress people are imbeciles, especially dodd, but barney too : )

[Sandee...@adobeforums.com]

I know I am a total outsider to this forum and didn't know there was a place where photographers would post their images.

But wouldn't a watermark with the artists © and name help keep it under your own ownership?

And at least keep it from showing up elsewhere?

Again, I apologize if I'm totally off base here.

[L...@adobeforums.com]

I know I am a total outsider to this forum and didn't know there was a
place where photographers would post their images.

But wouldn't a watermark with the artists Š and name help keep it under
your own ownership?

And at least keep it from showing up elsewhere?

Again, I apologize if I'm totally off base here.

It does seem that it is up to the photographer to make sure the image is copyrighted. I am one to harp on making sure a photo has the photographer's Š and name, and company if applicable. If it's a valuable enough image, it would seem like a good idea to take the extra steps of official registration.

[pfigen]

Sandee,

Unless you actually register your images with the Copyright Office, even though the simple act of taking the picture give you the copyright, you are not fully protected. Registering helps you with that, but only if you end up going to court. Add to that every time you register an image or group of images, it's a trip through the worst government website imaginable and another $35 fee, plus postage for mailing in a box (no envelopes) for the hard copies and disks. It all adds up rather quickly.

The problem is that by agreeing to their terms and conditions, you are assigning them a certain right of usage for anything posted here, word and images.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

In case you haven't looked at this thread, do so!

<http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b8600e/1>

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Sandee:

How very nice to see you here!

(For those that don't know, just check out the book shelves at Border's next time you are there!)

Peter is exactly right. Copyright is created at the moment that the shutter is pressed or pencil/brush is applied to paper.

The reason for registering with the Copyright Office is that it provides further proof of ownership (and allows you to collect higher legal damages if infringement occurs!) — but registration is not obligatory.

What Adobe are doing here is not a case of grabbing your copyright (they can't do that without a signed written agreement of transfer) but purloining the rights of all Usage, for any purpose, anywhere and for all time.

Wade has already pointed out the other dangers here.

Apart from loss of control of how your Art is used; and the loss of income from royalties: there is the huge problem of identifiable pictures of people and places being used for Advertising and Commercial Purposes without a signed Model Release and the potential for expensive law suits as a result.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Unfortunately, very bad prior experiences with two of the Quick Guides series with the image of a rabbit running on two legs years ago have kept me from buying Sandee's books. The ones I bought for Illustrator and, especially, MS Word by an author by the name of Maria Langer were a total waste of money. So much so that I flung the Word book out of a 24th-floor window onto the tracks in great disgust. :(

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

were you living there?
(or made the climb on purpose : )

[Kath_H...@adobeforums.com]

Don't judge Sandee by that, I have one of her InDesign books and it's absolutely excellent.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

Sandee is an excellent writer with exceptional knowledge about the applications she writes about haven't seen her here before but perhaps once.

It is not totally off base but the issue goes a little further then that the purpose of these clauses is not to probably use the images in most cases. In most cases is an important phrase. The point is they can if they want according to them, Adobe. Even with a copyright and they have the right to alter it.

Alter it is the problem, if you alter it you are responsible for what you do if someone else alters it in a way you think is inappropriate and anyone connected tot he photographic subject may think is in appropriate and you give Adobe the license to do so then you are responsible for that alteration and any lawsuit that might ensue.

Highly unfair stance to take given the nature of the Forum free exchange of ideas concept.
Which is now no longer free speech with all of your rights that go along with free speech.

It is control and not protection of Adobe's rights to show the images on the web.

Quite the contrary if that is what they intend they would have worded it that way as to protect them from misuse of images, grant them the right to display the images on the forum accept responsibility for any misuse of the images by third parties by holding Adobe harmless etc.

But that is not even addressed instead Adobe says no forget about holding us harmless, they I believe have that clause already, but we now want license to misuse the images ourselves if we wish, we don't care what anyone else does we are held harmless, so now we want to join with anyone especially institutions who dod not want to pay for usage and we want to be able to say hey, if some group like that uses the image, they do not have to give you permission we do as a sublicense. As far as we are concern you are an agent of Adobe please give Adobe credit for the use of the image.

Corporations have been trying for decades upon decades to circumvent the copyright laws and not pay the artists proper fees for the use.

Just think about it they get a hold of an image and people relate to it and associate it with a service or product they then make sometimes 100's of millions of dollars and they pay the photographer any where from $6, like in the case of some of stock houses, to say $5,000. They run the image over and over in ads sometimes for years on end and the they now are making Billions off of it and the photographer gets between $6 and $5,000 and to add injury to insult they scream bloody murder that they have to pay at all.

Sometimes I photograph buildings, in case you guys do not understand the numbers, that cost a billion dollars to build or more, Their idea of a photography fee is $125, they do not say so, but deep down in side that is what they think and then they think if you do not own $100,000 in equipment and have three assistance you're not even worth the that.

Fortunately at least they understand their concepts are fantasies numbers do not add up.
But the idea that they can get it for nothing is a very big deal with them and the unfortunate truth is that they are hostile toward people who have talents that they do not possess.

You often hear the expression my photos were better then the professionals. Not too often is that anywhere near the truth except in their delusional minds, which brings us back to Adobe's problem that this is somehow their property and their creation and by virtue of just saying so.

that is simply not true we use their software but we pay for it in one way or another but if it is a legal license they got their money's worth, some of you might not understand that but trust me on this one.

So why should they not also earn the right to it by either paying for it or offering another type of compensation if they use your property for to sell their software and we all agree it would have to be a pretty good image for them to do so one they think would move the boxes off the shelves. DSo there is no excuse for not paying.

Why put the photographer in a position where they can be hurt by your actions. Why not just discuss the possibility to at least be able to pay acceptable market rates of the time why even bring up the possibility and just contact the owner of the image and discuss it when the issue arises. Why bring these issues into the mix in the first place.

The only reason I can think of is that there is an idea that they do intend to use such images and there are some folk who are trying to live out this fantasy of power and control
and they have now shown how out of control they themselves have become.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I rest my case.

Yeah same to all of you! Especially you Todie!

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

I hear you
but the copyright ensures that no alterations can be made without permission : )
you were correct when you said that [random] statements don't change the Law;
be consistent!

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

The only thing harder than trying to get a good fee from an architect is trying to get a good fee from a landscape architect. They get stiffed worse than the building architects.

There is little money left over for these things. That's reason number 1 and reason number 99 that I don't shoot architectural any more. Oh, I do vernacular architecture, and that's for myself.

[Hop...@adobeforums.com]

Has anyone re-read the TOS? It still seems to me, even with some modifications, to grant too many rights to Adobe, even when the content is on servers other than Adobe's.

Did they make new changes to the TOS or am I just mis-reading it? It still sounds bad to me.

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

so don't post any pictures or links to pictures

[Hop...@adobeforums.com]

it's not as simple as that LT, the TOS seem to want to take control even over images linked elsewhere. That's just plain wrong.

Don't know if you noticed, but I have NOT posted any images since this issue has been brought up. Sure is hampering the photographic sharing. :(

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Adobe may want to "to take control even over images linked elsewhere" but I don't think for a moment that they will dare to try it because any attempt at that would surely bring a torrent of class actions raining down on their heads!

The important thing would seem to be to make sure that you post no images whatsoever (except for Screen Shots) directly on Adobe's own servers through their web sites and Forums.

[Silkr...@adobeforums.com]

What about pics that are already posted? I am wondering if we should pull them before the new TOS goes into effect.

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

I would

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Since edit isn't available, how does one do it? Break the link how?

[pfigen]

I was wondering the same thing. Kind of a one way street at this point.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

The TOS is already in effect and has been in various editions since the forums came into being.

The difference is that currently we are posting links to files on external (non-Adobe-owned) Servers whereas the New Forums make it possible to post images directly onto Adobe's OWN Servers.

You can still post Links to pixentral, or your own Server, — but you need to follow a particular procedure using the HTML field in the new Reply/Edit Box.

[Hop...@adobeforums.com]

You can still post Links to pixentral, or your own Server, — but you need to follow a particular procedure using the HTML field in the new Reply/Edit Box.

and what would *that* be??? Would that be the standard <a href = ... > formatting?

[-sh...@adobeforums.com]

Ann,

Thank you, for making the time to take the bull by the horns and lead the charge on this whole thing...and to anyone else who's in there with you. Sorry, I haven't been able to be there as well.

Thanks.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Jive have screwed it up somewhat but what you need to do is to open the "Reply Box" and click on the blue >> symbol.

Choose "Insert raw html" to open the HTML box.

Then you copy the Pixentral html code into the box, as we always have done, but with this difference:

You need to remove the forward slash that come immediately between the quotation mark " and the greater-than >.

"/>

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1aLdFEryaOfvx9hmrR17OKYaMvpO>

This is how it will look in the new forums:
<http://adobeforums.adobe.com/message/1618115#1618115>

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Shep:

I am only glad that I realised the implications of what Adobe appeared to be attempting to do; and that I have been able to raise the alarm.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Life in the digital is just getting harder. Bloated software, crummy installers, now ownership takeover.

No more posting here for me. The folks doing this for a living have all day to mess with code. I don't trust any method to circumvent them from gaining access to my work, if that's what is up.

Anyway, does anyone here or who you know can set up a website to do this?

<http://photography-now.info/edward_weston/index.html>

I would use them but they scorn using copyright notice.

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

"they" can scorn whatever they want
you just put it there and go on if possible
if not—other venue
(just like this forum : )

oh, and it's very simple to break links if you "serve" from your site:
rename the pictures' folder
(there may be complications, but they're easy to work around if you care)

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

It is just a flash effect.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

You could put a folder on your own Site & call it "Forums", for example.

Then put any image that you wish to Link to the Forum in that folder and remove it from there after a few days. That will break the Link to the Forums.

But NEVER post anything, except Screen Shots of Application Palettes etc., by using the "Insert Image" icon (camera) in the New Forums.

Pixentral images are removed automatically 30 days after their last viewing.

[pfigen]

Even if you remove the link or the file altogether, if it's been posted, it's likely been downloaded, and can be used later for whatever they want.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

I really doubt that Adobe are downloading high rez files from every external link directly onto their Servers but we do need to be aware of the possibility that they are quite capable of stooping to such despicable depths.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Do post your comments in this thread too:

Ann Shelbourne, "Protecting our Copyright from being Misappropriated." #53, 31 Mar 2009 9:44 am </webx?14@@.59b85ebb/52>

And do feel free to write EXACTLY what you think!

:(

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

I thought that too, Todie, and I don't want to participate with a group so cavalier as they appear to be.

So far as acring for all the details, some of them have to go by-by, because I just haven't the time to mess with it,nor the resources to hire out such "caring".

Thanks also, Wade.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Ann, I thought Adobe got out of the stock image trade.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Perhaps they are just getting back into it??

8/

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Somehow I think this is just the clueless legal department never having heard of the marketing department, or any other unit in the corporation, let alone talking to any of them.

[Nick_...@adobeforums.com]

I have to agree with Ramon, even though I'm plotzed by him, or whatever he calls it. Adobe doesn't want to steal photos. It would be stupid of them and would probably get them on "60 Minutes" if that was their intent. It's the legal eagles that John C. has sent the message to, and hopefully they will get it. If the f'ing lawyers can't get it figured out, then the forums will suffer because of it.

But, Ann and others, it's good that youse guys raised the alarm.

[Donald...@adobeforums.com]

Maybe i am naive, but how can they pull this off just because its in the fine type that no one would read? So if they put something in there like you give them full ownership of your home,that would be legal as well? just because they say it should not mean its so in my opinion.

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

yes
(and by that I mean no : )
somebody [who doesn't care or cares a lot about copyright] should post a portrait of a confused lawyer

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

A "confused" lawyer?

More likely to find one scenting blood: the chance to take on Adobe in a Class Action lawsuit and take 33.3% of the damages as his personal fee!

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

That's the point. There are literally thousands of trial attorneys who would love to take on Adobe's deep pockets on a contingency basis.

As I wrote earlier:

Ramón G Castañeda, "So is the photography forum dead or grasping for its
last breath?" #59, 22 Mar 2009 1:00 am </webx?14@@.59b85a13/58>

That is at the same level as "by opening this box, envelope or wrapper…"
clauses of EULAs on software. See those "Not liable for theft or loss
of items left in your car in this parking garage"? Null and void in any
court of law. I spent every working day in courtrooms for three decades.

Only effective for intimidating the gullible.

Imagine I put up a sign on my front door reading "By putting so much as
a foot on my property you give me the right to shoot you on sight". You
thing law enforcement would let me get away with homicide?

By merely entering a parking garage or an Internet forum you agree to
nothing. The only remedy the garage owner is to not allow me to park on
his property, after he pays for my damages. The only remedy Adobe has
is to have its forum bouncers try to ban a user, and you know how "effective"
that can be. :(

I have agreed to nothing, certainly not beyond the consequence of being
denied access again.

While Adobe has no incentive to sue someone from whom they cannot realistically
recover even court costs, let alone damages, there are thousands of trial
attorneys who'd love to tackle Adobe's deep pockets on a contingency basis,
without the plaintiff having to disburse even one penny.

Let Adobe misuse one of my images. I'll be financially set for the rest
of my life, short a period as that may be. The college funds of all my
grandchildren will be secured after I'm gone. I already put all my children
through college myself, with the sweat of my brow.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

And it doesn't even have to be a class action to be a very lucrative prospect for a trial attorney.

[-sh...@adobeforums.com]

Let Adobe misuse one of my images. I'll be financially set for the rest
of my life, short a period as that may be. The college funds of all my
grandchildren will be secured after I'm gone. I already put all my children
through college myself, with the sweat of my brow.

You'll be able to "clean-up" that house you're looking at too, Ramón.
;)

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

:D

[Donald...@adobeforums.com]

I saw what you are contemplating, and i can only tell you our dog had some bladder trouble recently and we only figured out after a couple weeks that she was going on our one carpet while we were at work. I bought a good bissel carpet cleaner and it took 3 nights of working that carpet plus i shampooed it and used carpet fresh powder. it finally lost its smell, but what an undertaking. good luck

[Silkr...@adobeforums.com]

The thing is if Adobe ever did find one of my photo's worthy of using. As long as they asked, I wouldn't mind letting them use it or for a small fee if necessary. But for them to outright demand ownership of photo's whether they use them or not I am not too happy about.
I am not in a position to go head on with a company as large as Adobe and they know it. Otherwise they wouldn't try it.

[mr...@adobeforums.com]

The thing is if Adobe ever did find one of my photo's worthy of using....

I could dream that they would want one of mine ;)

[Ozp...@adobeforums.com]

I'm still of the view that the underlying intent is to protect Adobe when content is distributed on the net via their sites. It just doesn't make sense to me that their intent is to rip off photographers, who must form a substantial part of their customer base.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

If that IS Adobe's "underlying intent", they need to do a much better job of clarifying it because, at the moment, their actual wording is conveying a very different intention.

[pfigen]

Oz

Then they need to write it as they really intend. It's no use guessing what they "really" meant, when what they really did mean is what they write. Just remember that. What they write and any way that can be interpreted in their favor is exactly how they meant it. The exact words do matter.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Silkrooster,

I am not in a position to go head on with a company as large as Adobe
and they know it.

Yes you are, and they know it, that's why they attempt to intimidate you. As I said before, there are numerous experienced trial attorneys willing to take a case against Adobe's deep pockets, with said attorneys footing the bill and on a contingency basis. I successfully took on a very large and powerful insurance company that was jerking me around on that basis.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Most big insurance companies look at the bottom line when deciding fight or flight. In Oregon, a law passed which allowed attorneys to start a law suit with the knowledge that, for the amount asked, the defendant pays and walks away.
ORS 20.080

It amounts to a small claims suit but with attorney representation. If the Plaintiff wins, the defendant pays the attorney's fee, BUT if the Plaintiff loses, the Plaintiff does not have to pay!

It's started with the 20.080 demand letter.

It's used to get instant settlement of issues below $5500. The response time by the Defendant is so short that many times the period is over before the defendant, say an insurance company, can respond.

Of course, a major issue isn't covered this way at all.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

In Oregon, a law passedů

Irrelevant. Any decent insurance lawsuit will be removed to Federal Court, if for no other reason that the insurance company (most are based on the East Coast) will invoke the diversity of citizenship principle to get the suit transferred to a Federal Court, where the state law is irrelevant.

settlement of issues below $5500

Pffft! :p Chicken shít. I was referring to at least six-figure demands.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Of course, a major issue isn't covered this way at all.

And 100's of cases under 20.080 ain't chickenfeed. The attorneys refuse to ask for change, even as they recognize the inequality. Most don't even get filed. They are paid.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

And in today's world, six figures is not much better than chickenfeed.

10 figures here, 10 figures there, pretty soon you are into some real money! :D

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

John C has announced that the Forums that we have all known and enjoyed for so long will finally close next Friday afternoon (I imagine that means PST?) with the new abominations being due to land on our heads around Noon on Sunday.

[Ci...@adobeforums.com]

That is bad news Ann.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

I think so.

:(

[Ci...@adobeforums.com]

I don't know why more people didn't get involved in the discussion.