So is the photography forum dead or grasping for its last breath?

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

What can one do but move on is this a good or bad thing!?

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

soros likes it
(he seems to be a trendsetter)

[Ramon...@adobeforums.com]

.. sure hope not!

[Silkr...@adobeforums.com]

If it is, you guys are always more than welcome to use the forum on my website. its pretty much dead do to the spammers. It took to long to get an update to the forum. So it's there if you want it. silkrooster.com

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

John Cornicello who was personally involved in setting up this Forum in the first place needs to look into this whole question — and quickly too!

My feeling is that Adobe are unlikely to go raiding our images that are hosted on Pixentral or on our own web sites; but the language used in the TOS does appear to give them the right to do so.

John posted a picture of a Harbour Seal on the Test Site for the New Forums yesterday and that Seal photograph is hosted on his own site — all of which can be viewed (and could be raided) from the Link that he posted in the Forums.

His site contains a lot of high quality and valuable imagery which I am sure that he does not wish Adobe to be able to grab if they feel like it!

[L...@adobeforums.com]

John Cornicello who was personally involved in setting up this Forum in
the first place needs to look into this whole question — and quickly too!

And it is the finest, most user friendly and well laid out forum I have ever used. Kudos to John and whoever else set these forums up.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Well, I guess I am gonna be a contrarian here. A quick look informed me I would have no trouble navigating the new layout, which isn't 'zactly new.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

A "quick look" comes nowhere near exposing the piss-poor performance and the navigational nightmares.

[-sh...@adobeforums.com]

What can one do but move on is this a good or bad thing!?

A bad thing. I like it here and I don't like the look of the new forum at all.

John Cornicello who was personally involved in setting up this Forum...

And it is the finest, most user friendly and well laid out forum I have
ever used. Kudos to John and whoever else set these forums up.

I agree with Linda. Good job, John. I've found these forums very user friendly, easy to navigate, etc.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

I just wish that all the bling-geeks who set up the "industry standard" forums the world over had visited this place first and had seen how it should be done.

Thanks from me as well to John and co for coming up with this format originally.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

Well I did look at the new forum and I notice there is no photography forum and so the point might be mute.

So it is not likely that it will be a problem and there is no Lounge as well. Only forums about the applications as far as i can see and by the way an easier way to get the name you want to display if it is your own name and you use first and last name is to and underscore between the two names. If you only use one name and underscore after will do as well.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Wade,

Well I did look at the new forum and I notice there is no photography
forum and so the point might be mute.

Yes, there is a Photography forum in the forums preview. Like all other previews there, it's a snapshot of what this forum here was some twoo weeks ago:

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

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Only forums about the applications as far as i can see

Lots of folks miss the gray bars at the bottom of the index page. They have no icons, but when you click on them, submenus drop down to show nested forums.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Another less than brilliant bit of web site designing!

I wonder how many people will ever find these "hidden" Forums.

They really have made a complete hash of this whole misguided project.

[Ozp...@adobeforums.com]

If you use the dropdown box all the forums are listed. Took me 15 seconds at most to work that out the first time. But I'd agree that there should be a more obvious way of selecting the forums. And the listing should be in some sort of obvious order!

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

If you use the dropdown box all the forums are listed.

Not in alphabetical order, or any kind of order. :D

And the listing should be in some sort of obvious order!

I hadn't reached that part of your post. Agreed.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

I looked at the tabs or categories but did not come up with Discussion Forums and general Forums did not show things like Photography and certainly photography does not belong under Design Forums.

Never ever heard of anyone referring to Photography as design.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Wade,

Even here, this Photography forum is under Design and Development.

Look at the breadcrumbs at the top and bottom of this page:

Support < User to User Forums < Adobe Design and Development Forums < Photography

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

If you had to maneuver through some of the applications I have to just to get a simple job done, the new forum is a cakewalk.

But I will defer to the others here, as you all have more experience than I do in these forums.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

Who even pays attention to the category you go to Photography, but putting it into design and development is a bit out of whack.

But I think it is not going to be as successful as it is and as we know I have invested a great deal of time and patience in making this particular an endearing and welcoming environment.

And now all that work has gone to naught.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

This is how I feel too.

I have also spent a lot of time filling in questionnaires in the Forum Comments & Announcements Forum concerning future forum content and format — as have numerous other people — and all our requests and suggestions have been totally ignored.

The new forum design is frankly the worst I have ever encountered — it is even uglier, more convoluted — and SLOWER — than the old MM Forums.

:(

[Hop...@adobeforums.com]

Wow. I have really come to enjoy this forum, warts and all. I do hope we don't lose it and lose the ability to post images that we retain all the rights to. :(

If this goes away, know that I will miss you guys!

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

I think it died!

[Allen...@adobeforums.com]

Agreed the new Forum design is very poor. Why in the world would one intentionally apply a Windoze look and feel to forum design?

[Ho]

Why in the world would one intentionally apply a Windoze look and feel...

Because of its inherent superiority?

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Because we don't really know what the future holds, on many levels, I would like to take a moment to express my heartfelt gratitude for the years of interaction and friendships we've built in both this forum, and the Photoshop Forum.

My life, and even my business, has been profoundly affected by the generous advice, interaction, encouragement, and constructive criticism I've received by so many of you.

I would like to share with you a few specifics of how my life has been enriched.

First off, I never would have even picked up a SLR had it not been for those of you who continually encouraged me when I was looking to upgrade from the Nikon 990 to another point and shoot. Not only have I been through three SLR's, but since that time I've actually being able to generate income in the realm of photography. Among some of the jobs that have come to me are weddings, portraiture, children, families, product, and more. I am aware of my limitations though and don’t presume to be more than I am. For this reason I have turned down jobs that I either felt were either out of the realm of my expertise, too big for me, or too stressful. But I cannot say the opportunities have not been there.

The changes in my life spread farther because of the skills many of you have helped me acquire. I'm in my third year serving on the Board of Directors for our local pro photographer's guild and have received several awards for various volunteer work, both on a local, state, and even national level related to design work submitted to the FPP and even the PPA in both 2007 and 2008. This would never have happened had some of you not been there for me when I asked for advice.

Going farther back in history, I will never forget one of my first experiences with the Adobe Forums. I started a thread about Photo Retouching & Restoration in the Photoshop Forum. At that time I was restoring an old photo pro bono for a friend. I posted my progress along the way, and received tons of advice. This was when I became familiar with Wade, Ann, Bonnie, Scott, Neil, Buko, Chris Cox, Ken, MO, and several others. I’m trying to remember the name of that nice guy from Tampa also.

The project went on for about three months if I remember right. This was the beginning of my infamous “long” threads. Just about the time I thought the retouch job was good enough I would get another constructive criticism on something. Scott Weichert in particular. I can remember laughing as hard as I’ve ever laughed. I thought I was done and ready to go, and Scott pointed out that it could be better. This would mean disassembling some of my hundreds of layers to go back and get it right.

Then when I needed business advice, I started another infamous long thread, having to do with Business Pricing. Again, I received an outpouring of advice that truly made it possible for me to gain the confidence to charge more. I still have trouble with this area, but at least I can now charge enough to make it worth being in business, for which I’ve also been blessed.

One milestone that was crossed was when Ken Neilson sent me his sample package on how to setup Job Tickets, and keep track of client jobs, etc. This was after having lost $500 on a client job where there was confusion regarding all the different requests at different times. Ken’s timely advice has saved me from making the same mistake again. To this day I think about Ken when I set up a new job ticket. Others also helped with this.

There is so much more I could go on to share with you all that would one way or another be related to some advice or support I received here at the forums.

Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn’t mention my first experience using Studio Lights at a Valentine’s Banquet for portraits. I would never have pulled it off had it not been for the help I received from some of you, such as Ann, Phil, Phil Scarsbrook, Allen, Wade, and so many more. There was even the added help of phone calls from Ann Shelbourne and Phil Scarsbrook when I needed the extra help.

I’m running of time as I’ve been asked to take pictures at a baby shower today… so this is a rush post, and I’m sure I’ve forgotten to mention some of you… but please know that I am ever so grateful for the unselfishness, patience, and generosity that you all have shown to me over the years.

Whatever happens in the future, my prayers are that each of you will be blessed in some special way!

Much love to you all…
Linda

[Ramon...@adobeforums.com]

wow! ... is this goodbye?

[Hop...@adobeforums.com]

Ramona,
probably not truly goodbye, but the new fora might make our interactions much more limited and difficult. If Adobe doesn't change their TOS stance on images posted to their servers, I don't think there are *any* of us who are willing to simply give our photos, and their respective rights, away by posting here. That alone will kill this particular forum.

I love learning and seeing what is posted here. It has expanded my knowledge and awareness of many things, photography being only one of them. One example: Fred enlightening us to what is happening to the forests around him, both in words and via his photos. I don't think I would have known much about this issue without his diligence. By the way Fred, I salute you in your efforts. :)

In short, if Adobe wants to take "credit" for our photos, who is going to post? If no one posts ... the forum dies. :(

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

I certainly hope not!

This Forum has always been such a special place that i hope that it can survive the move to the decidedly different new forums.

I do think that we all need to be very careful to always post any images from a link on an external server such as pixentral (and always include both an embedded metadata Copyright statement and an obvious Š Watermark) and we should NEVER post images directly into the Adobe Forums' pages even though that facility is now there.

We have no way of knowing if Adobe would ever abuse the powers that they have given themselves (whether intentionally or unintentionally) in Clause 8; but so far we have received no response from John Cornicello, or anyone else from Adobe, as to whether this matter is being investigated or the situation clarified.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of any new management?

[pfigen]

The way I read it, anything that gets posted on the new forum, regardless of whether it's posted directly or through a link to an outside server, automatically has the non-exclusive copyright assigned to Adobe, and since there is no place to effectively cross that out, you either participate knowing that you're being taken advantage of or you move on to a less oppressive regime.

[hal...@adobeforums.com]

I do not post very often in this forum, but I lurk here almost every day - when I am home.

Like Linda, I have benefitted a great deal in the last four or five years from the postings in this forum; I am not a professional, just an active amateur, but like everyone else, I do like to take good pictures and process them with some degree of competence. I have also enjoyed on many occasions the pictures posted here.

Unfortunately, all you can count on in this life is CHANGE. We will just hope that we can adapt to the new forum with some degree of the pleasure the old forum gave us.

Thank you all for the help and pleasure you have given me!!!!

Hal

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

automatically has the non-exclusive copyright assigned to Adobe,

I don't think that it actually transfers the Copyright because under the law that can ONLY be transferred on a case by case basis by a signed written agreement between the two parties.

But what they are attempting to purloin are the Rights to Unlimited Use in Perpetuity and without compensation to the Artist.

If Adobe fails to amend TOS Clause 8, hopefully some well-healed lawyer will bring a Class Action Lawsuit against them — but that doesn't help us in the meantime.

[pfigen]

Ann,

It's very possible that the language may not be legal. It's also true that most of the images posted here have never been registered with the U.S. copyright office or the copyright office from wherever they have been posted. This language is very similar to the language that record companies and even National Geographic (one of the worst offenders) have tried to use with me.

Upon further reflection, I think that the very act of you agreeing to their terms and conditions is all that's needed. You have agreed to their terms. What is needed is a legal clarification from a good copyright attorney as to what it all really means. Until then, I would not assume anything but the worst.

[Hop...@adobeforums.com]

and the way I am understanding it, that clause applies to *this* forum as well. Am I wrong??

[pfigen]

The thought had crossed my mind too, and that is reinforced by the fact that we've had to re-sign up here, and most of us did without reading any fine print.

[Ozp...@adobeforums.com]

I'm sure we discussed this "Adobe's rights" thing months back - and the photos continued to be posted here.

[pfigen]

I don't recall any such discussion. Care to call it back up?

[Ozp...@adobeforums.com]

John Cornicello posted this on the ephemeral test site -

"Might as well post the entire section...
--------------------------------------
8. Use of Your Content.

a. Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, except as provided in Section 8(b), you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display Your Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate Your Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed.

And now in more common terms: We realize that this section might look a bit scary and so we want to point out a few things. This section only applies to those portions of our sites, such as User Forums, where we intend for users to share content freely with Adobe and with each other. It does not apply to all of the content that you share, contribute or post to our sites. For example, it does not apply to content hosted by Photoshop.com or Acrobat.com. For services like those, we will provide customized license grants that are consistent with the spirit and intent of those services and that are appropriate for the kinds of content we expect you to share within them. (We say this more formally below.) So we encourage you to be selective when deciding which content to contribute under this license and we want you to be sure that you are comfortable granting the above rights when it comes to that specific content.
-----------------------------------

Which basically means that you give Adobe permission to display the image on the site. Without those terms we would not not be able to display (perform, distribute, reproduce, modify (resize), publish, etc.) your image on the site.

I will see if they have some clarification on that part in italics that refers to Forums.

Thanks!"

(That's the end of what John said)

I can appreciate that professional photographers are highly sensitive to this kind of issue but it does appear to be intended to (for instance) prevent someone who has posted an image here from then demanding payment from Adobe because the company have then distributed it worldwide on their site (the forum). That's why I've suggested adding words which gives them the right only to publish it in the context in which it was posted (ie the forum or its successors, eg the new Jive version).

[Nick_...@adobeforums.com]

Which basically means that you give Adobe permission to display the image
on the site.

Which is, I'm sure, what Adobe intended. Are they trying to cover their asses? You betcha.

Other than that, if you don't feel comfortable with posting your images here, don't. I really don't think that the recent aura of this forum being dead is justified.

[pfigen]

What he's saying, if you read the translation, is that they're only going to steal images from the forums - the only place where people post images, not the business side of their website.

Those are the same terms I read, and they're still complete bs.

[Hop...@adobeforums.com]

Nick,

I really don't think that the recent aura of this forum being dead is justified.

In terms of sharing images, I'm betting it is. In terms of sharing information, it does not have to be.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

The basic nugget is this part:

you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable,
and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify,
adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display Your
Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate Your Content into other
Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed.

There is NOTHING that states that your "Content" will be used solely on the Adobe Forums website.

Adobe has (and don't think that it was not intentional!) deliberately stated that they can "incorporate Your Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed."

John's editorialising of what HE thinks Clause 8 MEANS is at total variance with what it actually SAYS!

[Hop...@adobeforums.com]

Ann,
were these new TOS for the new forum, or were those the same words before this forum migration was to take place?

[Ci...@adobeforums.com]

It is good practice to simply not post high resolution images. If you make something no more than 400 pixels, what is someone going to do with them? And put your copyright on it/over it.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

I think the photography forum is going to die for some users.

A professional cannot for instance now post a photo of a person even in the context of a public domain situation that would be covered by fair use because in doing so you grant Adobe copyright privileges and allow them to use it as they wish. That means if they use it for commercial use and the person sees it and decides to sue Adobe they might be in their rights to sue you because you gave them the rights to use the photos as you wish.

This might become really a burden say on someone like Donald who has posted images of the dutch amish people without their permission or their desire to be photographed, if Adobe used such an image both Donald and Adobe are going to have a hell of a time. Chances f them seeing it is little true but if they do see it on say a box or a flyer…well!

Then there is Peter Figen who has posted images of performers he probably has a release but does he have a complete release! They may get real upset if their image was used as that is often part of their income, endorsements.

However Peter Oz being a forum host just let everyone who has posted images here off the hook. By stating that the matter had been discussed here before when it had not would be a misleading condition and a clear attempt to protect Adobe from not making it clear to the users of this forum.

Whether Peter Oz works for Adobe or not he is an agent of Adobe and is so in an official way. He administrates the very forum in which Adobe says it has the rights to enslave your copyright fo their own benefit without your permission or knowledge before hand.

So because of what Peter just wrote, which is untrue and misleading, the matter of them using any photos posted before today is null and the clause is void.

Adobe is responsible for what Peter wrote as they did not make certain that he contact them before hand to clarify the issue, that makes his statement sanctioned by Adobe.

Now if I were Donald I would make certain in the future that the people you photographed at least agreed verbally to you that you could take their images before taking the images, secondly I would make certain it was ok afterward and thirdly if they said no and you took the image I would erase it. It is only a photo.

The same would go for property rights as well.

Then there is the issue of free speech, this is no longer free speech but conditional speech privileges, that is you can say and post what you want but if Adobe wishes to edit that material to the point that the meaning and intent no longer is there and it now takes on a different meaning they are not responsible for your expression and intent for not only being lost but to take on a new meaning.

Of course if they edit this it might take on any meaning they want it to take on and they have the power and means to delete it.

I write this to warn some people simply do not post your images.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Wade, are you an attorney, or does this info in post #45 represent the opinion of a registered attorney?

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

No in both cases!

Why do you ask? LOL!

People do not post your images and let the Photography forum.

Most important do not post any photographs. And that is anywhere on the Adobe site.

If Adobe needs photographs for any reason they can afford to hire a photographer.

And they do not have the rights to use your photographs without your permission.

[Ozp...@adobeforums.com]

I just find the notion bizarre that Adobe would be so hard up for images to use for their own purposes that they'd need to raid the relatively low res stuff posted here, and probably upset the photographic community in doing so to a degree that would run totally counter to their objective of selling as much software as they can to said community. The whole notion doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps I'm just too innocent.

The terms of use start with this -

Last updated October 15, 2008. Replaces April 30, 2006 version in its entirety.

The relevant (as I see it) bits of the 30th Aoril 2006 terms are as follows:-

"SUBMITTED MATERIALS

All of your User Materials that you post on or otherwise submit via the Site and Services shall not be confidential information or trade secrets owned by you or any other party. You will receive no compensation for any use of your User Materials. Adobe may, but is not required to, post or use any of your User Materials that you may post or otherwise submit. Adobe does not pre-screen User Materials that users provide or otherwise submit via the Site or Services; however, Adobe may remove any posted or submitted User Materials from the Site or any Service for any reason without notice in its sole discretion. By posting or submitting your User Materials, you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the Intellectual Property Rights and other rights to your User Materials as described in these Terms of Use, including all the rights necessary for you to post or submit your User Materials.

In addition, by posting or otherwise submitting your User Materials that contain images, photographs, pictures, videos, webcasts or that are otherwise graphical in whole or in part ("Images"), you represent and warrant that: (a) you own the copyright in such Images, or that you have obtained all necessary license(s) from the copyright owner(s) of such Images to use such Images, or portions thereof, in keeping with your use in connection with the Site, the Services and as otherwise permitted by these Terms of Use; (b) you have the rights necessary to grant the licenses and sublicenses described in these Terms of Use; and (c) you have received consent from any and all persons depicted in such Images to use the Images as set forth in these Terms of Use, including the distribution, public display, public performance and reproduction of such Images. By posting or otherwise submitting Images, you grant to Adobe and all other users of this Site permission to use your Images in connection with their use permitted by these Terms of Use (including making prints and gift items incorporating such Images), including an unrestricted, irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free and fully paid up license under all Intellectual Property Rights to copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, modify, translate, transmit and reformat your Images, with or without having your name attached to such Images, in any manner or form and for any purpose, with full rights to sublicense such rights through multiple tiers of distribution. You will receive no compensation with respect to the use of your Images.

You are solely and entirely responsible for all of your User Materials that you post or otherwise submit via the Site or Services. You shall assume all risks associated with the use of your User Materials including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of your User Materials. Adobe does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of your User Materials. You acknowledge and agree that by accessing or using the Site or Services, you may be exposed to User Materials from others that are offensive, indecent or otherwise objectionable.

ADOBE担 RIGHTS TO SUBMITTED USER MATERIALS

For all of your User Materials that you post or otherwise submit to the Site, including (a) comments to Communications Venues, (b) feedback, (c) bug reports, (d) piracy reports or (e) product suggestions, you grant Adobe and the users of this Site an unrestricted, irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free and fully paid up license under all Intellectual Property Rights to use, reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, copy, edit, modify, translate, reformat, transmit and distribute such User Materials, with or without having your name attached to such Images, in any manner or form and for any purpose, with full rights to sublicense such rights through multiple tiers of distribution, and you also acknowledge and agree that Adobe is free to use any ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques that you provide for any purpose without any compensation to you. You acknowledge and agree that Adobe shall not be liable for any failure to store User Materials on the Site at any time."

Bold above is mine.

<http://web.archive.org/web/20070122165412/http>://www.adobe.com/misc/copyright.html has the whole thing.

Now why is this suddenly an issue, when we've all agreed to it (by using the site) for the last several years - or when posting your copyright material on internet sites, and you are professional photographers with a concern over these matters, surely you've not been just posting stuff on the net in the hope that the small print is ok?

[Ozp...@adobeforums.com]

By the way, the terms in force before April 2006 seem much more in line with the kind of wording people seem to want now -

"License to Adobe for User Content
Certain Services offered through this Site accommodate or require User Content. Depending upon the nature of the Service, by submitting User Content to this Site, you grant Adobe one of the following types of licenses:

1. For User Content that is the result of your creative efforts and which is intended to be displayed on the Site, such as examples of work you have done using Adobe products, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to modify (for purposes of formatting, maintenance, or Site administration only) and reproduce such User Content. You also grant Adobe the right to distribute and publicly display and perform such User Content for the purpose for which such User Content was submitted to the Site. This license will be in effect until such User Content is removed from the Site. If you submit User Content to the Design Review service, you acknowledge that such content may be modified and annotated, and Adobe may display the User Content together with such modifications and annotations solely for purposes of the Design Review service. You acknowledge and agree that any User Content you submit to Adobe Studio Exchange, such as actions or extensions, may be downloaded, modified, reproduced, and distributed by users of this Site.

2. For User Content such as comments to the Adobe User to User Forums, bug reports, piracy reports, or product suggestions, you grant Adobe and the users of this Site an unrestricted, worldwide, irrevocable license to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify, transmit, and distribute such User Content, and you also agree that Adobe is free to use any ideas, concepts, know-how, or techniques that you send us for any purpose without any compensation to you. However, we will not release your name or otherwise publicize the fact that you submitted such User Content to us unless: (a) you grant us permission to do so; (b) we first notify you that the User Content you submit to a particular part of the Site will be published or otherwise used with your name on it; (c) we have a good faith belief that we are required to do so by law and/or in response to a subpoena or court order; or (d) we believe it necessary in order to protect the rights of Adobe or others."

See <http://web.archive.org/web/20060310080318/http>://www.adobe.com/misc/copyright.html for the whole thing.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

It is a "Sudden Issue" because we were NOT posting images DIRECTLY on Adobe's website before; but were only posting a line of html code that Linked to images that were hosted elsewhere.

Adobe's only claim to "Content posted on their Site" in that case was limited to a line of html text — and much good would that do them!

It was only with the launching of the new Test Site this week; and the fact that we were now being invited to post images directly onto Adobe's Servers that I made a quick dash back to the TOS to check on EXACTLY what that clause (which I remembered to have been in the TOS) actually said.

I found that the Clause had been changed — although no public announcement of changes to the TOS was ever made in Forum Comments & Announcements as far as I know.

[No, I am not an Attorney but I am the daughter of one; and I have made it my business to read entire text of the Copyright Acts in both the UK and the USA!]

[Ozp...@adobeforums.com]

The Flickr terms include this, which seems pretty fair:-

"Yahoo!7 does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Service. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant Yahoo!7 the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:

* With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of Yahoo!7 Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Yahoo!7 Group to which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo!7 removes such Content from the Service.

* With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo!7 Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo!7 removes such Content from the Service. "

[Ozp...@adobeforums.com]

The phrase "posting or otherwise submitting images" would probably need a lawyer's interpretation, but it could well include simply posting a link, I'd say.

[pfigen]

Well, in the new forum, you have to agree to their terms and conditions, and those terms and conditions clearly state that anything you post, words or images, becomes a part of their intellectual property. The way it's stated now, you HAVE given them permission by agreeing to their terms. You do the math.

[Ozp...@adobeforums.com]

Well, in the new forum, you have to agree to their terms and conditions

Same as here. So again, what has changed?

It is a "Sudden Issue" because we were NOT posting images DIRECTLY on
Adobe's website before; but were only posting a line of html code that
Linked to images that were hosted elsewhere.

Adobe's only claim to "Content posted on their Site" in that case was
limited to a line of html text — and much good would that do them!

Ann provides the answer - it is the ability to actually upload the content to Adobe's servers which is new. Ann's response implies that the existing terms of service, and the even more photographer-unfriendly ones which preceded them, do not apply to images displayed via links. So if one accepts her view, then there is no concern over images linked to in these forums, or images linked to in the new forums, but the concern only applies to actual uploaded content. Therefore, we can all carry on as before - just don't upload content. No need for the photography forum to die (getting back on topic...).

Now Ann's clarification explains why nobody was concerned over their existing agreement to the existing terms of service, or those existing prior. What it doesn't explain is why Adobe would have put those clauses into their terms given that it wasn't possible to upload images to the Adobe forums before (I don't know about the MM ones, I admit).

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Adobe have (or had?) some sort of Design-Instruction sites where people could upload their work for teacher-support or discussion.

They also have Photoshop Express which encourages people to upload images I believe — but I haven't actually explored the site.

My guess is that Clause 8 was changed because of Photoshop Express.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Ozpeter,

Now why is this suddenly an issue, when we've all agreed to it

In all the text you have quoted, something is indeed new in the TOU of the new forums:

…you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable,
and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute…

This was not present before—unless I've missed it. This specifically gives Adobe the unfettered right to profit from your content (including your posted text), by selling it or licensing it to third parties as they wish.

I, for one, have never "agreed to it". >:(

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

All,

Keep on protesting directly to Adobe. They had to roll back similarly onerous terms shortly after they launched their online editing web site, Photoshop.com, in the face of outraged protests.

If similar pressure is applied this time too, they will have to modify the TOU like they did at Photoshop.com.

[Ozp...@adobeforums.com]

This was not present before—unless I've missed it.

It's there at the bottom of this page - click "terms of use". Dated October last year. Replaced the one that enabled me to use any of your images on gifts and prints.

I, for one, have never "agreed to it".

You've agreed to it every time you've used the site. See first paragraph. You agreed to the one allowing use of content on gifts and prints before that.

I do think the TOU could be better worded. I just don't go along with linking this issue to the new forums. Unless I am grossly in error - not entirely impossible, but I'd be surprised - there is no link.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

You've agreed to it every time you've used the site.

Don't be absurd, Peter! You're an adult.

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.

I repeat what I wrote in #57:

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Even weaker is Adobe's case when they unilaterally change the TOU six years or more after I joined.

[Ozp...@adobeforums.com]

Null and void in any court of law. I spent every working day in courtrooms
for three decades.

Well, I may not be a lawyer but my mother used to date a young man from Ghana who went on to become their Chief Justice. (True actually, but of course totally irrelevant!).

[Ozp...@adobeforums.com]

So with Ramón saying that the terms of use aren't worth the monitor they are displayed on, and Ann saying that the problem only arises with content actually uploaded to the Adobe site, and me saying that various photographer-unfriendly-looking conditions are nothing new, we don't have to be very, very afraid, but more a bit concerned?

And to voice any concerns, whose expression might perhaps be timely as John Cornicello said he'd be raising the matter in relevant quarters, I'd agree with Ramón that expressing them as directly as possible to Adobe would seem to be a good idea.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

You can change the terms of an agreement but you must clearly note the change it is one of the reason's Apple keeps losing their court battles against all the class actions they find themselves in.

You can make terms of such agreements to include the right to make changes, without notice but you still have to inform the user of the change.

Yes it is common to use such a clause not to inform a customer or user of such change, but stating without notice only means that you do not have to notify someone when you make a change but you have to notify them of that change. Failing to do so is failing to make such a change as far as I understand it and we have probably all been part of some class action for this very reason.

I received a notice that there are changes being made to an account, I will not state what kind of an account. They have such a clause as well, which really only means they do not have to notify me that they are going to make such a change but once they make the change they have inform as to when it takes effect, what my options are and what those changes are, it does not mean for instance that Adobe in a hypothetical situation can now without notice decide to charge you for posting on the forum each time you make a post unless they first let you know that they have made this change to the rules and that this the substance of that change and that these are your options in regard to those changes.

To think otherwise is foolish and such action by Adobe in this hypothetical case would not have any merit in any court anywhere in the world.

And there may be some states and countries where the clause they have placed on the new site would be laughed at and groundless.

I think they should state the actually reasons and application of the terms and why they need protection. If it is for protection against someone else taking something posted on their site and using it without permission for sale or distribution for reason other then posting it here on the site they should word that clause that way, if the intend to use it on the other hand for advertising and promotional use then they should state their intentions
and give the user a clear choice in the matter and not hide the intentions.

As we did discuss the use of such clauses in competitions is not to protect the user from unwarranted use of the material from outside parties but to reuse that material for self-serving ends without compensating the creator, such as making products out of the image for sale.

Clearly though Adobe as someone state should not be so hard up for images and they should state so, we do not have intentions of profiting from the use of you material just because you post them here on the forum which you have been invited to join under the guise of a user to user forum.

It is either a user to user forum or it is not and this makes it not such a thing and clearly not instituted in a way that is open and clear.

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

is there any justice in Ghana? : )
I "hear" that corruption reigns

I don't think that adobe need/want to steal my [your?] pictures
I think that they went too far in presuming what they might do to them
if uploaded to illustrate discussed matters
(like banding, interpolation, chromatic aberrations; not wade's "talent" : )

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Ozpeter,

My concerns were mainly with the butt ugly appearance of the new forums.

This has been effectively squashed by very simple and safe hacks:

After applying the various scripts and Adblock page elements blocking, the new forums look very, very good:

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1kh7PYdJTceOSrCTQRbaifku3nd7ke1> Forum Index Page

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1NU1MGBQEWI54ecuih0tHEp0m4Josn> Forum Thread page

No more avatars, no more "More Stuff Like This" cr@p, no more Community Experts labels, no more Popular Discussions, no more Top Participants, no more points ratings, no more total numbers of posts for each user, no more nonsense.

My warmest thanks to Eric, Mark and Zenor, who provided the scripts and blockfilters for this excellent workaround.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

So why in heck doesn't Adobe just run with something like this, and have all the useless avatar, points and ranking bling as a preferences option only?

[Ozp...@adobeforums.com]

I tried this earlier on (or a version thereof) because one forum user suggested that the pages loaded faster that way. I used a timing add-on for FF3 ("Hammerhead") which seemed to indicate that pages were slightly slower to load when stripped of the unwanted stuff. Here slow page loading is a problem so I wouldn't personally want to add to it, so I'll just not let my eye alight on what I don't want to see.

So why in heck doesn't Adobe just run with something like this, and have
all the useless avatar, points and ranking bling as a preferences option
only?

It's being filtered at the user end, Fred. As far as I am aware, the software doesn't provide for it being filtered at the origin. The 'bling' is an inherent part of the product.

Anyway - for me, it's like being a vegetarian, and going to dinner with a friend who serves up a fish cooked with the head, eyes, tail, fins, everything. I say "I'm sorry, I'm a vegetarian, I can't eat that." So the friend brings back the fish with everything cut off and just the filleted flesh left on the plate. Sorry, but that's not solving the key problem - it's still not a vegetable.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

As far as I am aware, the software doesn't provide for it being filtered
at the origin. The 'bling' is an inherent part of the product.

That's just plain BS, Ozpeter, being fed by the provider to Adobe. Or it's Adobe passing the buck.

And I'll gladly give up a few milliseconds for the joy of not seeing all that other cr@p.

Do vegetarians have any non-vegetarian friends? I've only met a single vegetarian in my long life, a real nice chap too, much younger than I.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

BTW, the page load faster now, at least from my user's point of view.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

So, what are the hacks?

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

make it a vegetable from the start!
(to which some can add wish eyes if they fish : )

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Simple scripts for Stylish, Greasemonkey and Adblock, all of then add-ons for Firefox. They're amply described over there and the Forums forum over here.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks, Ramon.
Adblock is already activated, I'll look into the others.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

You'll need both "Adblock Plus" and "Adblock Plus: Element Hiding Helper". Then you need to hunt down each element you want eliminated.

If you get "Stylish" you don't need "Greasemonkey".

[Dirck_V...@adobeforums.com]

Perhaps a few more sets of eyes could help me confirm: it appears to me that Adobe has amended the TOS without notice and without changing the date at the top. Twice I quoted by copy/paste the phrase "make available through your use of the Site" referring to their claim of rights to content regardless of where it is hosted or even if it is just hyperlinked.

I no longer see that phrase in the TOS. Is it indeed gone or am I just missing it? And was there not language that said that they had the right to use your content for profit without remuneration to you?

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

I'm a strict vegetarian on weekends!

[Ozp...@adobeforums.com]

it appears to me that Adobe has amended the TOS without notice and without
changing the date at the top.

That would be a bit bad if it's the case.

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

or a bit good
(didn't look)

[Mark_A...@adobeforums.com]

Twice I quoted by copy/paste the phrase "make available through your use
of the Site" referring to their claim of rights to content regardless
of where it is hosted or even if it is just hyperlinked.

It is in section 2b where they define "Your Content".

2. Use of Site, Services and Materials.
...
b. Unless expressly agreed to by Adobe in writing elsewhere, Adobe has no obligation to store any Materials that you upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available through your use of the Site or via the Services (“Your Content”).

[Mark_A...@adobeforums.com]

Wade said:

Adobe is responsible for what Peter wrote as they did not make certain
that he contact them before hand to clarify the issue, that makes his
statement sanctioned by Adobe.

I think they CYA'd that in section 14d:

14. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES.

d. MANAGERS, HOSTS, PARTICIPANTS, MODERATORS AND OTHER THIRD PARTIES ARE NOT AUTHORIZED ADOBE SPOKESPERSONS, AND THEIR VIEWS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THOSE OF ADOBE. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ADOBE WILL HAVE NO LIABILITY RELATED TO USER CONTENT ARISING UNDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, LIBEL, PRIVACY, PUBLICITY, OBSCENITY OR OTHER LAWS. ADOBE ALSO DISCLAIMS ALL LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE MISUSE, LOSS, MODIFICATION OR UNAVAILABILITY OF ANY USER CONTENT.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

Doesn't matter they can write that all they want they do not make the laws and they authorize and give Peter the ability and the right to edit, censor and ban participants from the forum, he is no longer a host but an agent.

He is executing policy and they cannot get around that issue, no matter what they write.

In other words if he was really just a host he would ask politely and then not getting a response then he would ask the the management to look into the matter. that is a host his role is that of an administrator, not a host.

A Rose is a Rose…etc.

[Dirck_V...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks Mark. No change except in my tired eyes I guess.

[Silkr...@adobeforums.com]

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? Well that depends
on the state. There are a few states that do have a law on the books that
give the home owner the right to shoot on site. Since I don't know that
much about the law, I'll won't go no further with my point, cause I know
I'll screw it up. The may require the intruder to actually be inside the
house though.
You are right though there are a lot of contracts that have wording that
is not binding due to the laws of that state. Especially if it forces
one of the parties to agree to something that is not reasonable.

As far as uploading images to Adobe's website, a contract is not needed. Adobe can prove who uploaded the file with date and time. As long as the person who uploaded the file has ownership, uploading the file give Adobe permission to host that file until the owner rescinds that permission by deleting the file from Adobe's server.
The issue that can arise is when someone who is not the owner of the file uploads to Adobe's server, which in that case the contract Adobe wants us to agree to is moot any ways. Since the owner did not upload that file.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

Since the owner did not upload that file.

Oh you hit on a good point, until a law is past that covers this issue of someone other then the owner uploading the photos to the Adobe site I would say that it is a bad idea to upload photos to the site and probably Adobe should rethink the policy of allowing such material to be uploaded by link or otherwise.

It is a very good point.

Adobe has to rethink this policy I thought it would be a good idea to have photography forum to discuss photography issues and technique but now i see that it is not such a good idea.

I would say Adobe would be wise to kill this particular forum for everyone's protection unless they restrict the display of images all together!

[Silkr...@adobeforums.com]

You know there is nothing stopping Adobe from disabling attachments for a particular forum. The photography forum could stay as a image by link only forum. Requiring you to use another service provider like we do now.

[Allen...@adobeforums.com]

...anything that gets posted on the new forum, regardless of whether it's
posted directly or through a link to an outside server, automatically
has the non-exclusive copyright assigned to Adobe, and since there is
no place to effectively cross that out, you either participate knowing
that you're being taken advantage of or you move on to a less oppressive
regime.

I fully agree with Ramón ("Only effective for intimidating the gullible"). Just because an Adobe writes something by no means makes it legally enforceable. The idea that Adobe could appropriate someone's image just because it was linked to on a public Adobe forum is preposterous.

Abobe legal knows that, and I doubt if Adobe would be dumb enough to intentionally steal an image for any substantive usage. Abobe legal is just adding ammunition for their deep legal team to bury potential litigants with. A disgusting practice, but it is what the Adobes of the world do; even blanks ammunition can bury those with less deep legal resources.

[Allen...@adobeforums.com]

Do vegetarians have any non-vegetarian friends?

Yes. As a consequence I eat quite excellent vegetarian fare several times a week. :)

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Yeah, and even that which appears iron-clad can be reversed in a summary Judgement with no recourse.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

We do seem to have got Adobe's attention:

Ann Shelbourne, "Protecting our Copyright from being Misappropriated." #25, 23 Mar 2009 11:26 am </webx?14@@.59b85ebb/24>

and what follows …

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

You see sometimes a gal and a guy with a big mouth can make a big enough noise.

[Ramon...@adobeforums.com]

very good!

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Way to go Ann!

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

:)

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Well, lets just be sure that they really do clean-up Clause 8 before we break out the bubbly!

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

No more flags. Instead,"New Flag" is posted.

[John_Co...@adobeforums.com]

The noise actually slowed down the process. Attention was gained about a week ago on the first mention.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

John:

It is important that Adobe gets the wording right this time.

There has to be an absolutely clear and unambiguous statement that while the Users consent to our Copyright "Content" being stored on Adobe's Servers, and disseminated on the Internet solely in the context of the Forums on which that "Content" was posted;

no other reproduction of our work, in any other media, is sanctioned for any purpose without the Written Permission of the Copyright Owner.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File>:Gadsden_flag.svg