Adobe's New Terms of Use Sparks Controversy: Users Fear Unauthorized Access to Creative Work

San Jose, California United States of America
Adobe does not train its Firefly Gen AI models on customer content.
Adobe has updated its terms of use causing controversy among users.
Some users are still uneasy about the new terms, fearing unauthorized access to their creative work.
The company will never assume ownership of a customer's work.
The new terms allow Adobe to access and analyze user content for developing future products using machine learning tools.
Adobe's New Terms of Use Sparks Controversy: Users Fear Unauthorized Access to Creative Work

Adobe, a leading software company, has recently updated its terms of use, causing controversy among its users. The new terms allow Adobe to access and analyze user content for developing future products using machine learning tools. This has raised concerns about privacy and ownership of creative work.

According to the facts from various sources,

  • Adobe does not train its Firefly Gen AI models on customer content.
  • The company will never assume ownership of a customer's work.

However, some users are still uneasy about the new terms. They fear that their creative work could be used without their consent or opt-out ability. This has led to a backlash against Adobe, with many expressing frustration and concern on social media.

Adobe's Chief Strategy Officer, Scott Belsky, has responded to the issue by stating that the company does not train any GenAI models on customer content and has tight security around access to customer content. Jérémie Noguer, Substance 3D ecosystem's Product Director, also commented that Adobe is not accessing or reading users' projects in any way.

Despite these assurances, some high-profile pros and users remain skeptical. For instance, Hollywood filmmaker Duncan Jones and Sam Santala from Songhorn Studios have expressed their concerns about the new terms. They argue that the lack of transparency around how Adobe plans to use user content is a major issue.

The controversy comes at a time when there is growing concern about data privacy and ownership in the tech industry. It highlights the need for clear communication from companies about how they collect, store, and use user data.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

90%

Doubts
  • Are there any non-English speaking users who may have been affected by this update and shared their opinions on social media?
  • Have there been any legal experts' opinions on the updated terms of use?
  • Is Adobe's assurance that they do not train GenAI models on customer content enough to quell the concerns?

Sources

95%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Adobe terms clarified: Will never own your work, or use it to train AI

9to5Mac Ben Lovejoy Friday, 07 June 2024 11:05
  • Unique Points
    • Adobe does not train Firefly Gen AI models on customer content
    • Adobe will never assume ownership of a customer’s work
  • Accuracy
    • Adobe updated its terms, causing controversy among users
    • Users were forced to agree to the new terms to continue using Adobe apps
    • Initial statement from Adobe dismissed concerns and clarified existing policy
    • Subsequent explanation provided more detail on content checks and manual review processes for CSAM and app usage violations
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

80%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

People Aren't Happy With Adobe's Spyware-Like Terms of Service Update

80.lv Theodore McKenzie Thursday, 06 June 2024 03:25
  • Unique Points
    • Adobe users are required to grant the company unlimited access to their projects under the updated Terms of Use.
    • Access to user projects can be done through automated and manual methods.
    • Users grant Adobe a royalty-free, sublicensable license to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, create derivative works based on, publicly perform, and translate their creations.
    • Removing Photoshop from a computer via Adobe Uninstaller requires agreement to the Terms of Use.
    • Adobe will still access user content in ‘certain limited circumstances’ even if users opt out.
  • Accuracy
    • ]Adobe users are required to grant the company unlimited access to their projects[
    • Adobe can analyze user work using machine learning
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (80%)
    The author makes an inflammatory statement by using the term 'spyware-like' to describe Adobe's Terms of Service update without providing any evidence that the terms are actually spyware. The author also quotes Jérémie Noguer denying that Adobe is accessing users' projects, but does not challenge this claim or provide any counterevidence. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory language when describing Adobe's focus on generative artificial intelligence and the potential use of user-generated content to train AI models.
    • The controversy drew the community’s attention to section 4.2 of Adobe’s Terms of Use, which explicitly states that users grant the company a royalty-free, sublicensable license to ‘use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, create derivative works based on’, their creations.
    • Despite the massive backlash, the company itself hasn’t commented on the situation and, at the time of writing this,
  • Bias (50%)
    The author uses the term 'spyware-like' to describe Adobe's Terms of Service update, implying a negative connotation and bias towards Adobe. The author also quotes users who are critical of Adobe and their terms, but does not provide any counterpoint or context from Adobe themselves.
    • Despite the massive backlash, the company itself hasn’t commented on the situation and, at the time of writing this, hasn’t revised the Terms of Use.
      • The company intends to use all user-generated content to train its AI models
      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication

      80%

      The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
      (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

      A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

      Adobe Sparks Backlash Over AI Terms That Let It 'Access, View Your Content'

      PCMag.com Kate Irwin Friday, 07 June 2024 19:52
      • Unique Points
        • Adobe's updated terms of use allow machine learning tools to view and use customers’ content for developing future Adobe products.
        • Adobe insists it will not assume ownership of a customer’s work or train its AI on user data despite the controversial terms.
        • Some Adobe software users expressed frustration at the new agreement, fearing that their creative work could be used without their consent or opt-out ability.
        • Adobe Chief Strategy Officer Scott Belsky responded to the issue, stating that Adobe does not train any GenAI models on customer content and has tight security around access to customer content.
      • Accuracy
        • ]Adobe's updated terms of use allow machine learning tools to view and use customers’ content for developing future Adobe products.[
        • Users were required to agree to the new terms to continue using Adobe apps.
      • Deception (30%)
        The article contains selective reporting as Adobe's statement about not training AI models on customer content is mentioned but the potential future implications of the terms are not addressed. The author also does not disclose that Adobe's Chief Strategy Officer responded to the issue and clarified that they do not currently use user content for AI training.
        • Adobe does NOT train any GenAI models on customer’s content, and we obviously have tight security around any form of access to customer’s content.
        • But claims that Adobe is not feeding user content into its AI models today doesn’t inspire much confidence for the future, as the terms could allow Adobe to conduct such behavior.
      • Fallacies (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Bias (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication