Slashdot Mirror
Photoshop Express Terms of Use Cause Stir, Will Be Revised
Earlier this week, we discussed Adobe's beta launch of Photoshop Express, a free, online version of the popular image editing software. However, as a number of readers pointed out, the terms of use included language which granted Adobe a wide range of rights to any photos that were made available on the site. Now, after receiving a great deal of feedback from potential users, Adobe has stated their intent to rewrite the terms of use, as Ars Technica reports. David Morgenstern of ZDNet also notes the impending change, and briefly discusses the privacy and ownership concerns involved with content you post online.
who's to say they won't change it back again at some point in the future? This really highlights all the problems with using someone else's equipment to host and processes personal data files.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Certainly Photoshop has a few remaining strengths over the GIMP when it comes to professional editing. However, the audience that Photoshop Express is marketed too have much simpler needs, and when they might need something a bit more powerful, the GIMP can step in and help. I'm ever more delighted as I discover the power that GIMP has for photo editing on an amateur basis, and it's all free and Free.
All it really needs is a better manual--the GIMP docs are much less friendly than e.g. Beginning GIMP .
I'm starting to wonder if "someone at Adobe" really thought this was a bad policy? Or, is this a case where Adobe tried to sneak one past the public and got busted (because someone did the unthinkable and actually read the EULA)? You'll have to excuse my cynicism: dealing with the EULA-based trickery of another particular software company (whose name I won't bother mentioning) is precisely what drove my ass to FOSS in the first place. Sure it's free as in beer, but the "free as in speech" part is more important than people will ever give credit for, and situations like TFA are a perfect illustration of this.
This space for rent!
He's adding racist words to GP's post. I don't know why you'd want to do that...freak.
Adobe's not exactly known for their reasonable EULAs. Just take a look at the EULA for Adobe Reader. This is software that Adobe is trying to get on all the computers it can. The license, however, permits only the installation on one primary computer and one mobile computer (note that "Permitted Number" is 1). I've gone so far as to contact Adobe customer service and ask them what's going on - this goes completely against their marketing policy. Amusingly, they send all their customer service responses via PDF over email. Their official response?
It's clear that Adobe has no intention to actually try to enforce this restriction, but it suggests that organizations with computer labs and such are supposed to negotiate a volume license with Adobe. I think the Reader license is simply boilerplate recycled from other Adobe software, but it's clear that whoever is responsible for Adobe's licenses isn't in touch with what Adobe actually wants to have regarding its licensing (at least from a marketing perspective).
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
I'm just curious as to why they call it Photoshop Express, it doesn't really have anything in common with Photoshop at all. It's more like Adobe's mixing iPhoto + ImageShack.
It's great to see some outrage about stupid license agreements. There is widespread apathy about these agreements and their restrictions, leaving companies with the option to selectively enforce crazy terms if and when it is in interest.
On a semi-related note, the choice for many people is not to buy some expensive software or use the open source equivalent, but to illegally copy the expensive software or use its open source equivalent. Open source software does fairly well competing on features and stability alone, but the total lack of restrictions on use is something that is often overlooked, at least by home users. There may still be some misunderstanding about open source regarding use, though I hope that's fading. The availability of source is great, but frankly, that's not going to directly affect what home users can do with their software.
Rather than ignore licenses and laws we don't like, it's far more productive if people make an issue about them to get them changed. The outrage over AT&T's policies is one example of this (though that seems to have stalled, aside from an ongoing lawsuit), and this is another. Ignoring these terms and hoping they aren't enforceable is just a recipe for trouble. As a side benefit, if people become disgusted by closed source license agreements, open source software will look more appealing.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
It always tells me "Express Install not supported by this version of the Flash Player..." But I have the latest version of Flash for Linux installed...
.sarcasm>
./sarcasm>
They're just protecting the world from terrorists. You know those people who dupe the public into thinking that their personal information is their private information. And then they go and use it against them or, barring that, use it in a "fair use" marketing campaign and never pay for or ask the user for their permission. I believe Adobe will DO NO HARM just like all those other really cool companies with no ulterior motives that want to make the world one big hug fest.
I think that this is a foreshadowing of things to come. This is an indication of big corporates' desire to gain control or influence over not only the software that we use by turning into a subscription model (SaaS or whatever buzzword/buzzacro it is) but also ensuring that whatever we create using it is controllable by the providers of the software.
Taking this to its logical conclusion, SaaS providers such as Google may decide that they will muscle in on user data created using Google Apps with copyright tricks like this.
Just because the first attempt resulted in a big company backing down does not mean the heat in the pot hasn't risen a few degrees for the proverbial frog.
I hate printers.
This fianlly made me look at the site. I thought maybe this would be something I could use for some simple picture tweaking work without having to install some very likely to be very buggy software. But nooooooooooooooooo! I have to install some piece of crapware called Flash. I guess I'm back to hosting my pictures on my own web server.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Who needs Photoshop Express when we have Paint.net? http://www.getpaint.net/ It's open source and a very good alternative to Photoshop. It even has a plugin that lets you code new filters and effects in C# within Paint.net.
Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
It's the same reason that they have products called Photoshop Elements and Photoshop Lightroom; it's all about the branding.
Redundant? I understand offtopic, but I fail to see how this is redundant as I am the only one to call this jerk out.
Do you understand what "redundant" means, or was this just an accident? I know the new moderation system lends itself to accidental mis-moderation...
redundant -adjective
1. characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas; prolix: a redundant style.
2. being in excess; exceeding what is usual or natural: a redundant part.
3. having some unusual or extra part or feature.
redundant. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved March 30, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redundant
Here's the EULA. It is crystal clear from (2) that you are not permitted to offer anything you develop under an open source license. You may also be interested in the restriction on allowed runtime environment (Microsoft only). Also entertaining is the injunction that "You may not work around any technical limitations in the software."
All in all, it's the usual perfectly odious nonsense I'd expect from them.
As for enforceability: Well why don't you find out? Go mano-a-mano in court with their lawyers.
Better advice: Just don't go near any of their stuff!
you had me at #!
We reviewed the terms in context of your comments - and we agree that it currently implies things we would never do with the content.
rj
Please don't reward this unhelpful type of "advocacy" in any way.
...."Have you mooed today?"...
It restricts what you are allowed to do with code you develop with this MS product. One of those prohibited things is to distribute it under an "excluded license". 2 iii) makes it clear that this refers to open source licenses (gee, wonder why?)
It doesn't matter if the same code might be compiled one day by someone else using a different compiler. By downloading this MS product, using it to develop code, and licensing it thus, you're plainly breaking these terms.
I don't believe you have to be a lawyer to figure that out. And you don't need to be a genius to figure out why they prohibit it.
you had me at #!
Applies to their Distributable Code. Looks like I got it wrong. Oops...
you had me at #!
If anyone is actually interested in using an online service for photoshop like work.... anyone?
There is a service out there called Splashup: linky link which offers a lot more that Adobe's offering...
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
It's all in the brand. In this case Photoshop which is well known. Free marketing. You see it everywhere..
Fight for your digital freedom, join the EFF *now*: http://www.eff.org/support/
We can't censor twitter, no matter how hard we try. Booo hooo.
Even the mid range digital SLR cameras are moving up the number of bits per sample. For example Canon's new EOS 450D
has 14 bits per color for RAW (scroll down the the compression specs). And this is just the initial recording, not the editing steps where more is needed to avoid the errors. I wonder what their next high end camera will be like.now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Anyone remember the Intel web-based graphics editor? There was a Slashdot story, I think around 2002, about their license agreement giving them rights to everything produced with it.
Wait, 6 years ago? Who am I kidding... nobody remembers anything that old anymore. I must be making it up.
Post some made up child porn. See if they claim ownership.
The terms about "Distributable Code" refers to the bullet points in (2) (a) (i) in the license. One of the item listed there is MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes), a C++ library for GUI programming, similar to QT. Since MFC source code is provided and they let you modify and redistribute it with your proram, I think it's understandable that they don't want to accidentally turn MFC into open source.
I once had a signature.
This foreshadowing has been going on for 20 years. Electronic Arts tried to claim that they owned the copyrights to images created with Deluxe Paint and the courts smacked them down. The only reason things like this can even possibly fly now is because they're not going quite so far as to claim full copyright, but rather claiming that via EULA they have an irrevocable license to the content.
FC Closer
Yeap, they toned down the aggression a little to make it a bit easier for everyone to swallow. Eventually they get the inch they want and the pot rises a few degrees.
I hate printers.
This clause only applies to their Distributable Code. Unless you can show that that that means anything you write, this is all FUD. And yes, FOSSies are also guilty of FUD. Sorry all. Microsoft isn't exactly the friendliest company ever, but you're going to have to find another tree to bark up.
You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
Is this any better than what Adobe just got caught doing? So basically any email or attachment I send though Gmail can be used by Google? Google Terms of Service http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en "11.1 . . . By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services."
Of course they are going to revise the license. After objections to it have provided plenty of free publicity. Any company that pays enough to propaganda contractors to have "Photoshop" confused with the verb "to edit", and even get "GIMP is for amateurs only" firmly established as a Slashdot meme, nothing Adobe does that gets mentioned in the press or the blogsphere can be taken at face value.
If you don't agree with the terms, just don't use it. Why come to slashdot and cry about it (other than bashing Adobe seems to be in style)? I actually like the app, and could care less about the terms since they have absolutely no impact on my life. Who reads/abides by those things anyway?
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide