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.

Comments

Just use the GIMP

[Anonymous Coward]

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 .

Re:Just use the GIMP

[chunk08]

I have used both (GIMP at home, Photoshop at school). I can see several areas where gimp needs to catch up with Photoshop. Most of these should be made much easier to implement by GEGL

1. Text scaling: use actual font rendering for scaled text instead of image scaling
2. Adjustment layers: won't be needed when GEGL's non-destructive editing is implemented.
3. layer effects: Useful for adding text to images, among other things
4. clipping masks: Also useful for adding text, especially when combined with layer effects
5. brush sizes: do away with "brush editor" for everyday circle/square brushes and get a toolbar. I hate using a dialog to adjust size/hardness/transparency.
6. CYMK etc. color support

If GIMP gets these things, it will surpass Photoshop. I personally enjoy using software that I'm required to pay for a license for, or be bound to use on only 1 or 2 computers. Also, I can't wait to get my hands on non-destructive editing.

Re:Just use the GIMP

[Virgil Tibbs]

If they are already proficient with Photoshop, pimp Gimpshop to them.
Otherwise, like you say, show them, The GIMP with some good tutorials.

Re:Just use the GIMP

[TheGratefulNet]

as a serious amateur in photography, can I let you in on a secret?

the 'new hotness' is raw; meaning 16bit color (per channel). not 8 but 16.

can gimp do that? not really.

and HOW many years has it been?

believe me, I'd like to see gimp win over pshop, but if they can't convert their base over to 16bit/channel color, no serious photog is going to consider gimp.

and yes, I'm a linux/bsd user by trade, but mostly am stuck to xp JUST because of pshop/cs2 (and its plugins such as neatimage and noise ninja, that also really aren't native on unix).

gimp is fine for informal work but nothing really serious. for serious work, I shoot raw and that NEEDS a full 16bit color in EVERY step. every one. just like audio editing, you need to keep high precision math all along the processing chain or the errors will accumulate. 8bit color is NOT good for edit (and edit and edit). its fine for viewing, but consider 8bit color an 'object format' or an output format and NOT an intermediate edit format!

Re:Just use the GIMP

[Brian Gordon]

Because it's ugly! Have you ever seen microsoft's widgets? Droool, especially their Office 07 stuff. Even cocoa is much slicker than GTK.

Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition license terms

[toby]

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!

MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS
MICROSOFT VISUAL C++ 2008 EXPRESS EDITION

These license terms are an agreement between Microsoft Corporation (or based on
where you live, one of its affiliates) and you. Please read them. They apply to
the software named above, which includes the media on which you received it, if
any. The terms also apply to any Microsoft
* updates,
* supplements,
* Internet-based services, and
* support services
for this software, unless other terms accompany those items. If so, those terms
apply.

BY USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU ACCEPT THESE TERMS. IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THEM, DO NOT
USE THE SOFTWARE.
AS DESCRIBED BELOW, USING SOME FEATURES ALSO OPERATES AS YOUR CONSENT TO THE
TRANSMISSION OF CERTAIN STANDARD COMPUTER INFORMATION FOR INTERNET-BASED SERVICES.

If you comply with these license terms, you have the rights below.

1. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS.
a. Installation and Use. One user may install and use any number of copies of
the software on your devices to design, develop and test your programs.
b. Included Microsoft Programs. The software contains other Microsoft
programs. These license terms apply to your use of those programs.

2. ADDITIONAL LICENSING REQUIREMENTS AND/OR USE RIGHTS.
a. Distributable Code. The software contains code that you are permitted to
distribute in programs you develop if you comply with the terms below.
i. Right to Use and Distribute. The code and text files listed below are
"Distributable Code."
* REDIST.TXT Files. You may copy and distribute the object code form of code
listed in REDIST.TXT files.
* Sample Code. You may modify, copy, and distribute the source and object
code form of code marked as "sample."
* Microsoft Merge Modules. You may copy and distribute the unmodified output
of Microsoft Merge Modules.
* MFCs, ATLs and CRTs. You may modify the source code form of Microsoft
Foundation Classes (MFCs), Active Template Libraries (ATLs), and C runtimes (CRTs)
to design, develop and test your programs, and copy and distribute the object code
form of your modified files under a new name.
* Third Party Distribution. You may permit distributors of your programs to
copy and distribute the Distributable Code as part of those programs.
ii. Distribution Requirements. For any Distributable Code you distribute, you
must
* add significant primary functionality to it in your programs;
* for any Distributable Code having a filename extension of .lib, distribute
only the results of running such Distributable Code through a linker with your
program;
* distribute Distributable Code included in a setup program only as part of
that setup program without modification;
* require distributors and external end users to agree to terms that protect
it at least as much as this agreement;
* display your valid copyright notice on your programs; and
* indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Microsoft from any claims, including
attorneys' fees, related to the distribution or use of your programs.
iii. Distribution Restrictions. You may not
* alter any copyright, trademark or patent notice in the Distributable Code;
* use Microsoft's trademarks in your programs' names or in a way that
suggests your programs come from or are endorsed by Microsoft;
* distribute Distributable C

sorry, seems you're right

[toby]

Applies to their Distributable Code. Looks like I got it wrong. Oops...

Splashup is a competitor

[foniksonik]

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...

Capitalized "Distributable Code"

[pikine]

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.