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

Even if they "fix" it ..

[ScrewMaster]

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.

Re:Even if they "fix" it ..

[Vellmont]

who's to say they won't change it back again at some point in the future?

Anything is possible. But what's more important is what's likely.

Adobe has really little to gain by changing it back to current incarnation of the license. They're in the business of producing and selling software, not tricking people into given them rights to sell stock photography. They won't change it back because it'd be a pretty obviously dumb business move by Adobe.

This really highlights all the problems with using someone else's equipment to host and processes personal data files.

No, it really highlights the fact that many software companies don't really understand the legal implications of hosting someones data. They likely just called up the lawyers and said "make sure we don't get burned somehow by hosting this content". The lawyers pulled out some boilerplate language and changed it around a little bit, not thinking that the guy submitting content might actually want to retain some of his rights (end users have right? Who'd have thought that!).

Not every company is trying to screw you over at every single moment. They tend to pick and choose those times carefully ;).

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

[ScrewMaster]

Certainly Photoshop has a few remaining strengths over the GIMP

Regardless of the technical merits, the reality is that Photoshop has the acceptance of professionals everywhere, and that kind of inertia will be hard to overcome even if GIMP ultimately exceeds Photoshop in capability and usability. "Free" means little to people that use something as a business tool that can be written off their taxes, and which they must trust to get the job done. That said, Photoshop is hardly perfect, Adobe is an obnoxious company, and I sincerely hope that the GIMP makes it out of amateur status and truly does go head-to-head with Adobe's stuff. Sooner or later it will, I think.

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

[NeverVotedBush]

GIMP sure takes a beating for being unfriendly. I disagree with that label, though. I think GIMP is easy to use and does a great job. Plus it is free. It's a very capable and easy to use graphics editor.

I think the real issue is GIMPs interface is just different. It looks a lot like PaintShopPro at least used to. I was a PaintShopPro user for some time and switching to GIMP was easy.

I like the GIMP. Anyone interested in GIMP ought to just download it and try it out for themselves and see what they think. Give it some time. It always takes a while to learn a different interface. I think people would be pleasantly surprised if they would just try GIMP for a while instead of being turned off that its interface isn't the same as Photoshop's.

Re:Just use the GIMP

[richard.york]

That said, Photoshop is hardly perfect, Adobe is an obnoxious company, and I sincerely hope that the GIMP makes it out of amateur status and truly does go head-to-head with Adobe's stuff. Sooner or later it will, I think.

Well, they might start by calling it something other than GIMP....

Which of the more common definitions do you think people associate with this fine product?

Gimp: lameness: disability of walking due to crippling of the legs or feet

Gimp: is a usually derogatory term used to refer to a (male or female) sexual submissive person, typically dressed in black leather (or rubber), often in a gimp suit, and wearing a bondage hood or mask of the same material. ...

Courtesy of http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+gimp

Your average Joe isn't going to know that it means GNU Image Manipulation Program.

For God sake, the most common definition implies that it is crippled! I haven't used the GIMP much, my company bought a copy of Photoshop just for little ol' me. So to me it makes no difference if the GIMP is free or not, setting aside its ridiculous name, I didn't have to pay for Photoshop anyway.

Re:Just use the GIMP

[gad_zuki!]

7. Change the name.
8. Offer a UI skin that is more like ps.

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.

Re:Just use the GIMP

[Culture20]

7. Change the name. Agreed... Suggestions anyone? Photo
Image
Manipulation
Program
?

I'm starting to wonder...

[tech10171968]

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.

Re:I'm starting to wonder...

[tech10171968]

Now that I think of it, you really do make a good point; we've all seen what happens when a corporation gets so damned big that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is up to (think Sony, Motorola). But that doesn't take away from the fact that, whether this was a mere oversight or not, the trap is still there. That steaming pile of dung has still been left on the sidewalk just waiting for someone to step in it. Maybe you're correct in saying this was a mistake, but it's still the type of legal risk to which I'm no longer willing to knowingly expose myself.

Adobe's other EULAs don't make sense either

[proxima]

Anyone who chooses to upload anything to a public forum/gallery should be aware that some of these websites will claim the right to do whatever they want with that material. Back in 2003, I even stayed at a hotel where the internet access had such a clause; they claimed the right to reproduce whatever you uploaded through the system. How enforceable are such terms? I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think we've seen a sufficient number of court cases come out of license agreements like these.

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?

With regard to installing the software on more than two computers and
its use at the same time. I need to inform you that although Adobe
Reader is a free software, Adobe maintains its distribution rights.
Thus, as per Adobe policy there is no provision to use the software on
more than two computers simultaneously.

We apologize for the inconvenience this may cause.

Please note that, single-user Adobe branded product that is installed on
a computer at home, you can also install and use the software on one
secondary computer of the same platform at office or on a portable
computer. However, you may not run the software simultaneously on both
the primary and secondary computers.

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).

Photoshop.. slightly off topic

[Anonymous Coward]

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.