Adobe recently updated its terms of use, and although companies do this all the time, these new changes have sparked a significant amount of discord and discussion among users.

The updated terms of use give Adobe access to any form of media uploaded to its Creative Cloud and Document Cloud services, a change which immediately sparked a privacy backlash and led to many users calling for a boycott. So annoyed were paying customers that Adobe was forced to issue a statement clarifying what the updated terms mean, and what they cover.

The changes Adobe made include switching the wording from “we will only access, view or listen to your content in limited ways” to “we may access, view or listen to your content” and the addition of “through both automated and manual methods”. In the Content section, Adobe made changes to how it would scan user data, adding the manual mention.

In its explanation of the terms changes, Adobe said, “To be clear, Adobe requires a limited license to access content solely for the purpose of operating or improving the services and software and to enforce our terms and comply with law, such as to protect against abusive content.”

While the intentions behind these changes might be to enhance service quality and ensure compliance with legal standards, permitting the company to have such broad access to personal and potentially sensitive content clearly feels intrusive to many users. The shift from an explicit limitation to a more open-ended permission for content access could be seen as a step backward in terms of user control and data protection and raises concerns about privacy and user trust, which Adobe’s statement doesn’t fully address.

  • shapis@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    13 days ago

    Is not using Adobe a realistic option in professional settings atm?

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      13 days ago

      Maybe, maybe not, but I would argue that even without viable alternatives, people in professional settings no longer have a choice. It is no longer possible to comply with Adobe’s ToS and many business clients’ confidentiality and/or exclusivity requirements at the same time.

    • MamboGator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      13 days ago

      Even for personal use, I’ve tried various alternatives to Photoshop over the years like Gimp and Krita and they just can’t compete. Photoshop is just ridiculously powerful, so it sucks even more that the company that owns it is so shitty.

      • ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        13 days ago

        Although there are people using those professionally, they’re definitely not ones that generally ever get recommended for it. And gimp in particular IMO kinda sucks although it has a lot of power.

        A big one that’s getting a lot of steam is the Affinity Suite.