Shame On Adobe

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Ecar said:

Not just that. They'll do everything to own you (and your content) for as long as they can. At least the FTC now seems to be looking into this:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adobe-ftc-federal-lawsuit-cancel-subscription/

That appears to be about a different matter than the subject of this thread - it's about the subscription model and how it is sold.

14 minutes ago, fotografr said:

I was not aware of the early cancellation fees. Thanks for posting this. I'll definitely be following the lawsuit.

Having been through the cancellation process, it seemed fairly transparent to me, but perhaps it's marketed differently in different places. It seems obvious to me that if you pay the simple 'monthly' option, you cancel at any time, but if you signed up for a year, paid monthly (a much lower cost), then you're committed for a year, no matter when you cancel.

Some years back I signed up for the CC option with 2 Tb storage, and kept all my images in the cloud. I chose the annual subscription, paid monthly - the lowest cost option. Eventually I decided there were better ways of doing things, and decided to cancel my 2Tb. I was irritated to find I was committed to another 9 months whether I liked it or not, but couldn't see that as Adobe's fault - I'd just forgotten what I'd signed up to, and it was obviously just the downside of getting a lower rate in the first place.

But perhaps there's more to this story than CBS has explained.

Edited June 18, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[fotografr]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

That appears to be about a different matter than the subject of this thread - it's about the subscription model and how it is sold.

Having been through the cancellation process, it seemed fairly transparent to me, but perhaps it's marketed differently in different places. It seems obvious to me that if you pay the simple 'monthly' option, you cancel at any time, but if you signed up for a year, paid monthly (a much lower cost), then you're committed for a year, no matter when you cancel.

Some years back I signed up for the CC option with 2 Tb storage, and kept all my images in the cloud. I chose the annual subscription, paid monthly - the lowest cost option. Eventually I decided there were better ways of doing things, and decided to cancel my 2Tb. I was irritated to find I was committed to another 9 months whether I liked it or not, but couldn't see that as Adobe's fault - I'd just forgotten what I'd signed up to, and it was obviously just the downside of getting a lower rate in the first place.

But perhaps there's more to this story than CBS has explained.

When I've cancelled other software that was signed up for on an annual basis, such as anti-virus, I've received a refund for the unused portion. I don't believe a customer should have to pay for services they aren't receiving.

[wellfleet]

From the NYTimes today about the cancellation lawsuit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/17/technology/us-adobe-subscription-lawsuit.html?unlocked_article_code=1.0k0.gRg_.0QgIW7dgJvMG&smid=url-share

[LocalHero1953]

4 hours ago, fotografr said:

When I've cancelled other software that was signed up for on an annual basis, such as anti-virus, I've received a refund for the unused portion. I don't believe a customer should have to pay for services they aren't receiving.

As devil's advocate I would say you should pay for the service you ordered: a year's service, paid for monthly.

The FTC's case seems to be based on Adobe hiding these trade-offs. In my case it was very clear (though I had forgotten by the time I cancelled). Perhaps EU/UK regulation is more specific about such things than in the US.

[Herr Barnack]

Quote

“This is pure offensive insanity. Adobe is claiming royalty-free rights to copy and make new content out of customers’ assets. Adobe is claiming that they can then sub-license customer assets to other companies. They describe a “reasonable” use-case, but describe no limitations.”

Thank goodness all Adobe wants to do is steal customer's work and sell it to other companies and put the profit in Adobe's coffers. what a relief  [/sarcasm].

Quote

"Misappropriation" and saying sorry are primary business.

Expecting huge international corporations to conduct themselves with honesty, integrity and honor is about as realistic as expecting to find your future virgin bride gainfully employed in a whorehouse "adult relaxation center."

Quote

So on this forum I guess we should all occasionally post a 'worthless' photo as a disruptor, maybe a of bunny rabbit, then the mining machine will think we are all rabbit fanciers and look elsewhere for creativity, or take the rabbit and use it in it's Ai experiments. 

Rather than bunny rabbits, perhaps we should all post as many photographs of dog turds as humanly possible - I'm talking in the tens of thousands, not just here, but on every social media and photography forum on the web.

Selling off my Q2 and digital M cameras and buying film M bodies with the proceeds is starting to look better all the time. 

Or maybe Ilford/Kodak/Fujifilm/Kentmere will then have user agreements on their film canisters giving them carte blanche to break into our homes and studios, steal our negatives and chromes, scan them, sell the files to Adobe and pocket the profits.  🙄

Edited September 22, 2024 by Herr Barnack

[jaapv]

On 6/14/2024 at 9:24 AM, 250swb said:

So on this forum I guess we should all occasionally post a 'worthless' photo as a disruptor,  

I can think of a few already posted... Guilty as charged, M'lud...

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 9/22/2024 at 10:16 AM, Herr Barnack said:

Thank goodness all Adobe wants to do is steal customer's work and sell it to other companies and put the profit in Adobe's coffers. what a relief  [/sarcasm].

Expecting huge international corporations to conduct themselves with honesty, integrity and honor is about as realistic as expecting to find your future virgin bride gainfully employed in a whorehouse "adult relaxation center."

Rather than bunny rabbits, perhaps we should all post as many photographs of dog turds as humanly possible - I'm talking in the tens of thousands, not just here, but on every social media and photography forum on the web.

Selling off my Q2 and digital M cameras and buying film M bodies with the proceeds is starting to look better all the time. 

Or maybe Ilford/Kodak/Fujifilm/Kentmere will then have user agreements on their film canisters giving them carte blanche to break into our homes and studios, steal our negatives and chromes, scan them, sell the files to Adobe and pocket the profits.  🙄

You do not reference your quotes, but I assume it is from a bogus article by Fast Company.

The misrepresentations of the updated Adobe's TOS have also been debunked on this forum.

Here is a helpful article on Adobe's TOS changes:

Adobe Defends Changes in Its Terms of Service Amid Gen AI 'Explosion'