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.

Even if they "fix" it ..

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

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 (569020)]

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 ;).

Re:

[MrNaz (730548)]

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 t

Re:

[Belial6 (794905)]

I would say that MS has gotten halfway their with their Visual Studio Express license. I'm sure that most of the people that downloaded the "free" software didn't notice that the EULA specifically bans the distribution of YOUR programs as OSS. I expect to see this kind of thing happen with more software/services/products/companies as time goes on. We are currently at the cusp of the share cropper stage to corporations. I hope that we don't become full fledged slaves.

Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition license terms

[toby (759)]

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.

Re:

[Tanktalus (794810)]

It doesn't seem clear to me at all that you can't use the Express VC++ to write, compile, or distribute open-source applications.

Open source, in my understanding, merely requires that you distribute your source such that someone can recompile it. It does not require you to distribute the compiler with it. Nor does it require that the compiler be open source.

Thus, if your code can compile with Cygwin and VC++, but you distribute the copy you created with VC++, I don't see what the issue would be. Users

sorry, seems you're right

[toby (759)]

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

Capitalized "Distributable Code"

[pikine (771084)]

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.

Re:

[Belial6 (794905)]

I believe that it is shown during install. Given that you have already downloaded the software and are planning to install it anyway, it is easier for you to read the EULA than I, so I will leave that exercise to you. I decided not to use the MS Express product because of that clause. I would hate to think that I could not give my code to other people, and that MS could decide how my code was used.

I would say that the EULA are not legally very enforceable, but MS could easily run a lawsuit for a year

Just use the GIMP

[by 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 [amazon.com] .

Re:Just use the GIMP

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

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 (1229574)]

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

[gad_zuki! (70830)]

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

Re:

[MidnightBrewer (97195)]

I agree that the name is crucial. The GIMP is never going to gain mainstream acceptance for as long as it has a name that some people might actually find offensive. GIMP developers: I'm sorry, it's not cute. Even if it wasn't offensive, it says horrible things about your software's abilities. Per the New Oxford American Dictionary:

a physically handicapped or lame person.
a limp.
a feeble or contemptible person.

Performance and functionality issues aside, I can't even bring it up in any kind

Re:Just use the GIMP

[Culture20 (968837)]

7. Change the name.

Agreed... Suggestions anyone?

Photo
Image
Manipulation
Program
?

Re:Just use the GIMP

[Virgil Tibbs (999791)]

If they are already proficient with Photoshop, pimp Gimpshop [gimpshop.com] to them.
Otherwise, like you say, show them, The GIMP [gimp.org] with some good tutorials. [gimp.org]

Re:

[richard.york (829554)]

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/searc [google.com]

Re:

[CastrTroy (595695)]

Who cares how many people end up using the GIMP in a professional environment? Many people just want a program to use at home for a little quick photo editing. By getting home users to start using GIMP, this takes serious market share and mind share away from Adobe. The best thing about photo editing is that we don't have to worry about proprietary formats (as much) as we do with document editing. This means that you can use whichever tool you want, and don't have to really worry about what the rest of

Re:

[psychodelicacy (1170611)]

I'm a big photoshop user, and it does have several technical advantages over GIMP. I think that one of the key things, though, in getting GIMP accepted by the average home user would be the publication of a lot more user manuals, tips-n-tricks books, and that kind of thing. The point is that the average user, who just wants to manipulate a few photos, is probably also the kind of user for whom free software is a worry. They imagine that it contains spyware, viruses, annoying ads, or bugs that will "break" t

Re:

[Vellmont (569020)]

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

Market change of established products rarely, if ever start from the top down. It's invariably from the bottom up. There's a constant crop of people doing photo editing that don't necessarily have the $$ to buy Photoshop (and will think the online product sucks ass). Those people might just start using a free product like Gimp. Later on they get r

Re:

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

I didn't say it was impossible ... just difficult.

Re:

[Brian Gordon (987471)]

"All it really needs" is to send all of its devs over to GTK for a month and make that not suck, or cut it altogether and use a decent widget library.

Re:Just use the GIMP

[Brian Gordon (987471)]

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

[NeverVotedBush (1041088)]

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:

[by Anonymous Coward]

It IS unfriendly. Why should we give ourselves hassle with headaches when we can just do what we always do, download a copy of Lightroom and Photoshop CS.

GIMP? Please, come back to me when they pull their arses from their heads. All "Its just different" bullshit you shout won't change a thing.

Gimp is udder cows balls until they get their act together and get a good Useability story. Meanwhile, stay in your mamma's basement.

Re:

[TheGratefulNet (143330)]

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 al

Re:

[Solra Bizna (716281)]

I don't use GIMP on the Mac for two reasons.

1. No nondestructive layer effects. I abuse those so hard in Photoshop it's not funny.
2. Horrible, horrible OSX port. (Running under X11 is NOT a port.)

That said, I use and am satisfied with GIMP on Linux, simply because it's not that bad and there's no real alternative.

-:sigma.SB

Re:

[morari (1080535)]

I give the GIMP a try now and then, the last one being about one or two years ago. At that time the program was still fairly far-off from being on par with Photoshop. Though of course you're right--This online Photoshop isn't likely to offer anything in the way of the full version either (Hell, Elements was bad enough), so you really might as well take a look at the GIMP. It's not a bad program by any means, but it is lacking a lot of the fnctionality that graphic designer have come to take for granted over

Re:

[Jarjarthejedi (996957)]

Photoshop is much easier to use. I say this as a person who desperately wanted to drop photoshop in favor of the GIMP. I still have it installed, but for a hundred small reasons I can't come up with offhand it simply is not as easy to use. It's the standard problem with open source really, I'm sure there's a ton of features that surpass photoshop hiding somewhere in the GIMP, and that it's every bit as powerful. I don't have the hours necessary to adapt and discover those things, however, when I can just as

I'm starting to wonder...

[tech10171968 (955149)]

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:

[Vellmont (569020)]

Or, is this a case where Adobe tried to sneak one past the public and got busted

Adobe, like any entity, doesn't act as one. They might like to think they all made some big great decision about The Best Approach, but that kind of thing, if it happens, takes place over a period of time.

The most likely scenario is some group at Adobe said "we need a free product to compete with other free products, otherwise we risk being irrelevant!" The marketing people decided what features it needed, the software guys wo

Re:I'm starting to wonder...

[tech10171968 (955149)]

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.

Re:

[Skapare (16644)]

"Do not ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence". But given the track record of sooooooooo many big corporations, I think this bit of wisdom just doesn't apply here. Think about the lawyers which had to approve this. Malice or incompetence? Both?

Adobe's other EULAs don't make sense either

[proxima (165692)]

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 [adobe.com]. 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).

Re:

[Vellmont (569020)]

but it suggests that organizations with computer labs and such are supposed to negotiate a volume license with Adobe.

I doubt it. It sounds like Adobe just wants to maintain distribution rights. Essentially to squash anyone keeping copies to distribute. (And maybe get deals with any OEMs that want to have reader pre-installed on their computers). How many people in a computer lab, or small business read through the license of "free" software that's as common and trusted as Adobe Reader? (And would expec

Re:

[proxima (165692)]

How many people in a computer lab, or small business read through the license of "free" software that's as common and trusted as Adobe Reader? (And would expect this strange, "you have to download it each time for each computer" implication?) Not many. I bet if you contacted the sales people they wouldn't even have a way to sell you a site license for reader.

That's the whole point: the license is completely at odds with both de-facto policy by Adobe and common practice by users.

If the point was to keep peop

Re:

[Vellmont (569020)]

If the point was to keep people from distributing copies of Reader, why not just simply add a clause that you can only re-distribute it for your own, personal use or for the internal use of your organization?

You're implying the lawyers are thinking about marketing, or the marketing people are thinking about legal implications, or hell the marketing people even KNOWING that internal re-distribution is important for many organizations (sysadmin knowledge). To understand this problem you'd really need a basic

Re:

[CastrTroy (595695)]

I would also like to remind people that anybody that uploads anything to some webserver that isn't their own, should expect that the information will be publically accessible, even if it's supposed to be private. MySpace and Facebook have both had problems with "private" photos being accessible. If you don't want the information to be accessible on the web, don't upload it.

Re:

[ByteSlicer (735276)]

Yeah, it's madness.
Basically they want you to download a fresh copy of the Reader installer each time you install it.
In a corporate environment, this makes no sense (downloading an identical binary for each computer and user).
At home, it makes even less sense, because if you install it on several of your own computers, it is not redistributing.

Re:

[proxima (165692)]

Basically they want you to download a fresh copy of the Reader installer each time you install it.

Actually, I'm not even sure you can do this. I'd be curious what the law would say (if anything) about whether downloading another copy constitutes another new license, and thus another "Permitted" computer.

Re:

[ByteSlicer (735276)]

Actually, I'm not even sure you can do this.

Probably not. But it doesn't cost them to try. A lot of EULAs have never been tried in a court of law. They just exist to scare the end user into doing what they want.

But they will never enforce this. They can never prove you downloaded the same binary twice or just copied it locally.

Photoshop.. slightly off topic

[by 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.

Great!

[proxima (165692)]

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 stabi

Finally made me look

[Skapare (16644)]

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.

Re:

[Zymergy (803632)]

If Microsoft had written it, it would have most likely required Microsoft's shiny new-fangled contraption called "Silverlight".

It also seems to run better if you let the Firefox No Script plugin to allow it to run.

Riiiggghhht...

[Deadstick (535032)]

From TFA:

We reviewed the terms in context of your comments - and we agree that it currently implies things we would never do with the content.

...so we thought up a new deployment model for our multibillion-dollar flagship product, and we asked Larry the helpdesk guy to type up a new EULA for it, and you know what? Larry just didn't get the idea we were driving at. So Harry in Shipping said, y'know what, guys? Let's ask Bernie the attorney how we could make the customer experience better...

rj

Splashup is a competitor

[foniksonik (573572)]

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 [splashup.com] which offers a lot more that Adobe's offering...

Re:

[Skapare (16644)]

It's not really a web based service. Adobe has lied to you. But this is a category of companies they are a long term member of.

Re:

[tajmorton (806296)]

But I have the latest version of Flash for Linux installed...

Check that you really do have the latest flash. I got that error while using the latest flash-nonfree from Ubuntu, but it wasn't really the latest version. Go to about:plugins and check that 9.0 r115 (I think I had r45 from ubuntu before) is installed.

Re:

[jthill (303417)]

I think a theory I wish I'd bookmarked for attribution is correct: that the posts contain keywords intentionally inserted to prevent the surrounding discussion reaching people using filter software; that the posters are provocateurs infiltrated to portray the community as offensive and therefore negligible. Not bearing false witness against your neighbors seems to be missing from their value system.