Glad I’m a bad designer then

It's one thing to misinterpret a boilerplate disclaimer in a software license (that exists in practically every creative software EULA), another thing to let your imagination run wild based on your erroneous reading of terms you don't understand...
But to then take it upon one's self to shout out a warning based on arrogant ignorance fueled by unbridled cynicism (as the esteemed legal scholar "Grummz" has done here) is a metaphorical running leap off a cliff while spouting gibberish.

OP is now setting his hair on fire in solidarity with that laughable effort.

tl;dr:

>"non-exclusive license"
> OWN!!!
> "non-exclusive"
> OWN!!!!!!!
> "license"
>OWN!!!!!!!!!!

Ironically it's aggressively retarded consoomers like Mr. Gummz, Esq. and the OP who make such clauses necessary to protect the developers from being sued over interactive data sharing features like crash reports that nobody is hiding or using to steal and profit (lofl) on your work.

File: angry-npc-wojak.jpg (91 KB, 944x904)

91 KB JPG

I called Taco Bell corporate to complain about the rude cashier who never gives me the extra hot sauce I ask for, and when my call was transferred to a customer service representative there was a recording that said-

>This call may be monitored or recorded for quality control and training purposes

OMG, TACO BELL OWNS MY VOICE AND EVERYTHING I SAY!!!!

File: aMHcoYtu_o.png (264 KB, 749x449)

264 KB PNG

>>455311
use other programs dummy

>>455313
this is troon cope

>>455319
Please explain then how a conditional "non-exclusive license" conveys complete ownership.

>>455311
Adobe just can't stop giving their customers more reasons to switch to Affinity, can they?

>>455311
>implying I even "own" adobe software in the first place
imagine paying for pixels lol

>>455317
I'd like to see your employer's face when you tell him that.

>>455313
>>455325
dont knit pick
it literally says to use our software you grant us the use/sel/copy/AI the fuck out if your shit and yu can kindly fuck off thanks.

yes, you are correct - it says everything but 'own'.

You should visit us:
>>>/g/100798503

>>455334
I have to assume that "sel" is your retarded mong way of saying "sell"; it doesn't say that either...same with AI, it's LITERALLY never mentioned.

But credit where it's due, at least you admit that THE ENTIRE PREMISE of the claims being made regarding ownership were/are bullshit that literally isn't there.

>>455338
you are correct - the selling is an assumption made. it does not say sell. it also doesnt say they wont or cant per the license they require you grant them.
yes, it kinda just boiler plate that says they can do whatever thy want with your shit for happy go lucky backend reasons, but what if that happy go lucky back end reason is training ai to work better?

they dont preclude it as a condition, so its really on them to be more forthcoming, its not that hard to tell people you wont use their shit for something

frankly its a real error with your user base to claim a license where none is required. this could be a note on an error report form, but its not.

so i think there more bullshit there than not there (and that op pic rel is a fearmongering dork)

>>455350
>it does not say sell. it also doesnt say they wont or cant per the license they require you grant them.

If those rights aren't assigned or transferred in writing, then they are retained by the creator. The license HAS to say that they CAN sell the content for that to be the case.

>says they can do whatever they want with your shit for happy go lucky backend reasons

No, it doesn't, it states very specifically what actions you license them to take

>but what if that happy go lucky back end reason is training ai to work better?

OK, what if? You assume that "training AI" damages you or is some unlawful taking or unfair practice, but on what factual basis? People are jumping to crazy conclusions that they are going to rifle through your art and design work somehow and teach robots how to steal all the opportunities to make money ( or just steal your srt and sell it), but "training AI" could also mean developing better/faster troubleshooting or bug resolution or more intuitive file archiving or other automation and features that improve the program.

>they dont preclude it as a condition, so its really on them to be more forthcoming, its not that hard to tell people you wont use their shit for something

But it is if you don't want to bog down the above with more and more new stipulations and agreements and other legal action including reversing other notices every time they want to improve the product or related services, or just need to access data as part of support. The more of that that happens, the more chances there are for someone to claim they've been damaged or defrauded.

If you can get over the idea that it's all a nefarious scheme to steal people's work, it's not hard to comprehend.

When you take your car to get the brakes fixed you agree to let them test drive the car to check to see that they work...only a kook reads that on the contract and thinks that the mechanic is taking ownership of the car or will use it as a taxi or rent it out.

>>455352
>When you take your car to get the brakes fixed you agree to let them test drive the car to check to see that they work.
ignorant metaphor
go shill some other shit

if i have a license for something, i can sell it unless terms say otherwise

big boi adobe cant figure out how to add two or three words?

>>455354
>if i have a license for something, i can sell it unless terms say otherwise

Absolute bullshit, you know less than nothing about how such licenses or contracts in general work.

All a license is in this context is an agreement not to sue for actions that would otherwise be an infringement on the rights of the licensor.

It is NOT a principle of contract or copyright law that once you license something the licensee "can do whatever they want" unless that action is specifically prohibited by the terms of the license; it work exactly the opposite: the licensee is ONLY granted whatever is spelled out in the terms.

>big boi adobe cant figure out how to add two or three words?

As chucklefucks like you can't help but prove, any time they do paranoid dipshits lose their minds and scream that it's a devilish corporate plot to steal their work, and refuse to hear to any information that contradicts their utterly retarded bad faith emotional reaction.

Rather than to have to talk idiots like this off the ledge every time they need to perform some action like making and/or showing a copy of ANY *potentially* copyrighted data or material derived from the software to someone (technically copying and distribution), they just cover it all in a simple agreement like this.

Otherwise, if you send their support team a screenshot of your shitty "art" because you are a dumbfuck who can't work the controls and whine they they ripped you off, man, and they say "here's your problem, dumbfuck" and later on your cousin who gets a job at Adobe customer support sees part of that screenshot used as Example 1 in the "How To Deal With The Biggest Dumbfucks: Real Life Examples" training manual and tells you they saw your shitty scribble, your brainlet ass could sue them.

File: solely.png (79 KB, 1066x480)

79 KB PNG

>>455359
yea, funny how it even says so in OP's picrel?

I have no clue about licensing, but it sounds convincing to me. nevertheless, if they actually were to use some sneaky legal loophole to train their AI with user data, that would be HIGHLY reprehensible!

I also noticed what I interpret as a kind of sunk cost fallacy behavior in some open-source folks. some just *have to* believe in their favorite B-tier program being somehow worth it.
don't get me wrong. I love some open-source software and think it would be a shame to see some of them die! (even if just for competition reasons)
but desu when it comes to photoshop and some other adobe software, there just is mostly no professional competition.

>>455333
Seems more like an employer issue, they're probably retarded anyways if they don't see any problem with this.

>>455361
>train their AI with user data

Again, it is illogical to assume that "AI training" can only mean "training software to replicate my art/design abilities and cut me out of the loop" let alone that such a plan is the primary reason for such contractual language.

The ability to offer "smart" troubleshooting and related tutorials for complex software is a perfect application of AI technology that could eliminate much of the time and frustration involved in traditional methods that can't assume anything and thus can only begin from step one and work every step.

Keep in mind that the same knee jerk seethers who think Adobe wants to steal their artwork are the same kinds of people who bristle and take offense at questions like "did you try rebooting the computer?" and "are you sure there's gas in it?" when their car won't start.

Kek. Affinity just went on a flash sale. Good timing because I needed features that Inkscape can't do for my game.

>>455363
>le illogical
dafuq? if they do it without my consent or without even informing me that is objectionable! no matter what use the tool will be used for!
siphoning skill, talent, work and time has to be transparently pointed out. don't know how or why you'd argue against that...

File: i.jpg (19 KB, 480x295)

19 KB JPG

>>455364
>this proprietary software vendor won't suddenly stomp on my dick and balls a few years down the road, this time promise for realsies

>>455364
Affinity just joined Canva who has gone all in on AI. Expect a subscription model soon.

>>455365
>they do it without my consent or without even informing me

LOFL, the notice in question SPECIFICALLY seeks and documents your consent...this entire "issue" is morons getting mad BECAUSE they were informed and asked for consent per the existing license agreement they already entered into, that like every EULA on earth reserves the right to change terms and policies.

>siphoning skill, talent, work and time has to be transparently pointed out.

Anons in this thread insist that Adobe's motives and plans are indeed "transparent" when they want to impute greed and theft as the reason behind this clause, they KNOW without a doubt what the evil plan is even if there's nothing to indicate that their accusations are based in anything but ignorance and knee jerk anti-business sentiment.

Then when it is pointed out that the permissions sought may also be used to create a more capable, robust and effective product to the anons benefit they INSIST that any such attempt MUST be spelled out in detail and permission granted for that very narrow case because otherwise it's deceptive and not "transparent" enough.

This is precisely why they don't put any more effort into trying to be more friendly about it or explaining things in detail...they know full well that it's a waste of time and effort and that a huge percentage of their customer base is irrevocably hostile towards for-profit business in general and actively root for it's failure.

A lot of this animosity stems directly from from entitled morons being butthurt that they have to pay ANYTHING for software, and because companies like Adobe are serious about protecting their IP against people who think that "siphoning skill, talent, work and time" from corporations is not only OK but a morally superior and noble pursuit.

Remember, "the arts lean left"...they know who they're dealing with and how these declarations of moral outrage are the result of self serving double standards.

>>455313
TL;DR + L + cringe + dilate + any askers? + okay and? + troon cope

File: liabilty.png (1.03 MB, 1280x720)

1.03 MB PNG

>>455379
if you ask me, there is a difference between
>solely for the purposes of operating or improving the services and software, such as enabling you to share photos with others
and
>training an ANN with user data

call me old fashioned, but that would seem highly deceitful and provoke skepticism of 'entitled morons being butthurt' for good reason.
such a new (and *comparably* exotic) use case of customer data should NOT fall under the given example.
I am still convinced that it should require to be communicated in a more transparent manner!
>maybe I'd be okay with adobe skimming off work of their customers, but I want to be asked or at leas IN THE FACE be warned about it and not have to argue with half-knowing anons on lechan about whether we think it that use case is included or not.

dunno why you wouldn't want such things to not be hidden behind "le sharing photos with otherrrrrrrs"...

>>455313
>>455325
>>455338
>>455352
>>455359

Imagine defending Adobe. You're way too obvious pajeet.

>>455386
Not "defending Adobe", just pointing out the abject ignorance of people lecturing about legal issues and concepts, and the unbridled adversarial hostility that these people start from.

Point out that there *are* legitimate reasons for a company to want to protect themselves especially from people like this acting on that hostility in bad faith, and they turn that hostility on the person making that point.

All these false claims and histrionics and circular thinking hypotheticals about what *might* happen....over contractual terms and conditions that they can simply reject, and a relationship ship with a company they don't have to do business with.

It's the height of spoiled brat entitlement...just don't fucking use their products like EVERY ARTIST/ DESIGNER ON EARTH had to do before 1985.

>>455387
>protect multibillion dollar transnational company from berd hate

You're way too obvious. Also, I've never paid for any adobe product in my life abd I got them all. Screw you

>>455385
>I want to be asked or at leas IN THE FACE be warned about it and not have to argue with half-knowing anons on lechan about whether we think it that use case is included or not.

Nobody has a legal duty to anticipate your paranoid guesses about all manner of percieved threats to your IP and list them all a d promise not to do them in order to pacify your delusions.

You are free to tell them no and cease using the product, and then sue them for a refund of the purchase price plus any damages incurred if you think they owe it to you.

You won't of course, because you know that the user license agreement you already accepted precludes that, and will more than likely hold up in court.

Also, there's literally no damages to sue for, and never will be because they don't NEED to "steal" your precious work...which is coincidentally why they DGAF if people get mad and walk away.

>>455389
>I've never paid for any adobe product in my life abd I got them all.

Thanks for proving the point: the most argumentative moralizing on this topic is coming from people whose professed "values" regarding the sanctity of IP rights and bemoaning the *hypothetical* theft of their own IP are thoroughly disingenuous and self serving.

You're not just a brazen and unrepentant thief, but a sanctimonious one. Holier-than-thou criminal trash.

File: sharing is caring.png (71 KB, 1066x480)

71 KB PNG

>>455391
>go on and sue them
pseudo argument. sadly I have other things to do in life and no reason to assume that *my ass* could stand a chance against their hordes of lawyers.
doesn't mean I shouldn't criticize! maybe someone else will be inspired to do it.
~weird logic~

I didn't even say there currently IS a legal case to be made. so I don't know which entirely different conversation YOU are having rn. certainly not the one I am having...
do you even know whether training an AI falls under this part of the agreement? or are you *assuming* it? maybe there is a whole different section regarding that? are you bickering about uninformed people by spreading speculations or are you actually familiar with the legalities?

let me repeat.(>>455385)
if you ask me, there is a difference between
>solely for the purposes of operating or improving the services and software, such as enabling you to share photos with others
and
>training an ANN with user data
such a new (and *comparably* exotic) use case of customer data should NOT fall under the given example.

do you agree or not?
that is the only question I raised so far, yet you are ranting about society, peoples attitudes and me having to win some court case in order to even be allowed to bring up skepticism and shit.
I don't get why you are so butthurt.

>>455393
>if you ask me, there is a difference between
>>solely for the purposes of operating or improving the services and software, such as enabling you to share photos with others
>and
>>training an ANN with user data

For the third time now, I will point out that the two are NOT mutually exclusive.

You and others ITT act like AI *only* has one use and that it MUST be nefarious and detrimental to the user, because you are delusional simpletons.

>do you even know whether training an AI falls under this part of the agreement? or are you *assuming* it?

Do YOU?

I wasn't the one who brought it up and certainly never said that training AI to replicate customers' ideas and skills for profit was the motive here.

People with an axe to grind did that, and did it based on the clause cited in the OP even though it says nothing of the sort.

Hilarious that anyone who simply points out that that is all speculation gets attacked as making shit up, but the people who ACTUALLY made shit up about Adobe "owning" the work of people who agree to those terms get no such grilling. Same for their claims that it agrees to let them "AI the fuck out of your shit" when it doesn't mention AI at all.

Why don't you ask ADOBE? Why do none of these melodramatic chicken little posts ever cite actual communication with them?

File: patienism.jpg (59 KB, 513x680)

59 KB JPG

>>455396
>solely for the purposes of operating or improving the services and software, such as enabling you to share photos with others
>such a new (and *comparably* exotic) use case of customer data should NOT fall under the given example.
>do you agree or not?
you are just physically unable to answer, right?

you:
>For the third time now, NOT exclusive
I already told you here >>455385
>maybe I'd be okay with adobe skimming off work of their customers, but I want to be asked or at least IN THE FACE be warned about it and not have to argue with half-knowing anons on lechan about whether we think that use case is included or not.
like. are you clowning???? what is so difficult to get? what is it that makes my wish so goddamn reprehensible to you????? are you even reading my messages?

you:
>other people get no such grilling
I am grilling you for avoiding my questions and trying to drag me into shit I never said.
I entered the conversation >>455361 with
>yea, funny how it even says so in picrel! sounds convincing
the grilling is the reaction to you being a disobliging asshole *afterwards*.

you:
>Do YOU?
no, of course I do not know. but I never made any legal claims nor got emotional in the first place, while you tried pissing on people's shoes for not being acquainted with the concrete legal situation, when actually you don't know shit either and are pulling it out of your own ass as well.
maybe I am right?? maybe the snippet in question actually is not legally sufficient in order to train an AI and there IS some other text mentioning the usage for that somewhere in the terms? who knows? seemingly not you. yet you act like the ultimate authority.
sure, it is fine you have an opinion, but why try turning people who question an almost-monopolized businesses into sub-humans???

you are complaining about entitled bitches. like an entitled bitch...
ironic!

also, your formatting is super annoying to read.
-there- I said it. probably won't do that again, but did it now.

File: 5a1c1d75e0cfc81406190441a(...).jpg (42 KB, 538x688)

42 KB JPG

>>455397
>>do you agree or not?
>you are just physically unable to answer, right?

I did answer by pointing out that the entire premise of your question is illogical and fatally flawed. Now in your typical manner ( yes, you are that obvious) you ignore that answer ( as if you didnt read it), refuse to even address it (pretendi g it doesnt exist), and engage in more personal attacks.

All of which just confirms that your arguments and questions are all made in bad faith.

>>455387
you become this guy if you pay for software
dont do it bros

eula clearly states they want to use your work and make derivative work that can be published

they dont need a license to check if their software works

there are you knowimage clearing houses that specify in their boilerplate that one a project has been published all digital copies of the supplied and licensed images must be deleted.

any contract, especially a corporate contract, is written to fuck the other party to maximal terms. always. 'just in case'. this is no different.

>>455311
This is what the terms and services say:

>4.2 Licenses to Your Content. Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free sublicensable, license, to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, create derivative works based on, publicly perform, and translate the Content

>royalty-free sublicensable

That pretty much means that they can give licenses (i.e. sell your work) to others without any royalty for you. That's it.

>>455401
"Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software"

>Solely
Literally "to the exclusion of all else".

>That pretty much means that they can give licenses (i.e. sell your work) to others without any royalty for you

Wrong; if any action they take is not specifically and exclusively taken ONLY "for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software" ***AND NOTHING ELSE***, this clause does NOT give them permission to do it.

It's crystal fucking clear and spelled out in black and white using commonly understood and unequivocal legal terminology.

Literally the first word of the clause, that controls everything that comes after it, by definition.

Sound it out: S-O-L-E-L-Y

S
O
L
E
L
Y

File: holehole.jpg (36 KB, 538x688)

36 KB JPG

>>455398
you:
>entitled morons being butthurt
"noooo, stop the personal attaaaaacks."

you:
>dodging every single part of even my last message
"you avooooidd my answerrrrrrrr"

you:
>bad faittthhhhh
yeah, just like yours.
where problem????

you are delusional, bro. talking with you is like swimming through mud.
you don't even pay attention to what is being said, but follow some weird script instead.

btw your memes are just [fire emoji]

>>455403
Think it out, anon.
What exactly doe "operating and improving" means?
Since you're a legalese expert, can you be sure and absolutely convinced that "operating and improving" does not include making money out from your art? I mean, adobe is a for profit enterprise "operate and improve" entails making money out of it.
What I'm trying to say is, you're way to obvious a plant. Ask for a raise, you're no getting enough rupees from adobe.

>>455403
It also says it there, unequivocally: "you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free sublicensable, license, to use, REPRODUCE, PUBLICLY DISPLAY, DISTRIBUTE, modify, create derivative works based on, publicly perform, and translate the Content"

>You: Hey adobe, why did you put my in IG, Facebook, 4chan ad and Times Square.
Adobe: I did it solely to bring in more costumers, i.e. improve my service

>You: Hey Adobe, why did you distribute my illustration through adobe cloud as a royalty free vector asset?
>Adobe: because it would improve somewhat my service.
>You: Hey Adobe, why are you distributing my photo through your new file sharing service.
>Adobe: Oh, I'm solely operating the software.

Someone as intelligent as you, provided you stick your head out of Adobe's ass, can see the problems this unequivocal legal terminology can entail.

>>455372
>>455374
It doesn't really bother if there's a chance that it'll go full retard in the future. The current free alternatives were just too lacking on what I needed.

To be specific I only bought Affinity Designer and so far I'm impressed. I haven't touched a graphic design software for a long time and it's nice to have something that's modern since the last thing I used was a pirated photoshop suite before the subscription model.

I think as long as you're not married to a pipeline, switching in the future isn't much of a problem.

>>455313
>adobe has deposited .05USD to your account
>also that belongs to them and they need it back

>>455311
Adobe don't own shit if you are a pirate.

>>455311
another sweet smell of victory for the superior paint.net, where are you paintbros?

Yeah, nah that’s it. Anyone got any good adobe torrents? Preferably CS6

>>455403
excuse me
but what does 'purpose of operating the software" mean?
And why would it ever require requesting a license "for the purpose of operating the software"?

>>455432
>excuse me
>but what does 'purpose of operating the software" mean?

To keep the software and its various features/capabilities and services functional and providing the intended results. "Features/ capabilities and services" include those that might be implemented after purchase through updates, and/or through remote access via online portals. Some may be provided by third parties.

>And why would it ever require requesting a license "for the purpose of operating the software"?

Because a license is a promise not to sue them for actions that might be considered an infringement on your rights if they just did them without permission.

Example-

>Reimagine your images with generative AI in Photoshop on the web

>Start with an image, type your prompts, and create a whole new world with the Firefly-powered generative AI features in Photoshop on the web.

>Start with an image

You are giving them access to your image, that will undoubtedly be copied and distributed within the remote system as part of this operating feature...you have to document that they have your permission to do so, because retards who don't understand how anything works will hit "send" and then sue them later saying they didn't know any of this.

>type your prompts

Technically also your intellectual property and work product, that by default will be "training" their AI to produce what you ask for...just look at how retards ITT are frothing over BEING ASKED FOR PERMISSION to be in possession of customer IP to understand how hostile and potentially litigious they might be if they weren't and why permissions need to be documented. YES, people are stupid enough to access AI features and then claim they didn't know AI would be involved and sue...they will still do so even after receiving this notification and saying "I agree", which is why it's needed.

1/2

>>455438
2/2

Some of these features and services may involve data transfer (distribution) to third parties, subcontractors, etc. and that's why they seek documented permission (sublicense) for that involvement that says you won't sue those parties either for being in possession of your IP. Those parties no doubt insist on that indemnity as a condition of Adobe offering features that involve them.

>create a whole new world with the Firefly-powered generative AI features in Photoshop on the web.

"create...new" from what content you provide them = a derivative work, by definition. Should be obvious, but that's not a great defense in court when some dumbfuck sues you for doing what he asked for...a license agreement is.

Again, look at how positively INSANE people are over *being notified* and *asked* to say "yes, you have my permission to do this" before using that kind of feature, and how no amount of reasoning or explanation can penetrate their paranoid fever dreams of Adobe stealing their shitty scribbles to PROFIT from them being the PRIMARY reason for asking, and it should be obvious why they insist on getting any such permissions documented in no uncertain terms.

Also note all the brainless quacking about AI here as if it can ONLY be a tool to steal their precious creations and mad skillz, when in fact it is part of an enhancement that's been added to the software for the benefit of users-

>Generative FillandGenerative Expand are Firefly-powered, generative AI features that are natively integrated into Photoshop and enable you to add, expand, or remove content from your images non-destructively, using simple text prompts.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/generative-ai-features-web.html

File: how-dare-you-greta-thunberg.gif (1.65 MB, 498x280)

1.65 MB GIF

Adobe:
>Quickly email or share your creations to several services directly from within Photoshop.

>You can now email or share your creations to several services directly from within Photoshop. When you share a document by email, Photoshop sends out the original document (.psd file). For certain services and social media channels, Photoshop automatically converts the document to the JPEG format before sharing.

Some faggot:

OMG I AM LE ARTISTE AND TO CONVERT MY IMAGES TO JPEG FORMAT IS LIKE CUTTING OUT THE SOUL OF MY CREATIONS WITH A LARGE RUSTY KNIFE...I WAS CONFUSED BY TRIXTER ADOBE'S TREACHEROUS EXPLANATION OF THE PROCESS AND HAD NO IDEA THIS WAS HAPPENING AND WILL NOW SUE ADOBE FOR CREATING AND DISTRIBUTING THESE DERIVATIVE WORKS WITHOUT MY EXPRESS PERMISSION!!!

>>455430
CC 2018 is the latest good torrent. And by good I mean 0 issues, because it uses the ambtlib crack.
The newer .exe cracks and genP may work for a while but you can never tell when something might break.

thank god i dont gotta cope with walls of text and capital letters that adobe got me by the balls but thats totally alright somehow. never pay for adobe kids lmao.

>>455447
Does it work for M1 Mac?

>>455439
>>455438
your whole wall of txt is about AI

if a license is a promise not to sue, asking for a license is saying they are going to infringe

fuck corporate contracts and corporate loyalists

https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/10/updating-adobes-terms-of-use

They explained so even you pions can understand.

File: ocpae1iimf771.jpg (74 KB, 742x745)

74 KB JPG

>>455465
>if a license is a promise not to sue, asking for a license is saying they are going to infringe

LOFL, the most retarded know nothing: take yet:

Following the proper legal procedure that makes the specified use non-infringing by law, is infringement.

Imagine applying for a medical or driver's license so you won't get prosecuted for breaking the laws that prohibit practicing medicine or driving without a license...

and the State's response it to say that asking for a license is an admission that you intend to break those laws.

>>455468
imagine thinking a drivers license is an appropriate metaphor for a contract

>>455469
LMAO, imagine thinking it's not

I'm seeing retards on reddit claiming this would make them switch to GIMP, as if gimp has half of the capabilities of PS.
Generative remove alone makes everything worth it.

>>455482
who cares about GIMP and PS, i guess people preoccupied with cropping screenshots and making facebook memes, because a raster editor is generally less important software for /gd/ than the vector and typographic layout editors

>>455361
>if they actually were to use some sneaky legal loophole to train their AI with user data, that would be HIGHLY reprehensible!
derp that's exactly what they're doing.

>>455539
yea, I mean... I tried hinting at me believing this relatively likely being the case...
but since you try to eliminate all natural last doubts about it: where source/what are the arguments?

like. is it just the usual skepticism against huge corporations alone? as I indicated: understandable. but not particulalry strong of a reason...

the fact that *everyone* here is speculating their asses off seems to be what makes this discussion difficult...

File: Screenshot_20240615_122248.jpg (275 KB, 1080x2099)

275 KB JPG

>>455311
based, i bought a subscription after reading this

>>455541
>40 euros a month
>he doesn't know about the Turkey hack

>>455542
sorry I'm not poor

File: 36698270a51a0c4129847dbfc(...).gif (319 KB, 498x498)

319 KB GIF

>yo ho yo ho

File: c4946084b2f2611dad4971425(...).jpg (52 KB, 640x716)

52 KB JPG

>>455543

>>455546
reddit take

>>455572
basket weaver take

>>455578
stop projecting

>>455542
I would be afraid of using this for a business. Adobe are so litigious they would probably damage your credit rating out of spite.

>>455311
>Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software
>As they see fit
Mmm. This does mean that they can train their AI on it, though.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/17/24180196/adobe-us-ftc-doj-sues-subscriptions-cancel
currently being sued by the government lmao

>>455611
well, thats just like your opinion man

>>455311
>Paying for adobe
Lmao yeah ill get right on that after paying for fl studio or ableton lmao o wait i wont

>>455311
>pirate adobe
>block all adobe internet connections
not my problem but I wish an alternative like blender but for adobe existed
>inb4 affinity
is shit

>>455541
>paying for shit that you can get for free
as expected of a phonetard

>>455311
I'm an oldfag designer since the 90s and ive never known a time where tech companies have been so blatantly evil. I have to double take sometimes that adobe is essentially trying to replace its own userbase by cannibalising the work of designers.

Here's hoping theres gonna be a market for a whole heap of alternatives. Somehow though I think people will accept their own demise.

File: poor_rich.jpg (69 KB, 736x755)

69 KB JPG

>>455546
>>455543

>>455311
I downloaded CS2 installers directly from Adobe back when they offered it for free a few years ago. They disabled the activation servers. Until they fuck up and make the new software incompatible with CS2 I will just keep using the original Creative Suite. The only thing I really miss is live trace but they managed to ruin that in the newer versions of Illustrator. Do I care about content aware fill? No. Do I care about 3D bullshit? No, that shit is garbage compared to blender.

>>455311
Adobe has and will always be shit. Use an alternative or deal with it.
Also site better sources than some grifting chud next time

>>455317
What compels cumbrains to post shit like this completely unsolicited

>>455311
time to make an opensource clone?

>>455311
>use Premiere to make videos for the State
>Adobe suddenly claim and sell the videos from the State
Ain't this illegal?

File: efd47303417d4fb39c1fb731b(...).jpg (65 KB, 600x837)

65 KB JPG

>>456444
>trips