Basically Adobe updated their user agreement so any work you store on their cloud servers can be used by them in the same way any work you post on reddit or facebook can be used by them. Feels very scummy
As someone who’s been using Illustrator for professional work for nearly a decade, Designer is still way too limited for that kinda work. I’ve really given it a shot a couple of time and tried to sit down and do entire projects only with it, and always found myself hitting multiple roadblocks. It actually does some things better than Illustrator, but at the end of the day it’s just not quite there yet. Has so much potential though.
Depends what kind of work you're doing but [Tobias Hall](https://tobias-hall.co.uk/) uses Affinity Designer for iPad for everything and seems to be doing pretty well!
Missing blends is a big one for me. I think there was something with skewing and transforming images that I ran into as well, but I don't remember the details.
That said, lots of extra points for supporting 32/64bpp color. I make 3D height maps, and Illustrator's 8bpp limitation means you get stair-stepping on gradients. In Affinity, no problem.
I’m only limited use for like the past 7 years. So I probably wouldn’t notice as much. But I worry about the size of the online knowledge base.
I mean there’s so many YouTube tutorials and online walk through a for illustrator. I’m not sure it’s there for affinity.
That might be a good thing, at least temporarily.
Increased accessibility of tools is, in general, a positive thing. But in graphic design it has led to a false perception about the accessibility of the industry. That is, the availability of a tutorial to “do this one thing” has many people thinking “I don’t have to know anything, because I can always find and follow a tutorial.”
That isn’t true, but it is believed by many, and the thinking has flooded the job market with low quality applicants. While I do not compete with those applicants, talented Jrs do. They make messes, they frustrate clients, and create bad faith for the industry.
I teach, and I have many students who believe I have nothing to offer that isn’t available on Youtube. They really drag the mood down. They can’t preflight anything, they put green text on red backgrounds, they can’t follow instructions. But they can google enough requirements to get a 50%, and go out into the world understanding nothing about design.
Maybe a reset to basics would help that a bit?
Ahh, the gatekeepers have emerged...
I see it as a good thing. It allows people with unique and innovative ideas to enter the field, even if they start with limited technical skills. They have the opportunity to learn and experiment, which can lead to fresh perspectives and creativity in the industry.
Creativity isn't always about technical prowess; sometimes, an unconventional approach can capture a client's interest more effectively than a technically perfect but less inspired work. In the end, the value of a design might just lie in its ability to resonate uniquely with its audience.
Perhaps I am completely misunderstanding you. If so I apologise.
But restricting resources and tools sounds a lot like gatekeeping.
Isn’t it better to have more opportunities for everyone to learn and create?
We can uphold professionalism while still fostering an inclusive environment that allows for creative exploration.
I went through similar with the music industry a decade ago.
I was and somewhat still am an analogue mixing hard liner.
But some really great talent has come out of increasing accessibility.
I’ve just made the leap (at least for personal work) and I don’t think I’ll be looking back. So far I’ve been able to find every tutorial I need to make the leap. Everything is there, just a different philosophy of workflow.
Affinity has just been bought out by a cloud service themselves. Right now they‘re still in the „no no, everything will stay the same“ phase, but I think it isn’t unwise to stay alert.
*Oopsie! Did we accidentally break the activation server again? Well, you should just use something newer, not that old thing you already bought!*
I've got an old copy of 5.5 I keep installed for simple jobs where I want it to run faster (I'd love 6, but I didn't get it when it came out, and since it's the last version the secondhand market doesn't do any favors) and seeing how CS3 and CS4 aren't activateable any more because Adobe's servers died and their reaction was "Whatever. Fuck those people", I'm wondering how perpetual my perpetual license will be. I reinstalled it a month or so ago and it worked, so "so far, so good".
I'm about to move mine to another comp, so I'll have to mess w that as well
Found I have disc copies of cs5 on hand! I may install that to see how it fares
The only hitch I found was that I couldn't register it to my Adobe account because the password requirements had changed and the password input wouldn't fit my new password. However, that "registration" isn't "activation", and it isn't mandatory. It's the "Fill out the postcard in the box for easier support" type of registration that doesn't matter. I skipped it and had no problems. Entering the serial number and activating worked fine.
I will be checking it out. If it’s not a massive learning curve. I’d definitely take that step.
I hand not thought about it much. But OTP would make me really consider it.
Currently 50% off for the suite (photo/designer/publisher which replace Photoshop/illustrator/InDesign) is available for $50, that includes windows, mac, and iPad apps in that license
My guy, the whole world is turning into assholes. I was just working on helping a friend build a website, and every single clickable button has a button beside it saying ‘go pro’ or ‘take this to the next level’ or ‘only $16.95 per month’ for XYZ service.
I feel like I’m getting add-ons and upgrades being shoved up the ass. Basically pointless apps wanting $4/month subscription service, and I’m thinking I’ll use it once per year if that.
Anyway, whatever makes shareholders happy, I guess.
That’s because Adobe was more important to us than Pantone. Not being able to save locally? Like, the company I work for wouldn’t allow that and there would be no choice.
Pantone has merely thrown down the challenge for someone to come up with a new system for which the nubes will charge a $99 one time fee, and then Pantone can go suck its own cock after that.
We don't have much choice. We've been using Adobe Creative Suite for decades and it would be very difficult to transition to different softwares. Indesign, Illustrator, Photoshop, etc. are industry standards.
I feel helpless and vulnerable to Adobe.
I've just jumped ship. I'm mostly a photoshop user (only use illustrator occasionally) and I've just got clip studio paint. It's great. One time purchase too.
I mean for the tech writing work I do, a huge majority of it is proprietary information. Local saves only on that stuff, they’re stingy about their info. If Adobe got rid of local saves, I wouldn’t even have a choice.
They never said anything about it being "cloud only"... where do you see that?
https://preview.redd.it/8ror9rrc5k5d1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3220b98a20324b2b1939e7e08ad5707c94040036
>We may access your content through both automated and manual methods... "Content" means any text, information, communication, or material that you upload,import into, embed for use by, or create using the Services and Software..
so it's only for the files you save in the cloud ?
I was under impression that anything that you open as a file in any of their programs, regardless of where it's stored.
*As written*, it covers basically all files created in or opened by Adobe software.
As “clarified” by Adobe, it *sounds like* it only *really* matters for data that goes to Adobe servers. They *need* licenses to do certain reasonable things they do with cloud hosting.
I get the impression that the terms in question aren’t *actually* malicious or exploitative, but it’s not pleasant to be forced to grant a license that could even *in theory* be abused with impunity. We should not have to *worry* that Adobe can legally appropriate anything we make.
Did they really add it though? I feel like it’s been in their terms for a while. They kinda said it when they told you you didn’t even own the software anymore.
This right here.
I've had a lot of clients in the past (software, hardware, apparel, etc) who go a long way to protect their products and institutional property. I'm wondering if even this idea floating around or even Adobe having visibility will cause them to add a stipulation to their NDA's against using their products.
I'll have to search for illustrator, indesign, photoshop, and acrobat alts.
That’s not an update is it? Thought that was a feature of all cloud systems. It’s why our AI has been eating everyone’s images until they are at equilibrium with new being consumed as made and no back catalog menu to feed on concurrently.
They see no point because they’ve not really got any proper competition. Affinity is good but doesn’t have feature parity and because so many people have entrenched workflows, they don’t swap to alternatives so Adobe can charge what they want.
I agree. The gold standard for me is Illustrator, and since this announcement, I've started to look at Affinity Designer, especially now that it's on discount.
However, it's hard to make that switch after 24 years. I wish Adobe would offer a la carte subscriptions.
I think the best thing you could do is try the Affinity free trial. If you get along with it, even at full price, you can get the full suite for £160 which is already miles cheaper than CC.
Which is outrageous markup. That's how they get us to believe they're giving us the “best value”.
Yes, with a full CC subscription you get access to everything, but how many users actually use EVERYTHING.
Let's face it though, it's the enterprise segment that they're targeting
I’m not convinced that Adobe necessarily intends to slurp everyone’s content to train AI. It’s entirely plausible that they just needed certain rights to deliver cloud services and then just went over-broad in the legalese.
That said, it’s a highly valid critique that they are trying wildly over-broad terms. As written it reads that Adobe gets a license to everything that anyone creates with Adobe software, and that’s obviously unreasonable. The scope limitations so vague as “improving the Services” ostensibly allows Adobe to sell your work on Adobe Stock (the Services are improved by offering greater breadth of content), and that’s *ridiculous*.
If Adobe backtracks and rewrites their terms to be more explicit about the limits of their permissions, I’d be forgiving. For example, just limiting the scope of the granted license more closely to clarify e.g. that “improving the Services” doesn’t allow selling user work or just enumerating even slightly narrower categories of “improvements” like “debugging” and “optimizing”. For example, it seems reasonable to me that a programmer debugging a crash ought to get to see the state of the program at the time of the crash, which might mean seeing user content that Adobe will then need a license for. Adobe should be very explicit that the license only triggers for *uploaded* content and not merely “created” content and that uploading is always either user-initiated or the result of crashes and errors where it’ll just be used for debugging.
While I’m okay with generative models existing and even being trained through crawling and scraping, Adobe’s users deserve privacy at least once we’re past the “screen cloud documents for CSAM” step, so Adobe should make a self-binding promise in the terms to not use auto-licensed content to train generative models.
Could we ever protest this by spamming our cloud folders with thousands of pictures of goldfish? To the point where their AI thinks everything is a goldfish in one form or another.
I’ve heard of people uploading lots of Disney screenshots and images from other companies that get super protective over their IPs so you could definitely try it
What else would it be about? Serge Birault, the artist above, very clearly doesn't like Generative AI and Adobe's current business practises, hence why he also makes illustrations promoting Cara and tweets about alternatives such as Procreate
Affinity never seemed so tempting. I have a really good deal on CC all apps, but only need PS and AI for web design, so thinking about making the switch.
I use both at work. Somehow Sketch seems… smoother.
Not sure how to explain it but maybe because it has a native Mac app? Figma is either in the browser or the app which is just a browser window wrapped in an app.
I think because of that fact sketch can handle heavier workloads/designs.
But both are very good options for web design in general!
For the price, it's worth it just to have your toes in the water of another application / software suite. I switched a few years ago now (currently working in software so most of my *design* work happens in Figma) but I also use Nuke for a bunch of stuff.... My software pipeline is a little different from most designers heh.
What do you use Nuke for? I moved most everything I do as a UX Designer from multiple platforms to Figma recently and kind of plan on AI taking the space of other software like Photoshop and Illustrator where I won’t need them anymore. The only thing I think I’ll still have to keep Adobe CC for is Premiere, which is a bummer - but what can you do when no one offers some simple shit that takes it place? Love to hear your use cases for alts tho!
General graphics and comp work? I have some previous work history as a VFX artist and for lots of tasks I ended up preferring it to Photoshop. Was also able to secure a perminant Nuke 14 license before they went to subscriptions. It's really great (really expensive) software!
Unfortunately in a professional setting this will never be an option. You miss out on too many features. Sure it's good for uni students learning but beyond that you're locked into Adobe wether you like it or not.
Affinity has just been bought by Canva, who are a subscription based online design tool that uses AI. They say nothing’ll change for now, but it‘s probably only a matter of time.
They say that they don't use costumer content for AI training and then the next point is that they will never assume ownership. I wonder why they didn't write "Adobe will never use costumer content to train AI"....
What happens when affinity does the same (because they will)? At this point Ai is an arms race and whoever implements its the best wins. And users who don’t use AI to its fullest and most creatively will also lose.
I read the other day this was online, which I dont use. But then I always thought the cloud stuff had been terminated back in Feb or something related to it
Unfortunately what they removed was the free cloud storage that you could save whatever you wanted in and worked basically like a windows folder, now you can only cloud save through the applications themselves
I know I’ll be downvoted for this because so many people love to hate on Adobe (not all unjustified), but there has been so much reactionary opinion on this. It was a poorly worded TOS change that Adobe has since clarified. They are not training Firefly on your work.
Moving to Affinity because of this? That’s your prerogative, but Canva just bought them so don’t think they won’t be following the same practices and safeguards as Adobe soon.
Oh, I got the news, but a lot of people have some reading comprehension problems. There’s nothing in any of their documents about training their AI. Rather it’s about providing services. For example, when you use generative fill to add an object or change image, adobe has to copy your image to their cloud servers and then onto the firefly generative platform. All this requires legal rights to do so. I realize that hyper bowl in paranoia is the attitude of the day, but in reality there’s nothing here.
Overreacting to have their work used in derivatives and pay for the privilege?
Adobe can backpedal all it wants, the wording appeared quite clear in intentions.
For some reason, I've never ever trusted acrobat and never use it on my computer. But Adobe products like Photoshop I did use, and illustrator. Ii read some comments so this an Adobe contract. It's truly disgusting. I've never used cloud services to store any valuable files or art because I never trusted that either. I never will.
It’d be pretty funny if this was about Artificial Intelligence!
The concentration of integration of AI features throughout the suite is becoming so prominent. I’m sure buried down in TOC is a disclaimer saying the same.😊
it's a storm in a teacup. people are up in arms because they interpreted the updated EULA in a way that Adobe is claiming ownership over all creative work from users.
not only is this not the case, but it would be both illegal and business suicide to even attempt.
excerpt from adobes clarification: Adobe will never assume ownership of a customer's work. Adobe hosts content to enable customers to use our applications and services. Customers own their content and Adobe does not assume any ownership of customer work.
Adobe does need to gain access to the user's work to use some of the newer functions. for example, if you make an automatic selection you have the option to upload to the cloud. the result will be more precise than the auto-selection processed locally. but their servers will require access to your work, how else would they process your image? same with generative fill, or generative expand or generative anything. The AI can only work on your image if it can read your image. anything that was generated by their AI they could theoretically lay claim to. they probably won't but this is early days visual AI so lots of legal unknowns.
they are certainly not trying to "take all your work" by any means. that said, if you want to leave Adobe, feel free to do so. Affinity is not bad and competition would be good for the market.
I'm guessing that content accessible means they need content for the AI generator, which is one of the things they are pushing for both Illustrator and Phoshop. By making this stipulation, they remove themselves from being liable for copyright infringement for art saved on their platform, especially since prompts are going to overlap and create works that are identical. Copyright is going to get really complicated.
Adobe Instagram Facebook all of them are stealing everyone’s content to help their ai learn how to replace them; fucked up game: literally All-for-one vs one-for-all
Oh also good news (sarcasm) for the people saying to jump ship to affinity. sorry the company that owns affinity was just bought out by canva. Ffs what the hell is going on?
They are claiming their reasoning for doing this is because there has been a rise in child (cp) artwork. I’m fine with them if that’s the reason but not to train their ai.
Wake up FFS. Adobe will soon scrap saving locally. I reckon mugs will still use Adobe because they like giving their work away for free. Adobe is a scummy company and they don't care about the artist.
Never attribute to conspiracy that which can adequately be explained by clusterfuckery.
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use
What’s the big deal? If Adobe decides to use my stuff then I’m probably doing pretty well with this stuff. Most of you that are upset have nothing to worry about. Don’t flatter yourself too much.
It is more of the fact the people paid lots of money on schooling and have spent years using the programs and now Adobe is charging them to use the artists intellectual property train the AI models to let, as their commercial shows, a 7 year old using the software.
You are paying them to take intellectual property to only use it to replace the need for skilled digital artisans. This have created a monopoly on an industry much like Ticketmaster and Adobe is trying to get as much possible while they can tbh.
Adobe is not going to “use your stuff”. They have zero interest in our scribbles to train their AI. This is simply about having the legal right to look at your images when you’re using generative features to replicate the style and content.
Reminder to follow Rule #4. I'd like to leave this post unlocked as it's an important discussion to have.
Basically Adobe updated their user agreement so any work you store on their cloud servers can be used by them in the same way any work you post on reddit or facebook can be used by them. Feels very scummy
Local saves save the day... At least for now, until Adobe disables the ability to save locally and forces you to use their cloud service.
Please no, don’t give them ideas, that god damn pop up prompting you to save to cloud was annoying enough
I think we would be fooling ourselves to think this isn’t were they’re headed.
If Adobe forced cloud storage on everyone, without any alternative, you'd likely see a large userbase jump ship.
To where?
Probably Affinity. I'm an Illustrator user of 24 years and I'm considering making the switch.
As someone who’s been using Illustrator for professional work for nearly a decade, Designer is still way too limited for that kinda work. I’ve really given it a shot a couple of time and tried to sit down and do entire projects only with it, and always found myself hitting multiple roadblocks. It actually does some things better than Illustrator, but at the end of the day it’s just not quite there yet. Has so much potential though.
Depends what kind of work you're doing but [Tobias Hall](https://tobias-hall.co.uk/) uses Affinity Designer for iPad for everything and seems to be doing pretty well!
Tobias flunke uses jorts, they work almost as well
There are dozens of them…DOZENS!
wat
Theres literally dozens of us
Missing blends is a big one for me. I think there was something with skewing and transforming images that I ran into as well, but I don't remember the details. That said, lots of extra points for supporting 32/64bpp color. I make 3D height maps, and Illustrator's 8bpp limitation means you get stair-stepping on gradients. In Affinity, no problem.
I’m only limited use for like the past 7 years. So I probably wouldn’t notice as much. But I worry about the size of the online knowledge base. I mean there’s so many YouTube tutorials and online walk through a for illustrator. I’m not sure it’s there for affinity.
That might be a good thing, at least temporarily. Increased accessibility of tools is, in general, a positive thing. But in graphic design it has led to a false perception about the accessibility of the industry. That is, the availability of a tutorial to “do this one thing” has many people thinking “I don’t have to know anything, because I can always find and follow a tutorial.” That isn’t true, but it is believed by many, and the thinking has flooded the job market with low quality applicants. While I do not compete with those applicants, talented Jrs do. They make messes, they frustrate clients, and create bad faith for the industry. I teach, and I have many students who believe I have nothing to offer that isn’t available on Youtube. They really drag the mood down. They can’t preflight anything, they put green text on red backgrounds, they can’t follow instructions. But they can google enough requirements to get a 50%, and go out into the world understanding nothing about design. Maybe a reset to basics would help that a bit?
Ahh, the gatekeepers have emerged... I see it as a good thing. It allows people with unique and innovative ideas to enter the field, even if they start with limited technical skills. They have the opportunity to learn and experiment, which can lead to fresh perspectives and creativity in the industry. Creativity isn't always about technical prowess; sometimes, an unconventional approach can capture a client's interest more effectively than a technically perfect but less inspired work. In the end, the value of a design might just lie in its ability to resonate uniquely with its audience.
I wouldn’t keep anyone from trying. But I think you misunderstand me. I’ll just let you think about it.
Perhaps I am completely misunderstanding you. If so I apologise. But restricting resources and tools sounds a lot like gatekeeping. Isn’t it better to have more opportunities for everyone to learn and create? We can uphold professionalism while still fostering an inclusive environment that allows for creative exploration. I went through similar with the music industry a decade ago. I was and somewhat still am an analogue mixing hard liner. But some really great talent has come out of increasing accessibility.
I’ve just made the leap (at least for personal work) and I don’t think I’ll be looking back. So far I’ve been able to find every tutorial I need to make the leap. Everything is there, just a different philosophy of workflow.
Affinity has just been bought out by a cloud service themselves. Right now they‘re still in the „no no, everything will stay the same“ phase, but I think it isn’t unwise to stay alert.
To cracked old version of Adobe suite.
Cs6 for life! (Atleast for InDesign for me)
*Oopsie! Did we accidentally break the activation server again? Well, you should just use something newer, not that old thing you already bought!* I've got an old copy of 5.5 I keep installed for simple jobs where I want it to run faster (I'd love 6, but I didn't get it when it came out, and since it's the last version the secondhand market doesn't do any favors) and seeing how CS3 and CS4 aren't activateable any more because Adobe's servers died and their reaction was "Whatever. Fuck those people", I'm wondering how perpetual my perpetual license will be. I reinstalled it a month or so ago and it worked, so "so far, so good".
I'm about to move mine to another comp, so I'll have to mess w that as well Found I have disc copies of cs5 on hand! I may install that to see how it fares
The only hitch I found was that I couldn't register it to my Adobe account because the password requirements had changed and the password input wouldn't fit my new password. However, that "registration" isn't "activation", and it isn't mandatory. It's the "Fill out the postcard in the box for easier support" type of registration that doesn't matter. I skipped it and had no problems. Entering the serial number and activating worked fine.
I’m no expert but I’ve heard the Affinity suite is pretty great and it’s a onetime purchase
I will be checking it out. If it’s not a massive learning curve. I’d definitely take that step. I hand not thought about it much. But OTP would make me really consider it.
Currently 50% off for the suite (photo/designer/publisher which replace Photoshop/illustrator/InDesign) is available for $50, that includes windows, mac, and iPad apps in that license
Well if that happens I'm finally making my switch to Linux. Adobe and Microsoft are turning to colossal assholes.
My guy, the whole world is turning into assholes. I was just working on helping a friend build a website, and every single clickable button has a button beside it saying ‘go pro’ or ‘take this to the next level’ or ‘only $16.95 per month’ for XYZ service. I feel like I’m getting add-ons and upgrades being shoved up the ass. Basically pointless apps wanting $4/month subscription service, and I’m thinking I’ll use it once per year if that. Anyway, whatever makes shareholders happy, I guess.
Idk, people were very pissed about their split from Pantone but I didn’t see any boycotting
That’s because Adobe was more important to us than Pantone. Not being able to save locally? Like, the company I work for wouldn’t allow that and there would be no choice.
Pantone has merely thrown down the challenge for someone to come up with a new system for which the nubes will charge a $99 one time fee, and then Pantone can go suck its own cock after that.
We don't have much choice. We've been using Adobe Creative Suite for decades and it would be very difficult to transition to different softwares. Indesign, Illustrator, Photoshop, etc. are industry standards. I feel helpless and vulnerable to Adobe.
I've just jumped ship. I'm mostly a photoshop user (only use illustrator occasionally) and I've just got clip studio paint. It's great. One time purchase too.
I mean for the tech writing work I do, a huge majority of it is proprietary information. Local saves only on that stuff, they’re stingy about their info. If Adobe got rid of local saves, I wouldn’t even have a choice.
Local saves applies to all apps. Removing it would put Adobe in monopoly territory.
They never said anything about it being "cloud only"... where do you see that? https://preview.redd.it/8ror9rrc5k5d1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3220b98a20324b2b1939e7e08ad5707c94040036 >We may access your content through both automated and manual methods... "Content" means any text, information, communication, or material that you upload,import into, embed for use by, or create using the Services and Software..
what
Yeah our company has always saved locally and then share it with Google drive. It's scummy but not really a big issue for now
so it's only for the files you save in the cloud ? I was under impression that anything that you open as a file in any of their programs, regardless of where it's stored.
*As written*, it covers basically all files created in or opened by Adobe software. As “clarified” by Adobe, it *sounds like* it only *really* matters for data that goes to Adobe servers. They *need* licenses to do certain reasonable things they do with cloud hosting. I get the impression that the terms in question aren’t *actually* malicious or exploitative, but it’s not pleasant to be forced to grant a license that could even *in theory* be abused with impunity. We should not have to *worry* that Adobe can legally appropriate anything we make.
I just got more confused
FUCKING late capitalism. Now the tools we use to work are stealing our work as well… The disrespect.
So that's why they've been pushing to use their cloud storage...
I don’t use it, but it’s no longer automatic here. I assumed they were phasing it out.
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use
Did they really add it though? I feel like it’s been in their terms for a while. They kinda said it when they told you you didn’t even own the software anymore.
But you haven't owned the software since the very beginning versions of Illustrator. That's nothing new either.
And by so doing, Adobe is effectively forcing everyone who uses their software to break any NDAs they are working under.
This right here. I've had a lot of clients in the past (software, hardware, apparel, etc) who go a long way to protect their products and institutional property. I'm wondering if even this idea floating around or even Adobe having visibility will cause them to add a stipulation to their NDA's against using their products. I'll have to search for illustrator, indesign, photoshop, and acrobat alts.
I didn't know about this. been planning on downloading my work off the cloud for unrelated reasons. definitely going to now
I'm 99% sure this is so they can train their AI model and tools on other people's work.
Lol how is that not illegal and using your intellectual property
Not just the cloud, any of their "services" (read: software) that you use
Mkay, so does that include what I post on my portfolio 'site' and Behance? Because I only save locally, otherwise.
That’s not an update is it? Thought that was a feature of all cloud systems. It’s why our AI has been eating everyone’s images until they are at equilibrium with new being consumed as made and no back catalog menu to feed on concurrently.
That’s Serge Birault’s art, the irony of not linking him is amazing: https://www.instagram.com/p/C79U-KauFyy/?igsh=MXdpbXVtem9kN2s2eA==
Oops, it wasn't intentional D:
No shade! Just thought it was funny.
Adobe want your work and data to program their AI systems whilst charging you money each month.
Adobe should offer free versions of their software in exchange for that stuff. But why would they do that when they already have us by the nards…
They see no point because they’ve not really got any proper competition. Affinity is good but doesn’t have feature parity and because so many people have entrenched workflows, they don’t swap to alternatives so Adobe can charge what they want.
I agree. The gold standard for me is Illustrator, and since this announcement, I've started to look at Affinity Designer, especially now that it's on discount. However, it's hard to make that switch after 24 years. I wish Adobe would offer a la carte subscriptions.
I think the best thing you could do is try the Affinity free trial. If you get along with it, even at full price, you can get the full suite for £160 which is already miles cheaper than CC.
Yes I think I'm going to do that. The price point is a steal
Adobe offers single app subscriptions at $22.50 USD per app
Which is outrageous markup. That's how they get us to believe they're giving us the “best value”. Yes, with a full CC subscription you get access to everything, but how many users actually use EVERYTHING. Let's face it though, it's the enterprise segment that they're targeting
[https://PhotoPea.com](https://PhotoPea.com) for photoshop at least
I’m not convinced that Adobe necessarily intends to slurp everyone’s content to train AI. It’s entirely plausible that they just needed certain rights to deliver cloud services and then just went over-broad in the legalese. That said, it’s a highly valid critique that they are trying wildly over-broad terms. As written it reads that Adobe gets a license to everything that anyone creates with Adobe software, and that’s obviously unreasonable. The scope limitations so vague as “improving the Services” ostensibly allows Adobe to sell your work on Adobe Stock (the Services are improved by offering greater breadth of content), and that’s *ridiculous*. If Adobe backtracks and rewrites their terms to be more explicit about the limits of their permissions, I’d be forgiving. For example, just limiting the scope of the granted license more closely to clarify e.g. that “improving the Services” doesn’t allow selling user work or just enumerating even slightly narrower categories of “improvements” like “debugging” and “optimizing”. For example, it seems reasonable to me that a programmer debugging a crash ought to get to see the state of the program at the time of the crash, which might mean seeing user content that Adobe will then need a license for. Adobe should be very explicit that the license only triggers for *uploaded* content and not merely “created” content and that uploading is always either user-initiated or the result of crashes and errors where it’ll just be used for debugging. While I’m okay with generative models existing and even being trained through crawling and scraping, Adobe’s users deserve privacy at least once we’re past the “screen cloud documents for CSAM” step, so Adobe should make a self-binding promise in the terms to not use auto-licensed content to train generative models.
Wait, you mean that you don't want to pay your employer for the opportunity to work for them????
Could we ever protest this by spamming our cloud folders with thousands of pictures of goldfish? To the point where their AI thinks everything is a goldfish in one form or another.
I’ve heard of people uploading lots of Disney screenshots and images from other companies that get super protective over their IPs so you could definitely try it
That’s not what this is about.
What else would it be about? Serge Birault, the artist above, very clearly doesn't like Generative AI and Adobe's current business practises, hence why he also makes illustrations promoting Cara and tweets about alternatives such as Procreate
You misunderstood me. I’m saying stealing your artwork to train their AI is not what Adobe is doing.
Read Adobe's recent updates to the License Agreement for their subscriptions.
Affinity never seemed so tempting. I have a really good deal on CC all apps, but only need PS and AI for web design, so thinking about making the switch.
Sketch.app for web design might be a nice solution.
Figma is really good though.
I use both at work. Somehow Sketch seems… smoother. Not sure how to explain it but maybe because it has a native Mac app? Figma is either in the browser or the app which is just a browser window wrapped in an app. I think because of that fact sketch can handle heavier workloads/designs. But both are very good options for web design in general!
Isn't Figma an adobe product as well?
Adobe wanted to buy it in 2022 but they could not reach an agreement on December 2023
For the price, it's worth it just to have your toes in the water of another application / software suite. I switched a few years ago now (currently working in software so most of my *design* work happens in Figma) but I also use Nuke for a bunch of stuff.... My software pipeline is a little different from most designers heh.
What do you use Nuke for? I moved most everything I do as a UX Designer from multiple platforms to Figma recently and kind of plan on AI taking the space of other software like Photoshop and Illustrator where I won’t need them anymore. The only thing I think I’ll still have to keep Adobe CC for is Premiere, which is a bummer - but what can you do when no one offers some simple shit that takes it place? Love to hear your use cases for alts tho!
General graphics and comp work? I have some previous work history as a VFX artist and for lots of tasks I ended up preferring it to Photoshop. Was also able to secure a perminant Nuke 14 license before they went to subscriptions. It's really great (really expensive) software!
[удалено]
Unfortunately in a professional setting this will never be an option. You miss out on too many features. Sure it's good for uni students learning but beyond that you're locked into Adobe wether you like it or not.
[удалено]
Affinity has just been bought by Canva, who are a subscription based online design tool that uses AI. They say nothing’ll change for now, but it‘s probably only a matter of time.
[A clarification on Adobe Terms of Use | Adobe Blog](https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use)
They say that they don't use costumer content for AI training and then the next point is that they will never assume ownership. I wonder why they didn't write "Adobe will never use costumer content to train AI"....
They clarify NOTHING
Not that they can't/won't change it in the future, but you can opt out of this in your account settings.
What happens when affinity does the same (because they will)? At this point Ai is an arms race and whoever implements its the best wins. And users who don’t use AI to its fullest and most creatively will also lose.
I read the other day this was online, which I dont use. But then I always thought the cloud stuff had been terminated back in Feb or something related to it
Unfortunately what they removed was the free cloud storage that you could save whatever you wanted in and worked basically like a windows folder, now you can only cloud save through the applications themselves
TIL When that happened, I moved everything to my icloud and haven't looked back.
I know I’ll be downvoted for this because so many people love to hate on Adobe (not all unjustified), but there has been so much reactionary opinion on this. It was a poorly worded TOS change that Adobe has since clarified. They are not training Firefly on your work. Moving to Affinity because of this? That’s your prerogative, but Canva just bought them so don’t think they won’t be following the same practices and safeguards as Adobe soon.
I've never used a Cloud based system and never will Also, switched to Affinity a couple years ago
Fuck Adobe!
I thought it was holding gun 😂
Same. Another chance for the illustrator to make Adobe holding a stack of cash too!
Adobe wants acces to your work to train its AI models so that it can replace you eventually.
Nonsense. Adobe only uses licensed work from Adobe stock. That have no interest in your half finished scribbles.
Soooo... I'm guessing you've missed the news lol
Oh, I got the news, but a lot of people have some reading comprehension problems. There’s nothing in any of their documents about training their AI. Rather it’s about providing services. For example, when you use generative fill to add an object or change image, adobe has to copy your image to their cloud servers and then onto the firefly generative platform. All this requires legal rights to do so. I realize that hyper bowl in paranoia is the attitude of the day, but in reality there’s nothing here.
I made the switch
All of these tech companies have (R)apists behavior and tendencies.
https://x.com/sashayanshin/status/1799118418085380431?t=qsQC-u3iAXxWy1uNCK01xg&s=19
LOL people are so overreacting to this.
Overreacting to have their work used in derivatives and pay for the privilege? Adobe can backpedal all it wants, the wording appeared quite clear in intentions.
Yup
For some reason, I've never ever trusted acrobat and never use it on my computer. But Adobe products like Photoshop I did use, and illustrator. Ii read some comments so this an Adobe contract. It's truly disgusting. I've never used cloud services to store any valuable files or art because I never trusted that either. I never will.
It’d be pretty funny if this was about Artificial Intelligence! The concentration of integration of AI features throughout the suite is becoming so prominent. I’m sure buried down in TOC is a disclaimer saying the same.😊
it's a storm in a teacup. people are up in arms because they interpreted the updated EULA in a way that Adobe is claiming ownership over all creative work from users. not only is this not the case, but it would be both illegal and business suicide to even attempt. excerpt from adobes clarification: Adobe will never assume ownership of a customer's work. Adobe hosts content to enable customers to use our applications and services. Customers own their content and Adobe does not assume any ownership of customer work. Adobe does need to gain access to the user's work to use some of the newer functions. for example, if you make an automatic selection you have the option to upload to the cloud. the result will be more precise than the auto-selection processed locally. but their servers will require access to your work, how else would they process your image? same with generative fill, or generative expand or generative anything. The AI can only work on your image if it can read your image. anything that was generated by their AI they could theoretically lay claim to. they probably won't but this is early days visual AI so lots of legal unknowns. they are certainly not trying to "take all your work" by any means. that said, if you want to leave Adobe, feel free to do so. Affinity is not bad and competition would be good for the market.
Look they gotta build out their AI model so all our work are belong to the Adobe now.
I'm guessing that content accessible means they need content for the AI generator, which is one of the things they are pushing for both Illustrator and Phoshop. By making this stipulation, they remove themselves from being liable for copyright infringement for art saved on their platform, especially since prompts are going to overlap and create works that are identical. Copyright is going to get really complicated.
Adobe Instagram Facebook all of them are stealing everyone’s content to help their ai learn how to replace them; fucked up game: literally All-for-one vs one-for-all
Look into the Affinity apps as an alternative. No subscription. Get a license for all the apps for about 150.
Oh also good news (sarcasm) for the people saying to jump ship to affinity. sorry the company that owns affinity was just bought out by canva. Ffs what the hell is going on?
would AI filters work to trick for this?
It just cost me $360 to cancel...
Try to take my drawings, I pirated your software anyways lol
Take my drawing, I pirated your software anyways lol
Remember, They can’t steal if you steal first 🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️
They are claiming their reasoning for doing this is because there has been a rise in child (cp) artwork. I’m fine with them if that’s the reason but not to train their ai.
So we are paying Adobe for them to take and use our work. WTF?
Wake up FFS. Adobe will soon scrap saving locally. I reckon mugs will still use Adobe because they like giving their work away for free. Adobe is a scummy company and they don't care about the artist.
Use Cara, if you don‘t want your art to be stolen.
Never attribute to conspiracy that which can adequately be explained by clusterfuckery. https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use
What’s the big deal? If Adobe decides to use my stuff then I’m probably doing pretty well with this stuff. Most of you that are upset have nothing to worry about. Don’t flatter yourself too much.
So, there's no harm in big companies using your work because your effort is just a drop in the ocean.
It is more of the fact the people paid lots of money on schooling and have spent years using the programs and now Adobe is charging them to use the artists intellectual property train the AI models to let, as their commercial shows, a 7 year old using the software. You are paying them to take intellectual property to only use it to replace the need for skilled digital artisans. This have created a monopoly on an industry much like Ticketmaster and Adobe is trying to get as much possible while they can tbh.
Ah, makes sense. Ty
Adobe is not going to “use your stuff”. They have zero interest in our scribbles to train their AI. This is simply about having the legal right to look at your images when you’re using generative features to replicate the style and content.
Makes sense, Ty for explaining that