Wow! I thought nothing would surprise me anymore about Adobe. But this is a new low even for them.<p>This is ripping off artists and accessing unauthorised content of your customers executed at the highest level. Boggles my mind how this is even legal anywhere especially in countries under EU? Like how this is an opt out and not an opt in?<p>Seems like Content Analysis is turned on by default for the whole creative cloud suite. And, to make it worse, you have to go their site, login to your account and then opt out? Oh boy, I smell a gigantic lawsuit waiting to happen.<p>tweets from artists:<p><a href="https://twitter.com/CrownePrints/status/1610441583899418624?t=E84zfiFxRW9jXRk3f3l0aQ&s=19" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/CrownePrints/status/1610441583899418624?...</a><p><a href="https://twitter.com/SamuelDeats/status/1610365369134333955?t=E84zfiFxRW9jXRk3f3l0aQ&s=19" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/SamuelDeats/status/1610365369134333955?t...</a>
To me this is industrial espionage rather than copyright infringement. If I post a picture online and you use it some way i didn't give permission for, maybe there's an infringement case, that's not very interesting.<p>Here, we have effectively malware that is taking stuff that was never shared, from a personal or business cloud, and using it for some other purpose. That's a much bigger deal, because it involves stuff nobody agreed to make public.<p>I strongly suspect Microsoft does this too with Office. I'm always catching them trying to make excuses to upload images for "connected experiences" (industrial espionage) and I imagine in the end they just do it. This is a big problem, for example when working as a contractor and dealing with private client data. There is a risk that's hard to manage of big vendors stealing data through their software that I don't know how to manage
The discourse around this stuff seems so insane to me. Am I wrong on this? It feels like the cat is out of the bag and the only way to have generally good outcomes is to go ham on open source models. IMO there's a zero percent chance that generative AI can be meaningfully controlled and any efforts to restrict training will only result in fewer people having access to the good models. They will still be created, only by people who don't care about the ethics at all, or big corpos who seek to collect rent.<p>I think the only way I see a good outcome is that the FOSS models are so good there's no money to be made competing.
A few updates ago, they made it very difficult to save files to your local system. I wonder if this has anything to do with that. It is at the least a very dark UI pattern to get people to use their cloud storage offerings. Add to it that they use any data in the cloud storage as training data just really goes over the top.
If anyone else is looking for how to opt out:<p><a href="https://account.adobe.com/privacy" rel="nofollow">https://account.adobe.com/privacy</a>
ah. so people will continue to use this because its the "industry standard" so they have the monopoly to fuck around people all the while these same people will not use/improve/suggest/fund open source alternatives in the classic chicken or egg problem...<p>i am so glad blender project is slowly being accepted. i have a friend who laughed at me 7-8 years ago when i recommended him blender. recently we were talking about some stuff and he brought up blender as in "this is something i should test". i see that as an absolute win...<p>hopefully there are many other softwares like kdenlive or darktable or inkscape or others that need blender-like movement so that they can be capable alternatives
I hope to come back to this thread with someone tamping the reality because right now this is as bad and immoral as it gets (as a photographer). You'd expect at least a fake sense of consumer/artist protection from a company like Adobe that NEEDS these customers to survive.<p>But hey, another reason to hate the prison guard landlord.
I assume this is "Lightroom" and not "Lightroom Classic" (both of which are available via Adobe CC, but Classic is offline, whilst the other was always full-cloud).<p>Historically I've used Lightroom Classic, but I've always been worried about Adobe killing it off one day.<p>I think I might go back to Phaseone Capture One[1]. I tried it a while ago and found it pretty decent, despite the name its not just for Phaseone camera users.<p>[1]<a href="https://www.captureone.com/en" rel="nofollow">https://www.captureone.com/en</a>
Does anyone know what they are using it for?<p>Photoshop is improving its "remove background" like feature
quite a bit lately. Sporting "AI" in their description.<p>I am not as outraged if that is the main use case.<p>I wonder if Google or Apple uses some form of the images
they hold for similar purposes.<p>I can easily argue though that once they have the data
they can use it to train all sorts of features including
generating art which to me is far more upsetting.
This is the kind of behavior that customers should be able to sue Adobe for, perhaps winning the rights to any AI system developed using their images.<p>I use Lightroom 5-10 times a year and there was no chance I would have found this option. Feels incredibly invasive to use my work without consent.
Now I don't see anything that implies that this is being used for training AI generated work... but I don't see any reason it can't be.<p>This has me seriously concerning for not only the future of art but all created work and who actually has the rights to that depending on what you use to make it.<p>What particularly bothers me is how quickly this was just accepted by society. I saw so many people defending it as "fun" because they just don't understand how it actually works.<p>I was really hoping that society would push back against AI generated things... that was proven wrong very very quickly.<p>I am sending this to all of my artist friends.
Here Adobe provides some more information:<p>> Adobe may analyze your Creative Cloud or Document Cloud content to provide product features and improve and develop our products and services.<p>Nothing in that document seems to indicate this is opt-in.<p>> Let's say that you access Creative Cloud or Document Cloud via a personal account and prefer that Adobe doesn't analyze your content to develop and improve our products and services. In that case, you may turn off content analysis at any time from your Adobe account.<p><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html" rel="nofollow">https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learnin...</a>
WOW. Now do this with Figma.<p>>Prompt: Give me an Accessible Design System with all available user stories and tokenize it fully.<p>Let's go, Adobe. The future is now. I will grow my own food and f*ck around in the woods.<p>I will own nothing and I will be happy. I promise.
I'm not a professional photographer, so I don't have their needs. But Google Picasa still works for my photos. I use Dropbox to sync them off my phone onto my PC.<p>And Krita and Photopea has replaced my need for Photoshop after I dumped Adobe several years ago. And then there's mobile apps like Procreate and Infinite Painter. I also own the Affinity products which are quite nice. But I admittedly don't use them much.<p>I lost trust in Adobe years ago, especially when every new release for the yearly Adobe Max was full of new bugs. Seeing news like this reminds me to never go back.
If I sign exclusive licence contract with my client that guarantee originality of my work (ie logo) without option to sell copyright to others and Adobe break it just like that, it's great for lawsuit.<p>Or piracy could be cheaper answer.
I assume they either make money or plan to make money from it. And as long as it’s optional I guess it’s fine BUT why not give a little cut to those who provide images in the form of a reduced fee?
This is honestly very convenient. If I ever accidentally delete a picture I can just ask adobe for a backup. Very consumer consious decision on adobes part.
It's off for me (EU).<p>This is one of many reason why piracy is trend again. You have no option if you want use Adobe SW that you pay for, to use offline.
Specifically, what's the issue here? Seems a lot of people are hating on Adobe here, but as far as I'm aware it's fairly standard for companies to process your data to train their models. At least I see this kind of opt-in / opt-out everywhere.<p>Is it that this is an opt-out not an opt-in, or is that it's even an option to begin with?<p>If we as consumers want companies like Adobe to provide us with cool AI tools then it seems this is unfortunately just what's required. And if you don't like it, you can opt-out. So I'm guessing the issue is that it's an opt-out not an opt-in? Which seems kinda minor and would perhaps violate GDPR in the EU.