🚀 go-pugleaf

So don't post any images.

Point well taken, Ann.

However, this applies to these "old" forums as well, not just the proposed inevitable new ones.

Usually, I post a screenshot or two in order to illustrate a post. Adobe is welcome to my screenshots of their software. :p

The one area of concern would be whatever gets posted here in the photography forum, so as of yesterday I've taken to superimposing an annoying watermark diagonally across the images.

Is this currently in place even for this forum, or for the changeover?

Both, Lawrence.

This Forum would lose its whole point without Photographs.

Adobe needs to get that Clause 8 of theirs re-written because they have no right to purloin the Copyright of images posted on other people's web sites � regardless of whether Links are provided in these Forums.

It would be wise to re-read the Forum Terms of Service and see exactly what Clause 8 says.

They did re-write their even more onerous clause to that effect in their Photoshop.com site after a wave of outraged protests.

      So don't post any images.




Yep...or, I mean, nope. Won't post any. Probably should have been more discretionary about that all along. 8/

I think I'll have more time in my day as well---don't see myself visiting here much in the future. Never had any real complaints about the forums or Adobe before---always considered it a privilege to have this place to come to. But it appears that the powers that be at Adobe have a certain level of disrespect for the very audience which supports it.

Don't like the look of the new forums at all---too messy.

In case it changes soon, thanks everyone for being here. It's been fun.

Not only "Messy" but glacially slow and totally inefficient. Truly a disaster.

      glacially slow and totally inefficient




Agreed, and it's getting worse by the hour with increasing load. Posting a message takes an eternity. >:(

If they don't change the wording of their agreement, it will likely mean the end of their forum. It was undoubtedly written by an idiot corporate lawyer who never read his words from a different point of view.

The way I read it, I can see that their lawyer could make a case demanding your hi res version of what you posted to "fulfill" their needs as outlined.

It is thoroughly pernicious.

I would like to think that it was not intentional but �

Oh' shit, my hard drive just crashed. Sorry, no stinkken hi res image for you 

Section 10 is just as bad as Section 8. This is the typical corporate crap that makes us hate big companies. They've got to know it's going to piss off anyone with the slightest ability for critical thought, and yet they still try to sugar coat it with the incredibly poorly written "layman's" clause. In my mind, that's even more insulting.

See the annoying watermark and never post anything over 600 pixels. High res no that would be a different image so they can't have that and I can't imagine them going to court over it.

However, if they used an image of yours that you thought was inappropriate and damaged say your professional reputation regardless of what that claus says then one could take Adobe to court. For instance altering it or up rezing it so that it did no longer expressed the quality of your work, then you would probably be entitled to damages. They say they have the right use it scale it, which does not men you have to provide them with anything other then you posted, if they failed to do so in a way that is acceptable to you, well they just painted themselves in a corner and I suggest they undo it.

there is no reason for adobe to use any image posted on the forum for any apparent reason i they intend to use such images for their promotional and advertising efforts then they would have to state so it is not now stated as such and it does not imply it as well and they were very careful not to imply it. In being so smart the lawyers screwed it up.

They actually virtually left no reason for them to use it by being so vague otherwise you are stating you really have no reason to use it.

And if they get smart you can drag them into small claims court or do it in the state court as a pro se. They are not going to spend three grand to defend something that might cost them half that for a royalty and if they started using the images like that regularly then everyone should simply drag them into court. That would proabbly make them either kill the forum or remove the claus which is faulty anyway.

All I can say is to really read the fine print, and remember that not all uses need high res images. Add to that they they can sub license and modify to their heart's content and use any way they might want for EVER.

It doesn't matter what someone might say their intent is now. It only matters what is written in their terms and that they can change it any time they want.

It actually sounds like they've employed credit card company lawyers as well.

      there is no reason for adobe to use any image posted on the forum for
      any apparent reason




Agreed.

Peter they can write what they want but if they do not define the terms in a specific way it ha no meaning.

Take a look at a photo models release it makes clear the intent without any bars held.

Trying to cover you ass without specifying your intent means you are being deceitful and on purpose and therefore has no meaning.

They can scale it as they say but in order to scale it they cannot ruin your photo so they may only be able to scale it down.

They cannot no what ever they like no matter what they write.

try this one:

 <http://adobeforums.adobe.com/community/design_development/photography>

can i use rss in outlook express

k 

can any one recomend another nntp news group that we can all move over to, I 
cannot understand why adobe is doing what its doing, I use outlook express 
for checking posts etc, the notion of having to login to there site etc lol


any way

if any one knows of a good nntp fourm please let me know

k 

My understanding is that the wording is intended, whatever it looks like, simply to enable them to display a photo posted on the forum whenever anyone goes to that page.

I've suggested putting in words like "in the context in which is was posted on the forum" so that if they display the photo, they have to do it in the forum - which is what is wanted, no?

The TOS wording itself simply MUST be cleaned-up or clarified.

A court of law would judge it on what it actually SAYS and not by what they might have intended us to think that they meant!

      putting in words like "in the context in which is was posted on the forum"
      so that if they display the photo, they have to do it in the forum - which
      is what is wanted,




Exactly! But it needs to be worded with precision in the TOS by Adobe Legal so that there is no margin of error nor leeway for them to construe its meaning in any other way.

Oz,

What is needed is language that clearly states that Adobe does not own any copyright, cannot modify images, sublicense, or use the images in ANY other manner without the express written consent and license from the original author. Anything less is really unacceptable.

While Adobe does host this site, they also are very clear that it's a USER to USER forum, and not an official voice of Adobe. For Adobe to maintain that premise while saying that they basically own everything (even non-exclusively) is an attitude that can only cause suspicion of their motives.

Just watch management and the legal boffins wreck what was one of the better places for information exchange on the Web......

I expect questions on the use of gaming mice, steroidal graphics cards and giant plasma screens to be the standard for the new Adobe forums.

It's hard to understand why a forum as well thought out as this one has to be replaced. I guess people feel that they must make changes.

Who knows what hidden agenda really fuelled this: but the "official" story is that WebCrossing (who power the present Adobe Forums) doesn't have the ability to merge and support the old Macromedia ones with the Adobe ones.

I know I'm one who has ascribed a hidden agenda to the change, but the more I hear in unofficial channels the more I'm convinced that there is in fact no Grand Design apart from the need to change as described in frank terms at <http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b7e47b/13> - worth a read. And I've seen that Adobe are not the only ones making the move from WebX to Jive. OK, being logical, maybe more than one corporation is making a big mistake, but being optimistic, maybe more than one corporation has gone through the alternatives very carefully and determined that this is the way to go. I'm not aware of anyone at Adobe claiming it's the ideal way to go, though. It's the best for the job that is currently available (Adobe's definition of 'job' of course).

Kinda like CS3 printing was "the way to go".....? :-(

      maybe more than one corporation is making a big mistake, but being optimistic,
      maybe more than one corporation has gone through the alternatives very
      carefully and determined that this is the way to go.




Regarding the unfathomably evil and incompetent individuals running large corporations, already JFK remarked while he was president that "all businessmen are s.o.b.'s".

The current performance of the S&Ls under Reagan and the entire housing and financial sectors under Bush reinforce my belief that they are imbeciles too. I see no justification to believe or hope that the top leaders of the gargantuan, unresponsive Adobe bureaucracy would be any different. :/

      Just watch management and the legal boffins wreck what was one of the
      better places for information exchange on the Web.




amen

The requirement to "merge" the Adobe and MM sides is weak. Certainly there are minor advantages for suite owners but, as I stated elsewhere, the "justification" for the whole move to jive looks like a post decision rationalisation of a bad move at the top.

The result: we are not happy losing the user-friendly and speedy WebX forums and MM people are not happy losing NNTP.

And the fat cats who created this situation are blissfully unaware of the consequences.

jfk sounds [in Ram�n's quotation] like a hypocrite with a hidden agenda
and the accusations of imbecility,.. simple minded.

I hope that the "mind" of adobe will prevail.

The actual quote:

"In a moment of anger, my father once said that all businessmen are s.o.b.'s and I have to admit that more than once during this process I couldn't have agreed with him more," he said to laughter. "That feeling has passed, and now I am one of them."

From the NYT 1995

 <http://tinyurl.com/dcpedd>

Doesn't look like a hidden agenda to me. Otoh the fact that a hidden agenda might be present is itself possibly hidden.

the rest of the quotation was hidden : )
and I couldn't care less; I know what jkSr did for a� fortune
and who benefited from it and its connections

All the way back tot the Rothchilds, and earlier....

jkSr. was the most unashamed businessman ever
and the best connected to both the government and the mob

jfk owed him a lot

larry, I'm only posting this because you're diluting the subtopic with� wine : )

JFK, the president, scribbled on a piece of paper while he was president, indeed quoting his father, Joe..

In any event, it doesn't matter who said it first. Businessmen that lead big corporations are indeed s.o.b.'s and, these days, also imbeciles.

More like drinking it. :-)

And not Rothchild, Lynch Bages.....

Did you actually see the note, Ramon? Were you there when he did it? Would be a nice bit of history to have seen it.

"Businessmen that lead big corporations are indeed s.o.b.'s and, these days, also imbeciles."

I now know another one of Ram�n's many opinions : )
(I don't share it, but it's good to know)
I kindah like the new CEO of AIG; he blushes too much, but he made a good point in congress.
wait a minute! I think that most congress people are imbeciles, especially dodd, but barney too : )

I know I am a total outsider to this forum and didn't know there was a place where photographers would post their images.

But wouldn't a watermark with the artists � and name help keep it under your own ownership?

And at least keep it from showing up elsewhere?

Again, I apologize if I'm totally off base here.

      I know I am a total outsider to this forum and didn't know there was a
      place where photographers would post their images.





      But wouldn't a watermark with the artists � and name help keep it under
      your own ownership?





      And at least keep it from showing up elsewhere?





      Again, I apologize if I'm totally off base here.




It does seem that it is up to the photographer to make sure the image is copyrighted. I am one to harp on making sure a photo has the photographer's � and name, and company if applicable. If it's a valuable enough image, it would seem like a good idea to take the extra steps of official registration.

Sandee,

Unless you actually register your images with the Copyright Office, even though the simple act of taking the picture give you the copyright, you are not fully protected. Registering helps you with that, but only if you end up going to court. Add to that every time you register an image or group of images, it's a trip through the worst government website imaginable and another $35 fee, plus postage for mailing in a box (no envelopes) for the hard copies and disks. It all adds up rather quickly.

The problem is that by agreeing to their terms and conditions, you are assigning them a certain right of usage for anything posted here, word and images.

In case you haven't looked at this thread, do so!

 <http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b8600e/1>

Sandee:

How very nice to see you here!

(For those that don't know, just check out the book shelves at Border's next time you are there!)

Peter is exactly right. Copyright is created at the moment that the shutter is pressed or pencil/brush is applied to paper.

The reason for registering with the Copyright Office is that it provides further proof of ownership (and allows you to collect higher legal damages if infringement occurs!) � but registration is not obligatory.

What Adobe are doing here is not a case of grabbing your copyright (they can't do that without a signed written agreement of transfer) but purloining the rights of all Usage, for any purpose, anywhere and for all time.

Wade has already pointed out the other dangers here.

Apart from loss of control of how your Art is used; and the loss of income from royalties: there is the huge problem of identifiable pictures of people and places being used for Advertising and Commercial Purposes without a signed Model Release and the potential for expensive law suits as a result.

Unfortunately, very bad prior experiences with two of the Quick Guides series with the image of a rabbit running on two legs years ago have kept me from buying Sandee's books. The ones I bought for Illustrator and, especially, MS Word by an author by the name of Maria Langer were a total waste of money. So much so that I flung the Word book out of a 24th-floor window onto the tracks in great disgust. :(

were you living there?
(or made the climb on purpose : )