🚀 go-pugleaf

      automatically has the non-exclusive copyright assigned to Adobe,




I don't think that it actually transfers the Copyright because under the law that can ONLY be transferred on a case by case basis by a signed written agreement between the two parties.

But what they are attempting to purloin are the Rights to Unlimited Use in Perpetuity and without compensation to the Artist.

If Adobe fails to amend TOS Clause 8, hopefully some well-healed lawyer will bring a Class Action Lawsuit against them � but that doesn't help us in the meantime.

Ann,

It's very possible that the language may not be legal. It's also true that most of the images posted here have never been registered with the U.S. copyright office or the copyright office from wherever they have been posted. This language is very similar to the language that record companies and even National Geographic (one of the worst offenders) have tried to use with me.

Upon further reflection, I think that the very act of you agreeing to their terms and conditions is all that's needed. You have agreed to their terms. What is needed is a legal clarification from a good copyright attorney as to what it all really means. Until then, I would not assume anything but the worst.

and the way I am understanding it, that clause applies to *this* forum as well. Am I wrong??

The thought had crossed my mind too, and that is reinforced by the fact that we've had to re-sign up here, and most of us did without reading any fine print.

I'm sure we discussed this "Adobe's rights" thing months back - and the photos continued to be posted here.

I don't recall any such discussion. Care to call it back up?

John Cornicello posted this on the ephemeral test site -

"Might as well post the entire section...
--------------------------------------
8. Use of Your Content.

a. Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, except as provided in Section 8(b), you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display Your Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate Your Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed.

And now in more common terms: We realize that this section might look a bit scary and so we want to point out a few things. This section only applies to those portions of our sites, such as User Forums, where we intend for users to share content freely with Adobe and with each other. It does not apply to all of the content that you share, contribute or post to our sites. For example, it does not apply to content hosted by Photoshop.com or Acrobat.com. For services like those, we will provide customized license grants that are consistent with the spirit and intent of those services and that are appropriate for the kinds of content we expect you to share within them. (We say this more formally below.) So we encourage you to be selective when deciding which content to contribute under this license and we want you to be sure that you are comfortable granting the above rights when it comes to that specific content.
-----------------------------------

Which basically means that you give Adobe permission to display the image on the site. Without those terms we would not not be able to display (perform, distribute, reproduce, modify (resize), publish, etc.) your image on the site.

I will see if they have some clarification on that part in italics that refers to Forums.

Thanks!"

(That's the end of what John said)

I can appreciate that professional photographers are highly sensitive to this kind of issue but it does appear to be intended to (for instance) prevent someone who has posted an image here from then demanding payment from Adobe because the company have then distributed it worldwide on their site (the forum). That's why I've suggested adding words which gives them the right only to publish it in the context in which it was posted (ie the forum or its successors, eg the new Jive version).

      Which basically means that you give Adobe permission to display the image
      on the site.




Which is, I'm sure, what Adobe intended. Are they trying to cover their asses? You betcha.

Other than that, if you don't feel comfortable with posting your images here, don't. I really don't think that the recent aura of this forum being dead is justified.

What he's saying, if you read the translation, is that they're only going to steal images from the forums - the only place where people post images, not the business side of their website.

Those are the same terms I read, and they're still complete bs.

Nick,

I really don't think that the recent aura of this forum being dead is justified.

In terms of sharing images, I'm betting it is. In terms of sharing information, it does not have to be.

The basic nugget is this part:

      you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable,
      and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify,
      adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display Your
      Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate Your Content into other
      Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed.




There is NOTHING that states that your "Content" will be used solely on the Adobe Forums website.

Adobe has (and don't think that it was not intentional!) deliberately stated that they can "incorporate Your Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed."

John's editorialising of what HE thinks Clause 8 MEANS is at total variance with what it actually SAYS!

Ann,
were these new TOS for the new forum, or were those the same words before this forum migration was to take place?

It is good practice to simply not post high resolution images. If you make something no more than 400 pixels, what is someone going to do with them? And put your copyright on it/over it.

I think the photography forum is going to die for some users.

A professional cannot for instance now post a photo of a person even in the context of a public domain situation that would be covered by fair use because in doing so you grant Adobe copyright privileges and allow them to use it as they wish. That means if they use it for commercial use and the person sees it and decides to sue Adobe they might be in their rights to sue you because you gave them the rights to use the photos as you wish.

This might become really a burden say on someone like Donald who has posted images of the dutch amish people without their permission or their desire to be photographed, if Adobe used such an image both Donald and Adobe are going to have a hell of a time. Chances f them seeing it is little true but if they do see it on say a box or a flyer�well!

Then there is Peter Figen who has posted images of performers he probably has a release but does he have a complete release! They may get real upset if their image was used as that is often part of their income, endorsements.

However Peter Oz being a forum host just let everyone who has posted images here off the hook. By stating that the matter had been discussed here before when it had not would be a misleading condition and a clear attempt to protect Adobe from not making it clear to the users of this forum.

Whether Peter Oz works for Adobe or not he is an agent of Adobe and is so in an official way. He administrates the very forum in which Adobe says it has the rights to enslave your copyright fo their own benefit without your permission or knowledge before hand.

So because of what Peter just wrote, which is untrue and misleading, the matter of them using any photos posted before today is null and the clause is void.

Adobe is responsible for what Peter wrote as they did not make certain that he contact them before hand to clarify the issue, that makes his statement sanctioned by Adobe.

Now if I were Donald I would make certain in the future that the people you photographed at least agreed verbally to you that you could take their images before taking the images, secondly I would make certain it was ok afterward and thirdly if they said no and you took the image I would erase it. It is only a photo.

The same would go for property rights as well.

Then there is the issue of free speech, this is no longer free speech but conditional speech privileges, that is you can say and post what you want but if Adobe wishes to edit that material to the point that the meaning and intent no longer is there and it now takes on a different meaning they are not responsible for your expression and intent for not only being lost but to take on a new meaning.

Of course if they edit this it might take on any meaning they want it to take on and they have the power and means to delete it.

I write this to warn some people simply do not post your images.

Wade, are you an attorney, or does this info in post #45 represent the opinion of a registered attorney?

No in both cases!

Why do you ask? LOL!

People do not post your images and let the Photography forum.

Most important do not post any photographs. And that is anywhere on the Adobe site.

If Adobe needs photographs for any reason they can afford to hire a photographer.

And they do not have the rights to use your photographs without your permission.

I just find the notion bizarre that Adobe would be so hard up for images to use for their own purposes that they'd need to raid the relatively low res stuff posted here, and probably upset the photographic community in doing so to a degree that would run totally counter to their objective of selling as much software as they can to said community. The whole notion doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps I'm just too innocent.

The terms of use start with this -

Last updated October 15, 2008. Replaces April 30, 2006 version in its entirety.

The relevant (as I see it) bits of the 30th Aoril 2006 terms are as follows:-

"SUBMITTED MATERIALS

All of your User Materials that you post on or otherwise submit via the Site and Services shall not be confidential information or trade secrets owned by you or any other party. You will receive no compensation for any use of your User Materials. Adobe may, but is not required to, post or use any of your User Materials that you may post or otherwise submit. Adobe does not pre-screen User Materials that users provide or otherwise submit via the Site or Services; however, Adobe may remove any posted or submitted User Materials from the Site or any Service for any reason without notice in its sole discretion. By posting or submitting your User Materials, you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the Intellectual Property Rights and other rights to your User Materials as described in these Terms of Use, including all the rights necessary for you to post or submit your User Materials.

In addition, by posting or otherwise submitting your User Materials that contain images, photographs, pictures, videos, webcasts or that are otherwise graphical in whole or in part ("Images"), you represent and warrant that: (a) you own the copyright in such Images, or that you have obtained all necessary license(s) from the copyright owner(s) of such Images to use such Images, or portions thereof, in keeping with your use in connection with the Site, the Services and as otherwise permitted by these Terms of Use; (b) you have the rights necessary to grant the licenses and sublicenses described in these Terms of Use; and (c) you have received consent from any and all persons depicted in such Images to use the Images as set forth in these Terms of Use, including the distribution, public display, public performance and reproduction of such Images. By posting or otherwise submitting Images, you grant to Adobe and all other users of this Site permission to use your Images in connection with their use permitted by these Terms of Use (including making prints and gift items incorporating such Images), including an unrestricted, irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free and fully paid up license under all Intellectual Property Rights to copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, modify, translate, transmit and reformat your Images, with or without having your name attached to such Images, in any manner or form and for any purpose, with full rights to sublicense such rights through multiple tiers of distribution. You will receive no compensation with respect to the use of your Images.

You are solely and entirely responsible for all of your User Materials that you post or otherwise submit via the Site or Services. You shall assume all risks associated with the use of your User Materials including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of your User Materials. Adobe does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of your User Materials. You acknowledge and agree that by accessing or using the Site or Services, you may be exposed to User Materials from others that are offensive, indecent or otherwise objectionable.

ADOBE�S RIGHTS TO SUBMITTED USER MATERIALS

For all of your User Materials that you post or otherwise submit to the Site, including (a) comments to Communications Venues, (b) feedback, (c) bug reports, (d) piracy reports or (e) product suggestions, you grant Adobe and the users of this Site an unrestricted, irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free and fully paid up license under all Intellectual Property Rights to use, reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, copy, edit, modify, translate, reformat, transmit and distribute such User Materials, with or without having your name attached to such Images, in any manner or form and for any purpose, with full rights to sublicense such rights through multiple tiers of distribution, and you also acknowledge and agree that Adobe is free to use any ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques that you provide for any purpose without any compensation to you. You acknowledge and agree that Adobe shall not be liable for any failure to store User Materials on the Site at any time."

Bold above is mine.

 <http://web.archive.org/web/20070122165412/http>://www.adobe.com/misc/copyright.html has the whole thing.

Now why is this suddenly an issue, when we've all agreed to it (by using the site) for the last several years - or when posting your copyright material on internet sites, and you are professional photographers with a concern over these matters, surely you've not been just posting stuff on the net in the hope that the small print is ok?

By the way, the terms in force before April 2006 seem much more in line with the kind of wording people seem to want now -

"License to Adobe for User Content
Certain Services offered through this Site accommodate or require User Content. Depending upon the nature of the Service, by submitting User Content to this Site, you grant Adobe one of the following types of licenses:

1. For User Content that is the result of your creative efforts and which is intended to be displayed on the Site, such as examples of work you have done using Adobe products, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to modify (for purposes of formatting, maintenance, or Site administration only) and reproduce such User Content. You also grant Adobe the right to distribute and publicly display and perform such User Content for the purpose for which such User Content was submitted to the Site. This license will be in effect until such User Content is removed from the Site. If you submit User Content to the Design Review service, you acknowledge that such content may be modified and annotated, and Adobe may display the User Content together with such modifications and annotations solely for purposes of the Design Review service. You acknowledge and agree that any User Content you submit to Adobe Studio Exchange, such as actions or extensions, may be downloaded, modified, reproduced, and distributed by users of this Site.

2. For User Content such as comments to the Adobe User to User Forums, bug reports, piracy reports, or product suggestions, you grant Adobe and the users of this Site an unrestricted, worldwide, irrevocable license to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify, transmit, and distribute such User Content, and you also agree that Adobe is free to use any ideas, concepts, know-how, or techniques that you send us for any purpose without any compensation to you. However, we will not release your name or otherwise publicize the fact that you submitted such User Content to us unless: (a) you grant us permission to do so; (b) we first notify you that the User Content you submit to a particular part of the Site will be published or otherwise used with your name on it; (c) we have a good faith belief that we are required to do so by law and/or in response to a subpoena or court order; or (d) we believe it necessary in order to protect the rights of Adobe or others."

See <http://web.archive.org/web/20060310080318/http>://www.adobe.com/misc/copyright.html for the whole thing.

It is a "Sudden Issue" because we were NOT posting images DIRECTLY on Adobe's website before; but were only posting a line of html code that Linked to images that were hosted elsewhere.

Adobe's only claim to "Content posted on their Site" in that case was limited to a line of html text � and much good would that do them!

It was only with the launching of the new Test Site this week; and the fact that we were now being invited to post images directly onto Adobe's Servers that I made a quick dash back to the TOS to check on EXACTLY what that clause (which I remembered to have been in the TOS) actually said.

I found that the Clause had been changed � although no public announcement of changes to the TOS was ever made in Forum Comments & Announcements as far as I know.

[No, I am not an Attorney but I am the daughter of one; and I have made it my business to read entire text of the Copyright Acts in both the UK and the USA!]

The Flickr terms include this, which seems pretty fair:-

"Yahoo!7 does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Service. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant Yahoo!7 the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:

* With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of Yahoo!7 Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Yahoo!7 Group to which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo!7 removes such Content from the Service.

* With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo!7 Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo!7 removes such Content from the Service. "

The phrase "posting or otherwise submitting images" would probably need a lawyer's interpretation, but it could well include simply posting a link, I'd say.

Well, in the new forum, you have to agree to their terms and conditions, and those terms and conditions clearly state that anything you post, words or images, becomes a part of their intellectual property. The way it's stated now, you HAVE given them permission by agreeing to their terms. You do the math.

      Well, in the new forum, you have to agree to their terms and conditions




Same as here. So again, what has changed?

      It is a "Sudden Issue" because we were NOT posting images DIRECTLY on
      Adobe's website before; but were only posting a line of html code that
      Linked to images that were hosted elsewhere.





      Adobe's only claim to "Content posted on their Site" in that case was
      limited to a line of html text � and much good would that do them!




Ann provides the answer - it is the ability to actually upload the content to Adobe's servers which is new. Ann's response implies that the existing terms of service, and the even more photographer-unfriendly ones which preceded them, do not apply to images displayed via links. So if one accepts her view, then there is no concern over images linked to in these forums, or images linked to in the new forums, but the concern only applies to actual uploaded content. Therefore, we can all carry on as before - just don't upload content. No need for the photography forum to die (getting back on topic...).

Now Ann's clarification explains why nobody was concerned over their existing agreement to the existing terms of service, or those existing prior. What it doesn't explain is why Adobe would have put those clauses into their terms given that it wasn't possible to upload images to the Adobe forums before (I don't know about the MM ones, I admit).

Adobe have (or had?) some sort of Design-Instruction sites where people could upload their work for teacher-support or discussion.

They also have Photoshop Express which encourages people to upload images I believe � but I haven't actually explored the site.

My guess is that Clause 8 was changed because of Photoshop Express.

Ozpeter, 

      Now why is this suddenly an issue, when we've all agreed to it




In all the text you have quoted, something is indeed new in the TOU of the new forums:

      �you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable,
      and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute�

This was not present before�unless I've missed it. This specifically gives Adobe the unfettered right to profit from your content (including your posted text), by selling it or licensing it to third parties as they wish.

I, for one, have never "agreed to it". >:(

All,

Keep on protesting directly to Adobe. They had to roll back similarly onerous terms shortly after they launched their online editing web site, Photoshop.com, in the face of outraged protests.

If similar pressure is applied this time too, they will have to modify the TOU like they did at Photoshop.com.

      This was not present before�unless I've missed it.




It's there at the bottom of this page - click "terms of use". Dated October last year. Replaced the one that enabled me to use any of your images on gifts and prints.

      I, for one, have never "agreed to it".




You've agreed to it every time you've used the site. See first paragraph. You agreed to the one allowing use of content on gifts and prints before that.

I do think the TOU could be better worded. I just don't go along with linking this issue to the new forums. Unless I am grossly in error - not entirely impossible, but I'd be surprised - there is no link.

      You've agreed to it every time you've used the site.




Don't be absurd, Peter! You're an adult.

That is at the same level as "by opening this box, envelope or wrapper�" clauses of EULAs on software. See those "Not liable for theft or loss of items left in your car in this parking garage"? Null and void in any court of law. I spent every working day in courtrooms for three decades.

Only effective for intimidating the gullible.

Imagine I put up a sign on my front door reading "By putting so much as a foot on my property you give me the right to shoot you on sight". You thing law enforcement would let me get away with homicide?

By merely entering a parking garage or an Internet forum you agree to nothing. The only remedy the garage owner is to not allow me to park on his property, after he pays for my damages. The only remedy Adobe has is to have its forum bouncers try to ban a user, and you know how "effective" that can be. :( .

I have agreed to nothing, certainly not beyond the consequence of being denied access again.

While Adobe has no incentive to sue someone from whom they cannot realistically recover even court costs, let alone damages, there are thousands of trial attorneys who'd love to tackle Adobe's deep pockets on a contingency basis, without the plaintiff having to disburse even one penny.

Let Adobe misuse one of my images. I'll be financially set for the rest of my life, short a period as that may be. The college funds of all my grandchildren will be secured after I'm gone. I already put all my children through college myself, with the sweat of my brow.

I repeat what I wrote in #57:

      All,

      Keep on protesting directly to Adobe. They had to roll back similarly
      onerous terms shortly after they launched their online editing web site,
      Photoshop.com, in the face of outraged protests.

      If similar pressure is applied this time too, they will have to modify
      the TOU like they did at Photoshop.com.

Even weaker is Adobe's case when they unilaterally change the TOU six years or more after I joined.

      Null and void in any court of law. I spent every working day in courtrooms
      for three decades.




Well, I may not be a lawyer but my mother used to date a young man from Ghana who went on to become their Chief Justice. (True actually, but of course totally irrelevant!).

You can change the terms of an agreement but you must clearly note the change it is one of the reason's Apple keeps losing their court battles against all the class actions they find themselves in.

You can make terms of such agreements to include the right to make changes, without notice but you still have to inform the user of the change.

Yes it is common to use such a clause not to inform a customer or user of such change, but stating without notice only means that you do not have to notify someone when you make a change but you have to notify them of that change. Failing to do so is failing to make such a change as far as I understand it and we have probably all been part of some class action for this very reason.

I received a notice that there are changes being made to an account, I will not state what kind of an account. They have such a clause as well, which really only means they do not have to notify me that they are going to make such a change but once they make the change they have inform as to when it takes effect, what my options are and what those changes are, it does not mean for instance that Adobe in a hypothetical situation can now without notice decide to charge you for posting on the forum each time you make a post unless they first let you know that they have made this change to the rules and that this the substance of that change and that these are your options in regard to those changes.

To think otherwise is foolish and such action by Adobe in this hypothetical case would not have any merit in any court anywhere in the world.

And there may be some states and countries where the clause they have placed on the new site would be laughed at and groundless.

I think they should state the actually reasons and application of the terms and why they need protection. If it is for protection against someone else taking something posted on their site and using it without permission for sale or distribution for reason other then posting it here on the site they should word that clause that way, if the intend to use it on the other hand for advertising and promotional use then they should state their intentions
and give the user a clear choice in the matter and not hide the intentions.

As we did discuss the use of such clauses in competitions is not to protect the user from unwarranted use of the material from outside parties but to reuse that material for self-serving ends without compensating the creator, such as making products out of the image for sale.

Clearly though Adobe as someone state should not be so hard up for images and they should state so, we do not have intentions of profiting from the use of you material just because you post them here on the forum which you have been invited to join under the guise of a user to user forum.

It is either a user to user forum or it is not and this makes it not such a thing and clearly not instituted in a way that is open and clear.

So with Ram�n saying that the terms of use aren't worth the monitor they are displayed on, and Ann saying that the problem only arises with content actually uploaded to the Adobe site, and me saying that various photographer-unfriendly-looking conditions are nothing new, we don't have to be very, very afraid, but more a bit concerned?

And to voice any concerns, whose expression might perhaps be timely as John Cornicello said he'd be raising the matter in relevant quarters, I'd agree with Ram�n that expressing them as directly as possible to Adobe would seem to be a good idea.

is there any justice in Ghana? : )
I "hear" that corruption reigns

I don't think that adobe need/want to steal my [your?] pictures
I think that they went too far in presuming what they might do to them
if uploaded to illustrate discussed matters
(like banding, interpolation, chromatic aberrations; not wade's "talent" : )

Ozpeter,

My concerns were mainly with the butt ugly appearance of the new forums.

This has been effectively squashed by very simple and safe hacks:

After applying the various scripts and Adblock page elements blocking, the new forums look very, very good:

 <http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1kh7PYdJTceOSrCTQRbaifku3nd7ke1> Forum Index Page

 <http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1NU1MGBQEWI54ecuih0tHEp0m4Josn> Forum Thread page

No more avatars, no more "More Stuff Like This" cr@p, no more Community Experts labels, no more Popular Discussions, no more Top Participants, no more points ratings, no more total numbers of posts for each user, no more nonsense.

My warmest thanks to Eric, Mark and Zenor, who provided the scripts and blockfilters for this excellent workaround.

So why in heck doesn't Adobe just run with something like this, and have all the useless avatar, points and ranking bling as a preferences option only?

I tried this earlier on (or a version thereof) because one forum user suggested that the pages loaded faster that way. I used a timing add-on for FF3 ("Hammerhead") which seemed to indicate that pages were slightly slower to load when stripped of the unwanted stuff. Here slow page loading is a problem so I wouldn't personally want to add to it, so I'll just not let my eye alight on what I don't want to see.

      So why in heck doesn't Adobe just run with something like this, and have
      all the useless avatar, points and ranking bling as a preferences option
      only?




It's being filtered at the user end, Fred. As far as I am aware, the software doesn't provide for it being filtered at the origin. The 'bling' is an inherent part of the product.

Anyway - for me, it's like being a vegetarian, and going to dinner with a friend who serves up a fish cooked with the head, eyes, tail, fins, everything. I say "I'm sorry, I'm a vegetarian, I can't eat that." So the friend brings back the fish with everything cut off and just the filleted flesh left on the plate. Sorry, but that's not solving the key problem - it's still not a vegetable.

      As far as I am aware, the software doesn't provide for it being filtered
      at the origin. The 'bling' is an inherent part of the product.




That's just plain BS, Ozpeter, being fed by the provider to Adobe. Or it's Adobe passing the buck.

And I'll gladly give up a few milliseconds for the joy of not seeing all that other cr@p.

Do vegetarians have any non-vegetarian friends? I've only met a single vegetarian in my long life, a real nice chap too, much younger than I.

BTW, the page load faster now, at least from my user's point of view.

So, what are the hacks?

make it a vegetable from the start!
(to which some can add wish eyes if they fish : )

      ...anything that gets posted on the new forum, regardless of whether it's
      posted directly or through a link to an outside server, automatically
      has the non-exclusive copyright assigned to Adobe, and since there is
      no place to effectively cross that out, you either participate knowing
      that you're being taken advantage of or you move on to a less oppressive
      regime.




I fully agree with Ram�n ("Only effective for intimidating the gullible"). Just because an Adobe writes something by no means makes it legally enforceable. The idea that Adobe could appropriate someone's image just because it was linked to on a public Adobe forum is preposterous.

Abobe legal knows that, and I doubt if Adobe would be dumb enough to intentionally steal an image for any substantive usage. Abobe legal is just adding ammunition for their deep legal team to bury potential litigants with. A disgusting practice, but it is what the Adobes of the world do; even blanks ammunition can bury those with less deep legal resources.

      Do vegetarians have any non-vegetarian friends?




Yes. As a consequence I eat quite excellent vegetarian fare several times a week. :)

Yeah, and even that which appears iron-clad can be reversed in a summary Judgement with no recourse.

We do seem to have got Adobe's attention:

Ann Shelbourne, "Protecting our Copyright from being Misappropriated." #25, 23 Mar 2009 11:26 am </webx?14@@.59b85ebb/24>

and what follows �

We do seem to have got Adobe's attention:

Ann Shelbourne, "Protecting our Copyright from being Misappropriated." #25, 23 Mar 2009 11:26 am </webx?14@@.59b85ebb/24>

and what follows �

You see sometimes a gal and a guy with a big mouth can make a big enough noise.

very good!

:)

Way to go Ann!

Well, lets just be sure that they really do clean-up Clause 8 before we break out the bubbly!