ADOBE sued, finally

[pentaxuser]

Just for my clarification, is this the AA trust that has now served a writ of libel on Adobe or is the suing of Adobe, which has now been started, being done by an entirely separate third party?

This whole thread appear to have been about the rights or wrongs of subscription services with no mention of AA hence my question

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Ivo Stunga]

That’s a good summary of the side that dislikes subscription services for software.

Also this - I loved Spotify the way it was when I subbed to it - everything was accessible equally and their broken AI didn't bombard me with pop releases I'm not into. Clicking on "do not recommend this artist" (or something along these lines) has no real consequences like in a badly written RPG game - I still get bombarded by russian and pop shit. And they didn't censor albums available on their platforms, but currently - many albums from artists I love are just removed, because <popular reason_X> and <popular political reason_Y>. And I have to pay for this?


The pot is further soured by:
- their endless reduction of share paid to artists - you know - people that music is all about. Now they don't pay a dime if you're unable to reach over 1k listening number and that's going to kill innovation on this platform where it happens - underground, in basements and bedrooms. It seems now that everything is all about what sells not what's interesting and unique. And I'm not into this.
- the umpteenth redesign makes albums hard to access. I have no control over which UI/version I keep so I either bend over and accept the fate, or return to physical storage and local file library + research and invest in NAS to keep modern sensibilities.

 

[warden]

Just for my clarification, is this the AA trust that has now served a writ of libel on Adobe or is the suing of Adobe, which has now been started, being done by an entirely separate third party?

This whole thread appear to have been about the rights or wrongs of subscription services with no mention of AA hence my question

Thanks

pentaxuser

Ansel Adams has nothing whatsoever to do with this legal action.

It's covered in the first sentence of the article linked in post #1.

 

[BradS]

.... And I have to pay for this?

No. Obviously, you do not have to pay for it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Are they?
If you don't like it, if you don't think it's a valuable service, discontinue your subscription. Done.
If enough customers leave, the business will get the message...or not. No biggie.

 

[wiltw]

Just for my clarification, is this the AA trust that has now served a writ of libel on Adobe or is the suing of Adobe, which has now been started, being done by an entirely separate third party?

No formal legal action appears to have been taken by Ansel Adams foundation, merely a scolding of Adobe.
https://dig.watch/updates/adobe-removes-ai-imitations-after-ansel-adams-estate-complaint

..".the Ansel Adams estate criticised the company for selling AI-generated imitations of the famous photographer’s work. The estate posted a screenshot on Threads showing ‘Ansel Adams-style’ images on Adobe Stock, stating that Adobe’s actions had pushed them to their limit. Adobe allows AI-generated images on its platform but requires users to have appropriate rights and prohibits content created using prompts with other artists’ names.​

​

In response, Adobe removed the offending content and reached out to the Adams estate, which claimed it had been contacting Adobe since August 2023 without resolution. The estate urged Adobe to respect intellectual property and support the creative community proactively. Adobe Stock’s Vice President, Matthew Smith, noted that moderators review all submissions, and the company can block users who violate rules.​

​

Adobe’s Director of Communications, Bassil Elkadi, confirmed they are in touch with the Adams estate and have taken appropriate steps to address the issue. The Adams estate has thanked Adobe for the removal and expressed hope that the issue is resolved permanently."​

​

Separately, following recent policy statement, Adobe aroused the ire of both customers and employees recently in a TOS outlining what Adobe would do regarding improvement of its AI software by employing data from customers, sparking backpedal statements providing 'clarification' of its first statement.

Lastly, the DOJ and FTC have taken legal actions pertaining to Adobe imposing high subscription cancellation fees (as exemplified by Adobe web site pages), making those penalties not readily apparent to people/entities undertaking new subscriptions for Adobe products, and repeated difficultes experienced by many in attempting to cancel existing subscriptions.

 

[BradS]

The only way I managed to quit was thanks to a dedicated blog from a guy who figured it out and described warning signs, some totally silent. This was some 12 years ago so I don't know how hard it is today.

When I left, about 8 years ago, getting one's own account deleted was a pretty simple matter ... navigate to an account settings page, click on a check box, click on the ok button, click on another ok button dismissing the "Are you Sure?" dialog box and then, and here's the key, NOT log again for 6 months. Apparently, and they did spell this out, they did not delete the account immediately, they simply hid it from view for some period of time before actually deleting it. If you requested deletion and then subsequently logged into the dormant account within that time, it was all restored. Worked for me.

 

[BradS]

When Adobe went subscription model, they increase their profits multifold. Someone's paying for those profits. And that's their customers. Subscription model is not cheaper, otherwise they wouldn't have it. They use subscription models to maximize their profits, and a lot of other companies have jumped on the same bandwagon.

Nothing wrong with a corporation increasing its revenue, decreasing costs and thereby improving profit margin. That's kinda what business is all about - isn't it?

The subscription model improves revenue by eliminating piracy.

It reduces distribution costs and and eliminates warranty costs resulting in a concomitant reduction in the producer's cost.

The small monthly subscription fee changes the customers' burden from a large, upfront capital outlay to a small monthly expense while also greatly reducing the customer risk associated with purchase - both of which might increase the number of customers willing and able to buy/use the product - increasing sales.

Undoubtedly, there are/were also, external market factors that might also have increased the company's sales - for example, an increase in YouTube content creators during the period.

These factors would all tend to improve profit margin - would they not?

I don't understand the outrage. The company is providing a product at at price. Lots of folks apparently see it as a good value and are happy to subscribe and enjoy the quality and utility of the product.

If you don't think it is a good value, don't subscribe. Use something else, make your own software package, whatever but don't bitch about the company being successful...just vote with your wallet. The rest will take care of itself (the invisible hand of the market and all of that).

 

[MattKing]

I don't know of a single piece of widely distributed Windows software out there that is actually "owned" by a user.
What one buys is a license to use someone else's software.
The terms of the license determine what use you can make of it, and for how long. And all anyone ever does is rent that use.
Practically speaking, the duration of use is determined by how often your computer gets updated, and whether the software owner and supplier keeps updating what you have to make sure it continues to work on your computer.
Subscriptions are one way of arranging for paying both initial and continuing use of the software. There are a bunch of other ways as well. Determine your needs, and then price out the options.
Adobe's other software is in many case a lot more expensive than Photoshop and Lightroom. And there are a lot of uses for that other software that mandate use of current versions, and justify that expense.

 

[BHuij]

I fail to understand people's dislike of the subscription model. It is perfect to always be up-to-date for little $. Before, I had to purchase again every couple of years, which was more expensive and kept me out of date most of the time.

The features I actually use in Photoshop have been present since like CS1 (circa 2003).

I haven't ever found a need to use the new whiz-bang stuff like intelligent background detection or AI powered XYZ selection tools. Call me a luddite.

Not being able to use CS6 anymore after I had already paid for it, and being forced to pay a monthly subscription in return for "new features whenever they come out" feels very much like being sucked dry by a vampire in exchange for nothing I actually need or want. The impression I'm left with is, Adobe saturated the market, couldn't innovate enough to get people excited about buying newer versions of their products, and switched to a subscription model out of greed and nothing else.

I suspect I'm not in the minority here.

 

[warden]

The impression I'm left with is, Adobe saturated the market, couldn't innovate enough to get people excited about buying newer versions of their products, and switched to a subscription model out of greed and nothing else.

Generative fill, AI tools and many other features that have been invented since CS6 are game changers in the industry, full stop. It wouldn't matter if Adobe tools were based on subscription or not, people would absolutely buy them because innovating in this area and others is important and Adobe are at the head of the pack serving a population of creative professionals seeking competitive advantage.

You don't want the innovative features that Adobe has invested so heavily in during the twelve years since CS6 and that's cool because there are other products currently that work similarly to CS6, but to suggest Adobe can't innovate enough to get customers excited to purchase a new version is absurd.

It would be great if they offered both subscription and stand alone options, and maybe one day they will. there is no reason that a stand alone version of Photoshop has to be less profitable for Adobe than the subscription model after all.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

If you don't like it, if you don't think it's a valuable service, discontinue your subscription. Done.

Agreed. User gets emotionally involved with their playlists with substantial reach, however, and Spotify knows that this is the way to hook hardcore users.
I have to abandon them if I ever go that route and that has some weight. It's not that simple IRL.

 

[Hassasin]

When I left, about 8 years ago, getting one's own account deleted was a pretty simple matter ... navigate to an account settings page, click on a check box, click on the ok button, click on another ok button dismissing the "Are you Sure?" dialog box and then, and here's the key, NOT log again for 6 months. Apparently, and they did spell this out, they did not delete the account immediately, they simply hid it from view for some period of time before actually deleting it. If you requested deletion and then subsequently logged into the dormant account within that time, it was all restored. Worked for me.

The time period I used was more like 2 months, but in my time there was no easy link to "delete account". I found the link from that blog and only then was able to initiate it.

But key thing you may not have meant to omit (or things had changed) was that it was not only about logging into dormant account, but accessing FB related matter from IP address used to log in. So if FB had a track record on FB search from "deleted" account's IP address (any one of them actually, IP address cross checks with FB log in history) it would cancel the deletion request, and that of course without any notification. This lead a lot of people to effectively maintain their account without often even knowing it (and tracking data continued to be saved on FB servers).

 

[Jon Buffington]

The features I actually use in Photoshop have been present since like CS1 (circa 2003).

I haven't ever found a need to use the new whiz-bang stuff like intelligent background detection or AI powered XYZ selection tools. Call me a luddite.

Not being able to use CS6 anymore after I had already paid for it, and being forced to pay a monthly subscription in return for "new features whenever they come out" feels very much like being sucked dry by a vampire in exchange for nothing I actually need or want. The impression I'm left with is, Adobe saturated the market, couldn't innovate enough to get people excited about buying newer versions of their products, and switched to a subscription model out of greed and nothing else.

I suspect I'm not in the minority here.

I am in your boat. I purchased the complete CS6 suite and LR6 when it went subscription as I did not need nor want continuous updates. I rarely use PS6 except for a specific action on finishing color photos. No need to update. LR6 is perfect for my needs. I ordered the entire CS6 suite for future projects where I may or may not need the softwared (I don't). My older digi cams didn't need the new conversion of raw files and when it did, i would convert to .tif or .dng prior to import. Recently, my old pc crashed, while installing my hard copy of cs6, adobe did NOT want me to do that even though I have an acct with adobe and have since 2003 or so from purchasing products periodically. Anyways, finally figured a work around after reading numerous blogs and forum posts from others. The kicker though, is I can't even upgrade the updates in CS6 or LR6 to where they were prior to my pc crash as they will not allow that. They want to force me to upgrade to use what I purchased so in essence, I have taken a step back without those updates.

As far as shopping with my wallet elsewhere, I have. For video production, I use other products that are not subscription based. Down the road, I will no longer use my purchased CS6 or LR6 when I upgrade PC's again and am forced out of it . I will then spend my money elsewhere outside of adobe's domain. Subscriptions are easy to get you on board, a royal PITA to get off. I buy my phones and use straight talk plan. I have refused a subsription model since the late oughts.

 

[MattKing]

Not being able to use CS6 anymore after I had already paid for it,

You bought a limited license for some 12 year old software.
You rented something that at the time was extremely high end and expensive to create, and now if you want to continue to use it, you have to pay more rent.
I understand the mind set that thinks that a license is the same as outright ownership, but it doesn't apply.
If you have ever actually bought software - which would inevitably had to have been custom designed - you would have paid a whole lot more.

 

[Hassasin]

there is no reason that a stand alone version of Photoshop has to be less profitable for Adobe than the subscription model after all.

Money chases money, subscription based service has far more easily predictable short term revenue, and current state of business models are short to super short term, few weigh into beyond another year, many beyond next six months, and in the end it is all about stock price and how it grows, artificially or not.

Stand alone program has a huge potential of a one time purchase, or one in many years, so in order to remain on sales list, it has to attract new buyers. Subscription model changes a lot of this, and as such it is to maintain more predictable customer base.

Adobe has no chance of arguing otherwise since they moved 100% to subscription, for only one reason, everything else they spit around is plane PR based on nonsense.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I purposely bought PhotoShop Classic so that I avoid the invasion on my personal files and run PhotoShop on my computer and not on the Cloud.

 

[BradS]

Money chases money, subscription based service has far more easily predictable short term revenue, and current state of business models are short to super short term, few weigh into beyond another year, many beyond next six months, and in the end it is all about stock price and how it grows, artificially or not.

Stand alone program has a huge potential of a one time purchase, or one in many years, so in order to remain on sales list, it has to attract new buyers. Subscription model changes a lot of this, and as such it is to maintain more predictable customer base.

Adobe has no chance of arguing otherwise since they moved 100% to subscription, for only one reason, everything else they spit around is plane PR based on nonsense.

ok, let’s assume that they adopted a subscription model in order to assure short term profitability.
Is that a problem? If so, why?

 

[Jim Jones]

Computers and their programs, like the cameras and hand tools I use, are tools. Familiarity with tools comes with practice. Occasionally we are deprived of that familiarity by makers forcing new, unfamiliar, and unnecessary tools upon us, although most really good tools can serve us well for very long times. My photo editor is 14 years old. My word processor is even older. My best camera is 54 years old. Some of my auto tools are older than that. All of these tools are unrestricted by maker's continuing meddling. Perhaps many people are more comfortable knowing that their computer program makers are simplifying the updating of their programs. I'm comfortable with what those programs do now. It will be me, not some businessman, who will decide to update if necessary.

 

[pentaxuser]

Ansel Adams has nothing whatsoever to do with this legal action.

It's covered in the first sentence of the article linked in post #1.

All that says is Adobe Sued which OK directs me to the Reuters News Agency but for some reason when I first looked at it the site at the thread's inception However Reuters did not seem to want me to be able to read anything without subscribing. whitelisting etc

Tonight I tried again and it has let me in. I am not lazy but not having easy and unconditional access I just let it go. However curiosity got the better of me as the thread developed due to the level of interest expressed. Hence my question which wiltw covered very comprehensively

Thanks wiltw

pentaxuser

 

[warden]

Stand alone program has a huge potential of a one time purchase, or one in many years, so in order to remain on sales list, it has to attract new buyers. Subscription model changes a lot of this, and as such it is to maintain more predictable customer base.

Stand alone product would have to account for that with a higher price. It's marketing. And Adobe would have plenty of time, let's say ten years, to invent new tools.

Want photoshop as a subscription? $23.00 per month.
Want to own the latest version outright? $2,760 one time payment.
(The $2760 price I dreamed up and equals ten years of subscription but would include no upgrades that subscribers would enjoy during that time. I think the price would need to be higher than that actually but whatever)

I know people that would jump at either one of those offers depending on their situation.

Adobe has no chance of arguing otherwise since they moved 100% to subscription, for only one reason, everything else they spit around is plane PR based on nonsense.

I remember when my favorite animation software was going subscription - they contacted the community first and let us know what they were planning and why - mainly they were evening out a choppy revenue stream and using new tools to fight pirating their product which was a huge problem for them. I imagine it was the same for Adobe but times 46, which is the number of apps I see currently available on the Adobe CC portal. I don't know how well moving to a subscription model has controlled pirating, or if in fact it has.

This thread has veered into the tired subscription arguments which is too bad because the main topic of the lawsuit is an interesting one. The existence of the suit proves nothing of course, but if Adobe has engaged in unfair/illegal practices as described in the complaint they are in for a well deserved and painful ride.

 

[warden]

All that says is Adobe Sued which OK directs me to the Reuters News Agency but for some reason when I first looked at it the site at the thread's inception However Reuters did not seem to want me to be able to read anything without subscribing. whitelisting etc

Tonight I tried again and it has let me in. I am not lazy but not having easy and unconditional access I just let it go. However curiosity got the better of me as the thread developed due to the level of interest expressed. Hence my question which wiltw covered very comprehensively

Thanks wiltw

pentaxuser

Sorry pentaxuser it's too bad about the paywall. I see they're offering a subscription model for $34.99 per month. Highway robbery! Why I remember when a man could buy a newspaper and own it outright with none of these complicated subscription schemes. ;-)

 

[pentaxuser]

Sorry pentaxuser it's too bad about the paywall. I see they're offering a subscription model for $34.99 per month. Highway robbery! Why I remember when a man could buy a newspaper and own it outright with none of these complicated subscription schemes. ;-)

Thanks for the reply. I either did something wrong when I first tried to link to the article or something else has changed and yes there are more and more sites doing this such as one of the NY newspapers( Times?) to which occasionally a member here will link to about a photographic topic. It's a bit much to have to subscribe for one article. If the article on such a site is long and complicated then you may have no choice but to refer to it for viewers to understand what the thread is referring to However if it can be summed up in a couple of sentences as wiltw did then it is always worthwhile for the sake of maximum participation

pentaxuser

 

[FotoD]

I quit sending my money to Adobe a long time ago. When my computer dies, and CS4 along with it, PhotoLine looks like a far better option. A perpetual licence for just €79. It seems to do pretty much everything Photoshop can do.

PhotoLine: Photo Editing, Vector Editor, Design Software

www.pl32.com

 

[retina_restoration]

Nothing wrong with a corporation increasing its revenue, decreasing costs and thereby improving profit margin. That's kinda what business is all about - isn't it?

The subscription model improves revenue by eliminating piracy.

It reduces distribution costs and and eliminates warranty costs resulting in a concomitant reduction in the producer's cost.

The small monthly subscription fee changes the customers' burden from a large, upfront capital outlay to a small monthly expense while also greatly reducing the customer risk associated with purchase - both of which might increase the number of customers willing and able to buy/use the product - increasing sales.

Undoubtedly, there are/were also, external market factors that might also have increased the company's sales - for example, an increase in YouTube content creators during the period.

These factors would all tend to improve profit margin - would they not?

I don't understand the outrage. The company is providing a product at at price. Lots of folks apparently see it as a good value and are happy to subscribe and enjoy the quality and utility of the product.

If you don't think it is a good value, don't subscribe. Use something else, make your own software package, whatever but don't bitch about the company being successful...just vote with your wallet. The rest will take care of itself (the invisible hand of the market and all of that).

This strikes me as remarkably tone deaf - much like how Adobe speaks to its customers.

Once upon a time, not long ago, it was possible for "hobby photographers"* to buy a one time license to Lightroom, and for those of us who do not make money using Adobe's products, it was an acceptable cost. But now, we are obligated top pay and pay and pay, indefinitely if we want to maintain access to our catalogs and tools.
The fact that Adobe doesn't see hobby level photographers as distinct from their "professional" users is one of the problems some of us have with Adobe. Another issue I have with Adobe is that it is not possible to subscribe to Lightroom alone - I have to buy Photoshop as well, a product I have no use for whatsoever. This "bundling" of products should be outlawed.

*People who operate at an "amateur" level, not one of those who makes a living with Adobe tools. That undoubtedly describes 95% of the Photrio users, myself included.

 

[MattKing]

The fact that Adobe doesn't see hobby level photographers as distinct from their "professional" users is one of the problems some of us have with Adobe

Sure they do: https://www.adobe.com/ca/products/photoshop-elements.html
And there are other good competing options that offer a similar amount of functionality.
It is just that the "hobby level" people want the "professional level" functionality.
The Adobe monthly fee is a lot less than the amount I used to have to pay for (non-photographic) business software for my business when I needed that.
The referenced lawsuit makes sense - if it is indeed difficult to cancel the subscriptions which are intended to be cancellable at any time.
I note, however, that Adobe offers two ways of paying monthly. A higher amount, for people who want to cancel with no more than a month's notice, and another, lower monthly cost option, that requires a commitment to subscribe for a year at a time.
I wonder how many complaints originate from people who opted in for the lower payment option, and then are upset when they find that their choice requires them to pay for a whole year?