In a stunning turn of events, Adobe, a leading software company revered for its suite of creative tools, has found itself in the midst of a significant controversy. The uproar began when Sasha Yanshin, a long-time Adobe user, tweeted about the new terms of service that Adobe had recently implemented.
According to Yanshin, these terms grant Adobe a “worldwide royalty-free license to reproduce, display, distribute” any content produced using their software. This revelation has sparked a wave of outrage across the creative community, leading many to cancel their subscriptions and seek alternatives.
The Outrage and Its Origins
The crux of the controversy lies in the new licensing terms, which Yanshin described as beyond insane. Under these terms, Adobe essentially claims a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable license to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, create derivative works based on, publicly perform, and translate the content produced by users. This sweeping clause has alarmed many creators, who feel that it amounts to an overreach and a potential threat to their intellectual property and creative freedom.
Yanshin’s tweet quickly went viral, garnering over 17 million views and eliciting thousands of reactions. The tweet read:
“I just cancelled my Adobe licence after many years as a customer. The new terms give Adobe ‘worldwide royalty-free licence to reproduce, display, distribute’ or do whatever they want with any content I produce using their software. This is beyond insane. No creator in their right mind can accept this. You pay a huge monthly subscription and they want to own your content and your entire business as well. Going to have to learn some new tools.”
Sasha Yanshin
This sentiment was echoed by many others in the creative community, who expressed their shock and dismay at Adobe’s new policy. The backlash was swift and intense, with numerous users declaring their intention to cancel their subscriptions and delete Adobe products from their systems.
The Response from Adobe
In an attempt to quell the rising tide of discontent, Scott Belsky, founder of Behance and chief product officer at Adobe, issued a statement clarifying the terms. He stated that every cloud service requires a license “solely for the purpose of operating,” and that this has been the case for over a decade. Belsky’s clarification, however, did little to assuage the concerns of many users.
Belsky’s tweet included a link to a blog post intended to provide further clarification. The post aimed to reassure users that Adobe did not intend to exploit their content beyond the necessary operational requirements. However, the damage had already been done, and many users were skeptical of Adobe’s intentions. Sasha Yanshin’s response to Belsky was particularly scathing:
“I give precisely zero f*cks about Adobe’s clarifications or blog posts. You forced people to sign new Terms. Legally they are the only thing that matters. These Terms state black on white that you will now have irrevocable license to use my content for pretty much any purpose you want. One way to avoid needing a clarification or customer outrage is by not trying to screw your customers over. Pretending that this wasn’t intentional only makes Adobe and its employees look even more pathetic.”
Sasha Yanshin
Belsky’s defense that these terms are standard and have been in place for years did little to quell the outrage. Users like Moeyield pointed out that regardless of how long the terms have been there or how common they are among cloud providers, the phrasing and breadth of Adobe’s license raise serious concerns about content ownership and control.
Moeyield’s response articulates a widespread sentiment: “Don’t care if it’s 11 years old. Don’t care if ‘every’ cloud provider does the same. And certainly you don’t need the right to use users content in any way to do the specific and limited things you mention like host and generate thumbnails.”
The Wider Reaction and Fallout
The backlash against Adobe has not been limited to just a few angry tweets. The sentiment has quickly spread across social media, with many users openly seeking alternatives to Adobe products. The hashtag #AdobeAlternatives began trending as users discussed potential replacements for Adobe’s software suite.
One significant beneficiary of this controversy has been Affinity by Serif. The company, which offers a suite of creative tools including Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer, announced a 50% off sale on their entire product line. This move was seen by many as a direct response to Adobe’s misstep, and it quickly gained traction among disaffected Adobe users.
The sentiment towards Adobe has been overwhelmingly negative. Many users described the company as “scum” and accused it of overreaching in its attempt to claim rights over user-generated content. The frustration and anger were palpable, with some users going so far as to halt their production work until they could transition to alternative software.
The Impact on Adobe’s Reputation
The controversy has undoubtedly dealt a significant blow to Adobe’s reputation. For years, Adobe has been a cornerstone of the creative industry, providing essential tools for artists, designers, and creators. However, the perception that Adobe is attempting to encroach on the rights of its users has led to a severe erosion of trust.
This incident highlights a broader issue within the tech industry: the balance between necessary operational rights for cloud services and the protection of user content. While companies like Adobe need certain permissions to operate their services effectively, they must also ensure that these permissions do not overstep and infringe on the rights of their users.
The Latest “Clarification”
Adobe has released a statement from Scott Belsky and Dana Rao to clarify key aspects of their Terms of Use, particularly regarding user content and AI.
- Ownership of Content: Users retain full ownership of their content, which will not be used to train generative AI tools.
- AI Training: Adobe commits to not using customer content for training generative AI. Adobe Firefly, their AI tool, is trained on licensed content and public domain works.
- Opt-Out Options: Users can opt out of Adobe’s product improvement program, which uses non-generative AI techniques to enhance user experience.
- Limited Licensing: Licenses granted to Adobe are narrowly tailored to necessary activities, ensuring no transfer of content ownership.
- Content Scanning: Adobe does not scan content stored locally on users’ computers. Uploaded content is automatically scanned to ensure compliance with laws, particularly for preventing the hosting of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). If flagged, human review may be conducted.
A Turning Point?
As the dust settles, Adobe faces a critical challenge in rebuilding its relationship with the creative community. The company’s response to this controversy will be closely watched, and it will need to take significant steps to restore trust and reassure users that their creative rights are protected.
For now, the exodus from Adobe continues, with many creators seeking new tools and platforms that respect their intellectual property. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the importance of clear, fair, and respectful terms of service in maintaining user trust and loyalty.
Author Profile
- Lucy Walker covers finance, health and beauty since 2014. She has been writing for various online publications.
Latest entries
- April 25, 2025Global EconomicsWhistleblowers Unmask Schwab’s Toxic WEF Secrets
- April 9, 2025Global EconomicsTariff Tensions Drive Market Volatility
- March 18, 2025Global EconomicsRed in Name Only: Labour’s War on the UK Working Class
- March 7, 2025SatoshiCraig Wright Banned from UK Courts with Civil Restraint Order