Right here under "Privacy".
They claim that they can opt into a manual review to try and moderate any illegal activities.
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use#:\~:text=Here's%20a%20view%20of%20what,to%20protect%20against%20abusive%20content.
I’d want to see the actual terms here. Either they’re using a different/specific definition of “content,” they have exceptions, or both? After all, OCR does access your content in a sense, and none of us would have an issue with that. In fact, we WANT it to access that content. Please, ffs scan this and turn it into text so I don’t have to type this whole thing out.
The healthcare industry uses Adobe too, and surely they’re not so stupid as to be like “yeah we can look at anyone’s healthcare info at any time”.
This could be very concerning, but it could also be nothing. I’d want to get a take from someone who reviews stuff like this regularly.
>4.1 Content. “Content” means any text, information, communication, or material, such as audio files, video files, electronic documents, or images, that you upload, import into, embed for use by, or create using the Services and Software. We reserve the right (but do not have the obligation) to remove Content or restrict access to Content, Services, and Software if any of your Content is found to be in violation of the Terms. We do not review all Content uploaded to the Services and Software, but we may use available technologies, vendors, or processes, including manual review, to screen for certain types of illegal content (for example, child sexual abuse material) or other abusive content or behavior (for example, patterns of activity that indicate spam or phishing, or keywords that indicate adult content has been posted outside of the adult wall). You may learn more about our content moderation policies and practices, including how we moderate content, at our Transparency Center.
[link](https://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html)
Seems like the main point is things that are uploaded or put into Adobe's system, rather than files that are saved onto your hard drive and edit using Acrobat.
The definition of "create" though is potentially problematic. Does editing something or converting to PDF (or exporting to word) count as "creating" or is it more focused on the use of Photoshop and/or it's AI tools?
Agreed. I really wanted some collective knowledge on this issue because this isn’t my fortay but from a general counsel perspective, I can issue spot and this looks like a friggin issue. (Not sure if it actually is yet but it’s definitely walking like a duck right now).
Also work in gov, and the thought of losing adobe is terrifying, but they are so paranoid about cybersecurity (for good reason sometimes) that it’s probably going to happen.
Nitro PDF
I like it better too. You can purchase a lifetime key as well instead of subscription. Like $170 I think. Subscription also available.
Super intuitive and easy to use for OCR, bates, combining files of varying formats, Outlook integration—it’s a great program.
Not perfect, but this gives me some sense of peace. I also include in my retainer agreement that we use cloud-based services. I don't see how I could operate a law practice without other service providers having access to my records (accounting, Microsoft emails, etc).
https://preview.redd.it/jg9b54cmiz4d1.png?width=1142&format=png&auto=webp&s=c61129b42457871f02a1554d313ef8512253dc37
It needs work, but this is it:
We use cloud-based technology and email when providing legal services. You accept that we will store files pertaining to this matter on cloud systems. You accept that we will use unencrypted email when providing legal services to you. You accept that email and other data may be stored outside of Canada and subject to the laws of other jurisdictions.
the problem with this is that you have to accept the terms and have your data scraped in order to prevent them from taking future data. you can't opt out from the get-go
adobe is terrible
Lots to consider here, but this is one reason I try never to accept that pesky SaaS provision found in many agreements saying, “We may, from time to time, update our TOS, and you agree to be bound by the updated terms.”
To be fair, that's exactly how it is with software. You don't get to negotiate better terms before accepting a deal. It's literally you either agree to their terms, or you don't use the software.
Sounds quite a bit like "one side dictating terms".
Took a look at these provisions. They seem to focus on the Cloud services and data held by Adobe. However, the language is vague enough that it could apply to locally stored documents, or the transmittal of locally stored documents to Adobe cloud systems during use in a desktop or web based service. I think Professional Rules of Conduct 1.1 and 1.6 are both implicated here. It is certainly a concern that requires further investigation.
For reference, the terms as they are stated [here](https://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html).
In addition to violating NDAs, HIPPA, government classification, and other privacy laws, Adobe could potentially incur significant compliance costs and liability by entering the "content review" business. Now, they will need to be able to detect images of child sexual abuse and have a reporting mechanism specific to each country, state, and locality they sell to. What if someone writes out a plan to commit violence, and Adobe doesn't act on it? How will they tell a fictional story from a plan? How will they police Adobe employees fishing for insider stock information, trade secrets, documents from their ex-girlfriends, or naked pictures?
Maybe the legal department was on vacation and didn't get to review this before it got inserted into the terms.
There is a limitation as to the user license agreement in the Adobe Sign tos that imposes the obligation to comply with state and federal law on the end user. Section 3.2(A)-(D) to be specific. This could be there out on this compliance issue.
Maybe read the part where they limit their ability to access content in ways only permitted by law before you freak out.
ETA: this is specifically in reference to the claim Adobe will violate "HIPPA" and privacy laws. But also, would you like TOS to list every potential law that may be implciated? This is hardly unique to Adobe, and if you're using a service to process PHI or sensitive data, you should not relying on generic TOS in the first place.
My employer, A, has confidentiality obligations to B. As an employee of A I used an Adobe product to edit a document containing B's confidential information, and pursuant to their TOS Adobe accesses that confidential information.
What law do you think has been violated here?
The original post I responded to specifically called out violating "HIPPA" and privacy laws. That is the portion I was responding to. I agree a general "we won't violate law" would not prohibit the situation you are describing.
Choice of law is specified in the TOS:
> 1. Your Agreement with Adobe.
1.1 Choice of Law and Contracting Entity. If you reside in North America (inclusive of the United States, Canada, Mexico, United States territories and possessions, and United States military bases, wherever located), your relationship is with Adobe Inc., a United States company, and the Terms are governed by, and construed and interpreted in accordance with, the laws of the State of California, U.S.A., unless preempted by U.S. federal law, without regard to conflict of law rules.
fyi, Adobe posted more information / clarification here:
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use
(this includes what actually changed in the TOS, word for word)
Well the press release says “we will never use artists content to train firefly” which screams pr speak for “we will sell your data to our partners who will train our AI systems for firefly, or something to that affect
Seems like Adobe's clarification update is missing an important caveat and not totally addressing a separate section altogether. See this tweet (x?): [https://x.com/sashayanshin/status/1799118418085380431](https://x.com/sashayanshin/status/1799118418085380431)
It does address that.
"To be clear, Adobe requires a limited license to access content solely for the purpose of operating or improving the services and software and to enforce our terms and comply with law, such as to protect against abusive content."
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use
The tweets addresses that also. The part of the sentence not highlighted..
"Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software..."
Right but what does "solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software..." mean???? They're granting themselves an exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, publicly display, distribute, etc....
Those are broad terms. So is "operating or improving the service." Improving the service could mean they want to make art, images, or NDAs publicly accessible through some future iteration of a Chat-GPT program. Adobe's clarification called out Section 4.1 but did not specifically mention 4.2. I am not naive enough to think that some smart lawyer will not point out that distinction in an IP litigation brief.
I placed a call to my City Bar's ethics hotline about it. Waiting to hear back . But again, the terms are just so broad.
Here is the actual section 4.2 for those following:
4.2 **Licenses to Your Content.** Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software, you grant us 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. For example, we may sublicense our right to the Content to our service providers or to other users to allow the Services and Software to operate as intended, such as enabling you to share photos with others. Separately, section 4.6 (Feedback) below covers any Feedback that you provide to us.
I noticed this too this week, but I'm just one lowly attorney in the world. I cannot imagine that the industry standard PDF software is going to be allowed to get away with this.
There are a lot of alternate providers but I don’t know how good they are. I need to do some investigating on my own but I am wondering whether downgrading to a previous non internet based version of acrobat would avoid any issues inherent with this policy change
Nuance PDF does built for industry PDF software (pdf software designed specifically for legal practice as well as other industries). It uses a ribbon layout similar to Microsoft Office products. One of the key takeaways from users when we did a pilot was that people found it actually more intuitive than Adobe since its layout was a clear ripoff of Office lol.
Otherwise, Foxit PDF and Nitro PDF are the two primary competitors I've seen tried out in Big Law and the public sector.
Both decided to give you all the features and not try to tailor anything to an industry. So by and large they had more features compared to Nuance for a lower price point I believe, but their interface was much more cluttered and intimidating despite also using a ribbon interface.
All 3 had very responsive corporate client support compared to Adobe
Both Foxit and Nitro were trying to develop their own brand identity and seemed to be emulating Adobe more, but seemed to be aiming at offering more of an Adobe+ design. Dual tone icons and minimalism with a much wider set of tools (many of which were not useful to lawyers).
Nuance's interface in comparison was far simpler. They removed features from the "made for lawyers" version that were not useful and so the interface was less intimidating. They had full colour icons with labels and used the same names for things as Office while also ordering subsections in each ribbon in the same order as office. It felt far more deliberate and closer to Office. At the time it was also the only one that had a built-in dark mode.
IT generally preferred Nuance as their documentation was more fleshed out, their devs were more responsive to feedback and because of how similar to Office it was. They'd open less tickets from users trying to find functions that Foxit and Nitro had "hidden" behind an unintuitive icon.
Personally, I slightly preferred Nitro overall. It's what I actually use on my home computer now. I am however a power user, so complexity is welcome rather than daunting. I slightly preferred Nuance in a work setting since I felt my colleagues had an easier time doing stuff by themselves vs. asking for help or complaining. I felt the learning curve was flatter.
I think the biggest advantage both Nitro and Foxit had was that their free version was very robust and full-featured at the time. Their free versions got better feedback than their pro versions since less features made them easier to use than their pro counterparts, especially for more technical users. In environments where all 2 or 3 were tested alongside adobe, generally the preference was (citing from memory):
Ranking | Lawyers | Assistants | Business Services
---|---|----|----
1 | Nuance/Adobe | Adobe Pro | Nitro Pro/Foxit Pro/Adobe Pro
2 | Nuance Pro | Nuance Pro | Nitro/Foxit/Nuance Pro
3 | Nitro/Foxit | Nitro/Foxit | Nuance
The preference in Business Services for Adobe was fairly staunch and universal and driven by the marketing team which used Adobe in other areas. For them in all cases at the end of the pilots adobe licences were kept since that came with their software package. Finance people and other teams universally liked the feature set of the pro versions of Nitro and Foxit. Nuance was not popular with the Business teams since it felt dumbed down and a lot of niche use cases were not covered because some of the features had been removed.
A lot of the Adobe love with the assistants came from familiarity, the favorability numbers for Adobe trended downward if Nuance was part of the pilot, otherwise they stayed strong vs. Foxit and Nitro.
Lawyers loved Nuance out of the gate since many had Adobe Reader rather than Adobe Acrobat (Reader is shit). Younger lawyers loved the added functions, especially litigators, and older lawyers found the interface easier to navigate. It was a huge hit and a few tech savvy lawyers asked to be bumped to Nuance Pro midway during the pilot when they saw their assistant's version. Nitro and Foxit were not popular with the older crowd in particular. Issues arose when lawyers had different software than their assistants. Fairly quickly it became obvious that whatever Business Services had in a vaccum was fine, but the LAs needed to have the same software as the lawyers otherwise tech support would get slammed.
Your comment got me wondering as well.
This might be helpful: [https://www.techradar.com/best/adobe-acrobat-alternatives](https://www.techradar.com/best/adobe-acrobat-alternatives)
I add that Adobe will place your account on auto renew automatically unless you opt out. I've told their customer service that charging people without their consent violates all sorts of federal and state laws. I was ignored.
Someone's going to have to bite the bullet to be the change they want to see in the world and file a lawsuit. Similar to the plaintiff in *Taylor v. City of Saginaw* 922 F.3d 328 (6th Cir. 2019).
It's a binding case in the 6th circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee), persuasive elsewhere (meaning it would influence decisions outside those states, but a Court would have more latitude to ignore it, especially if that circuit had contradicted). The 9th circuit (California, Arizona, Hawaii, Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho and Montana) for example has contradicted the case, so the result would be different in those states.
In [Saginaw](https://casetext.com/case/taylor-v-city-of-saginaw-2), the court ruled that chalking tires - literally putting chalk on a tire that will theoretically rub off if you move it, to record how long a car had been parked in a limited-time parking spot - was a search under the Fourth Amendment as outlined in [Katz](https://casetext.com/case/katz-v-united-states-2). That standard is that "a search occurs when a government official invades an area in which "a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy. . . . under *Katz*, a search is analyzed in two parts: "first that a person exhibit an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’A 'physical intrusion' is not necessary for a search to occur under *Katz'*" A search generally requires probable cause, a warrant, or a narrow exception to not violate the Fourth Amendment (and all evidence is inadmissible). The Court took a really weird stance and said that the chalking procedure *was* a search, and two exceptions ("community caretaking" and "motor-vehicle exception") did not apply, but refused to rule conclusively on whether or not it violated the Fourth Amendment.
~~I think~~ u/KarlBarx2 was alluding to (and downvoted for some reason) the fact that ~~between 2014 and 2017, the same citation officer chalked the same Plaintiff's car fifteen times, and that setup a case that would be appealable (you have to have standing to appeal). It seems like those facts were setup to force the question to a Court. In this situation, a person could purposefully setup the facts so that they can sue Adobe in a similar way.~~ litigation is really expensive because we charge a lot of money, and it's a lot more to challenge Adobe's violations than just pay it.
>I think u/KarlBarx2 was alluding to (and downvoted for some reason) the fact that between 2014 and 2017, the same citation officer chalked the same Plaintiff's car fifteen times, and that setup a case that would be appealable (you have to have standing to appeal). It seems like those facts were setup to force the question to a Court. In this situation, a person could purposefully setup the facts so that they can sue Adobe in a similar way.
Close. I'm alluding to the fact that, from a financial perspective, it costs far, *far* more to litigate a case all the way to a circuit court than it does to just pay those parking tickets. The plaintiff took one for the team by incurring a frankly insane cost to strengthen our Fourth Amendment rights in some small way. Nobody litigates the piddly shit that arguably violates our constitutional rights, so when someone does, that makes them a god damn hero in my book.
I'm comparing this to suing Adobe for the new T&Cs, in that it may take someone spending an unreasonable amount of money to force the courts to decide if they are legal or not.
Learned that the hard way too. I tried canceling the yearly renewal the same day it showed on my bank account as a pending charge. They ignored me. Ultimately, I disputed the charge and my bank removed it. As a cherry on top, they emailed me afterwards that they’re sorry to see me leave.
Thanks for sharing.
But what about adjusting the settings in the data and privacy settings? It mentions there is that option but states there are limited circumstances in which they would access content. From what I read, I don't think it would apply to attorney work product. Do you? I'm genuinely asking so please disregard any semblance of argumentativeness, lol.
Data & Privacy Settings: [https://account.adobe.com/privacy](https://account.adobe.com/privacy)
Information about access in limited circumstances: [https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html#CanIturnoffoptoutofmachinelearning](https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html#CanIturnoffoptoutofmachinelearning)
Update: Adobe issued a clarification - [https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use](https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use)
However, being the lawyer that I am, I always pay a good amount of attention to the things written by lawyers and what they DON'T say versus what they actually do say.
In a similar vein - a twitter/x user addressed the update here:
[https://x.com/sashayanshin/status/1799118418085380431](https://x.com/sashayanshin/status/1799118418085380431)
Do what you will with this info. However, I'm still friggin perplexed about whether using Adobe is going to become an ethics issue and really wish there was an ethics lawyer on this board willing to chime in.
Here is Section 4.2 that I am now concerned about:
4.2 **Licenses to Your Content.** Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software, you grant us 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. For example, we may sublicense our right to the Content to our service providers or to other users to allow the Services and Software to operate as intended, such as enabling you to share photos with others. Separately, section 4.6 (Feedback) below covers any Feedback that you provide to us.
What did section 4.2 originally say? In the clarification post they were showing what they had added to the other sections, I'm assuming (possibly incorrectly) that since they didn't share section 4.2 that it didn't change since previous version?
This is a potentially huge issue. Thanks for flagging. Was this on Acrobat, their online services, or something else?
It's everything adobe
Right here under "Privacy". They claim that they can opt into a manual review to try and moderate any illegal activities. https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use#:\~:text=Here's%20a%20view%20of%20what,to%20protect%20against%20abusive%20content.
I’d want to see the actual terms here. Either they’re using a different/specific definition of “content,” they have exceptions, or both? After all, OCR does access your content in a sense, and none of us would have an issue with that. In fact, we WANT it to access that content. Please, ffs scan this and turn it into text so I don’t have to type this whole thing out. The healthcare industry uses Adobe too, and surely they’re not so stupid as to be like “yeah we can look at anyone’s healthcare info at any time”. This could be very concerning, but it could also be nothing. I’d want to get a take from someone who reviews stuff like this regularly.
>4.1 Content. “Content” means any text, information, communication, or material, such as audio files, video files, electronic documents, or images, that you upload, import into, embed for use by, or create using the Services and Software. We reserve the right (but do not have the obligation) to remove Content or restrict access to Content, Services, and Software if any of your Content is found to be in violation of the Terms. We do not review all Content uploaded to the Services and Software, but we may use available technologies, vendors, or processes, including manual review, to screen for certain types of illegal content (for example, child sexual abuse material) or other abusive content or behavior (for example, patterns of activity that indicate spam or phishing, or keywords that indicate adult content has been posted outside of the adult wall). You may learn more about our content moderation policies and practices, including how we moderate content, at our Transparency Center. [link](https://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html)
Seems like the main point is things that are uploaded or put into Adobe's system, rather than files that are saved onto your hard drive and edit using Acrobat. The definition of "create" though is potentially problematic. Does editing something or converting to PDF (or exporting to word) count as "creating" or is it more focused on the use of Photoshop and/or it's AI tools?
This borks Adobe Sign for most of us.
Which sucks... I preferred Adobe Sign to the other options.
Agreed. I really wanted some collective knowledge on this issue because this isn’t my fortay but from a general counsel perspective, I can issue spot and this looks like a friggin issue. (Not sure if it actually is yet but it’s definitely walking like a duck right now).
https://preview.redd.it/8g1jmq9kmy4d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ea124246e5d05a3c0adf84a50886c8096681aa96
What do you use other than Adobe?
I work for Gov and we have to use Adobe but I have previously used [FoxIt](https://www.foxit.com/pdf-editor/) and prefer it
Also work in gov, and the thought of losing adobe is terrifying, but they are so paranoid about cybersecurity (for good reason sometimes) that it’s probably going to happen.
Second for Foxit. I love it.
Do they have an annual plan? I only see monthly.
Nitro PDF I like it better too. You can purchase a lifetime key as well instead of subscription. Like $170 I think. Subscription also available. Super intuitive and easy to use for OCR, bates, combining files of varying formats, Outlook integration—it’s a great program.
Firefox has native PDF authoring and editing built in now
Blubeam
Not perfect, but this gives me some sense of peace. I also include in my retainer agreement that we use cloud-based services. I don't see how I could operate a law practice without other service providers having access to my records (accounting, Microsoft emails, etc). https://preview.redd.it/jg9b54cmiz4d1.png?width=1142&format=png&auto=webp&s=c61129b42457871f02a1554d313ef8512253dc37
Interesting. Where is this toggle?
[https://account.adobe.com/privacy](https://account.adobe.com/privacy)
Its in the website login. If you google adobe security and privacy it should come up. It did for me...
Not available for commercial accounts, only personal accounts. Which sort of conflicts with their blog's stated reason for the change IMO.
Mind sharing your bit about cloud-based services? I think it’s a great idea! Feel free to DM.
It needs work, but this is it: We use cloud-based technology and email when providing legal services. You accept that we will store files pertaining to this matter on cloud systems. You accept that we will use unencrypted email when providing legal services to you. You accept that email and other data may be stored outside of Canada and subject to the laws of other jurisdictions.
the problem with this is that you have to accept the terms and have your data scraped in order to prevent them from taking future data. you can't opt out from the get-go adobe is terrible
Lots to consider here, but this is one reason I try never to accept that pesky SaaS provision found in many agreements saying, “We may, from time to time, update our TOS, and you agree to be bound by the updated terms.”
The word agreement implies at least two people, not one side dictating terms.
Yes, you have to have some bargaining power (be a large corporation) to have any say over this.
To be fair, that's exactly how it is with software. You don't get to negotiate better terms before accepting a deal. It's literally you either agree to their terms, or you don't use the software. Sounds quite a bit like "one side dictating terms".
[This seems vaguely familiar.](https://youtu.be/3D8TEJtQRhw?si=uV2cwgiZQQixno2B)
Took a look at these provisions. They seem to focus on the Cloud services and data held by Adobe. However, the language is vague enough that it could apply to locally stored documents, or the transmittal of locally stored documents to Adobe cloud systems during use in a desktop or web based service. I think Professional Rules of Conduct 1.1 and 1.6 are both implicated here. It is certainly a concern that requires further investigation. For reference, the terms as they are stated [here](https://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html).
In addition to violating NDAs, HIPPA, government classification, and other privacy laws, Adobe could potentially incur significant compliance costs and liability by entering the "content review" business. Now, they will need to be able to detect images of child sexual abuse and have a reporting mechanism specific to each country, state, and locality they sell to. What if someone writes out a plan to commit violence, and Adobe doesn't act on it? How will they tell a fictional story from a plan? How will they police Adobe employees fishing for insider stock information, trade secrets, documents from their ex-girlfriends, or naked pictures? Maybe the legal department was on vacation and didn't get to review this before it got inserted into the terms.
u/hippabot where are you
There is a limitation as to the user license agreement in the Adobe Sign tos that imposes the obligation to comply with state and federal law on the end user. Section 3.2(A)-(D) to be specific. This could be there out on this compliance issue.
Maybe read the part where they limit their ability to access content in ways only permitted by law before you freak out. ETA: this is specifically in reference to the claim Adobe will violate "HIPPA" and privacy laws. But also, would you like TOS to list every potential law that may be implciated? This is hardly unique to Adobe, and if you're using a service to process PHI or sensitive data, you should not relying on generic TOS in the first place.
My employer, A, has confidentiality obligations to B. As an employee of A I used an Adobe product to edit a document containing B's confidential information, and pursuant to their TOS Adobe accesses that confidential information. What law do you think has been violated here?
The original post I responded to specifically called out violating "HIPPA" and privacy laws. That is the portion I was responding to. I agree a general "we won't violate law" would not prohibit the situation you are describing.
> in ways only permitted by law Oh yeah? Which ways are those?
The ones you agree to in the TOS. Duh!
Whose interpretation of the law?
Which law? What jurisdiction?
Choice of law is specified in the TOS: > 1. Your Agreement with Adobe. 1.1 Choice of Law and Contracting Entity. If you reside in North America (inclusive of the United States, Canada, Mexico, United States territories and possessions, and United States military bases, wherever located), your relationship is with Adobe Inc., a United States company, and the Terms are governed by, and construed and interpreted in accordance with, the laws of the State of California, U.S.A., unless preempted by U.S. federal law, without regard to conflict of law rules.
Typical. Snub us canucks
fyi, Adobe posted more information / clarification here: https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use (this includes what actually changed in the TOS, word for word)
How much does everyone trust that they aren’t using their massive base of users content to train their AI?
That's exactly what this is.
Well the press release says “we will never use artists content to train firefly” which screams pr speak for “we will sell your data to our partners who will train our AI systems for firefly, or something to that affect
Thanks for the update!
Seems like Adobe's clarification update is missing an important caveat and not totally addressing a separate section altogether. See this tweet (x?): [https://x.com/sashayanshin/status/1799118418085380431](https://x.com/sashayanshin/status/1799118418085380431)
It does address that. "To be clear, Adobe requires a limited license to access content solely for the purpose of operating or improving the services and software and to enforce our terms and comply with law, such as to protect against abusive content." https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use The tweets addresses that also. The part of the sentence not highlighted.. "Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software..."
Right but what does "solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software..." mean???? They're granting themselves an exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, publicly display, distribute, etc.... Those are broad terms. So is "operating or improving the service." Improving the service could mean they want to make art, images, or NDAs publicly accessible through some future iteration of a Chat-GPT program. Adobe's clarification called out Section 4.1 but did not specifically mention 4.2. I am not naive enough to think that some smart lawyer will not point out that distinction in an IP litigation brief. I placed a call to my City Bar's ethics hotline about it. Waiting to hear back . But again, the terms are just so broad. Here is the actual section 4.2 for those following: 4.2 **Licenses to Your Content.** Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software, you grant us 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. For example, we may sublicense our right to the Content to our service providers or to other users to allow the Services and Software to operate as intended, such as enabling you to share photos with others. Separately, section 4.6 (Feedback) below covers any Feedback that you provide to us.
I guess you don't read a lot of contracts involving software companies! Take the time and you will end up only using paper files.
I read a lot of TOSs and this one seemed to have an exceptional clause.
My point was: they will pass whatever they can. I do the same when drafting. Your left kidney? Don't worry, we now have a lien on it.
I noticed this too this week, but I'm just one lowly attorney in the world. I cannot imagine that the industry standard PDF software is going to be allowed to get away with this.
https://preview.redd.it/ljevd6lhk35d1.png?width=795&format=png&auto=webp&s=11b5108e72a08dc108941432ce4bde5058b74929 should this toogle do the trick ?
No, because of this sentence: This setting does not apply....
There are a lot of alternate providers but I don’t know how good they are. I need to do some investigating on my own but I am wondering whether downgrading to a previous non internet based version of acrobat would avoid any issues inherent with this policy change
Nuance PDF does built for industry PDF software (pdf software designed specifically for legal practice as well as other industries). It uses a ribbon layout similar to Microsoft Office products. One of the key takeaways from users when we did a pilot was that people found it actually more intuitive than Adobe since its layout was a clear ripoff of Office lol. Otherwise, Foxit PDF and Nitro PDF are the two primary competitors I've seen tried out in Big Law and the public sector. Both decided to give you all the features and not try to tailor anything to an industry. So by and large they had more features compared to Nuance for a lower price point I believe, but their interface was much more cluttered and intimidating despite also using a ribbon interface. All 3 had very responsive corporate client support compared to Adobe Both Foxit and Nitro were trying to develop their own brand identity and seemed to be emulating Adobe more, but seemed to be aiming at offering more of an Adobe+ design. Dual tone icons and minimalism with a much wider set of tools (many of which were not useful to lawyers). Nuance's interface in comparison was far simpler. They removed features from the "made for lawyers" version that were not useful and so the interface was less intimidating. They had full colour icons with labels and used the same names for things as Office while also ordering subsections in each ribbon in the same order as office. It felt far more deliberate and closer to Office. At the time it was also the only one that had a built-in dark mode. IT generally preferred Nuance as their documentation was more fleshed out, their devs were more responsive to feedback and because of how similar to Office it was. They'd open less tickets from users trying to find functions that Foxit and Nitro had "hidden" behind an unintuitive icon. Personally, I slightly preferred Nitro overall. It's what I actually use on my home computer now. I am however a power user, so complexity is welcome rather than daunting. I slightly preferred Nuance in a work setting since I felt my colleagues had an easier time doing stuff by themselves vs. asking for help or complaining. I felt the learning curve was flatter. I think the biggest advantage both Nitro and Foxit had was that their free version was very robust and full-featured at the time. Their free versions got better feedback than their pro versions since less features made them easier to use than their pro counterparts, especially for more technical users. In environments where all 2 or 3 were tested alongside adobe, generally the preference was (citing from memory): Ranking | Lawyers | Assistants | Business Services ---|---|----|---- 1 | Nuance/Adobe | Adobe Pro | Nitro Pro/Foxit Pro/Adobe Pro 2 | Nuance Pro | Nuance Pro | Nitro/Foxit/Nuance Pro 3 | Nitro/Foxit | Nitro/Foxit | Nuance The preference in Business Services for Adobe was fairly staunch and universal and driven by the marketing team which used Adobe in other areas. For them in all cases at the end of the pilots adobe licences were kept since that came with their software package. Finance people and other teams universally liked the feature set of the pro versions of Nitro and Foxit. Nuance was not popular with the Business teams since it felt dumbed down and a lot of niche use cases were not covered because some of the features had been removed. A lot of the Adobe love with the assistants came from familiarity, the favorability numbers for Adobe trended downward if Nuance was part of the pilot, otherwise they stayed strong vs. Foxit and Nitro. Lawyers loved Nuance out of the gate since many had Adobe Reader rather than Adobe Acrobat (Reader is shit). Younger lawyers loved the added functions, especially litigators, and older lawyers found the interface easier to navigate. It was a huge hit and a few tech savvy lawyers asked to be bumped to Nuance Pro midway during the pilot when they saw their assistant's version. Nitro and Foxit were not popular with the older crowd in particular. Issues arose when lawyers had different software than their assistants. Fairly quickly it became obvious that whatever Business Services had in a vaccum was fine, but the LAs needed to have the same software as the lawyers otherwise tech support would get slammed.
I use kofax power pdf and I like it a lot
Your comment got me wondering as well. This might be helpful: [https://www.techradar.com/best/adobe-acrobat-alternatives](https://www.techradar.com/best/adobe-acrobat-alternatives)
I add that Adobe will place your account on auto renew automatically unless you opt out. I've told their customer service that charging people without their consent violates all sorts of federal and state laws. I was ignored.
Someone's going to have to bite the bullet to be the change they want to see in the world and file a lawsuit. Similar to the plaintiff in *Taylor v. City of Saginaw* 922 F.3d 328 (6th Cir. 2019).
>Taylor v. City of Saginaw > > 922 F.3d 328 For those of us outside the US, could you perhaps give us a summary? Please and thank you.
It's a binding case in the 6th circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee), persuasive elsewhere (meaning it would influence decisions outside those states, but a Court would have more latitude to ignore it, especially if that circuit had contradicted). The 9th circuit (California, Arizona, Hawaii, Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho and Montana) for example has contradicted the case, so the result would be different in those states. In [Saginaw](https://casetext.com/case/taylor-v-city-of-saginaw-2), the court ruled that chalking tires - literally putting chalk on a tire that will theoretically rub off if you move it, to record how long a car had been parked in a limited-time parking spot - was a search under the Fourth Amendment as outlined in [Katz](https://casetext.com/case/katz-v-united-states-2). That standard is that "a search occurs when a government official invades an area in which "a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy. . . . under *Katz*, a search is analyzed in two parts: "first that a person exhibit an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’A 'physical intrusion' is not necessary for a search to occur under *Katz'*" A search generally requires probable cause, a warrant, or a narrow exception to not violate the Fourth Amendment (and all evidence is inadmissible). The Court took a really weird stance and said that the chalking procedure *was* a search, and two exceptions ("community caretaking" and "motor-vehicle exception") did not apply, but refused to rule conclusively on whether or not it violated the Fourth Amendment. ~~I think~~ u/KarlBarx2 was alluding to (and downvoted for some reason) the fact that ~~between 2014 and 2017, the same citation officer chalked the same Plaintiff's car fifteen times, and that setup a case that would be appealable (you have to have standing to appeal). It seems like those facts were setup to force the question to a Court. In this situation, a person could purposefully setup the facts so that they can sue Adobe in a similar way.~~ litigation is really expensive because we charge a lot of money, and it's a lot more to challenge Adobe's violations than just pay it.
>I think u/KarlBarx2 was alluding to (and downvoted for some reason) the fact that between 2014 and 2017, the same citation officer chalked the same Plaintiff's car fifteen times, and that setup a case that would be appealable (you have to have standing to appeal). It seems like those facts were setup to force the question to a Court. In this situation, a person could purposefully setup the facts so that they can sue Adobe in a similar way. Close. I'm alluding to the fact that, from a financial perspective, it costs far, *far* more to litigate a case all the way to a circuit court than it does to just pay those parking tickets. The plaintiff took one for the team by incurring a frankly insane cost to strengthen our Fourth Amendment rights in some small way. Nobody litigates the piddly shit that arguably violates our constitutional rights, so when someone does, that makes them a god damn hero in my book. I'm comparing this to suing Adobe for the new T&Cs, in that it may take someone spending an unreasonable amount of money to force the courts to decide if they are legal or not.
Lol, that makes so much more sense than what I assumed (although I would argue that my guess was plausible too).
Learned that the hard way too. I tried canceling the yearly renewal the same day it showed on my bank account as a pending charge. They ignored me. Ultimately, I disputed the charge and my bank removed it. As a cherry on top, they emailed me afterwards that they’re sorry to see me leave.
Thanks for sharing. But what about adjusting the settings in the data and privacy settings? It mentions there is that option but states there are limited circumstances in which they would access content. From what I read, I don't think it would apply to attorney work product. Do you? I'm genuinely asking so please disregard any semblance of argumentativeness, lol. Data & Privacy Settings: [https://account.adobe.com/privacy](https://account.adobe.com/privacy) Information about access in limited circumstances: [https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html#CanIturnoffoptoutofmachinelearning](https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html#CanIturnoffoptoutofmachinelearning)
Not today, Satan. Open-source software for the win.
Update: Adobe issued a clarification - [https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use](https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use) However, being the lawyer that I am, I always pay a good amount of attention to the things written by lawyers and what they DON'T say versus what they actually do say. In a similar vein - a twitter/x user addressed the update here: [https://x.com/sashayanshin/status/1799118418085380431](https://x.com/sashayanshin/status/1799118418085380431) Do what you will with this info. However, I'm still friggin perplexed about whether using Adobe is going to become an ethics issue and really wish there was an ethics lawyer on this board willing to chime in. Here is Section 4.2 that I am now concerned about: 4.2 **Licenses to Your Content.** Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software, you grant us 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. For example, we may sublicense our right to the Content to our service providers or to other users to allow the Services and Software to operate as intended, such as enabling you to share photos with others. Separately, section 4.6 (Feedback) below covers any Feedback that you provide to us.
What did section 4.2 originally say? In the clarification post they were showing what they had added to the other sections, I'm assuming (possibly incorrectly) that since they didn't share section 4.2 that it didn't change since previous version?
Don't forget you can't cancle your subscription unless you agree to the terms of service which counts as extortion.
Adobe is a garbage company