When users first learned of Adobe’s new terms of service (quietly updated in February), there was an uproar. Adobe tells users they can access their content “through both automated and manual methods” and uses “techniques like machine learning to improve [Adobe’s] Services and Software.” Many interpreted the update as the company forcing users to grant unlimited access to their work for the purpose of training Adobe’s synthetic AI, called Firefly.
Late Tuesday, Adobe issued a clarification: In a Updated version of the terms of service agreementthey pledge not to train AI on user content stored locally or in the cloud, and give users the option to opt out of content analysis.
Caught in Conflicts between intellectual property lawsuits, the vague language used to update previous terms has shed light on the intense atmosphere of skepticism among artists, many of whom rely too heavily on Adobe for their work. “They broke our trust,” said Jon Lam, senior storyboard artist at Riot Games. discovered images created in his artistic style were sold under his name on Adobe’s stock images page without his consent. Earlier this month, the legacy of the late photographer Ansel Adams publicly scolded Adobe for allegedly selling innovative AI simulations of his work.
Scott Belsky, Adobe’s chief strategy officer, tried to allay concerns when artists began protesting, clarify that machine learning refers to the company’s non-generative AI tools—Photoshop’s “Content-Aware” tool, which allows users to seamlessly remove objects in images, is one of many is done through machine learning. But while Adobe maintains that the updated terms do not give ownership of content to the company and that it will never use user content to train Firefly, the misunderstanding has sparked a discussion larger about the company’s market monopoly and how a change like this could threaten the livelihoods of artists. at any point. Lam is one of the artists who still believes that, despite Adobe’s clarification, the company will use work created on its platform to train Firefly without the creator’s consent.
Concerns about non-consensual use and monetization of copyrighted works of generative AI models are not new. Early last year, artist Karla Ortiz was able to upload images of her work using her name to various AI models, an offense that led to a wave of protests. class action lawsuit against Midjourney, DeviantArt and Stability AI. Ortiz isn’t alone—Polish fantasy artist Greg Rutkowski has found out His name is one of the most commonly used reminders in Steady Diffusion when it first launches in 2022.
As the owner of Photoshop and creator of PDF files, Adobe has maintained its position as the industry standard for more than 30 years, powering much of the creative class. Efforts to acquire a product design company Figma is blocked and abandoned in 2023 because antitrust concerns attest to its size.
