Re: Adobe: Genuine TOSser

Davoud wrote:
Fred Moore wrote:

...

"Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, with respect to Your Content that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed."

In other words, if you voluntarily grant Adobe a "worldwide,
royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully
sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other
remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate,
publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in
part) and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in
any format or medium now known or later developed," they might use that
license. Sounds reasonable to me.

But you _do_ _not_ have to grant such a license to Adobe if you don't
want to. So, what's the problem?

For example: Take a snappy picture of your new baby, share it on the Adobe site so the grandparents and all your relations can ooo and aw over the cute little tyke, and 6 months later you see your kid's face on a baby shampoo bottle at Wal-Mart cuz Adobe has flogged the image to a Chinese chemical manufacturer. You get nothing, and your baby gets the kind of fame no responsible parent would want for his child.

Oh, I see. Kids, can you say "paranoia?" There are a zillion ways to
post pix of the new baby without granting any rights to Adobe. If
granny has an Internet connection one could e-mail them. If you put pix
of your kid on the web in any way, they are subject to being used in
any way without your permission. I'm not much concerned with that sort
of thing because I don't subscribe to the "stranger-danger" philosophy;
I'm not afraid of strangers or afraid of people knowing where I live
(see switchboard.com for my address & phone no.,) or even afraid of
sales clerks knowing my credit card number. (I have given my Amex
number to hotels, restaurants, and shops in over 30 countries over the
years, and some of those countries were very hostile to the U.S.)

Indeed. At the heart of this is that fact that an EULA from some web site is not a release form. For your face to appear on a product package at some point you or your agent would have had to agree to something, usually in writing, that allows them to use your image. Releases are different than copyright or other content licenses, which have to do with ownership. The assumption is that you own your own image, and have pretty clear rights to how that image may be used in a commercial manner.

Of course, since I'm not a lawyer, this is probably incomplete. It is only my understanding based on my own research as a photographer.
--
clvrmnky <mailto:spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Direct replies to this address will be blacklisted. Replace "spamtrap" with my name to contact me directly.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Adobe: Genuine TOSser
    ... royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully ... sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other ... In other words, if you voluntarily grant Adobe a "worldwide, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.apps)
  • Re: Whats up with Adobe Reader and Windows Installer
    ... > I'm afraid not; I think they're doing work to fix this with Adobe. ... but this problem is more than just Adobe Acrobat. ... but this isn't a good enterprise solution. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.messenger)