I saw this in the Wall Street Journal. Photoshop online express service launched this morning. It seems though that you can't edit RAW images during this beta test. http://www.macworld.com/article/132715/ ... press.html
There has to be a catch. Other than the fact you have to relenquish your copyrights by default when you post images to their online gallery (read the terms and conditions, it says by doing so you allow anyone to make prints of your pics), so either it's free up to 2GB, and you'll have to pay for more later, or they'll make their money from making prints. I think after the beta it'll morph into free for a little bit of storage, and pay for more, a la Flickr.
Thanks Roger I hadn't read the terms and conditions. I will definitely not use it. When I started uploading to picasa albums as off site full res backups I read the terms very carefully.
Heck even Rob Galbraith noticed it, and I didn't notice the full part about the profits from the images uploaded. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/conten ... -9308-9358 It's almost time to pull a boycott adobe siggie out from the 2001 year.
I still think Picnik.com is a better deal. Free to get a very good online photo editor and only $25 a year to get a great online editor. Oh, and I don't believe they ask for rights to your photos either. I can't believe Adobe would do that of all companies. The lawyers must have been very adamant about it.
Adobe claims their lawyers were overly aggressive and they were never planning on doing what it gave them rights to do so. If so, why did they put it in there. I think they're red-faced because they got caught. Maybe it'll never get out of beta as it is currently written.
I'm going to step out of character and NOT spew anger at Adobe over this. I'm willing to believe that it could have been an overly aggressive lawyer thing. I just don't see Adobe trying to scam people into handing over their pictures with the intention of selling prints of them for a profit. I don't really know the details, but my guess is that this is more like some other photo sharing sites where you have the option of letting people buy prints of your pictures online. I'm thinking they might have been planning to offer something like that, and for some reason decided to go for legal coverage for that up front rather than relying on people reading the fine print when they enabled the print option in their galleries. Perhaps the profits thing was also in relation to some sort of web advertising.. say, while people are browsing the stored images maybe Adobe was thinking of showing ads. Maybe that was to secure the claim of the profits from that advertising. It's fine to object to having that in the main license agreement if you're not planning to enable online printing, frankly I think they should remove it and redo things (which it sounds like they are doing). But I don't think their intention was really all that sinister, I think they were just trying to cover their butts, legally speaking, while trying to get into a field that's already full of companies doing similar things.
Adobe's updated their TOS effective 4/10. https://www.photoshop.com/express/pxterms.html While they're stating they won't *sell* your image, by publishing your images on their site, you give them a free license and sublicense rights to publicly display your images "sole purposes of operating the Service". Which to me would mean they could use your photos for free with any kind of ad, splash page, etc. without even having to credit you for the image.... still haven't figured out how they will make money from this other than ad income. So if they want to try and encourage people to come by....
