From Adobe’s new terms, according to 9to5mac:

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 with others, such as enabling you to share photos

I’ve been following the saga of Adobe and generative art for the last year, with their claims that they are taking a different approach to things. Instead of scouring the web for their source data (which would be breaking copyright of art), they’re pulling it from sources where they own the license. That’s interesting, but as Ben Thompson has pointed out in podcasts, they’re banking on being the place that corporations go to avoid any issues with copyright infringement. 

That may win out in the end, but this now seems to be the other side of it. If they’re now claiming that the art I’ve done, as an illustrator for 20+ years, could all be theirs? I find that absolutely outrageous. I’ve been on the fence for a while now about discontinuing Adobe products; this just might be the final piece to make me walkaway for good.