... if a client sees an image of yours and wants to acquire exclusive usage rights from you. If you had that image in this service at one time or another you will legally not be able to grant your client the requested exclusive rights because you already granted a license to Adobe...
Doesn't this also make us liable for damages if we don't get a model release? If they take a picture I took and sell it to coke and coke puts it in an ad, then the person in the picture can sue me. That's my understanding. I'm going to pass and suggest everyone do the same until it is cleared up by Adobe's lawyers.
I would argue that nobody in his right mind would use a free web-based service for business purposes. No matter what the license terms are, it sounds like a recipe for disaster.
If you're taking/processing images for a living, then buy a powerful-enough computer and the software to do your job. The last thing you want to do is place your business at the mercy of a large faceless corporation that couldn't care less about you.
This is why I despise things like Windows' "Genuine Advantage". Even if the system is not abused, I would never want to give Microsoft (or anyone else) the ability to flip a switch and shutdown all my computers. Photoshop Express is even worse - not only can they shut it/you down without notice, they also have possession of your documents.
I wonder why US lawyers don't seem to be able to create reasonable terms the first time.
That's not the first time lawyers make terms and conditions that cover their client's ass with several layers of safety nets but alienate their client's customers at the same time.
They could make reasonable licenses up front, but they usually have little incentive to do so.
They aren't being paid by their clients' customers, so they have no reason to protect the rights of those customers, unless their client explicitly asks them to.
These contracts usually also have a clause along the lines of "if any term is illegal or unenforceable, it doesn't invalidate any other terms". This is because they like to "shutgun" as many restrictions as they can. It will scare customers who don't know the law into obedience, and (if the terms aren't challenged) they set precedent for even more restrictive terms in the future.
Adobe certainly won't care unless it costs them customers. And who is going to stop using Creative Suite because of a clause in a different product's license?
