http://www.hockleyphoto.com/photoshop-express-license/ Professional photography services for the Portland / Vancouver area Thu, 05 Jan 2012 06:23:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.hockleyphoto.com/photoshop-express-license/comment-page-1/#comment-229 nad33m.com Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:04:25 +0000 http://www.hockleyphoto.com/blog/photoshop-express-license/#comment-229 not good, but its still a free easy way to edit images. Cheaper than the $400 for the CS version at least. Maybe Adobe would pay you a fee if the decide to use any of your creations. not good, but its still a free easy way to edit images. Cheaper than the $400 for the CS version at least. Maybe Adobe would pay you a fee if the decide to use any of your creations.

]]> http://www.hockleyphoto.com/photoshop-express-license/comment-page-1/#comment-24 Revised Photoshop Express Terms: Better, But Still Disconcerting » Hockley Photography Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:21:57 +0000 http://www.hockleyphoto.com/blog/photoshop-express-license/#comment-24 [...] over the breadth of licensing conditions in Adobe’s original license for Photoshop Express (previous blog post), Adobe has posted a new Terms of Use Agreement to take effect on April 10th. They removed the part [...] [...] over the breadth of licensing conditions in Adobe’s original license for Photoshop Express (previous blog post), Adobe has posted a new Terms of Use Agreement to take effect on April 10th. They removed the part [...]

]]> http://www.hockleyphoto.com/photoshop-express-license/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Spike Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:56:03 +0000 http://www.hockleyphoto.com/blog/photoshop-express-license/#comment-8 This is not the same as Youtube's TOS at all. Youtube's are fairly standard, and allow them to use the uploaded content within the context of youtube's business, including promotion. It does not include re-selling rights, and it does not include a license in perpetuity. Please read the two documents carefully rather than on the surface, the differences are obvious. This is not the same as Youtube’s TOS at all. Youtube’s are fairly standard, and allow them to use the uploaded content within the context of youtube’s business, including promotion. It does not include re-selling rights, and it does not include a license in perpetuity. Please read the two documents carefully rather than on the surface, the differences are obvious.

]]> http://www.hockleyphoto.com/photoshop-express-license/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Aaron Fri, 28 Mar 2008 04:15:21 +0000 http://www.hockleyphoto.com/blog/photoshop-express-license/#comment-7 Adobe has apparently <a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/03/a_note_about_ps.html" rel="nofollow">acknowledged there's a problem</a> and their legal department is looking into it. I hope we hear some positive news soon on this issue. Adobe has apparently acknowledged there’s a problem and their legal department is looking into it. I hope we hear some positive news soon on this issue.

]]> http://www.hockleyphoto.com/photoshop-express-license/comment-page-1/#comment-6 Josh Bancroft Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:07:12 +0000 http://www.hockleyphoto.com/blog/photoshop-express-license/#comment-6 That's the same license YouTube uses, the same rights they claim, and the reason that I put my videos on blip.tv, where I retain full control, and don't have to agree to such egregious terms. It's also why I put my photos on Flickr, and looks like I'll be continuing to do so for the foreseeable future. That’s the same license YouTube uses, the same rights they claim, and the reason that I put my videos on blip.tv, where I retain full control, and don’t have to agree to such egregious terms. It’s also why I put my photos on Flickr, and looks like I’ll be continuing to do so for the foreseeable future.

]]>