Adobe recently launched a new free iPad app called Voice, which is basically a voiceover app that allows you to record your voice over text, images, graphics, and automated animation to quickly and easily create videos.

It's actually a really cool app. I was just playing around with it and was curious to see what kinds of images were available within the app. Within just a few minutes, I came across a Yuri image.



Uh oh...

The app legal info states that they source images from Google (brilliant), Flickr, 500px, and the Noun Project. They also claim that they incorporate Creative Commons filters to "help ensure that we return only image results from these other websites that have been tagged as 'for commercial use without modification'," but clearly they are also returning some copyrighted stuff as well. But since Google is one of the sources, that really doesn't mean much. Same with Flickr, lots of copyrighted stuff ends up on there, uploaded by people who don't own the images.

Looks like we're got another company playing fast and loose with copyright again.

Here's the overview video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6f0XMOHzoM

Edited to add:

Found another one.

Now I'm finding Shutterstock images on Adobe Voice. Like this one. And this one.

Adobe says they only source Creative Commons images, but that doesn't mean that everything marked CC in Google or Flickr is really CC.

It's sort of funny. Adobe tries so hard to stop copyright infringement and piracy of their IP, but here they're just assuming that everything on the web marked CC is truly CC. Wonder if someone were an Adobe software pirate and used the argument that they thought it was CC because they found it on a website that said so, if that would make it ok.

I thought it was strange that the free Behance account I get with the Creative Cloud subscription recommends you publish images under creative commons. Adobe seems like a natural fit for selling stock, but their head doesn't seem to be in it at all.

@Mike - have you contacted Adobe or Shutterstock about what you found?

I'm in contact with Adobe about it right now.

Adobe's response:

Quote

Unfortunately, Adobe doesn't have control the accuracy of license info from image repositories - image use rights http://www.adobe.com/legal/permissions/image-notice.html.

Wonderful. So they're just going to stick some legal disclaimer on it and act like that's due diligence.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. These big companies are happy to exploit the copyrighted work of artists when it suits their needs, but don't dare infringe on their copyrights unless you want a swarm of attorneys on your back.

But they can't use Google as if it were an image repository - it isn't. And if someone offers creative commons licensing on their article, they cannot offer it on a purchased stock image, so I can see how doing absolutely no work at all could lead Adobe to infringe an artist's copyright.

I think the message to Adobe is that if you're offering Adobe Voice, you need to exercise some control, not throw up your hands as if it had nothing to do with you. They're misleading the Voice users into thinking that it's OK to use this stuff.

Tossers!

I added a comment to this article about Adobe Voice. I'll try and find other places to speak up

http://www.macworld.com/article/2152585/adobe-voice-captures-some-of-apples-magic-in-its-video-storytelling-software.html

http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/08/adobe-voice/

http://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-bets-voice-app-will-help-people-make-persuasive-videos/

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/464926577218691072

I guess you could just sue them too. I'm sure Yuri has deep enough pockets. Professionals sue professionals.