Adobe’s New AI Strategy: Eroding the Value of Creativity for Corporate Gain

As a long-standing contributor to Adobe Stock, I’ve watched with growing concern as Adobe’s latest strategy—the integration of generative AI—threatens the foundation of the very community that helped build its creative empire. While Adobe frames this as an enhancement to the platform, a closer look reveals a far more troubling reality for creators like myself. The company's actions raise serious concerns about its treatment of contributors, ownership of derivative works, and overall fairness.

Competing Against Our Own Work

Adobe’s recent communication suggests that clients will be able to take stock images—our original art—and modify them with AI tools to suit their specific needs. On the surface, this might sound beneficial, offering more opportunities for licensing. But let’s not sugarcoat it: what this really means is that Adobe has opened the door for contributors to compete against derivative versions of their own work.

These AI-modified works can be licensed on the very same platform as the original. Once modified, they can be marketed as new, potentially superior creations, relegating the original art to the sidelines. As a result, the original contributor is forced into direct competition with an altered version of their own creation, one that may even eclipse the original in commercial appeal. The reality is that the modified versions could easily draw more attention, especially if they’re tailored to a client’s needs more precisely, making the original less desirable.

Worse still, it’s unclear whether contributors will receive any additional compensation for these derivative works. We may only get paid for the initial license, while someone else capitalizes on a version of our work that no longer reflects our artistic vision. This is not just a financial issue—it's a fundamental violation of creative ownership. Adobe’s vague assurances provide little clarity on how contributors will be protected from having their work sidelined in favor of AI-enhanced "improvements."

Adobe’s Troubling Track Record with Users and Privacy

This shift comes at a time when Adobe has already been embroiled in controversy. The company was recently investigated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for unfair business practices related to its Creative Cloud subscription service. The complaint alleged that Adobe hid fees, making it difficult for users to cancel subscriptions without facing unexpected charges. These deceptive practices created a labyrinth of hurdles for consumers, who were often trapped into paying more than they bargained for.

This isn’t an isolated issue. In recent months, users and contributors have raised significant privacy concerns about Adobe’s data scanning policies, particularly within Photoshop. Customers have discovered that Adobe reserves the right to scan their images under vague terms, further eroding trust in a company that once prided itself on serving creators.

A Corporation Feeding on Its Own Creators

What we are witnessing is the dangerous evolution of a corporation that once set out to empower creatives. Adobe, emboldened by its near-monopoly on creative software, seems to have lost sight of its original mission. Instead of fostering an environment where artists can thrive, Adobe is now focused on maximizing corporate profits, even if that means feeding on the very artists it once supported.

By embracing generative AI without clear safeguards for contributors, Adobe risks reducing original artwork to mere fodder for AI-driven remixes. The original artists—those who poured time, effort, and passion into their creations—are at risk of becoming secondary players in this new corporate strategy.

Adobe’s questionable handling of its subscription services and its growing list of privacy concerns speak to a larger trend. It seems Adobe is willing to sacrifice user trust and artist integrity for short-term gains. This behavior is not just provocative—it’s reckless. And it has raised alarms across the board, from contributors to the FTC.

What Needs to Change

Adobe’s new AI strategy could be a pivotal moment for the industry—but only if implemented correctly. As contributors, we deserve clear answers and fair treatment. Here are a few immediate steps Adobe could take:

1. Fair Compensation for Derivatives:

Contributors must be compensated not only for the original license but also for any modified or derivative versions created using AI. It’s unacceptable for Adobe to claim the fruits of AI modifications without properly remunerating the original artists.

2. Stronger Protections for Artistic Ownership:

Adobe needs to ensure that contributors maintain clear rights to their work, even when it is altered by AI tools. Derivative versions should never be allowed to overshadow the original creation in the marketplace.

3. Transparency and Accountability:

Adobe’s opaque policies around licensing and data usage need a complete overhaul. Whether it’s subscription cancellations or AI-generated art, users and contributors deserve transparency in how their work and data are being used. Without this, trust in Adobe’s ecosystem will continue to erode.

A Call to Action

The creative community is the backbone of Adobe’s success. Without the artists, photographers, and designers who contribute their work, Adobe Stock would be an empty marketplace. Yet Adobe’s recent moves suggest they’ve forgotten this fundamental truth. If these practices continue unchecked, it won’t be long before more creators seek alternative platforms that respect their work and treat them fairly.

It’s time for Adobe to pause and reflect on the direction it’s heading. We are creators, not commodities. We deserve transparency, fair compensation, and respect for the work we produce. Until Adobe addresses these concerns, it will find that the very community it relies on is becoming increasingly disillusioned—and perhaps ready to walk away.