I'm going to step out of character and NOT spew anger at Adobe over this. I'm willing to believe that it could have been an overly aggressive lawyer thing. I just don't see Adobe trying to scam people into handing over their pictures with the intention of selling prints of them for a profit.
I don't really know the details, but my guess is that this is more like some other photo sharing sites where you have the option of letting people buy prints of your pictures online. I'm thinking they might have been planning to offer something like that, and for some reason decided to go for legal coverage for that up front rather than relying on people reading the fine print when they enabled the print option in their galleries.
Perhaps the profits thing was also in relation to some sort of web advertising.. say, while people are browsing the stored images maybe Adobe was thinking of showing ads. Maybe that was to secure the claim of the profits from that advertising.
It's fine to object to having that in the main license agreement if you're not planning to enable online printing, frankly I think they should remove it and redo things (which it sounds like they are doing). But I don't think their intention was really all that sinister, I think they were just trying to cover their butts, legally speaking, while trying to get into a field that's already full of companies doing similar things.
