P: Generated images violate user guidelines

I HAVE GOTTEN THIS PROBLEM TOO, I CANNOT USE GENERATIVE EXPAND IN ANY PHOTO, EVEN IN THE MOST SIMPLE PHOTOS. 

The Royal Photographic Society, and, I expect, every other leading photographic authority, is grappling with the issues that AI in photography brings, in regard to the production and submission of images as part of the process towards the award of a distinction.  It has long been required that the image must be entirely from the author.  For example, textures must have been created by the author, not downloaded or adopted from post-processing software.  That AI was creeping into post-processing software was recognised, but it was accepted that little could be done to prevent (say) an author using the AI-supported Remove tool in Photoshop rather than the Healing Brush.  That said, where the tool borrows from the image itself, no additional material is added, so it satisfies the current requirements.  However, other software such as ON1 Photo Raw 2024 is way ahead of Photoshop in its use of AI and it seems clear that material is sourced externally.  Doubtless, Adobe will have to follow suit or be left behind.  THAT will pose a growing problem for determining the award of distinctions.

@3Hounds 

If you think that the phone camera, DSLR or mirrorless camera you’re using to create “your image” doesn’t contain AI, coded algorithms, computational photography, machine learning, etc. to produce an output, then you’re mistaken. Some even automatically replace elements for you – Google Samsung’s ‘moon replacement’!

So, applying your logic, the camera manufacturers are ‘involved’ in the creation of my image. Does that mean I should “expect some restrictions” in what I can shoot? That would be ridiculous.

You say "Adobe and the other artist's work become part of your work when ai GF is used."  Well I am a 100% supporter of proper payment being made to those image makers whose images get used to train AI, but that doesn’t mean that those creators (via my use of Adobe software) should get ongoing moral or artistic control to approve or disapprove my work every time I create something new using it.

I agree as well and have said the same thing.  We are all adults in the room.  If you want to retard creativity with this new tool, you have succeeded.  We will find a way around your fence. 

A valid point with respect to the sample image posted. My comment was based on "me" shooting "my" own video and the company making the equipment not being responsible for or restricting it's features based on what "some" people may chose to do with it.

Regarding GF, I agree with you - if it isn't your original art. If I took a photo with my own camera and after the fact want to see what my model would look like in various outfits, some being some what risque', I should be able to do that (IMO) without the software company restricting my creative freedom based on "their" input.

That being said, it is their software and their company and they can do whatever they want. You'll get no complaints from me if they want to be the software that keeps imoral imagery from being generated with their products. In my opinion there's too much of that already (oldschool I guess) and as another comment stated, there are plenty of other software companies (and will be more I'm sure) that let you create whatever demonic crap you want so have at it if that's what you're into.

As I mentioned before, I'm an adult and chose to look at what I do and do not care for. Same goes for social media banning "whatever speech" they feel is offensive. Back in the days of real true freedom, if you didn't like what was being said or written, don't listen or read it. We don't need corporations being our parents but then, this is a whole different world. If you don't like the restrictions, don't buy the software.

@gadget13769, not at all the same thing... pen and pencil manufaturers don't create the image or part of it, just like Canon, Nikon, Apple or Samsung don't. Or Ford, Toyota and other vehicle manufacturers don't plow your car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk when you don't agree with the signs they're carrying. Adobe and the other artist's work become part of your work when ai GF is used.

@3Hounds   So, on that basis, you'd be happy to be banned from buying a Bic biro, Caran d'Ache pencils, or Daler paper, on the basis that you might use someone else's product to write or draw something illegal, or that some other unaccountable entity deems 'improper'?

Best take our cameras and computers off us too, then.....

I've been following many of these "morality police" and "freedom of expression" arguments for a while and have stayed out of the fray.

What I'm seeing that I don't think many others are, is that, yes, you can take an image with your camera or your phone. It may be decent, indecent, immoral or even illegal... but it's your image alone. If you use generative fill to augment that image, you're involving Adobe and any of the users whose images are pulled to help create that image. They have every right to protect themselves from any harm that may come from your "creative vision". Until there is a fail safe way for them to do that, you should expect some restrictions...

Well thought out and well written. One of the things I use my cell phone for is to video tape my grandchildren, others use it to shoot less "family friendly" content. Is it the phone company's responsibility to limit it's features because some people have lower morals (in one person's opinion) than others? I think we're all adult enough to look at imagery we appreciate and avoid content we don't. I'm old but we used to call that freedom of expression. Something that has almost dissapeared in one lifetime. What's next?

Agree! As I expressed these exact same concerns here before.