Participant

Open for Voting

Limitation of Adobe Generative AI user guidelines [merged thread]

Forum|Forum|3 years ago
August 26, 2022
188 replies
122109 views

Hello Adobe and its collective users

I am writing to you not only as a devoted user of Adobe’s suite of creative tools but also as a professional photographer whose work has been recognized and displayed in museum settings. My specialization in classic nudes has allowed me to explore the human form in a manner that celebrates beauty, form, and artistic expression. However, I have encountered a significant challenge with the AI restrictions placed on editing images that contain nudity, even when such images are created within a professional, artistic context.

As an artist whose work often involves nuanced and sensitive subjects, I understand and respect the complexities of creating ethical AI tools that serve a wide user base. However, the current limitations significantly impact my creative process and professional workflow, particularly when it comes to editing backgrounds for nude or semi-nude images. These restrictions not only prolong my work but also inhibit my artistic expression, compelling me to seek alternative solutions that may not offer the same level of quality and integration as Adobe’s products.

I propose the consideration of the following points, which I believe could benefit both Adobe and its professional users:

Artistic Integrity and Professional Use: Recognition of the professional and artistic context in which tools are used can help differentiate between content that is genuinely creative and that which the restrictions aim to prevent.

Ethical Use Policy: An ethical use policy that accommodates professional artists and photographers, possibly through a verification process, ensuring that our work is not unduly censored while maintaining legal and ethical standards.

Custom Solutions for Professionals: The development of specialized software versions that allow more flexibility for editing sensitive content, with appropriate safeguards to prevent misuse.

Feedback and Advisory Panel: Establishing a panel of professionals from the art and photography community to provide ongoing feedback and insights on how Adobe’s tools can better serve creative professionals.

Transparent Guidelines: The creation of clear, transparent guidelines that navigate the legal and ethical landscape, especially regarding sensitive content, to ensure users can understand and comply with Adobe’s policies.

I am fully committed to engaging in a constructive dialogue and am willing to be part of a solution that respects both the creative needs of artists and the ethical considerations of digital content. I believe that by working together, we can find a balanced approach that supports artistic expression while adhering to shared values and responsibilities.

Thank you for considering my perspective on this matter. I am hopeful for an opportunity to discuss this further and explore how we can make Adobe’s tools even more inclusive and accommodating for professional artists and photographers. Steven Williams

Imaging

Show previous replies

A

AlessandraKal

Inspiring

questo succede perché Adobe ha una censura esagerata e può esserci anche solo una parola nel tuo prompt che lui non considera appropriata che non ti fa generare l'immagine. qualsiasi parola negativa come "bruciato", "catena", "gabbia" "triste", "piange", "accovacciato" o anche che indica una tipologia "bambino", "piedi nudi", "mani nude", "magro", "di pelle bianca", "di pelle nera", "ragazzo di circa 15 anni"... ecc. restituisce errore. Ormai la censura di Adobe non permette di rappresentare più niente... nemmeno la realtà purtroppo. 🙁 davvero triste questa cosa. Questo vuol dire manipolare l'informazione non tutelare. Queste cose al mondo ci sono ed è assurdo pensare di evitare di rappresentarle. Bisogna gestire la cosa in un altro modo. Io sto usando altri AI e poi cancellerò abbonamento

X

Xenohart

Known Participant

I am not a moderator or rep for Adobe, but in our other forum: https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem-discussions/ai-generative-guidelines-violation/m-p/15349441/page/2#M867587, we've seen images that pertain to Christian imagery, getting blocked. I presume this falls under Adobe's T&C of not making images that could hurt someone's feelings, because Adobe has decided they are the world's art gatekeeper. And, as I've posted elsewhere in this forum, if Adobe's AI can recognize children, it can recognize inappropriate material. So, unfortunately, that means there is a chance it could have categorized your picture into one of its anti-protected or hateful images / categories and used the kid excuse as just that, an excuse.

Monika Gause

Community Expert

images that pertain to Christian imagery,

By @Xenohart

Sorry, but that is scaremongering. Just try this prompt:

"A Christian scene from the bible with religious people from Nazareth gathering in a house kneeling for prayer to god"

I've included a lot of words in it that should trigger the religion police if there were any. It only doesn't exist. So probably it is something else with that image.

X

Xenohart

Known Participant

I appreciate your input and understand that your prompt may have worked fine. However, I wasn't scaremongering, so please don't make that assumption. I was just pointing out patterns I've observed, along with others. The thread I linked to, and this one, for example, illustrates related cases: https://community.adobe.com/t5/illustrator-discussions/terms-of-service-violation-in-response-to-quot-god-give-me-strength-quot-generative-ai-prompt/td-p/14903489.

That and a few Reddit discussions at the time showed multiple reports of Christian-themed prompts being blocked, often without specific feedback. So while it's totally possible Adobe has since updated or clarified these restrictions—especially after user complaints—the issue wasn't isolated to one person or one image.

My main concern is transparency: If Firefly (or any AI tool) rejects something, it should say why in clear terms. Instead, we're left guessing whether it's about minors, religious content, composition, or some internal moderation flag. That ambiguity is frustrating, especially for creative professionals trying to understand the limits. I'm not saying there's an anti-Christian bias—but if an AI tool can recognize and flag children for safety concerns, then it certainly has the capacity to flag content with religious context too, rightly or wrongly. So it’s not unreasonable to ask Adobe to clarify more openly. The goal here is to help creators be able to take put their vision into action. That's all.

X

Xenohart

Known Participant

I'm part of a photoshop forum: https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem-discussions/ai-generative-guidelines-violation/m-p/15349441/page/2#M867587, complaining about AI restrictions that do not violate any guidelines. But, let's be perfectly clear: If Adobe's AI system is intelligent enough to A) distinguish a child from an adult, B) analyze a photo and determine the child's age, position, inclusion, etc. - then it's intelligent enough to identify unlawful use of the material. And, don't tell me it's not. Adobe's not being "overly cautious" to protect children - Adobe's just covering its own, and taking artist's money while doing it and playing "gatekeeper" for an agenda that extends FAR beyond simply not wanting an image of a child used unlawfully. If Adobe would be honest and simply say that they don't know how to control their AI, they don't want to spend any of the extra billions of dollars they pocket every month to hire programmers for the purpose of advancing their AI, and that they are knowingly restricting artists from being able to use their tool for any effective purpose when it comes to the inclusion of kids, fine. It's Adobe's company. And, if they want to drive everyone away, that's their right. But, by claiming violations of guidelines, making excuses about it being a beta version, etc., is not appreciated and not appropriate. Adobe doesn't get to play the world's gatekeeper for right and wrong for artists if it cannot even be honest. imho

A

AlessandraKal

Inspiring

buongiorno utilizzo Firefly per creare immagini assolutamente positive per crescita personale per copertine di libri e locandine di corsi.

Ma è assolutamente diventato impossibile utilizzarlo (ho un abbonamento full a creative suite) sembra che ogni parola sia vietata.

Non è possibile disegnare una ragazza che cammina a piedi "nudi" o "scalzi" in un prato. Non posso chiedere di migliore i dettagli del viso che sono diventati pessimi rispetto alla prima versione, non posso chiedere rappresentare una persona che spezza una "catena" o che apre la porta di una "gabbia" perché tutte queste parole sono considerate tabù e sembrano violare i termini... Ora va bene il rispetto delle linee guida e sono d'accordissimo con l'utilizzare l'intelligenza artificiale con coscienza, ma queste cose nel mondo esistono e vietarle vuol dire manipolare la realtà in modo eccessivo a mio avviso.

Forse almeno ai professionisti che pagano un abbonamento 70€ al mese da un sacco di anni potreste concedere un attimo di più la libertà di espressione, non credete?

ultimamente Adobe sembra voler lavorare solo per i ragazzini quando ci sono professionisti che da trent'anni ci lavorano con i prodotti Adobe, sembra che ultimamente vi sfugga, questo delude un po'.

Spero sia un bug momentaneo e che ci siano margini di miglioramento.

grazie per la comprensione.

mademo studio

Participant

Bonjour,

Je signale un blocage injustifié dans Adobe Firefly Video. J’essaie de générer une animation à partir d’un dessin personnel (voir ci-joint), dans un style ligne claire minimaliste, représentant une figure féminine stylisée avec plusieurs yeux. Il ne s’agit en aucun cas d’une nudité réaliste ou sexualisée, mais d’un travail surréaliste et poétique.

Or, le prompt est systématiquement rejeté dès qu’il évoque cette figure comme "nude feminine figure" ou "multiple eyes", alors que :

le style est graphique, non réaliste, il n’y a aucune connotation sexuelle ou violente, l’intention est purement artistique, onirique et conceptuelle

Je comprends la nécessité de modération, mais ce blocage automatique empêche la création d’œuvres alternatives ou expérimentales, ce qui va à l’encontre de l’esprit de Firefly. Il serait souhaitable de mieux différencier les contenus problématiques des œuvres d’art illustrées non explicites.

Merci pour votre attention

mademo studio

P

Patricia34196985qs1t

Known Participant

Not sure what the problem is for woman in bikini anime art. I am working on aprons.

MAX3D2

Participant

Censorship isn’t just a moral issue—it’s a technical one. That’s exactly why I steer fellow creators away from Adobe Firefly. I recently tried generating a simple, creative video of President Trump playing Metallica on guitar, and it was blocked. Why? Because Adobe thinks it should act as the digital thought police instead of just being a software company.

Just like Bud Light, Target, and Starbucks, Adobe seems more interested in appeasing woke ideology than serving the very creators who made it successful. But history is clear: betray your base, and you break your brand. From “Woke to Broke” isn’t just a slogan—it’s a warning.

When a software company behaves like a modern-day Gestapo, deciding what’s acceptable thought and burning digital content in the public square, it’s not innovation. It’s tyranny. And maybe they don’t care. Maybe their ideological obsession is stronger than their desire to stay relevant.

Kartika Rawat

Community Manager

Hi MAX3D2!

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. At Adobe, our goal is to empower creators while also upholding responsible and ethical use of generative AI. Our content guidelines are designed to ensure that our tools are used in ways that respect individuals’ rights, avoid misinformation, and maintain a safe and inclusive environment for all users. This includes restrictions on generating content that features public figures in potentially misleading or unauthorized contexts: https://adobe.ly/3FwyyYs

We’re always listening to feedback and evolving our tools to better serve the creative community. If you have suggestions or specific use cases you'd like us to consider, we’d love to hear more.

^KR

moved to discussions

Dario de Judicibus

Known Participant

Adobe must understand that its products are used by artists who make visual language their primary means of expression.
Art, photography, painting, sculpture, and cinema are not merely tools for creating beauty or elegance — they are powerful channels for conveying social messages. These forms often exist to challenge, to provoke, and to show people uncomfortable truths or alternative perspectives.

Censoring an image because it contains explicit nudity or shows someone injecting themselves in an alleyway is not a form of protection — it is an assault on freedom of thought and expression. It is a form of manipulation, presenting a sanitized, false reality and erasing anything that doesn’t conform to a narrow, reactionary worldview.

Adobe’s role is to provide tools, not to dictate how those tools should be used. The maker of a chisel does not tell the sculptor what to carve. Nor does the maker of a camera or a paintbrush instruct the artist on what to capture or depict.

Embedding censorship mechanisms into Adobe's tools is not only arrogant — it reflects a specific cultural bias rather than a universal ethical standard. It’s a betrayal of the very communities Adobe claims to serve: the creators, the challengers, the storytellers who use its products to reveal the world, not to hide it.

S

Son of Ugly

Participant

VEry disappointed in my inability to generate images to express my experiences as a recovered, homeless, addict. It's just like META's guidelines. And Meta protecting people from ANYTHING is a joke. Especially the hard truths of poverty . I have no idea why Adobe doesn't allow a picture of a person using drugs. Look out the window in any halfway large downtown and it's right there. We can't fix things we aren't allowed to talk about

Kartika Rawat

Community Manager

Hi there!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Our content guidelines are shaped by legal and safety considerations, which can sometimes limit how these issues are visually represented. Your feedback will be shared with our teams as we continue to evaluate how to support authentic, impactful expression.

Let us know if you have any questions,

KR