Nudity and other issues which appear to violate Adobe Generative AI Guidelines [merged thread]

Does any know if the 'FireFly' restriction is perminant or termporary?

I completely agree with your perspective, Steven. I fully share your frustration as a longtime Photoshop user since the mid-1990s, spanning 34 years. Photoshop became the gold standard for photo editing largely because of its role in the fashion industry, where enhancing the human form was accepted and celebrated. What I find troubling is that Adobe’s software, once intended for private use, is now subjected to overreaching censorship that treats our personal workspaces as if they were public forums.

If this were a community space like Discord, where content moderation is necessary to protect a wider audience, I’d understand. But that’s not the case here. This feels like "Big Brother" AI moderation, applying an overly cautious and highly subjective lens to what should be private, professional work. Even though we agree to their terms of service, these restrictions feel borderline offensive, particularly when Photoshop became what it is today by supporting industries that relied on its ability to edit the human body—most notably, fashion marketing. How can Adobe be held liable for what users create in their own private spaces? It’s a flimsy excuse.

If Adobe’s concern is backlash from extremist groups, they are caving to the pressure of a vocal minority that shouldn't have a say in the creative work of professionals. The company should stand up for the artists and photographers who have remained loyal for decades. The fact that I’ve had innocuous items like flesh-toned vases flagged, or client photos of swimwear restricted from AI tools due to arbitrary censoring, is absurd and quite frankly, infuriating. We’re talking about a shoulder or a curve—basic elements of photography and art. 

I recognize the potential dangers of AI misuse, and yes, there will always be those who exploit technology. But restricting advanced editing features for professionals—who have been using this software for decades—undermines our workflow and stifles creativity. Rather than weaponizing censorship against its most devoted users, Adobe should be championing the advancements of AI to make our lives easier.

Perhaps a waiver or verification process could be implemented for professional artists, fashion retouchers, and photo editors, but at the core, this is private-use software, and Adobe’s promise of "creating anything" in their advertising should mean exactly that—with no arbitrary restrictions.

The slogan 'Unleash your creativity with AI art generation' is misleading; the reality is closer to 'Release your family-friendly creativity with AI art generation.' But let’s be honest, that doesn’t sell software.

Yes right I agree to you.Adobe should remove their hard restriction.

Eu pago essa [cursing removed] de programas da Adobe para editar minhas fotos de conteúdo adulto. E essa [cursing removed] de programa conservador do [removed by moderator] não quer deixar eu subir minhas fotos. Pago quase 300,00 por mês e não tenho direito de usar como quero. Nem tem como cancelar o contrato com a Adobe 

pouraais y avoir une ia qui ddetecter le corp humain et la vrais nudité mais asser intelligente pour pouvoir y aajouter une simple riviere en bas de la photo qui est un simple boudoir respectueux a limite bloquer des mot pour les boudoire comme en rapport avec vetement ou nue ou peuix importe mais quand cest marquer riviere de pas bloquer ca serais quandd meme utile

@hectorblg the terms are very well defined and you agreed to them when you click the initial screen when using any Firefly AI enabled feature:

https://www.adobe.com/legal/licenses-terms/adobe-gen-ai-user-guidelines.html

»just don't lie to potential customers saying you will be able to CREATE ANYTHING.«

@hectorblg , when and where did Adobe representatives make that »create anything«-claim with regard to Firefly and/or Generative Fill? 

I don’t follow all Adobe announcements and publicity releases so I may have missed it even if it was ever made. 

Just fed up by working with generative fill. I've passed through "fist", "water explosion", "cartoon explosion", then through "pheromones", "gas", "psychodelic", also through "steam". Everytime SCOLDED by Adobe because I'm going against their moral standards, probably created by some scared people who are offended by fists; pheromones, pyschodelic, steam, gas. I posted about this once, and got lectured from a forum staff for saying it's not censorship. Well, maybe let's call it another way, plenty of inoffensive stuff you may imagine goes against Adobe's guidelines. Adobe should be honest when they make advertisment for Generative Fill, just don't lie to potential customers saying you will be able to CREATE ANYTHING. At least put some "little letters" saying you when you try to create something, you must stick to some undefined, illogical and very, VERY strict guidelines. I know that some will say "don't trust AI", do it the "old way". Well, I precisely bought Adobe creative cloud because I'm not a designer or visual artist, I'm just a pro musician working on a big personal project, a sci-fi visual novel with DAZ3d to make my images, and who naively believed photoshop would help me to speed the process to add effects, create backgrounds, and stuff like this, because of it's "advanced" AI generative fill. Such a big disappointment. Another thing Adobe should add in their advertisment is "ONLY SUITABLE for MARKETING, and ADVERTISEMENT IMAGES, DON'T TRY IT if you want to CREATE COMICS, VISUAL NOVELS, OR FREELY ARTISTIC STUFF". Sorry for my rant.

I have not seen that, but it's good to know. When I mentioned disliking the wording of their user guidelines I was specifically referring to the guidelines equating explicit nudity with abusive, or illegal, or content that violates the rights of others. Child s3xual abuse material I can obviously understand, but lumping nudity in general with some sort of crime is preposterous. However, if the reason is that they don't want nudes of any kind on their servers for legal reasons, this, as I said, I can understand. And it would be nice if they would just specifically give that as the reason in their user guidelines rather than giving the impression that nudity, or even pornographic material for that matter, is illegal. 

I'm still not sure why their algorithm is so over-sensitive that if a woman is in the photo at all it is often blocked, particularly when I've seen first hand how an algorithm, AI scan, or whatever the process is, for a social media platform can catch the tiniest nip slip. I once posted a photo to instagram which was instantly taken down because I hadn't noticed a literal nip slip which wasn't easy to spot without zooming in. (hillarious, just found out you can't say [censored]pple or [censored]xual)

Anyway, now that I know the specifics about how generative fill works, by uploading the image to their server, I'm happy to cover the model entirely with a censor block before using it. I'd prefer it actually. 

[abuse removed by moderator]

Have you seen the explanations that were added to the terms of use? 

https://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html