Hi,

I appreciate your thorough and constructive guidelines that hamper our work. I look forward to the time when uncovered arms, legs, torsos...etc. are not anathemised by AI, not only when using Adobe but also all the other AI tools that are out there. It needs minimal planning and well-understood guidelines to stay within the acceptable, beautiful, and respectable boundaries.   Thank you. 

AI Content Restrictions: A Call for Artistic Freedom

We live in the 21st century with incredible AI tools for creating graphics and imagery. However, after purchasing Adobe Firefly, I've discovered that creating images featuring human figures comes with unexpectedly restrictive limitations that feel more suited to the most conservative societies than to modern creative expression.

The Problem with Overly Restrictive AI Guidelines

I'm not advocating for pornographic content creation—I'm a socially responsible creator who understands the importance of appropriate content standards. However, there's a significant difference between preventing explicit material and imposing puritanical restrictions on basic human anatomy that's regularly visible in mainstream media.

Consider this: we routinely see exposed arms, legs, torsos, and feet in televised sports like boxing, swimming, and wrestling. Classical art from centuries past—celebrated in museums worldwide—depicts the human form with far more freedom than current AI platforms allow. Renaissance masters created timeless works featuring natural human anatomy without scandal.

Historical Context Matters

For over 500 years, artistic expression has included realistic portrayals of the human form. Even going back 2,000 years, classical civilizations understood that art often requires depicting natural human anatomy. Today's AI restrictions seem to ignore this rich artistic heritage in favor of kindergarten-level content standards.

The Reality of Modern Content Access

We're not creating content exclusively for children—and even if we were, children today already have unprecedented access to far more explicit content through the internet. It seems counterproductive to restrict legitimate artistic expression when truly problematic content remains easily accessible through other channels.

A Practical Solution

If AI systems must flag potentially objectionable content, they should clearly identify which specific words or concepts triggered the restriction. This transparency would help creators understand boundaries and adjust their prompts accordingly, rather than leaving them to guess what invisible guidelines they've violated.

Moving Forward

Creative tools should enhance artistic expression, not constrain it to the most restrictive possible standards. While content moderation has its place, current AI restrictions often go far beyond preventing genuinely harmful content and instead impose arbitrary limitations that would be considered excessive in traditional art contexts.

The goal should be balanced guidelines that prevent truly inappropriate content while preserving the creative freedom that makes these AI tools valuable for legitimate artistic expression.

I will never use firefly until you stop telling me every prompt violates your verbage.  When you start censoring people you eventually will get nothing.... Out of the 8 videos I created only one was acceptable to you and they all sucked.

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 

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.

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

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.