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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Can you take of the babysittter restrictions. [cursing removed]

Alright, then let Adobe's real lawyers handle things as they come while Adobe goes about their business unchained from fear.  If all they want to do is play an advisory roll (obviously happening here), get new attorneys!  Why would anyone on the consumer side of this not want that?