Skip to main content
Participant
August 26, 2022
Open for Voting

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

  • August 26, 2022
  • 184 replies
  • 120447 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 

184 replies

rayek.elfin
Legend
January 19, 2025

...not that simple. The same desktop software is used in schools, colleges, and universities. Both by adults and under age people.

 

And what about religious institutes? And government places? Or businesses whose management want to avoid their designers/employees from abusing genAI for unwanted imagery?

 

Adobe software used at home by professionals is often shared with their children.

 

It's never as simple as it seems. Human society and behaviour are very, very messy. There is no black-and-white answer within that context. Only "it depends" answers apply.

Participant
January 19, 2025

It's actually very simple. Those paying for and using the Adobe Suite are typically professionals. Place the limitations on Firefly online and remove the lmiitations in the desktop software.

 

This is a very simple thing to impelement, as a software engineer I should know.

Inspiring
January 19, 2025

It's definitely the distance to the person too. When I see something in the background I need to erase and it's a decent number of pixels from the subject of the photo I let out an audible sigh of relief as I know it probably won't give me a lecture today.

Participating Frequently
January 18, 2025

yeah. Fingers especially for me. Apparently, it thinks I am trying to make [removed] or something lol

Participating Frequently
January 18, 2025

Same. I must have sent them over 100 so far with the picture and description

daniellei4510
Community Expert
Community Expert
January 18, 2025

What's especially odd is that even the shape of a selection will trigger a violation, while changing the same will work as gen fill should. 

Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.
Inspiring
January 18, 2025

This is an exact summary of the problem. Thank you.

Inspiring
January 18, 2025

Me too, every single time I forward them the image. There's no way to know if anyone receives these or if it's a black hole, sadly.

daniellei4510
Community Expert
Community Expert
January 18, 2025

For whatever good it might do, when gen fill gives me an incorrect violation warning, I take advantage of the option to submit an example of what I was trying to do, along with the image in question. With luck, Adobe programmers are taking such errors into account.

Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.
Participating Frequently
January 18, 2025

The problem is many of the time it blocks things, that are not violating the TOS. Family vacation photos are blocked if someone is in a bathing suit. Professional model photographers can hardly use generative fill for touch-ups and corrections. Yes, you can use the old ways, but we are paying for the updated technology to speed up workflow, as Adobe has described their latest products. generative fill blocks things that have too much skin. When trying to edit fingers or toes it blocks constantly. It's not even nude content and it's blocking non-violating things.

 

Bottom line: If it's not breaking the TOS, it shouldn't be blocked. Otherwise, update the TOS to correctly reflect the filters.