Skip to main content
Participant
Aug 26, 2022 2:09 AM UTC
Question

P:Limitation of Adobe Generative AI user guidelines [merged thread]

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 

383 replies

Nancy OShea
Community Expert
Community Expert
Jul 4, 2024 12:43 AM UTC

"Adobe should not be responsible for governing content.  If some offensive content is
created then the remedy is to turn to the courts"

By@sjedens 

==============

Which courts, where?

 

Different regions have their own decency & morality laws.  What works for you in one place could be a 20 year prison sentence in another. And that's not hyperbole. There are women who have lost their lives for an improperly applied Hijab (head covering).  Nudity would be unthinkable.

 

Adobe is a global business that must respect the laws of govts inside and outside North America. If you can't understand that, maybe you should use a regional service instead of a global one.

 

Translate
Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert
RV1970
Participating Frequently
Jul 3, 2024 10:57 PM UTC

I agree with you completely.  But I also understand that it is their software and they make the rules.  This type of issue is not uncommon for an American company.  America has its pros and cons. I would suggest you look around the internet for another program. Or find a creative way around it. 

Translate
RV
vissaritharpa
Jul 2, 2024 8:28 PM UTC

Hello,

 

I am a photographer who works with female models. Sometimes the models are nude, other times they are not. However, I've found that perhaps around 90% of the time, if a woman is in the image at all, even if she is clothed, and I attempt to use generative fill to remove anything from the photo it will block my attempt. 

 

The biggest issue seems to be the fact that it blocks any image with a woman in it. I would say that this is clearly sexist, but I haven't tested it with male models because I generally only work with women. But a secondary issue is the fact that generative fill won't allow one to use the feature at all, even if the part of the photo you're attempting to use it on does not involve the subject whatsoever. In other words, let's say I'm editing a photo I've taken of a nude model, and I want to remove an outlet from a wall in part of the photo. It blocks me from doing this. Yes, there are other easy ways to remove an outlet, and I've even found workarounds to using generative fill when a nude model is involved. But in my opinion, there are clearly some pretty major issues surrounding "user guidelines" with generative fill. 

 

If I were attempting to remove the clothes of a clothed person with generative fill - totally understandable why that would be blocked. If I were using generative fill to edit anything at all on the body of a nude model - I could possibly understand that too. But if the edit I'm making is not even touching the body of the model, what could possibly be the harm in that? How could anyone "abuse" that? As a side note, I've found that generative fill is absolutely awful and generating anything connected to the human body anyway, unless it's a straight line, like a forarm. Have you ever tried extending a photo where you accidentally cropped off someones finger, toes, or even boots? The results are horrifying. 

Translate
vissaritharpa
Jul 3, 2024 6:48 AM UTC

Maybe I should have put a question in there. What do you all think about this? Any thoughts? Has anyone else run into the same issue? Why on earth would we be blocked from using generative fill when there is a woman in the photo? 

Translate
Participant
Jun 12, 2024 2:11 PM UTC

I recognize the obvious problem here - I would not be seeking obscene content, but in fact, I am asking for an age restricted paid for version with the possibility of nudity. It seems like an obvious step as many of the images generated are not suitable because the clothing just doesnt work for life drawing.

Translate
Kevin Stohlmeyer
Community Expert
Community Expert
Jun 12, 2024 6:08 PM UTC

@Dalvidos Similar requests have been made and each time users are referred back to the terms of use outlined by Adobe.

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

 

Translate
Participating Frequently
Jun 4, 2024 4:07 AM UTC

I noticed that Photoshop.  just like many places in AI, does not support nudity.    That's a huse mistake.  Photoshop is used in art with nudity all the time.     I am sure the root of this has to do with the AI community but i would advise Adobe to re-consider..    That are many tools now which ignore the AI community guidelines on nudity.

Translate
Participating Frequently
Jun 4, 2024 12:00 PM UTC

Sorry.  deplorable grammar here, ( two mis-spellings)     It is a "huge" mistake to govern nudity and "there" are many tools which now support nudity.     Why are we allowing AI to govern our artistic instincts?       Come on now..    Don't restrain artists and the very basic level of using Photoshop. 

Translate
Kevin Stohlmeyer
Community Expert
Community Expert
Jun 4, 2024 12:50 PM UTC

@sjedens This has been discussed multiple times in the forum. My question to you is if it was allowed, what would prevent someone from using this to create nude images using another person? As you stated, this is the route many AIs have taken to prevent misuse.

Translate
Kevin Stohlmeyer
Community Expert
Community Expert
May 17, 2024 2:49 PM UTC

There are numerous posts regarding similar topics in the forum. The response has always been referred back to the Usage Guidelines in order to prevent misuse of the service. 

Many users may have good intentions or in your case, a use for artistic needs, but how do you determine that vs someone using this to manipulate someone to remove clothing or other misuse?

https://community.adobe.com/t5/adobe-firefly-discussions/explicit-images-in-firefly-premium-subscription/m-p/14191291#M5053

https://community.adobe.com/t5/adobe-firefly-bugs/generative-fill-censorship/idi-p/14258069

 

Translate
Participant
May 17, 2024 2:35 PM UTC

I understand that the nude female form can be misused in our weird society but I am a boudoir photographer and would like to, as an example, I would like to add angel wings to a nude female figure. since the client is on my computer and not being generated by Firefly why can't I do this?  The female form is a viable customer base and Firefly is limiting the use of creative  additions to these clients.  

Adobe Stock has many tastefull nudes so obviously Adobe recognizes the female form as an artform.

 

 

Translate
Participant
May 11, 2024 4:25 PM UTC

Ich verstehe nicht warum Begriffe wie vollbusig oder großes Dekolletee nicht erlaubt sind. Das hat nichts mit Sexismus, Po-n- oder ähnlichem zu tun. Ich wollte ein Model erstellen mit großer Oberweite für einen Modeflyer, sämtlich Begriffe wurden nicht angenommen. Dann habe ich ein Bild aus einer Datenbank gekauft. Wofür Firefly wenn ich dann doch wieder zukaufen muss?

Translate
Henrik Heigl
Community Expert
Community Expert
Nov 4, 2024 5:39 AM UTC

Hallo,

 

es mag eben sein, dass die entsprechenden Begriffe eben nicht passend sind. Ich habe eben z.B. "schönes weibliches Model mit schwarzem Kleid und großer Oberweite" ausprobiert und das klappt ohne Probleme oder Fehlermeldungen. Man kann entsprechende Begriffe auch umschreiben, damit diese eben nicht als anzüglich oder gegen die Guidelines verstoßend angenommen werden. Ich hoffe, das hilft etwas.

 

Translate
regards,Henrik
Squeebiscuit
Participant
May 9, 2024 4:55 PM UTC

Platform: firefly.adobe.com

Bug: I created a human male reference image to use as a pose reference. His genitalia are covered with the equivalent of swim trunks or briefs. The image is instantly removed when I submit the prompt with a pop-up stating it violates user guidelines. I'm constantly running into this sort of problem with both reference images and prompts with zero feedback on what the filter found offensive. I'm 100% behind Adobe's ethical practices, but these filters are ridiculous and render the product nearly useless for a production environment. Simply too much time is wasted on what seems like random and arbitrary "no nos."

[Edit: Had to remove the reference image from this post because the filters here state that it contains naughty-bits. Even though the entire area was painted over from hip to hip with opaque flat white.]
[Edit #2: Had to remove the more common English usage of the same "g" word I used in my bug description in order to submit the post. The error was message was hilarious: "The message body contains g*****ls, which is not permitted ..."]

 

Translate
Kevin Stohlmeyer
Community Expert
Community Expert
May 9, 2024 4:58 PM UTC

What prompt were you using?

Translate
Squeebiscuit
Participant
May 10, 2024 5:30 AM UTC
It happens regardless of the prompt I use. The first prompt was "A human
skeleton" and the only complaint about the prompt was that it was too
short.  Longer prompts produce the same reference image removal with a
violation pop-up, but without the prompt complaint. The last prompt I
tried was "A man standing in the woods".
Translate
c.pfaffenbichler
Community Expert
Community Expert
Apr 14, 2024 2:43 PM UTC

@Rangga36724153lvwy , what do you want to communicate? 

Translate