Nudity and Semi nudity using AI and its imposed restrictions.

[Starsson]

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 

[Stephen_A_Marsh]

...So unless Adobe is viewing and sharing the photos I'm editing... again, why should they care? How is it their business?

By @DazzlingVastness 

They care because they are offering the service. The service is their business (both literally and figuratively).

You have the choice to not take on work in your professional life if you are not comfortable doing it or if it doesn't meet whatever "standards" you set for yourself.

It's just not partial or full nudity, others have had problems with generating guns or even facts from our sad history like using the word N@zi (which even this forum software will not let me enter without creative workarounds, sigh). 

[Stephen_A_Marsh]

@AZ_50_SHADES_OF_PLEASURE 

I’m just an end user like you, I am not Adobe and I am not an Adobe employee. I was just mistakenly chiming in with what I believe was the reasoning behind Adobe's stance. You are free to use other tools.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

I understand your point of view. In my opinion though, you are ignoring our constitual rights of freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and saying as a business, it's their right to impose any and all restrictions based on their morals? Ok.. so, that's like saying an establishment won't serve you because you are white or black or tall or short or have 1 leg, 3 legs, because even though they ALL protect your constitutional rights,it's THEIR decision because it's their business? That's what countries like Russia, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, are for. Go to a web cam adult site, who has the MOST web cam providers? The middle east women? Why? Because they would rather risk their lives to get 2 minutes of lust? It's a sad world. All I can say is... TRUMP 2024!

By @AZ_50_SHADES_OF_PLEASURE

I cannot follow your reasoning. 

Which exact post by @Stephen_A_Marsh are you referring to? 

[Nancy OShea]

Sheesh! Another Constitutional legal scholar in our midst. 🙄

Adobe is a privately owned business.  You play by their rules, or you don't play here. Your choice.

[DazzlingVastness]

Perfect example. In what way does this photo violate user guidelines? I have provided feedback with examples many, many times. I loved the photo, but accidentally cropped the top of her hair off in camera. I wanted to see if generative fill could acomplish filling in the gap. It likely could. However, it is very apparent that having a woman in the photo violates user guidelines even if it isn't specifically stated. 

[daniellei4510]

No problem here.

[daniellei4510]

The algorithm can tend to be a little over-sensitive. There is usually a work-around, most often by isolating the area in need of gen fill.

[daniellei4510]

I took life drawing classes in art school. I photographed nudes for 25 years (much to my wife's chagrin). But there are larger issues in the world we live in right now. Vent away, but it is what it is. 😉

[DazzlingVastness]

I get what you're saying, and now that I've basically stated my piece, I'll surely move on soon. But there is one thing I'm still curious about, that maybe someone can help me understand because I don't know if it's been answered yet. If I use generative fill to fix something in a photo I'm editing, is my photo automatically being uploaded to a group of unsuspecting people who might be offended if there is nudity in the photo? This is one my biggest questions regarding this whole topic. Because I was not aware that my photos are being seen by anyone other than myself and whoever I personally choose to share them with.

And if this isn't the case, then why just generative fill? Why not make a new user guidline for the healing brush stating that you can't use it if it's on bare skin? Or just have AI just automatically block you from even opening any photos in photoshop where the subject isn't covered in cloth from head to toe? Because what this feels like is Adobe telling us that there is something wrong with nudity, and regardless of whether we're subjecting our "art" which is actually "filth" to unsuspecting victims, they just don't want us to use their product for art that includes nudity. 

[c.pfaffenbichler]

You might be missing a point here. 

Generative Fill does not work locally. 

Stuff gets transferred to Adobe servers. 

Stuff on Adobe servers can pose a legal problem for Adobe. 

Stuff on your computer is, if at all, your problem. 

Edit: Admittedly even stuff you do on your computer with Photoshop is subject to some limitations (though work-arounds exist), as you may have noticed if you ever edited images of banknotes. 

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/cds.html

[DazzlingVastness]

You might be missing a point here. 

Generative Fill does not work locally. 

Stuff gets transferred to Adobe servers. 

Stuff on Adobe servers can pose a legal problem for Adobe. 

Stuff on your computer is, if at all, your problem. 

Edit: Admittedly even stuff you do on your computer with Photoshop is subject to some limitations (though work-arounds exist), as you may have noticed if you ever edited images of banknotes. 

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/cds.html

By @c.pfaffenbichler

I'm coming back around to this as I had a realization not long ago. The realization was that this actually doesn't make sense. And Lightroom storing images on Adobe's cloud server is the reason it doesn't make sense. For a time I was editing all of my photos using Lightroom on an iPad. All of the photos I would edit, which included lots of nudes were stored on Adobe's server with no problem at all. 

So, now I'm back to square one with not understanding the reasoning behind generative fill's censorship. 

[DazzlingVastness]

[EDIT: SEE ABOVE POST]

I see. I guess I should read the fine print more. It's all beginning to finally make sense. It took a while to get there, but if this is the actual reason for not allowing generative fill to process nudity, I can completely understand that. I still hate the wording of their user guidelines, but it's fine. I'm ready to use the workarounds and be happy. Thanks for clarifying things ❤️

[c.pfaffenbichler]

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

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

[DazzlingVastness]

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]

[jjgallegos]

I understand censorship has been a long-discussed topic. However, it seems that it has become more aggressive in returning warnings. I was trying to generate a background for this fully dressed model, but I kept getting warnings. There is no explicit nudity in this photo, yet to no avail, I get the warnings. This also happens with a lot of bikini shots, especially if they're thongs or lack of tops but covered by arms. Can't you refine the training where it recognizes genitalia and uncovered breasts so it can distinguish explicit nudity from other forms of innocuous, albeit revealing outfits or lack thereof? I'm using Photoshop Beta 25.11.

[Trevor.Dennis]

This is exactly how it started with Skynet.  First we are told that no more than two square inches of exposed flesh are allowed.  Next there's a T1000 Climbing over crashing through your garden wall. 

[Jake32004707sg2m]

We as the creators should decide what we should create, and their shouldn't be filters telling us what is and is not appropriate, vote to require a setting to be activated for the filter to be on, and we should choose whether to have it on or not.

[From Nothing]

I completely agree. We all have our own unique reasons for using this tool so there should be virtually no censorship so as long as we aren't using the content to incite violence or something.

[Mariam Hovhannesyan]

As a user, not an adobe expert, this is only my opinion
I agree and not agree, because yeah it will be great to create what we want, but how can people track those images who used it where, and how, maybe they will use it for fake news or criminals, etc., and all the resposibilities will fall on the ai program. Not anybody as good as you sadly

[Kevin_Vang]

I agree. Remove this filter! There should be some NSFW for adults.

[Squeebiscuit]

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 ..."]

 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

What prompt were you using?

[Squeebiscuit]

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".

[Squeebiscuit]

Here's a crop of the image. I assure you the offending area is completely opaque.

 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Its the pectorial area. My guess is with the longer hair and being an illustration, the AI is reading this as female - even with the facial hair. Covering that area resolves. "Anatomically correct human skeleton"