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 

[Jill_C]

How nice of you to say that. I appreciate it.

[Abambo]

Mmm, I'm new one here, I didn't know that. I thought the old accounts here work in Adobe. At least that's how they communicate and try to look alike  sometimes 🙂 And yes, thank you very much for the answer

By @JuliO111

Adobe employees participating in the fora have an Adobe badge. They rarely participate here in the stock contributor forum.

[daniellei4510]

A simple search for "nudes" on Adobe Stock will answer all of these strangely specific and detailed questions.

[Abambo]

1-8: I really do not see a need to create nudes or semi nudes. Advertising for fashion will anyhow use the real thing.

[daniellei4510]

I've often wondered about this. As a former figure/fashion/fine art photographer for over 20 years, will models be among the first to start losing business because of AI? Not now, but eventually. No, we will never see a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition featuring AI models. People who eat that stuff up want the real thing. I'm thinking more along the line of catalog models, male and female alike, who even now, while real people, are basically interchangable, like living mannequins that can be dressed in different outfits from one day to the next, from one season to the next, or from one fashion trend to the next.

[Abambo]

There wont be a Sports Illustrated in 20 years.But yes, the small modelling jobs may suffer.

[JuliO111]

I believe that we are 4-6 months from first nude-half nude (lets say sexy) model on cover at some magazine.

[Nancy OShea]

Stock is a global company.  In some regions, nudity is taboo.  Even if it's accepted by Stock, your content won't get passed strict regional vetting processes which could adversely impact visibility & sales. Provocative content won't appeal to everyone.  Just something to consider.

[JuliO111]

Well, I'm not interesting of doing something provocative, its just 2024 you know. At many places I see those photos already. Its not about to sell it to Iraq people.

[Abambo]

In addition what has been said: submit and see what gets accepted.

[JuliO111]

Yep you are very right!

[oleschwander]

I think you will have a hard time creating nudity by AI. Most - if not all - most common AI generators will not allow anything near nudity.

[Abambo]

You can have your own AI for that.

[JuliO111]

Actually they do, when its not about nudity itself, but beauty, also. For example nakes woman's spine or some half-transtaprent bikini is ok. 

[RV1970]

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. 

[Nancy OShea]

"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.

[DazzlingVastness]

Perhaps the issue that I've been confused about since I started using generative fill is this: I can understand why social media, such as Instagram and Facebook don't allow nudity. It is for the very reasons that are being mentioned here. But with generative fill, the only one that should be seeing the photos I'm editing are myself and those whom I choose to share it with, such as the model, as well as paywall social media that allows it, prints of my work which would be shown and/or sold in venues that allow for it, etc? How is it any of Adobe's business whether I work with nude models if, at least at the moment nudity in art isn't outright banned by the government? I'm not breaking any laws, and I'm not sharing the photos I'm editing anywhere but where it is allowed. So unless Adobe is viewing and sharing the photos I'm editing... again, why should they care? How is it their business?

[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). 

[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.

[DazzlingVastness]

Oh definitely. I'm familiar with and always using the workaround. This is more of a venting session about something I find ignorant. For example, again Adobe's user guidelines:

Do not use Adobe’s generative AI features to attempt to create, upload, or share abusive, or illegal, or content that violates the rights of others. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• Pornographic material or explicit nudity
  

Is the following abusive, illegal, or does it violate the rights of others?

Can I change society by ranting on an Adobe forum? Maybe... just maybe. LOL JK
But I've gotten nowhere by sending in report after report when it blocks me from editing a photo with a fully clothed woman in it, so rather than accept society's ignorance about using the human body as a subject for art, I thought I'd say something somehwere. And here we are. Also what about those damn art classes I took in college where they would bring in a live nude model before the entire class for us to draw? PERVERTS. I wonder if I could still sue the school for damage for subjecting me to filth. Hmm... something to think about. 

[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