Photo Violates Community Standards

Report · Oct 07, 2023

OK, let's try this again. I'm not getting an answer to my problem. This is the fourth time I've tried to get an answer.

I wanted to play with a photo I had trouble with before. This time I selected the woman, inverted the selection, and asked to put dancers in the limited background available. It worked. But I wanted more space around her. So I started over. This time I used the crop tool and brought out the sides and top to have more room around her. This time it rejected my "request." I've asked for a review. I've requested a review of a different photo a week ago and, of course, heard nothing. What's the point of a review that doesn't get reviewed.

It's simply a woman in a dress leaning forward, so there's cleavage. Unless the community standard is conservative and only burkas are allowed I don't think I've violated any reasonable American standards.

If anyone else wants to comment on why this violates community standards, I love to hear your opinions.

I'd really like an answer/review of this specific photo.

[Personal informaiton removed by Mod]

Report · Oct 08, 2023

Hi,

I'm not sure what you want to hear, but for me this is clearly to much skin to be processed in any kind. It may be Ok for you, but not for others and as it seems also not for the Community Standards. So I would suggest you try other Images. Hope that helps.

regards,
Henrik

Report · Oct 10, 2023

Interesting anwer. I've run photographs of women in bras and p*nties which went through with no problems. This is a professional program for professional users as well as advanced amateurs (I'm a very advanced amateur). This is not a great photo, I picked it more or less at random. There are many users who would find this photo very innocuous. It's not obscene or pornographic. Yes, there is skin and cleavage. I've seen many wedding dresses that show more skin. If a professional wedding photographer can't change the background or even expand the space, then it's no longer a professional tool.

I guess my problem/question goes to the concept of who makes community standards? Is there a committee at Adobe that rules on all possible violations? I've posted this 4 times and Adobe hasn't had the courtesy of letting me know why this violates community standards. It certainly doesn't violate the standards of my community (I've posted in on my facebook page and not one person had a problem).

I'd really like Adobe to define community standards. I can spend a LOT of time fiddling with mask and then find out it violates community standards.

Why is Adobe so reticent about their own standards? Is it just a computer measuring skin percentage? I asked for a review twice (in the Generative AI) and heard nothing.

Adobe has dropped a big ball!

John

Report · Oct 19, 2023

I would still like a real answer to my prior questions.

Simply saying "too much skin" is a completely useless answer. As of November 1 every time I attempt to use Generative AI will cost me "credits." Will Generative AI decide that Venus de Milo and Michaelangleo's David violate community Standards? Are community standards based on Florida and Texas standards (whatever they might be).

Photographers have been photographing nudes and semi-nudes since the beginnings of photography. Photoshop has been used for decades to edit all sorts of "questionable" photos.

I want to know specifically why THIS photo violates community standards. Simply saying that YOU think there's too much skin is completely disingenuous. I've asked for reviews and never gotten them, at least no feedback to me. Without knowing what the standards are, how can I possibly edit my photos accordingly? If this is too much skin, how do you determine it? By percentage? By square inches, centimeters, or whatever standard you use?

Report · Oct 24, 2023

Hi John,

I can't speak to specifics about this photo, but I can talk in generalities. I suspect what's going on here is a "false positive" in one of our moderation tools. Due to the skin and background colors of this image, the classifier may interpret this the wrong way. We're working on improving harmful detection, and I apologize that it's acting incorrectly right now. Your use case (expanding the background) is completely valid and should be supported. What we're trying to protect against is the selection and removal of clothing, simulating nudity.

Thanks,

Chris

Report · Oct 26, 2023

I appreciate your thoughtful answer. I guess I've still got questions about nudity, it's been part of art since the stone age. But that will have to come later I guess. Again, thanks for the time and thought.

John

Report · Apr 04, 2024

These false positives are still occurring. I work for a clothing brand and we are trying to remove wrinkles from fabric on a one piece bodysuit and we are receiving the warnings, zero nudity and the area selected is the fabric. Swimsuits are a nightmare for this. I find the program being way too judgemental and we are not able to use features we are paying for.

Report · Apr 04, 2024

Removing wrinkles is usually a job for Photoshop. So you get that warning in Photoshop?

Report · Apr 04, 2024

All the time, it looks at the image and decides that it violates their standards even though the area selected is just fabric. The model is also completely covered. Our team is finding this pretty annoying and intrusive. It is reading and judging the entire photo.

Report · Apr 04, 2024

@cindic48128273 @John Gerecht A little adjusting goes a long way - I took the original image, extended the background, then made a subject selection and inverted (selecting the background) with a 4 px overlap. The prompt was "party with people dancing in the background" - no violations, no standards issues, etc.

As for removing wrinkles in a swimsuit - try using the Remove tool instead of Gen Fill. Much more applicable use than Firefly/Gen Fill.

Report · Apr 04, 2024

Sorry but no, not a fix in our situation here. And this image is showing even more cleav than ours. We have resorted to making a section and copying up to a new layer and hiding the whole image, but workarounds are not really solutions. And we do know the difference between the remove tool and gen fill. In some cases gen fill works much better for what we are accomplishing. Or just go old school, but we are paying for assistive features which we aren't getting because the thought of the clothed female body is offensive by this ai. LOL

Report · Apr 04, 2024

Care to share an example of an image where the AI failed? Be sure to include the prompt you used that gave the violation.

Report · Apr 30, 2024

I couldn't share what I was working on due to NDA's, but I am working on a new project in Indesign and the AI there just shocked me as to what it generated. this is child p0rn! OMG. It won't let me airbrush wrinkles off a bathing suit on a grown adult woman, and I may say obvious adult as she is 40 years old. It says I am violating the standards but I ask for a leather belt buckle and it gives me this in Indesign? I didn't ask for a model, a woman or even to have it on their neck! Geez this AI has some interesting ideas.