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

[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 

[theARTofDARK]

Sehr oft werden bei der Nutzung von zb. "generativ erweitern" in Photoshop  meine Bilder (stilvoller Akt und auch blickdicht bekleidet) von der Ki abgelehnt und nicht bearbeitet mit Hinweis auf "Richtlinien" Ich verstehe nicht warum eine Ki sich beleidigt/diskriminiert fühlen kann wenn sie um ein Haupmotiv zb die Wiese erweitern soll. (oder werden die Bilder anderweitig genutzt?) Meine Aktfotgrafenkollegen und ich bezahlen für diesen Dienst und dieser wird nicht ausgeführt bzw. verweigert! Mit welchem Recht schreibt Adobe mir vor welche Bilder ich im Programm bearbeiten kann und welche nicht? Ausdrücklich: es handelt sich um stilvolle AktBilder und auch um Bikini/ dessousbilder! (und wenn es andere wären , wäre dies auch nicht Aufgabe von Adobe dies zu kritisieren!  Grüße von einem eigentlich sehr begeisterten und von Anfang an der Cloud zugehörigen AdobeNutzer

[droopydog500]

Hello @theARTofDARK,

Thank you for your message. I am sorry you are having this problem. 

Some people have found that masking part of the image in Photoshop allows them to extend the image and they can then remove the mask.

My best,
    droopy

[theARTofDARK]

Hi droopy! Das wäre zwar eine Möglichkeit aber trotzdem eine Ausgrenzung einer ganzen Gruppe von Fotografen. Möchtest du etwa dein toll fotografiertes Auto auf dem Bild übermalen bevor Photoshop dir erlaubt das Bild weiter zu bearbeiten???

[droopydog500]

Hello @theARTofDARK,

I understand and Adobe will see your comments here. I just try to help people get their work done. 😃

    droopy

[theARTofDARK]

wenn Photoshop hier mitlesen würde , sollten sie auch reagieren! Wie gesagt es ist eine Diskriminierung von allen Aktfotografen! Ich bin überzeugt Adobe hätte auch keine Bilder von Rubens generativ bearbeiten lassen---einem der größten Maler der Menschheit! Oder wäre bei ihm die KI nicht beleidigt gewesen? Wohin sind wir gekommen?

[tonya20624874]

Generative fill community guidelines have always been restrictive. But recently, they've gone completely overboard. 
For contextI mainly us AI for creating/improving backgrounds.  
It started out giveing me issues with anyone. Male or female. In bathing suits. Which in my opinion is a bit much.  So I started using a top layer painting over the 'excessive' skin so it  would work.   This was fine for a month or two. 
Recently, it's gone completely overboard.  Mainly because I had to start covering more an more of the subject.  Today. it just became unusable. 
I have a couple in a chair. Nothing special. Absolutely nothing showing that would put it beyond a PG rating.  But 'community guidelines' keeps interefering. 
Attached is the photo in question. I even tried covering all the exposed skin. All of it. Including their faces. Again, community guidelines. This is censorshio gone crazy. 
I covered their faces for privacy. 
Does anyone have a suggestion for a competing AI generator that is actually usable? 
 

[Monika Gause]

Generate the background you want and then use Photoshop to put them into it.

[tonya20624874]

That's not a viable option. I'm using it specifically because it will add
shadows. Place light sources in the correct location for the way my lights
have been set. Add things relatively seamlessly to the body. Such as
wings, horns, halo's, etc.
Just using it for creating stand alone backgrounds is as much or more
trouble than going back to making composites manually.
As it stood. This was a very usable replacement for composites. As it is
now. If my subject, male or female. Has any amount of skin showing. Adobe
censorship shuts it down.
The censorship is way too strict.

[rayek.elfin]

A free, open source, and uncensored genAI alternative would be Krita with its free genAI extension.

https://krita.org/en/

https://kritaaidiffusion.com/

[Henrik Heigl]

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.

[Stephen Marsh]

@Robritt69 

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 @Robritt69

I cannot follow your reasoning. 

Which exact post by @Stephen Marsh are you referring to? 

[ЯỉсҠМӚїSTӚЯΒ]

Why is it that we aren't allowed to create the adult content that we so choose with the software we rent for $60/month?  But, when we try to create an image of Santa hunting that mischevious elf on a shelf, an image like this comes up?  Stop restricting our ability to create art, when you can't even prohibit AI from creating what appears to be pure Christmas Evil [when this ain't close to what was requested].

{Image removed by the moderator}

[ЯỉсҠМӚїSTӚЯΒ]

{Removed the image by the moderator}

This is ridiculous!

[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.

[CShubert]

Hi @ЯỉсҠМӚїSTӚЯΒ would it be possible to share your prompts that delivered these results?  Could you walk us through the steps you took so that we can try to reproduce?

Thanks,

Cory - Photoshop Product Manager

[MattPointZero]

completely agree - i get that if I am trying to add to the person maybe, but why should expanding a background be against guidleines just because the model is in a bikini?  Ridiculously severe filters that make the AI pointless in my work, can't wait for an alternative

[c.pfaffenbichler]

Several alternatives seem to be available already. 

[Dave28161132d2ux]

Who is anyone (including most of you who have more artistic bonafides than I could ever dream of having) to tell anyone else what is art and what isn't or decide what is offensive and what isn't.  We are all adults and pay the same money to use the same platform.  You don't need to even see what I do or don't create!  I just did what I call the "breast test", not even a nude breast, just a breast.  Adobe wouldn't generate an image with the word "breast" in it.  "classic nudes", "sensative subjects", "artistic expression"?  Stop tiptoeing around!  I want to create the UNIVERSE, the UNIMAGINABLE!  What about horrors of war, genocide, an image of a certain religion's prophet!?  Booty shorts and big juggs in a swimsuit.  I can't even say what I want to create in this "community".  Whoever's making and agreeing with these rules are a bunch of artistic pros.  By "pro", I mean you've sold out to . . . I was going to say the "Christian Right", because they're the ones who'd be the classic adversary here, but you're all probably on the left telling who what is and isn't offensive. [cursing removed] These guidelines are more restrictive than almost any I've seen in AI creation.  It's pathetic.

[Free_art]

I have been using an ancient copy of Photoshop for decades and just this month finally made the jump into the twenty-first century by getting the latest version because of how amazing the generative ai is, only to quickly discover that the generative ai is a reincarnation of my grandmother from the 1920's.  How is this even a thing? 

Creating nudes in art is quite possibly the oldest form of art.  You can even find them on walls of caves.  How is it that in 2024 Adobe has now decided that nudity, se(x), or anything even remotely resembling it should be ...what ...illegal?  Adobe Photoshop has walked hand in hand with modern artistic expression for decades.  It's almost impossible to think about art today without thinking of Photoshop.  It's mind boggling that they have chosen to do this.  I'm not sure a bigger ball has ever been dropped!

Art is the epitome of freedom of expression and free speech.  Leave it that way.

I get where the general thought came from, but it is not Adobe's job, or right to decide whether or not my art is "appropriate" or even "legal".  There are people in place to make sure illegal art is dealt with, and Adobe isn't anywhere on that list. To be clear however, "nudity", "semi-nudity", "se(x)", "pornography", or even "hard-core pornography" are not even close to any list of what is illegal in any free and modern nation in the world.  Neither is the depiction of violence.  In fact, the depiction of violence in art has motivated social movements, overthrown oppressive governments, and freed the enslaved for millenia's all over the world.

If this is coming form some religious belief, there are churches all over the world that contain art that would never have been created if Adobe's opinions of what is "appropriate" had played any role in their creation.  I wouldn't even be surprised if creating a picture of Jesus on a cross got nixed by these rules. There are centuries old, priceless works of art that would not exist.  How about the statue of David? The Birth of Venus? Venus of Willendorf? The Nude Maja? Lady Godiva? Adam and Eve? The Creation of Adam?!?!?!?  

In fact if I turn on the TV at 8pm I bet half the shows on at that time would have content that couldn't be worked on in Adobe Photoshop now.  Violence, nudity and se (x) is everywhere all the time today so if this is an attempt to protect kids from ever seeing nudity or violence in art ...sorry...that ship has sailed....a long time ago ....and the world didn't end  ...in fact it's probably a more aware, tolerant, socially active, and most importantly FREE world as a result.

I honestly cannot believe this is a thing in any "art" program, let alone Adobe Photoshop.  

Michaelangelo, Manet, Picasso, ....basically all of history's greatest painters would have had their paintbrushes taken away by Adobe if they had been around at the time.

What are you thinking? Because what I'm thinking is: It's time to find a new program.

P.S. I had to write se(x) that way because apparently you can't even write the word here, or the forum bot will instantly reject the post..

Did I wake up this morning in a different century? ...and country? 

Mind boggling.

[Monika Gause]

---

@Free_art  schrieb:

Art is the epitome of freedom of expression and free speech. 

---

Just draw whatever you want. Take art classes if you can't draw the human figure.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

Who is anyone (including most of you who have more artistic bonafides than I could ever dream of having) to tell anyone else what is art and what isn't or decide what is offensive and what isn't.  We are all adults and pay the same money to use the same platform.  You don't need to even see what I do or don't create!  I just did what I call the "breast test", not even a nude breast, just a breast.  Adobe wouldn't generate an image with the word "breast" in it.  "classic nudes", "sensative subjects", "artistic expression"?  Stop tiptoeing around!  I want to create the UNIVERSE, the UNIMAGINABLE!  What about horrors of war, genocide, an image of a certain religion's prophet!?  Booty shorts and big juggs in a swimsuit.  I can't even say what I want to create in this "community".  Whoever's making and agreeing with these rules are a bunch of artistic pros.  By "pro", I mean you've sold out to . . . I was going to say the "Christian Right", because they're the ones who'd be the classic adversary here, but you're all probably on the left telling who what is and isn't offensive. [cursing removed] These guidelines are more restrictive than almost any I've seen in AI creation.  It's pathetic.

By @Dave28161132d2ux

I fail to see the merit in your argument. 

Suppose in »olden times« a producer of paints didn’t create a specific shade of blue – would that prevent their customers from creating art or could those just use another color, procure the paint from another maker, create/mix the paint themselves, …? 

As far as I can tell there is, aside from the restrictions concerning banknotes, no limitation on the imagery one can edit with Photoshop so what is the problem?  

[Dave28161132d2ux]

I have Photoshop, I've used it for 20+ years.  I'm not talking about Photoshop, I'm talking about Firefly.  Your response isn't appropriate for my argument.

[Dave28161132d2ux]

Free_art, were you using the word 'Photoshop' instead of 'AI' or 'Firefly'?  Just clarifying.  Sometimes I find myself saying "Photoshop it." even though I'm talkning about editing a video.

[Nancy OShea]

I fail to see the merit in your argument. 

By @c.pfaffenbichler

=========

There are no merits.  This screed and others like it aren't worth responding to.  Anyone with an ounce of skill & imagination can create what's needed without AI, as they did before AI existed. 🙄

All tools have certain limitations. And understanding those limitations and available alternatives are what separate experts from amateurs. No one tool will replace all others, anymore than AI can replace human talent.

I think this topic has run its course. It serves no purpose anymore except as provocative clickbait for trolls and chat GTP bots to find.  On that basis, I think it warrants being locked.  But as an unpaid volunteer, I'll defer to those who are higher up on the food chain to make that judgement call.

Goodbye & good luck.