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 

[dirk_1865]

It's not about creating nudity but about working with material containing nudidity. A huge difference.

[daniellei4510]

Yep. A lot of people relying on AI to do all of the editing for them. That can work sometimes, but not all of the time.

[Hans37096729t3t2]

Hi Monika, Dirk here. I don't know why you banned me. It wasn't my intention to offend you. Sorry if you feel like this!

I linked to Adobes Creative Fill commercial site. It reads generative fill is based on Adobe Firefly. When I try i.e. to remove a shadow near skin or on skin or on see-through-clothing via creative fill tool Photoshop gives an alert message telling of violated rules. Firefly is using its nudefilter on parts where absolutely no nudity is happening. OK, it's nude skin. But no mumus or tutus 🙂 That's the/my problem.

It Would be nice if you take my other account back on track. Thank you!

[jane-e]

I don't know why you banned me.. ... It Would be nice if you take my other account back on track.

By @Hans37096729t3t2

Monika did not ban you. She is a volunteer on the Adobe forums and we are not given that capability. Only Adobe staff can ban users who break the community guidelines. Volunteers cannot override decisions by staff. 

If you feel that you were banned in error, you can make your case on the Using the Community forum.

https://community.adobe.com/t5/using-the-community/ct-p/ct-Using-the-Community

Jane

[Hans37096729t3t2]

Thanks for the info. Have a nice day🥳

[rayek.elfin]

...so it is fine to harm other people that happen to be celebrities or happen to have their faces publically known?

Wow. Just wow.

And as others have stated here: real harm is done with genAI abused for sextortion and fooling people out of their hard-earned money. Lives are wrecked as I write this, and people have taken their own lives.

So spare me the hollow excuses. Adobe is proctecting itself and its users here.

If you want uncensored genAI imagery, install one of the many open source and free AI generators, and invest in a good graphics card. Have all the freedom you want by actually taking responsibility yourself rather than asking others for taking the hit for you.

[Jill_C]

I agree that real harm is already being done right now with AI tools. In this very heated and dynamic election season, I have seen some really vile images and videos meant to portray the opposing candidate in compromising situations. Words are put into their mouths, facial expressions changed, clothes added or removed, and they are portrayed doing or saying things that never happened. Sometimes the technology is ham-handed and the effects laughable and obviously false. Sometimes they're actually good enough to fool a lot of people. And those totally falsified statements and situations become viral and start to effect the opinions of voters.  

[Nancy OShea]

Someone tried to sue Buffalo Wild Wings because buffalos don't have wings...

By @daniellei4510

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

Stupid people playing stupid games for really stupid prizes.  🤔

[skottieo]

I completely agree with your perspective, Steven. I fully share your frustration as a longtime Photoshop user since the mid-1990s, spanning 34 years. Photoshop became the gold standard for photo editing largely because of its role in the fashion industry, where enhancing the human form was accepted and celebrated. What I find troubling is that Adobe’s software, once intended for private use, is now subjected to overreaching censorship that treats our personal workspaces as if they were public forums.

If this were a community space like Discord, where content moderation is necessary to protect a wider audience, I’d understand. But that’s not the case here. This feels like "Big Brother" AI moderation, applying an overly cautious and highly subjective lens to what should be private, professional work. Even though we agree to their terms of service, these restrictions feel borderline offensive, particularly when Photoshop became what it is today by supporting industries that relied on its ability to edit the human body—most notably, fashion marketing. How can Adobe be held liable for what users create in their own private spaces? It’s a flimsy excuse.

If Adobe’s concern is backlash from extremist groups, they are caving to the pressure of a vocal minority that shouldn't have a say in the creative work of professionals. The company should stand up for the artists and photographers who have remained loyal for decades. The fact that I’ve had innocuous items like flesh-toned vases flagged, or client photos of swimwear restricted from AI tools due to arbitrary censoring, is absurd and quite frankly, infuriating. We’re talking about a shoulder or a curve—basic elements of photography and art. 

I recognize the potential dangers of AI misuse, and yes, there will always be those who exploit technology. But restricting advanced editing features for professionals—who have been using this software for decades—undermines our workflow and stifles creativity. Rather than weaponizing censorship against its most devoted users, Adobe should be championing the advancements of AI to make our lives easier.

Perhaps a waiver or verification process could be implemented for professional artists, fashion retouchers, and photo editors, but at the core, this is private-use software, and Adobe’s promise of "creating anything" in their advertising should mean exactly that—with no arbitrary restrictions.

The slogan 'Unleash your creativity with AI art generation' is misleading; the reality is closer to 'Release your family-friendly creativity with AI art generation.' But let’s be honest, that doesn’t sell software.

[Stephen Marsh]

The data storage and processing is being performed on Adobe's servers.

[jane-e]

I fully share your frustration as a longtime Photoshop user since the mid-1990s, spanning 34 years.

By @skottieo

You can continue to edit photos the way you have done for 34 years. It's only Generative AI, created by typing words into a prompt and done on Adobe's servers, that has restrictions.

Jane

[Clint_Kaster5817]

Yes, Jane....as Adobe uses our images to train its AI it will get better and soon you won't even notice that you don't upload shameful material anymore.  A vase that looks like a womans shoulder?  Someone must be a pervert.  Just don't DO the things that they don't want you to do and it won't be a problem!  Win-win!

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Clint_Kaster5817 Adobe doesnt use your images to train it's AI. Please read:

https://www.adobe.com/ai/overview/firefly/gen-ai-commitments.html

[amaralcreative]

Does any know if the 'FireFly' restriction is perminant or termporary?

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@amaralcreative if you mean the Generative User Guidelines. Those are not temporary.

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

[Starsson]

Today, October 5, 2024, I attempted to combine two images using AI generation, but it refused to process them. I contacted an Adobe technician, and they confirmed that there was no violation. However, they explained that AI censorship was preventing it. Could you please review the images and let me know if you see anything vulgar? Adobe, you are going to lose customers and great clients. Others are taking off their restrictions on AI.

[Nancy OShea]

Why do you think you need AI to combine (composite) two images?

[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.