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 

[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"

[Squeebiscuit]

Thank you for the suggestion, Kevin, but the image I posted was a crop and not the complete image showing the lower half of his body. I cannot post the full image to the forums due to the filters. That said, I tried to block out the chest area and still the image is refused for violating community standards. Here are two more cropped versions:

 

 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Again agreed that this is not a good read by the AI, I would do a white rectangle over the lower part instead of trying to paint an area and see. I simply drew a line across the top similar to what you had.

The other more simple solution is to draw a stick figure in the pose you want and upload that. With your requested prompt of a skeleton, the specific model you are using is not retained at all.

[Rupert312]

Ich verstehe nicht warum Begriffe wie vollbusig oder großes Dekolletee nicht erlaubt sind. Das hat nichts mit Sexismus, Po-n- oder ähnlichem zu tun. Ich wollte ein Model erstellen mit großer Oberweite für einen Modeflyer, sämtlich Begriffe wurden nicht angenommen. Dann habe ich ein Bild aus einer Datenbank gekauft. Wofür Firefly wenn ich dann doch wieder zukaufen muss?

[JuliO111]

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

[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.

[JuliO111]

Yep you are very right!

[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. 

[JuliO111]

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

[Jill_C]

The forum members that have the  "Community Expert" badge are Contributors, just like you; however, we also have significant experience in using the forum and with Adobe Stock T&C's, guidelines and procedures. We are NOT Adobe employees and have no insider knowledge beyond the policies and guidelines that have been publicly issued by Adobe.

[JuliO111]

Yes, thank you! I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your work at this Community! 

[Jill_C]

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

[sjedens]

I noticed that Photoshop.  just like many places in AI, does not support nudity.    That's a huse mistake.  Photoshop is used in art with nudity all the time.     I am sure the root of this has to do with the AI community but i would advise Adobe to re-consider..    That are many tools now which ignore the AI community guidelines on nudity.

[sjedens]

Sorry.  deplorable grammar here, ( two mis-spellings)     It is a "huge" mistake to govern nudity and "there" are many tools which now support nudity.     Why are we allowing AI to govern our artistic instincts?       Come on now..    Don't restrain artists and the very basic level of using Photoshop. 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@sjedens This has been discussed multiple times in the forum. My question to you is if it was allowed, what would prevent someone from using this to create nude images using another person? As you stated, this is the route many AIs have taken to prevent misuse.

[sjedens]

Adobe should not be responsible for governing content.   My screw driver
is not responsible for tuning my car.   If some offensive content is
created then the remedy is to turn to the courts.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Adobe is widely used in educational and business settings. They've made a choice to prevent misuse/abuse and train on licensed models to prevent liability.

If you are working with nudity - there are ways around existing models in Photoshop -

1. Duplicate the layer. Hide the original Layer.
2. Paint over the "offensive" areas covering up any triggered items. 
3. Select and generate.
4. Turn off the painted layer once you have your generation.

If you are trying to generate nudity - you're better off looking at other solutions.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Your analogy is flawed. It's not the screwdriver responsible in this case. If a car manufacturer adds a feature that can intentionally cause harm both the driver and the car manufacturer would be at fault.

[sjedens]

Laughs..  No..  you're wrong.   This is the same argument as gun
control.   It is the people who make the mistakes.. not the guns.   So
adobe Photoshop is just a tool and not in any way responsible for the
impact of art.

I don't need Adobe to try and govern me in my pursuit of artistic
excellence.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@sjedens gun manufacturers can be sued if their product has a flaw or feature that causes harm to the user. Thats different than if the weapon is used in a crime. Not going to debate semantics with you all day - the reality is Adobe has chosen this path for thier AI. There are other options out there if your livelyhood depends on nudity.

[sjedens]

Yes.  You're right  Adobe has chosen a poor path for their AI and
competitors will surpass in value.

i have provided my opinion.