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 

[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.

[Dalvidos]

I recognize the obvious problem here - I would not be seeking obscene content, but in fact, I am asking for an age restricted paid for version with the possibility of nudity. It seems like an obvious step as many of the images generated are not suitable because the clothing just doesnt work for life drawing.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Dalvidos Similar requests have been made and each time users are referred back to the terms of use outlined by Adobe.

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

[Virah0101]

I agree! The guidelines are way too strict! I uploaded a picture of my face and shoulders in a tank top and it got flagged. A picture of me literally just sitting on the ground fully clothed looking at the camera got flagged. As for prompts, I feel like the word "Latina" is automatically being associated with adult content because prompts I use with it get flagged, then when I replace it with a different ethnicity (or none at all) the prompt is fine. I think the restrictiveness around nudity and adult content is ridiculous, sexist, (probably racist) and just plain unnecessary. 

[DazzlingVastness]

Hello,

I am a photographer who works with female models. Sometimes the models are nude, other times they are not. However, I've found that perhaps around 90% of the time, if a woman is in the image at all, even if she is clothed, and I attempt to use generative fill to remove anything from the photo it will block my attempt. 

The biggest issue seems to be the fact that it blocks any image with a woman in it. I would say that this is clearly sexist, but I haven't tested it with male models because I generally only work with women. But a secondary issue is the fact that generative fill won't allow one to use the feature at all, even if the part of the photo you're attempting to use it on does not involve the subject whatsoever. In other words, let's say I'm editing a photo I've taken of a nude model, and I want to remove an outlet from a wall in part of the photo. It blocks me from doing this. Yes, there are other easy ways to remove an outlet, and I've even found workarounds to using generative fill when a nude model is involved. But in my opinion, there are clearly some pretty major issues surrounding "user guidelines" with generative fill. 

If I were attempting to remove the clothes of a clothed person with generative fill - totally understandable why that would be blocked. If I were using generative fill to edit anything at all on the body of a nude model - I could possibly understand that too. But if the edit I'm making is not even touching the body of the model, what could possibly be the harm in that? How could anyone "abuse" that? As a side note, I've found that generative fill is absolutely awful and generating anything connected to the human body anyway, unless it's a straight line, like a forarm. Have you ever tried extending a photo where you accidentally cropped off someones finger, toes, or even boots? The results are horrifying. 

[DazzlingVastness]

Maybe I should have put a question in there. What do you all think about this? Any thoughts? Has anyone else run into the same issue? Why on earth would we be blocked from using generative fill when there is a woman in the photo? 

[DazzlingVastness]

While we're here and I'm the only one in the conversation, let me bring up something directly from the "user guidelines" for generative fill: 

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

Let me ask you, Adobe, anyone... is "explicit nudity" abusive or illegal? Does it violate the rights of others? Since when is nudity banned from art? What time period are we living in? This surely must be one the most puritanical and prudish eras that's ever been. 

[DazzlingVastness]

Yes, I am peeved.

[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.

[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

[DazzlingVastness]

[EDIT: SEE ABOVE POST]

I see. I guess I should read the fine print more. It's all beginning to finally make sense. It took a while to get there, but if this is the actual reason for not allowing generative fill to process nudity, I can completely understand that. I still hate the wording of their user guidelines, but it's fine. I'm ready to use the workarounds and be happy. Thanks for clarifying things ❤️

[c.pfaffenbichler]

Have you seen the explanations that were added to the terms of use? 

https://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html

[DazzlingVastness]

I have not seen that, but it's good to know. When I mentioned disliking the wording of their user guidelines I was specifically referring to the guidelines equating explicit nudity with abusive, or illegal, or content that violates the rights of others. Child s3xual abuse material I can obviously understand, but lumping nudity in general with some sort of crime is preposterous. However, if the reason is that they don't want nudes of any kind on their servers for legal reasons, this, as I said, I can understand. And it would be nice if they would just specifically give that as the reason in their user guidelines rather than giving the impression that nudity, or even pornographic material for that matter, is illegal. 

I'm still not sure why their algorithm is so over-sensitive that if a woman is in the photo at all it is often blocked, particularly when I've seen first hand how an algorithm, AI scan, or whatever the process is, for a social media platform can catch the tiniest nip slip. I once posted a photo to instagram which was instantly taken down because I hadn't noticed a literal nip slip which wasn't easy to spot without zooming in. (hillarious, just found out you can't say [censored]pple or [censored]xual)

Anyway, now that I know the specifics about how generative fill works, by uploading the image to their server, I'm happy to cover the model entirely with a censor block before using it. I'd prefer it actually. 

[abuse removed by moderator]

[jjgallegos]

I understand censorship has been a long-discussed topic. However, it seems that it has become more aggressive in returning warnings. I was trying to generate a background for this fully dressed model, but I kept getting warnings. There is no explicit nudity in this photo, yet to no avail, I get the warnings. This also happens with a lot of bikini shots, especially if they're thongs or lack of tops but covered by arms. Can't you refine the training where it recognizes genitalia and uncovered breasts so it can distinguish explicit nudity from other forms of innocuous, albeit revealing outfits or lack thereof? I'm using Photoshop Beta 25.11.

[Trevor.Dennis]

This is exactly how it started with Skynet.  First we are told that no more than two square inches of exposed flesh are allowed.  Next there's a T1000 Climbing over crashing through your garden wall. 

[Kevin_Vang]

I agree. Remove this filter! There should be some NSFW for adults.

[Satrap Web]

Firefly is simply too restrictive and takes away the artistic freedom of the user.