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 

[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_A_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_A_Marsh are you referring to? 

[delete account 20241126]

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}

[delete account 20241126]

{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 @delete account 20241126 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.

[Nancy OShea]

@Free_art,

You can create whatever you wish with Adobe's suite of desktop tools. Nobody's stopping you. 

However, if it goes through any of Adobe's online services, it must conform to Adobe's Content Rules. 

[Dave28161132d2ux]

I can feel you looking down your nose at me, but your lack of respect is misplaced.  I'm not arguing about AI itself.  AI is here., it's here to stay, and Adobe has decided to make it part of their platform.  I'm not talking about talent, skill, or imagination.  I get the picture, a lot of you are purists and I actually hold that characteristic in high regard.  A lot of your (maybe my) talent has been used to create a system that can make anyone look like they have talent or imagination.  I have my own thoughts aoubt what kind of limits should be put on AI.  I understand the avalable alternatives, but these are completely different topics than I am arguing and that's not the point of this discussion. (adobe-firefly-discussions/nudity-and-semi-nudity-using-ai-and-its-imposed-restrictions)

I am arguing about the morality police who decide what can and can't be created with Firefly, PERIOD.  Yes, all tools have limitations, but these are limitations someone is deciding to chain to a tool for reasons that have no business weighing the tool down.

I am not a chat bot.  I am not a troll.  This argument is valid and will be until I, as a paying member of Adobe products, get a stratight answer.  So far, all any of you are doing is changing the subject and dancing around it, very transparently.  (This is my first post on anything Adobe and I expected far better to be honest.)

Do any of you have the capacity to come up with a valid defence against my position???

Side note: I'd ask those higher up on the food chain if they should allow an un-paid volunteer, vendor, or anyone representing Adobe insult clients who've paid thousands and thousands of dollars over their lifetime using their products.

[Free_art]

Thanks, but I've actually been formally trained by some of the best artists in the world. 

First of all, art is more than just "drawing".  "Drawing" is a skill or tool, which can be used to create art, but is not art, anymore than Photoshop (or Photoshopping) is art.

I'm not talking about getting an ai generator to create art for me, I'm talking about taking my art into Photoshop to either retouch for use in prints, online applications, client work, etc.  You know....the reason Photoshop was invented in the first place.  I was there. I remember.

Could I use the stamp tool to meticulously go through the image pixel by pixel and modify any defects or other elements that need modification, yes I have done it that way for many years.  It is a tedious, time-expensive process that can increase bottom line significantly, and even the highest experts can't do it anywhere near as accurately as Photoshop's AI.

"Generative Fill" is what i am talking about. 

For example, this has happens almost daily since subscribing to the new photoshop:

I'll have a drawing, rendering, painting, photo of a sculpture, photo of a person, etc, etc, etc, into Photoshop and need to adjust the eye position slightly to make the model, or subject matter look at "the camera".  If the model, or subject matter of the piece appears to be even slightly female and has more than the average amount of skin showing (not necessarily nude), has cleavage showing, has anything at all near her mouth (like food), is leaning forward, has a "satisfied" look on her face, (I could go on but you hopefully get the picture), the Generative AI refuses to modify the image in any way, and tells me it thinks the image is "illegal" 

Same problem if I have an image that I've applied a digital effect to and want to alter that effect in any way, or if I want to move, or change faces or body parts, or interestingly enough if I want to reduce the amount of skin, cleavage, remove digital artifacts, etc in an image.  It detects something in the image that it determines is somehow "illegal" and stops working.  Imagine if your pencil did that when you were hand drawing something.

Photoshop is a tool for cleaning up and making seamless alterations to an image.  Generative AI is a game changer for that purpose, but ultimately it is just a digital pencil that should draw whatever I tell it to.

Will a (very small) number of people use that for to create actually illegal artwork? of course.  Is it your pencil's job to stop that from happening? Absolutely not.

Salman Rushdie probably said it best when he said "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."

History is full of priceless art pieces that one group found horribly offensive while another group found enormously inspirational.  I have seen pieces of art that I found highly offensive for any number of reasons over the years, but not for one second have I ever even considered the possibility that the artist should have been stopped from creating it.  If once it's created, presented to the public, and found to actually be breaking a legitimate law, then that person should be penalized accordingly.  That person however, should never be stopped in the process of creating that artwork. Never, ever, never!  For any reason. Never!

Tell them beforehand what might get them thrown in jail? Absolutely.  Warn them mid-process that they are treading a dangerous line? No problem. Stop them from creating it? NEVER! 

Obviously this is a subject I am very passionate about, and interestingly enoughin the decades that I have been doing art, I think I've only ever done two or three actual nudes (not including art school stuff).  Just not my thing.  And I don't know that I have ever done anything depicting violence of any kind.  Again, not my thing.  

The idea that anyone, let alone a tool, could stop me from doing it if I wanted to is absolutely appauling to me and gives the finger to everything art is, and has always been about.

Personal expression.  Whether good, bad or ugly.

It has to be allowed to happen. No matter what, or you start down a slippery slope that has literally destroyed cultures and civilizations many times in human history.

As a final thought, to take it out of the realm of "art".  When "carding" first started happening a few years back, the majority of people said "I don't have a problem with it because I don't do anything illegal anyway so why not?"

Then innocent people started dying and everyone realized that stepping on people's rights and freedom in any way to stop the possibility of something bad happening is no solution, it's just yet another offense.  The only solution is information, and warnings but ultimately allowing people to whatever they are going to do, then dealing with the aftermath.

Nudes, people.  You're supposed to be artists. The most significant artistic tool to be invented in centuries doesn't allow you to work on nudes, and you have no issue with that?  Really?

What would art history look like today if pencils and paintbrushes had stopped artists from working on nudes?

"Art is freedom - freedom ofexpression - and it's message has resonated through society for centuries" Peter M. Brant.

[Free_art]

Specifically for me it's the Generative Fill in Photoshop for the purposes of retouching images as per my reply to the post above.  Ultimately though I'm talking about any "content restrictions" imposed by anyone, especially anyone outside government, let alone the modern version of a pencil and eraser.

[Free_art]

Ah yes, and there it is, the old "I'm not doing anything wrong, so why shouldn't you be able to stop me on the street, search me, search my car, do so without a lawyer and use your own personal optinion to decide if I'm doing anything wrong, and then stop me from doing it?"

I have no problem switching to another program if this doesn't stop.  My concern is what effect does this have on the future of art?

Do me a favour, go get an art history text book.  Go through that book and tear out any page that depicts nudity, violence, se(x), self-harm, profanity, drug-use, extremism, terrorism, hate and yes, even harm to children.

When you're done, let us know how many pages, if any are left in that book.

That's the effect Adobe would have had on the past.

Now let's look forward and think about what effect Adobe will have on the future of art if their "content rules" (aka. personal opinions on constitutes good art) continue to limit the abilities of new artists to express themselves completely.

How many pieces of art will never exist because the artist's digital pencil stopped them from creating something because it decided they "might" create something that "might" offend somebody somewhere.  Not even something illegal, just something that "might" offend someone, or simply doesn't fall inside the narrow brackets of what Adobe apparently thinks is good art.

I can't believe I'm even having this conversation with people who consider themselves artists, but any art tool that imposes it's own opinion on the content of any art and stops it from happening, CAN NOT EXIST UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!  Let alone what is probably the most widely used art tool in the world.

The consequences to the future of art are catastrophic!

[rayek.elfin]

A corporate entity such as Adobe isn't beholden to you or anyone else. It's not a democracy. Simple as that. Take it or leave it.

If you want to take genAI prompts further than the censored ones provided by Adobe, your recourse is to (for example) download open source tools like Krita and its genAI plugin. Free, and completely uncensored. Download additional AI models from Civitai and other sources.

Of course, those AI models all rely on stolen imagery from countless artists just like you.

Your responsibility, your choice.

[Monika Gause]

---

@Free_art  schrieb:

I have no problem switching to another program if this doesn't stop.  My concern is what effect does this have on the future of art?

---

You are retouching, right? So what does that have to do with art?

I suppose you've never heard of teenagers being desperate because the are bullied with fake images that mock their body or of (most of the time female) celebrities having their portrait edited into nude photos and being blackmailed with that? That is a pest already, but with AI unfortunate anybody would be able to pull that off if it doesn't get limited.

My concern is about the future of humanity if peoples' first thought about any artistic medium is how they can create and edit nudes with it. 

[D Fosse]

Yes! Ten upvotes to Monika. I've been trying to make that exact point before, but not as eloquently as this 🙂

All those people complaining about "censorship" should take a moment to consider wider implications.

[Dave28161132d2ux]

Free_art, your arguments are so well formed and I thank you for taking the time to inform so thoroughly. I do know something about history and I think your Salman Rushdie/Peter M Brant quotes are spot on for this issue. Although, I'd change the word 'centuries' to 'millennia' in Peter's quote if I had my input.

I had no idea Generative Fill was doing that in Photoshop and I am more appalled than I was with just the Firefly Issue. This seems more of a rampant censorship issue throughout the Adobe culture than something limited to Firefly.  This is nothing more than stifling ideas and burning books.  "It has to be allowed to happen. No matter what, or you start down a slippery slope that has literally destroyed cultures and civilizations many times in human history."  I'd ask those who are not well informed about history, society, and culture to read that again and fact check it for yourselves. 

I am from the US (as is Adobe).  Here, we have the 1st Amendment to our Constitution that protects these freedoms.  Other countries have similar protections, in France, it's is in their Constitution, Germany's Article 5, Spain's Article 20, Russia's . . . hmmmm.  Regardless, this is something that progressive cultures have realized is so imperative, it's written into the basal ganglia equivalent of their legislation.  The BIOS of a computer, a comapany's mission statement, basic RGB color pallet all of which are the first source of information a system goes through in the heirarchy of decision making.

No doubt, many of you can't wait to hit the 'reply' button and point out the fact that Adobe is its own entity and can make decisions to what it should and shouldn't allow.  Yes, that's 100% true.  Why though?  Why, knowing the disgusting things censorship can cause, knowing the magnificent importance of art to the individual, knowing the history of art and the effect it can have on society, etc. would Adobe decide to make bylaws further restricting creativity?  Not just restricting, but in this case it sounds like it's choking creativity.  Let's make everything beige, that way it will mix with everything and it won't offend anyone.

Those of you who are so easily offended should compare your perspective to that of the macro-environment.  Imagine you're an alien who's able to rewind/fastforward/slomo/zoom in and out of our planet throughout history and actually see the lives being changed, then the progress humanity has made over time, and watch how art plays a massive part.  Watch the individual creating the art, it spreading to the community, then to the country, then the world.  If these constrictions are correct about Adobe's culture, they're having a chilling effect on ideas.  Adobe has a massive share of the market.  Who's to say the next Shepard Fairey won't just get so discouraged that they give up and the world misses out on something that could have had such a positive influence on all of us?