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 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Starsson no offense, but thats a very simplistic view of a complex issue which is why some solutions are limiting outputs. Unfortunately limitations like this affect everyone without exception. Until an AI can detect with absolute certainty and identify intent, algorithms will restrict erroring on the side of too limiting rather than allowances.

[Clint_Kaster5817]

I'm right with you. Adobe is wrong.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Starsson it's not necessarily that it's considered "pornographic" - it's that the current algorithms cannot determine the differences yet. Once it is trained up enough I'm sure Adobe and others will lax some restrictions or users will start to find that bikini pictures (example) are suddenly allowed.

[John Dingler in LA]

Adobe should take the responsibility to create an adult Firefly and a children's Firefly to avoid putting the brake on professionals.

[Nancy OShea]

"Adobe should create an adult Firefly and a children's Firefly..."

==========

And who would supervise access -- the Internet police? 

Seriously, if this matters so much, find an Open AI model you can run offline & train it to suit.

[daniellei4510]

And a third version for childish adults? 😉

[Rupert312]

Ich möchte auf den Beitrag von Henrik Heigl eingehen,

"Ich habe eben z.B. "schönes weibliches Model mit schwarzem Kleid und großer Oberweite" ausprobiert und das klappt ohne Probleme oder Fehlermeldungen"

Das Problem ist dass "große Oberweite" manchmal funktioniert und dann wieder mal nicht. Man kann nicht vorhersehen ob ja oder nein.

Ich habe mir von Firefly ein Bild erstellen lassen dass einen Mann zeigen sollte. Unter den erstellten Bildern war eine dass einen Mann mit freien Oberkörper zeigte. Da es für mich gut passte wollte ich es weiter bearbeiten, was mir aber nicht gelang da Photoshop es unter Berufung auf seine Richtlinien verweigerte. Photoshop erstellt also Bilder die es dann selbst als Verstoß sieht. Außerdem sind 80% aller Bilder die Photoshop (Firefly) von Personen erstellt sowieso unbrauchbar, da fast immer irgendwelche Gliedmaßen verdreht oder verstümmelt sind und viele Gesichter verzerrt sind.

[Clinton Lubbe]

@DazzlingVastness I have sent you a message.

[beauxlefoto]

For the most part I agree with you, except for blaming American developers as prude and conservative. I'm an American developer and conservative, but I am no prude.

[Offensive remarks about racial ethnicity removed by moderator.]

I actually had a moderator from Instagram try to scold me about my photos he removed and "how would I feel if i had a daughter?" type comment.

But yeah, definitely wish we could use generative AI to fix photoshoots with models.

[Dario de Judicibus]

It's a problem I'm experiencing a bit with all American-made products:
there is a real “offense syndrome” in the USA, where everything that might
offend someone is considered politically incorrect. This is a relative and
very hypocritical concept because there is concern about not offending
those who think in a certain "Western" way, not about not offending at all.
For instance, a bare breast is considered offensive, but not an uncovered
head, which would offend many Islamic fundamentalists. So, it's just
hypocrisy. The problem is that if I am a writer and need to write an er0tic
scene, I don't want an AI that bothers me every three seconds telling me
that certain terms are offensive because if I use them, it's because they
are part of the story. If I am a photographer and take a glamour photo, I
want to be able to use the photo editing product without the application
complaining. The choice
of what to write, what to photograph, or what to film in a video should be
left to the author. It will be their responsibility to decide, not the
tool's. Imagine a hammer refusing to drive a nail because it's three in the
afternoon and a neighbor might be taking a nap! We are adult, not children,
and software houses should respect us.

[abuse removed by moderator]

[Dario de Judicibus]

But for what absurd and sick reason should nudity be censored in an image processing product? Most art—I’m talking about sculptures, paintings, and photographs—is based on nudity. In every era. Even in churches here in Italy, we have frescoes with nude men and women! Yet we can't show nudity in an application developed by an American company. How can a software house dare to determine what an artist can or cannot create? And it's a good thing most art was produced by hand because if artificial intelligences had existed centuries ago, we would have lost 90% of the artworks! Do 

you realize that all of this is ridiculous and absurd?

[D Fosse]

@Dario de Judicibus 

You're missing the point. For one thing, it's not "nude art". You didn't make it, an algorithm did. It doesn't qualify as art.

But more critically - you do realize that this is used to bully schoolkids to the brink of disaster? (No, I'm not spelling that out, I'm sure you can imagine).

[daniellei4510]

Welcome to AI. I tried to create an image of a pig in a shower or a pig taking a bath and both attempts were banned in Midjourney. Adobe created it with no issues. Live with it. I photographed nudes for 25 years and I have no issue whatsoever if Adobe bans it in Firefly.

[beauxlefoto]

"You're missing the point. For one thing, it's not "nude art". You didn't make it, an algorithm did. It doesn't qualify as art."

No, YOU are missing the point. We're not asking for the AI to generate "nude art" for us. We have photoshoots where nudity doesnt even exist... just some skin, a girl in a bikini or lingerie...or even a model in an off the shoulder sweater. The Gen AI is basically useless for my workflow of glamour shots where we want to remove wires, backdrops, extend the background, etc.

"But more critically - you do realize that this is used to bully schoolkids to the brink of disaster? (No, I'm not spelling that out, I'm sure you can imagine)."

What evil intent someone chooses to do with software shouldnt dictate whether something is available or not. If that is the case, Adobe should discontinue Photoshop outright since people can use it for nefarious purposes already, and have been for decades. Thats not how a free society functions, we dont limit the masses for the actions of a few criminals.

[beauxlefoto]

"Welcome to AI. I tried to create an image of a pig in a shower or a pig taking a bath and both attempts were banned in Midjourney. Adobe created it with no issues."

What are you talking about? I literally just rendered a pig in a shower or taking a bath with no problem in MidJourney. Its not banned at all.

And again, no one is asking for the AI to generate nudes. We're asking for the AI to do "background extends" or "content removals" of photos that might have nudity or not, even lingerie and glamour shots are forbidden to use GenAI.

[Monika Gause]

"my workflow of glamour shots where we want to remove wires, backdrops, extend the background, etc."

What kind of glamour shot is that where you have a mess in the background?

On top of that: cleaning up a background can be done properly with Sensei based tools.

"people can use it for nefarious purposes already, and have been for decades. "

When using plain vanilla Photoshop you need actual skills. With Gen AI the sheer amount of harm rises because anyone with a bad intent is suddenly able to hurt others.

[daniellei4510]

"What are you talking about? I literally just rendered a pig in a shower or taking a bath with no problem in MidJourney. Its not banned at all."

I don't care what you got, I know what I got and it was banned. That's what I'm talking about. Why would I make it up?

[beauxlefoto]

You sound like a really nice person. LOL

[Snarky remark removed by moderator, as per Adobe Community Guidelines.]

[daniellei4510]

[remarks removed by moderator]

[droopydog500]

Please refrain from engaging in commentary that questions the motives of other participants or that digresses from the central topic. Let's maintain a focused discussion relevant to the subject matter. To ensure this forum remains a safe and welcoming environment for productive dialogue regarding Adobe products, kindly adhere to the Adobe Community Guidelines.

    droopy

[QINGCHARLES]

I've edited literally hundreds of model photos over the last year. One thing I can tell you for 100% certain: the models don't need to be remotely nude. What triggers the error is: 1) the model is female, not male; 2) there is any skin showing (e.g. arms, or legs). Face showing is fine, we're not at the point where we can only edit photos of women with faces covered, but I would say in 10% of the time I get the error it is with a model who is fully clothed, but wearing a t-shirt and shorts for instance.

Only happens with female models, not male.

90% of my use is extending the background. I don't take the photos. I sometimes plan the poses and shoots, but I'm not the photographer. Often I get a great photo, but there's not enough space around the model for all the social media crops we do (1x1, 7x8, 9x16 etc) so I need to extend the background. I can get around it often by cutting out the model, extending, and putting the back together. I shouldn't have to do this.

[daniellei4510]

I can recall only two or three times I've had issues with female models wearing t-shirts, having bare legs, etc. And the problems were solved by slightly changing the shape of my selection. The one time I've had a consistent issue was when I was trying to COVER UP breasts that were exposed due to a very plunging neckline of a jacket, rather than exposing them even more. The fix? Liquify. Sometimes the tried and true tools do the job as well as or better than generative fill. 

[QINGCHARLES]

This. It doesn't need to contain any nudity at all. Off the shoulder sweater will get you a moral outrage from Photoshop. It only does this on female photos. It's clearly gender-descriminating.

One comment in this thread said we should just use Sensei instead. I looked that up because I didn't know it is, but it apparently only works on Premiere and AE, so no use for background extending my photos.

[QINGCHARLES]

Believe me, I try to use every other tool before I touch Gen AI because of the other problems. Sometimes, say with a background extend, it would take you hours of inpainting manually to do what Gen AI can do in 5 seconds, so I'll just struggle and crop the edge of the photo, extend that and paste the results back in.

[Monika Gause]

Sensei is the name of older AI powered tools in Photoshop. Content aware fill and repair brushes.