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 

[Cyndi25639385sikt]

I'm curious if Adobe actually screens their images, which would make having a "safe search" button purposeful. You might as well remove it, because I can tell you, it ain't working. If you need our help, even though we have work to do and aren't getting paid to make Adobe appear professional, it would be nice to have a button on each image enabling us to report inappropriate imagery to you, so that you can then flag these images. I'm sure I am not the first person to say something, so please, since we are paying for your service, please listen to us and do something about it. I know some women don't mind exploiting themselves, but I'd rather not see it since, being a woman, I think women are worth so much more than their bodies.

Thank you...

[WendellaBee]

Hi @Cyndi25639385sikt,
I appreciate your concerns, you are not alone and our Search team is continually improving and updating what is included or excluded in safe search.

If you can provide details, either here or send it to me in a private message I can forward this to the appropriate team for review.

[Cyndi25639385sikt]

I looked up "beauty black background" to find a beauty shot for a salon, specifically a salon hairstyle with a dark background. I see several images of women in sexual poses wearing strings and one photo of completely exposed breasts. If that's specific enough for Adobe. All you have to do is a search for beauty images and there you go. It's been going on for years and other people have made complaints. I've even seen a couple in sexual position with hardly a scrap of "clothing" before. I also did a chat with a rep and got the usual, sorry, we'll look into it. I know that Adobe may have limited employees at this time, but if there is way to prevent these images from even being uploaded in the first place, that would be easier for you to deal with. I understand that I do not know the process by which Adobe gets images from stock photographers, but IMO, they shouldn't be able to upload anything without it being approved first. If this is not doable, then there needs to be a way for us to flag images so they are immediately removed from safe search. 

[WendellaBee]

I've forwarded your complaint to the appropriate team for review.

[Abambo]

I understand that I do not know the process by which Adobe gets images from stock photographers, but IMO, they shouldn't be able to upload anything without it being approved first. If this is not doable, then there needs to be a way for us to flag images so they are immediately removed from safe search. 

By @Cyndi25639385sikt

I do not know how it worked before Adobe took over Fotolia, but Adobe is checking images before they are open for sale in the database. I suppose that this is also the moment where the moderator needs to set the "safe search" flag. (As a side note: there is also a check that the model is not underage, and the photographer needs to submit a model release.)

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/the-review-process.html

[Cyndi25639385sikt]

Okay, if each and every photo is being seen and approved for sale before release, then whoever is responsible for marking them as "safe search" is not doing their job. So that narrows it down and makes the solution simple. Whoever is responsible for screening the images, when they see "sexual" or "no clothing", that's a clue to remove it from the safe search list. 

FYI, I just did another test with the word "murder" and the word "pornography" in the so-called safe search. Yeah, those aren't being filtered, either. There's really no excuse if an Adobe human employee truly screens each and every photo. You can't miss the images I've seen, if you are looking at them before you approve them.

[Cyndi25639385sikt]

You can also add "r.a.p.e." to the list. The mark just keeps getting lower for what people think is work-place professional or decent for children to see. I understand most designers won't be looking up these words, but a child might. And if you have junk like this pop up in benign searches, it makes it more of a problem. Hilarous, I just had to retype this post because the word "r.a.p.e." is not permitted in this community, but it's "okay" to have the graphic images of this topic and sexist and pornographic imagery in your database. Incredible.

[ms58149619]

So I have this problem - I did pregnancy photoshoot for my client and I would like to extend the white background, the problem is that I cannot use generative fill because the women is naked.All the intimate areas are covered but I still cannot use the generative fill. Is there anyway to go around this restriction or maybe there will be an update that separates extremely nude photography from actual pregnancy shoots? 

[gener7]

If it's a simple background, one thought  is the Crop Tool using Content Aware Fill option.. Just input the Aspect Ratio and if you have a batch of images, make it a Crop Preset.

[ms58149619]

That's one option but the problem is that my white background is not smooth enough and there are some spots that light was just "ugly" 😅. So I use it to create "new" white background as well, and of course it's way faster then doing content aware fill. And when I used this option it's failed anyway giving me the message that I have not enough ram spece to use this feature which is just ridiculous with 16gb 

[Stephen_A_Marsh]

Off the top of my head...

Work on a copy.

Select subject, expand selection slightly. 

Cotent aware fill to remove the subject. Now there is no person.

Extend the image using generative fill or whatever A.I. features you like.

Drop the original image back into the extended image, masking as needed..

[jane-e]

the problem is that I cannot use generative fill because the women is naked.

By @ms58149619

See guideline number 2 for Generative AI useage and find a way that does not break the guidelines.

2. Be Respectful and Safe

Do not use Adobe’s generative AI features to attempt to create, upload, or share abusive, illegal, or confidential content. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• Pornographic material or explicit nudity

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

We cannot offer advice to break the guidelines on the Adobe forums.

Jane

[Trevor.Dennis]

Can you use Remove Background, and set her against a rebuilt background?  We used manage this stuff just fine before we had Gen Fill.

[Marcin_Be]

I am trying to use generative AI on pictures containing nudity (covered nudity), not eroting in nature etc. only to expand background, why cannot I do this?

As I understand, adobe rules is as follows:

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

And I am trying to do none of those things. Why is adobe assuming I am trying to create or upload abusive material just because it contains naked skin (not even exposed nudity)? I am not even trying to alter the person in the photo in any way but only to expand the damn background. The photo taken during photoshoot on mututally agreed terms.

So effectively we cannot use generative fill as long as adobe detects any kind of exposed skin present on the photo?

[Trevor.Dennis]

Ai is under intense scrutiny and getting bad press from media and governments, so Adobe are being careful not to be seen promoting the misuse of Ai generated images.  

[RV1970]

I understand where Adobe stands on this issue but hopefully, they will at some point loosen this up at some point. 

[c.pfaffenbichler]

So effectively we cannot use generative fill as long as adobe detects any kind of exposed skin present on the photo?

If you just want to extend background just make a duplicate, paint over the part that’s probably the trigger of the issue and expand away.

Then duplicate the result to the original image and mask it. 

[c.pfaffenbichler]

For Feature Requests (»Idea«) and Bug Reports this Forum is the correct path to address the Photoshop team/Adobe, otherwise this is essentially a user Forum (though thankfully some Adobe employees do occasionally chime in).

But if you want to make sure your concerns register at Adobe please post a Feature Request.

Even then feedback by Adobe personnel is not guaranteed. 

If this strictly concerns the backgrounds you could, as a work-around, add a black-out-layer and work atop that, then remove/hide that layer afterwards. 

[Starsson]

Thank you C.pfaffenbichler . Please direct me to the correct dept. Where is the Feature Request located? I appreciate your work-around. 

[ujokasjdflkjawkfjasdf]

Hello Adobe Team and Fellow Creatives,

I'm reaching out today to spark a conversation about an issue that touches the core of our creative process using Adobe Photoshop: the censorship implemented in the generative fill feature. This isn't just about the restrictions we face; it's about the fundamental principles of artistic freedom and responsibility.

Art, in its most profound form, allows us to explore the depths of human experience, pushing boundaries and challenging perceptions. However, the current censorship on generative fill curtails this exploration, imposing limits that are not only unnecessary but also counterproductive to the ethos of creative expression.

Responsibility for the art we create lies with us, the artists. It's essential that Adobe recognizes this, ensuring that tools like Photoshop serve to extend our capabilities, not constrain them. The censorship of content, such as the depiction of scars from battles or surgeries, restricts our ability to tell stories that are meaningful and impactful. Art should confront, console, and celebrate life in all its complexity, and for that, artists need the freedom to depict reality as it is, or imagine it as it could be.

Moreover, the nuances of human form and condition, including aspects like nudity, are foundational to various art forms. The current restrictions hinder not just the creation of art but also the representation of the human experience in its authenticity.

While the intention behind implementing an appeals process is appreciated, it doesn't address the root issue. The process is a workaround, not a solution, and it introduces unnecessary barriers to creativity and expression.

In closing, I urge the Adobe team to reconsider the censorship policies associated with the generative fill feature. Let's empower artists with the freedom to create responsibly, without undue censorship. Adobe has always been at the forefront of creative technologies, and this is an opportunity to lead by example, championing artistic freedom and integrity.

Looking forward to a constructive dialogue and hopeful for a resolution that aligns with the values of our creative community.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

I'm reaching out today to spark a conversation about an issue that touches the core of our creative process using Adobe Photoshop: the censorship implemented in the generative fill feature. This isn't just about the restrictions we face; it's about the fundamental principles of artistic freedom and responsibility.

@ujokasjdflkjawkfjasdf , it seems you might be confusing »AI-based image generation« and »art«. 

A certain AI implementation not readily creating the imagery one wants does not hinder one in creating that imagery as artists have done pre-2023 (or thereabouts) and one can draw, paint, photograph, search stock images, create 3D-models, … just as before or use non-Adobe AI-based image creating applications. 

[D Fosse]

" it seems you might be confusing »AI-based image generation« and »art«. "

Ah, yes, I love that 🙂 Couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm still convinced AI is what's going to bring it all down eventually. We've been flying higher and higher, but this time we flew too close to the sun. And with that said 😉

This isn't Adobe's fault. They had to get on board. And I have no problem accepting that AI can be a useful tool for some purposes. But the emphasis is on tool. There's a lot of creative's and artistic's in this post, and that instantly raises a flag with me.

OK, this is just my opinion. But if we're going to discuss, this is what we should be discussing. Not some technicality in the implementation.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

I think I read last year that some AI model achieved a reliable prognosis of protein folding (deducing the spatial structure of a protein based on the sequence of amino acids), something that had eluded biochemists and/or the other scientists concerned with protein-creation and -properties for ages. 

So as far as I am concerned AI has proven to be good for something. 

But I would not be surprised about people making terrible choices about how to utilize it otherweise … 

[D Fosse]

Yeah, that's my point. There are good uses. But as we all know, the road to hll is paved with good intentions.

What worries me is the way it undermines the basic concept of authenticity, in a totally unprecedented way. People compare it to the invention of photography, but that doesn't hold at all. AI is a whole new category, never before seen in history. "Authentic" is by definition a premise for "creative" and "artistic". That's the whole foundation of our conception of art. So that raises the interesting question: how can AI be, or be made, authentic?

This is a deep rabbit hole.

I'm waiting for artists to put this to a serious test. If Marcel Duchamp was alive today, I'm sure he'd get right on it. So far it doesn't seem anyone has taken it on, but it's probably just a matter of time. What we can be sure of, is that it will involve a lot more than just typing in a prompt in a text box.

In the meantime, by all means, have fun with generative fill and firefly. But I think nudity is the least of our problems.

[PECourtejoie]

I think that Adobe decision is very wise, the possibility of misuse of unrestricted AI for nefarious purposes is way too dangerous, and as a publicly traded company, not worth litigation costs.