P: Generated images violate user guidelines

[Hematita]

So as you can see, it's a PG-13 relatively inoffensive image of a woman in a bunny outfit. The top worked fine, and I was able to complete the top ear, which is cool. When I tried to extend the bottom with generative fill, though, I got this warning. They're just a pair of legs wearing stockings, and I wanted to extend it.

It feels like a false flag - though I could be wrong? I find myself thinking it would do the same for women in swimsuits.

Figured I'd share here.

[Kaelan30348058i3sk]

While most censorship and content restrictions are valid, placing too many restrictions like those on visuals such as blood is unnecessary and hamper creativity. I wanted to turn a portrait of a model into a vampire and wanted some blood dripping from her mouth. But even a little trickle of blood violates the guidelines which seem intentionally set up to be broken even by those with purely creative intentions. 

[Olivier2023242526]

What about over-the-counter guns? Is it less dangerous than AI?Your argument is ridiculous

[E250916993jnw]

It's pretty much useless for beach photography, sports photography. Whether a man or a woman it'll say it's violating community guidelines. Was this tool designed by a radical cleric? Lol.

The reason why these tools tend to fail on hands and feet is because these AI companies tend to steer clear of human anatomy (inherently 'evil'). Meanwhile if you learn real art this is the foundation where you start. 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Before everyone goes off on some tangental rant about dystopian censorship [too late!] - ever thought that this is simply a bug in a beta release? Try entering a prompt, even a simple one and the error response goes away...

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Hi @Olivier2023242526 please follow forum guidelines.

[D Fosse]

@Olivier2023242526

Bakhtiar's argument is not ridiculous at all, it is a very sensible one, and it sums up the whole dilemma very well. Yours doesn't.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Hi @FrangipaniOz try entering a prompt and not leaving the generative fill blank.

Also there is a new version that may help. You may have to uninstall the beta first to see the new version available.
Adobe Photoshop Version: 24.6.0 20230603.m.2196 77b00e0 x64 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Hi @Sandy Photog did you enter a prompt? If not try and see if that works.

Also there is a new version available you can try.

You may have to uninstall the beta first to see the new version available.
Adobe Photoshop Version: 24.6.0 20230603.m.2196 77b00e0 x64 

[Sandy Photog]

I do have the most current version of Beta already.  However, entering a prompt did help on this one.  

Thank you.

[J E L]

@E250916993jnw, ha, re your point: “Meanwhile if you learn real art this is the foundation where you start,” I'm reminded of Szukalski, who complained when ordered in art school to learn from live figures, saying, “Working from the model destroys the talent.”

[CShubert]

Thanks everyone.

As this is a beta release, the team is constantly evaluating how the prompt and image filters perform. If you encounter an error that you consider to be incorrect please report it using the beta feedback panel. Your image or prompt may not be violating the terms and conditions and we may be filtering it in error.

[Jason Toemmes]

Hello Cory

Why didn't Adobe inform me of this Betea feedback panel when I reach ou to them last week? I made intial contact over chat, and then they had an engineer call me on the phone. Both said to post the problem here. Where can I find this feedback panel? 

Regards

[CShubert]

Hi @Jason Toemmes we are sorry this wasn't made clear.  If you click on the beaker icon in the upper right, it will open the info screen. When you click on the Generative Fill section you will have the ability to share your feedback there.

[VeneficusFerox]

I have similar issues.

I create a fully new image from a blank canvas. Then I use the lasso tool to select a part to replace/improve with or without prompt. Then it tells me that the image violates policy and has been removed. As the base image is still there, I can only conclude that the smaller filled part was removed directly after generation. Why would it be able to produce something against its own policy?

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Hi @VeneficusFerox as mentioned in here extensively, try entering a prompt to bypass the false error.

[daniellei4510]

"The reason why these tools tend to fail on hands and feet is because these AI companies tend to steer clear of human anatomy (inherently 'evil'). Meanwhile if you learn real art this is the foundation where you start. "

You wouldn't know it from the number of images of amply chested women I see often on AI platforms. No, the real reason is that AI has difficulties with hands and feet for the same reason that real artists often find them difficult to draw or paint. They are very complex parts of our anatomy. At this time, Midjourney usually (I emphasise usually) does a very good job with hands and fingers. With feet, not so much. 

[daniellei4510]

I said it befor, I'll say it again. It's not the user violating the guidelines...it's the bot refusing to accept its own results. If the error message were to read something along the lines of, "the bot has generated results that are in violation of user guidelines and cannot be displayed," I think we'd have fewer instances of complaints over here. While I've received numerous violation notices, generative fill to date has saved a least a dozen of my images that would have taken hours to fix, if I bothered to fix them at all. Be patient, people. 

[Matthew249224202mcs]

The concern for me at least is that it doesn't look like a bug as much as it suggests that "community standards" censorship is a feature.

[shamde]

Thanks Kevin! If only forums could have multiple pinned comments or worked like reddit with upvotes you might not have to repeat yourself so much! Worked fer

[colliemom01]

I'm getting the same error with a photo of my mom looking into a vanity mirror (wedding photos) - there's nothing offensive about it. Happy to provide photo for investigation just don't want to post it publically.

[sincere_Songbird16B7]

While I understand that Adobe dosn't want Generative Fill to be used to generate adult oriented content for obvious reasons, it is not quite clear to me if it's permitted to be used on on photographs containing nudity. Specifically for object removal in the background.

[Graham24508943nobd]

Seems to me like they need a hell of a lot of bug fixing to to do. Most of my generations are pretty crap with the subject NOT keeping within the selection

[garyblakemeister]

Is the policy going forward strict moderation of tools?  

What if I use your tools to create something Adobe deems unsavory or problematic?  Do they reserve the right to delete my PSD file? This was always the fear with the cloud-based model and it's a bummer to actually see lawyers dictating creative policy.  

You should strongly considering taking off the handcuffs and letting creatives make what they want to make.  I don't trust the Adobe Council of Ethics to rule properly on my creative work.

[Matthew249224202mcs]

Additionally, I do a lot of fashion, boudoir, and art nudes... Why do I have to adhere to the lowest common denominator when it comes to using the tools I pay for in an entirely legal manner to support my business?   

I can totally get behind making it more difficult for anything that involves body swapping, or significantly modifying bodies.  Or taking a dressed subject and swapping them into nudity or near enough...

But if you're starting with a subject that's already in lingerie, it seems we've already gone past the "community standards" and shouldn't have to fight with Adobe to let us work.

[Fran30362383lc5u]

I have discovered that anything in the tonal range of skin is deemed inappropriate. I tried to remove a tattoo from a person of colour, hair across the face of a caucasian girl and extend the skirt of a peach coloured tulle skirt (in the colour range of skin tone) and all were refused. I think the puritans running the system need to consider that skin appears in any image with a human it it and skin in itself is not bad!