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.

[Timfl]

Well said, Kevin. A year ago, none of this would have been possible! 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Hi @Kenneth259883092lw8 are you entering any values in the Generative Fill prompt?

[Abhishek Ravi]

Use Any One Latter in Prompt Like . Dot and Generate... Thats Problem Solve

[tom061201]

Hello,

I'm writing to you because I've been having a problem since today (haven't used the beta version of Photoshop for a little while).

Many times when I try to AI-generate an image on top of another one of mine, without even entering any text, I get an error telling me I'm doing things against Adobe's policies. Except I don't generate anything illegal because it's just stone textures, moss, etc... which for once is quite unpleasant because there's no reason why it should prevent me from working.

I can tell that I am on the latest version of Photoshop beta (uploaded today, July 23, 2023), that I'm on Windows 10.

Looking forward to your potential feedback or improvements,

Tom S.

[jjaylad]

Hi there,

Editing a very crowded wedding. Found it impossible to get unobstructed photos of guests, so have been using Lightroom's remove tool where possible then flipping the image to PS Beta to do the rest. 

I am getting incredibly frustrated with Generative Fill, On 70% or more of the attempts I've made I get the 'violates guidelines' error. I get that when trying to remove people's heads which are right in the lower center of the frame like this one. This is cropped to about 20% of the frame. 

The policy doesn't really explain to me why it is a cardinal sin to remove an out of focus, overexposed face from a photo. I mean GF works great when it does but in cases like this I have to find other photos of tables with similar content and composite the image.

I think it's time for Adobe to have a tune up chat with Cardinal Dontletemdoit. He is far too conservative in making a sin out of doing this. I'm almost to the point of not even trying to use GF because it literally won't let me remove a spooky hand reaching into the frame and touching someone's shoulder.

Clone stamp, Spot Healing, Content Aware Fill etc. all work on those things and I absolutely do not understand what the problem is with Generative Fill. Is this just something they want to show off but don't really want us to use?

On that image I used Content Aware fill, which obliterated the head then I deselected all but that layer and ran GF after selecting the messed up area. 

Despite the fact that there are now no heads or body parts or Nuclear Codes ,,,I still got the same message:

This is completely NUTS!

[NickXVega]

Whenever I try using generative fill on a picture with a woman in it, it says it violates community guidelines. I have tried editing a very similar picture with a man and it works fine. I know the woman who was used for the picture and she said it is okay for me to edit them and use them, I am only trying to increase the canvas size by using fill on the side portions. 

[mrvoices]

Generative Fill is currently over-zealous in "censoring" image repairs. I understand if it cannot properly recognize a body part (i.e. an elbow) or mistakes it for something else which it deems might be offensive.

But, just now, it blocked and warned me when I was trying to remove a stained area from a jacket lapel?! If there's no workaround, please put me in touch w/ engineers for whom I can demonstrate the problem.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Hi @NickXVega read this thread. Adding properly worded prompts, not leaving the prompt blank, etc. can resolve false flags.

[Graham24508943nobd]

as has been mentioned many times, try using a period ( or full stop for UK users ),  in EVERY generative message, even using that in a blank space stops 99 % of the stupid guideline errors.

[jjaylad]

Thanks for the reply. Big Ai Brother is definitely watching us. About an hour after my post, I was on YT, on nothing to do with this and was prompted to watch a video by Unmesh Dinda in which he demo'd putting a period (full stop) in the box. For sure Google is aware of every beat of our hearts! 

Anyway, late last night I tried it on several images I'd given up on, and it works great!

Thanks again. Great to know the answer would have surfaced here if G hadn't been eavesdropping and taken the situation in hand.

[Graham24508943nobd]

The admin should pin this info everywhere on the Beta pages. Might stop a lot of people giving up completely

[E250916993jnw]

Using the period option definitely is working as a work-around for the time being. I was skeptical that it would work but it is in fact working.

And now that I'm not getting constant errors I can finally see the power of this new tool. It is like turning photography into magic. Quite astonishing. And it even works on illustrations as well. Completely blows content-aware fill out of the water without question.

[NickXVega]

Turns out, just putting a black square over the centre of a person also allows it to work. 

[jjaylad]

Try entering a single period in the dialog box, then hitting enter
That is the workaround I'm using now.

[angelocollabs]

I work for a Tan Make Up company that uses bikini photos all the time. I can't use photoshop's AI capabilities to improove their product photos. I think Adobe should fix this. 

[jane-e]

@angelocollabs wrote

I can't use photoshop's AI capabilities to improove their product photos.

While Generative Fill is in beta, it cannot be used for commercial use.

Jane

[Leiloa]

Trying to fix half visible flower, getting "AI Generated images were removed because they violate user guidelines"?

[Sebastian292242075jds]

Hi, I'm trying to add generative fill to the whitespace on this picture, and I keep getting the userguidelines violation message.

[3Hounds]

I was having the same issue. I saw a video by PixImperfect that said instead of leaving the prompt field blank, type a period (.) before hitting Generate. It hasn't failed since.

Hope that helps.

[Graham24508943nobd]

Try adding the period ( or full stop ). That little workaround helps for most generations.

[Sebastian292242075jds]

using a period (".") worked, i hope Adobe team figures this out 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Sebastian292242075jds thats the point of participating in a beta test - help the team improve the product.

[daniellei4510]

I've tried it using any number of non-alphabetical characters (#, ^, ), etc.) and they all fix the same issue as using a period. Since some people prefer to just post to this forum rather than take the time to read it, maybe Adobe should update their guideline violation warning to include "Try again using a period or other non-alphabetical character as a prompt." 😉

[gadget13769]

I'm just not sure Adobe's idea of 'improving the product' is the same as mine.

The introduction of this Ai feature seems to me to be being used to force restrictions on our use of the software which didn't exist before.

That doesn't feel like progress.

I don't care about whether it's a text prompt or a selection that is causing an error in Generative Fill. Why there are Adobe introducing any limitations at all?

I am aware that Ai could be used to create illegal content (just as Photoshop has always been able to), but are all of us millions of legitimate pro / enthusiast photographers and creatives REALLY going to be told by Adobe what we can and can't create in future, just because a tiny number of criminals could use it for nefarious purposes?

I know we are in beta, but I am presuming this auto-limitation is intended to be carried through to the release version?

If so, this really is ridiculous dictatorial big-brother stuff and I hope Adobe has a serious rethink.

[Jason Toemmes]

agree 100%