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.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Jann Lipka you arent charged for credits yet 😉

After Nov. 1 being as specific as possible and not "wasting" credits on chance/random AI results will be what separates users going forward. Those who "learn as they go" with descriptive prompting will quickly spend credits while those who take the time to add in details and descriptors will get the wanted outcomes more effectively.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Jann Lipka @daniellei4510 Also I've been able to confirm that violations/false errors will not count towards credit usages.

[Okydoky]

I appreciate Adobe's commitment to an ethical approach to artificial intelligence, and I take pride in volunteering for them.

However, when I read,
'Generative AI is the next step in the decade we've devoted to developing Adobe Sensei, and as we harness its power in our cloud technologies, we are more committed than ever to thoughtful and responsible development,' by Jane,
I couldn't help but express some reservations.

Forgive me, but what are we really talking about here? As far as I understand, we're discussing Photoshop, a program that has revolutionized the world by offering incredible tools for image creation and editing.

Thanks to Photoshop and its tools, artists have created genuine masterpieces and stunning images that have circled the globe. I can't even fathom its impact on the planet. It's such a comprehensive tool that it has been used for various purposes, both creative and, admittedly, for illicit activities. However, I'm not aware of any legal action against Adobe for this. No court has demanded restricting Photoshop's features to prevent misuse. That would be absurd.

It appears that we are now in an era where tools are being limited based on potential misuse, which seems contrary to 'developing something thoughtful and responsible.' Instead, it feels like preemptive and restrictive anti-development. To develop means to enhance or strengthen, and this approach is doing quite the opposite—it's limiting usage for all users due to fears or ethical concerns about potential misuse.

Let's face it; people will find ways to do these things, with or without Photoshop. I have no doubt that some Russian hacker is already working on a way to crack any limitations or censorship in Photoshop.

Ironically, I just conducted a test to see how well Photoshop's content generation tool works by altering the expiration date of a license, and it did so effortlessly, without any restrictions. So, I'm left wondering: is this genuinely a thoughtful and responsible development?

I'm trying to understand the logic behind censoring a breast or buttock as 'irresponsible' and 'thoughtless.' Every word, element, or object added to the list of prohibited items that cannot be generated with your tool only serves to encourage users to seek alternative methods, stifling artists' creative expression.

Why take away from Photoshop or, better said, what makes it great? What is the motivation or goal behind this?

If someone intends to create something negative or illegal with your tool, they will do so, and it shouldn't be your concern, much less mine. Moreover, this approach may negatively impact my work.

Shouldn't I be able to offer this tool without any form of censorship and with vastly superior results compared to a website that doesn't shy away from buttocks or other objects?

I hope this perspective can contribute to a more open and thoughtful discussion about these issues.

[Jason Toemmes]

Agree! As I expressed these exact same concerns here before. 

[CSI Productions]

Well thought out and well written. One of the things I use my cell phone for is to video tape my grandchildren, others use it to shoot less "family friendly" content. Is it the phone company's responsibility to limit it's features because some people have lower morals (in one person's opinion) than others? I think we're all adult enough to look at imagery we appreciate and avoid content we don't. I'm old but we used to call that freedom of expression. Something that has almost dissapeared in one lifetime. What's next?

[3Hounds]

I've been following many of these "morality police" and "freedom of expression" arguments for a while and have stayed out of the fray.

What I'm seeing that I don't think many others are, is that, yes, you can take an image with your camera or your phone. It may be decent, indecent, immoral or even illegal... but it's your image alone. If you use generative fill to augment that image, you're involving Adobe and any of the users whose images are pulled to help create that image. They have every right to protect themselves from any harm that may come from your "creative vision". Until there is a fail safe way for them to do that, you should expect some restrictions...

[gadget13769]

@3Hounds   So, on that basis, you'd be happy to be banned from buying a Bic biro, Caran d'Ache pencils, or Daler paper, on the basis that you might use someone else's product to write or draw something illegal, or that some other unaccountable entity deems 'improper'?

Best take our cameras and computers off us too, then.....

[3Hounds]

@gadget13769, not at all the same thing... pen and pencil manufaturers don't create the image or part of it, just like Canon, Nikon, Apple or Samsung don't. Or Ford, Toyota and other vehicle manufacturers don't plow your car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk when you don't agree with the signs they're carrying. Adobe and the other artist's work become part of your work when ai GF is used.

[CSI Productions]

A valid point with respect to the sample image posted. My comment was based on "me" shooting "my" own video and the company making the equipment not being responsible for or restricting it's features based on what "some" people may chose to do with it.

Regarding GF, I agree with you - if it isn't your original art. If I took a photo with my own camera and after the fact want to see what my model would look like in various outfits, some being some what risque', I should be able to do that (IMO) without the software company restricting my creative freedom based on "their" input.

That being said, it is their software and their company and they can do whatever they want. You'll get no complaints from me if they want to be the software that keeps imoral imagery from being generated with their products. In my opinion there's too much of that already (oldschool I guess) and as another comment stated, there are plenty of other software companies (and will be more I'm sure) that let you create whatever demonic crap you want so have at it if that's what you're into.

As I mentioned before, I'm an adult and chose to look at what I do and do not care for. Same goes for social media banning "whatever speech" they feel is offensive. Back in the days of real true freedom, if you didn't like what was being said or written, don't listen or read it. We don't need corporations being our parents but then, this is a whole different world. If you don't like the restrictions, don't buy the software.

[kawaki]

I agree as well and have said the same thing.  We are all adults in the room.  If you want to retard creativity with this new tool, you have succeeded.  We will find a way around your fence. 

[gadget13769]

@3Hounds 

If you think that the phone camera, DSLR or mirrorless camera you’re using to create “your image” doesn’t contain AI, coded algorithms, computational photography, machine learning, etc. to produce an output, then you’re mistaken. Some even automatically replace elements for you – Google Samsung’s ‘moon replacement’!

So, applying your logic, the camera manufacturers are ‘involved’ in the creation of my image. Does that mean I should “expect some restrictions” in what I can shoot? That would be ridiculous.

You say "Adobe and the other artist's work become part of your work when ai GF is used."  Well I am a 100% supporter of proper payment being made to those image makers whose images get used to train AI, but that doesn’t mean that those creators (via my use of Adobe software) should get ongoing moral or artistic control to approve or disapprove my work every time I create something new using it.

[FitzFoto]

The Royal Photographic Society, and, I expect, every other leading photographic authority, is grappling with the issues that AI in photography brings, in regard to the production and submission of images as part of the process towards the award of a distinction.  It has long been required that the image must be entirely from the author.  For example, textures must have been created by the author, not downloaded or adopted from post-processing software.  That AI was creeping into post-processing software was recognised, but it was accepted that little could be done to prevent (say) an author using the AI-supported Remove tool in Photoshop rather than the Healing Brush.  That said, where the tool borrows from the image itself, no additional material is added, so it satisfies the current requirements.  However, other software such as ON1 Photo Raw 2024 is way ahead of Photoshop in its use of AI and it seems clear that material is sourced externally.  Doubtless, Adobe will have to follow suit or be left behind.  THAT will pose a growing problem for determining the award of distinctions.

[Luggruff]

You could probably just create a copy of the picture where you have removed the nudity first, then use the generative fill, and merge the images later, if you want to be safe.

[andreac15633510]

I HAVE GOTTEN THIS PROBLEM TOO, I CANNOT USE GENERATIVE EXPAND IN ANY PHOTO, EVEN IN THE MOST SIMPLE PHOTOS. 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@andreac15633510 read above for one of the numerous posts stating that entering a period (.) or full-stop will avoid violations. No need to shout.

[CSI Productions]

Just my opinion but I doubt he intended to shout. More likely his caps lock was on and he didn't feel like retyping his comment. I've done this myself. If text editors had the ability (with the click of a button) to swap all caps to lower case I would have used it in these instances. Maybe I'm wrong, just a thought.

[jessica_gemmell]

Hi,

I was expanding a picture I created and with generative fill and recieved an error similar to these folks.

Can you help? I tried several times without a prompt.

[daniellei4510]

Did you try enter a period (.) as a prompt? That fixes the issue more often than not.

[Jennifer30701028p3ce]

the censorship is ridiculous. at least let us opt in/verify for pg-13/R content. adults shouldnt be policed for legal artwork in an app that we bought, we own, and is on our local machine (not even being shared publicly like midjourney and the like). imagine if they policed the clone stamp or curves tools, this is the same exact thing.

[rayek.elfin]

@Jennifer30701028p3ce

Playing the devil's advocate here. 😉

You do not own Photoshop nor have you bought a license. Adobe's software on your machine is rented to you (or in other words you "subscribe" to a service.).

SAAS is the keyword here: Software As A Service.

As a user we have absolutely no say in what Adobe will or will not allow you to create with Photoshop.

Adobe's software is used all over the world. Nudity in imagery is outlawed in quite a few countries. Put yourself in Adobe's shoes: how will you manage all the exceptions and varying legal requirements world-wide?

The simple answer: you avoid legal issues altogether by allowing only the lowest common denominator: PG-13 imagery and no nudity or other potentially offensive imagery.

And if someone here needs PG-13+ GENAI imagery in their work: open source and free options exist. Freedom in software is only possible through community driven open source software.

Not saying I agree with Adobe's moral policing. But I do understand their position. And as a global company they are not a democracy and bound to vastly different laws and legal jurisdictions.

[Patricklee33261594trwh]

it violates nothing. And I,  like many other artists am facing the same said annoying warnings. it's ridiculous. it's like, how can the worlds leading creative tool designers block artists from being creative and what they do? I mean, why introduce This in the first place?

[CShubert]

@Patricklee33261594trwh curious if you see the same issue with the full Ps release version?

Adobe has limited access to the generative fill and generative expand features to customers with a valid subscription to a plan that includes Photoshop ( Creative Cloud, Single app or Photography plan).

Potential customers can try Photoshop and the generative features by signing up for a 7 day trial here - https://www.adobe.com/downloads.html 

If you believe that you have are incorrectly receiving the above error and qualify to use the generative features, please contact technical support.

[Patricklee33261594trwh]

my friend, are you playing devils advocate or are you the devil himself? Come on, this is a community of artists, and we are all aware of this. There is no room for playing devils advocate, unless again, you are the devil himself. I mean, it's like, don't give me a paintbrush, canvas and paint then tell me that I can't use the entire canvas, but are only restricted to one corner. because that's lunacy. Rented or owned.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Patricklee33261594trwh See #2 in this document:

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

If you feel you need to create something that is restricted based on these terms:

• Pornographic material or explicit nudity
• Hateful or highly offensive content that attacks or dehumanizes a group based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, serious disease or disability, gender, age, or sexual orientation
• Graphic violence or gore
• The promotion, glorification, or threats of violence
• Illegal activities or goods
• Self-harm or the promotion of self-harm
• Depictions of nude minors or minors in a sexual manner
• Promotion of terrorism or violent extremism
• Dissemination of misleading, fraudulent, or deceptive content that could lead to real-world harm
• Personal or private information of others in violation of their privacy or data protection rights

Then perhaps you need to look elsewhere to generate these kinds of images.

If you are not generating this and are getting the error, read through this thread to see potential work-arounds/solutions or report the violation error using the pop up link.

[kawaki]

This is your sanctimonious answer.  I don't think anyone here wants to cross the line of your good taste but rather want and need artistic freedom.  Yes there are other programs to use that are far more AI advanced than Adobe and will be used.