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]

@kawaki There is nothing sanctimonious about this and thats my point - Adobe isn't restricting beyond this list and it's based on prompts.

The AI is not giving a violation because of YOUR content.

It's based on prompts that violate this list. If you get an error and have not asked for anything remotely close to this, then report it for review and try again. As users have shown time and time again on this thread, it is possible to work with nudity, etc. and use Generative Fill - if you write effective prompts.

It's called Machine "Learning" - the AI is improving with each reported error and will continue to improve with participation.

[kawaki]

Well you enjoy your prompts and fun.  As I said, there are many AI programs that are far more advanced than this attempt and I'm using those to further my creativity.  Thanks for your input, there is no further need for discussion

[3Hounds]

Please don't slam the door on your way out...

[Graham24508943nobd]

ROFL

[kawaki]

[Personal attack/Bullying removed by moderator]

[CShubert]

This thread is starting to go off topic, please review:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/using-the-community-discussions/adobe-support-community-guidelines/td...

[MeredithStotzner]

Dear Community,

On November 7th, 2023, the Firefly for Photoshop service was updated and improved for this issue. You should encounter fewer guideline errors when working on or near skin-tone areas that do not violate the community guidelines.

While the improvement is a big step in the right direction, we are continuing to explore new ways to minimize false-positives. Please continue to give us feedback on this new forum thread and also report false violation errors in the application.
Thank you for your patience with the overly-aggressive image violation errors. We recognized there was a bug where images that did not violate our community guidelines were being falsely flagged as such and have been working on this resolution.

Again - thank you.

[cthomasv]

That does not work either.

[jay.sims]

To the best of my knowledge, Generative Fill isn't suitable for images that feature any form of nudity. This has been my experience while handling fine art images from a figure study. Despite the images neither being graphic nor provocative, I was unable to utilize Generative Fill to expand the background, with alerts about violation of community guidelines.

I also encountered similar issues while attempting to edit a photo from a jewelry photoshoot. This image, which appears in jewelry and department stores and depicts a model in a strapless dress reclining on a balcony in a captivating manner, was also flagged for violating community rules. The image was meant to be used for a trunk show ad, and possesses no inappropriate content.

Most recently, I was trying to restore a vintage photo of my grandparents. A section of the photo was missing due to damage. I was wanting to use Generative Fill as a short cut so that I did not have to recreate the missing element manually.   However, once again, I was unsuccessful due to an alleged violation of community guidelines. It's baffling to me as to how a 1940s photograph of my grandparents could infringe these rules.

[gascolator]

I wanted to put a car I photograph onto the background of a drag strip.
So I entered "drag strip" for the prompt. 
I got the indication that there was a problem with the prompt and was re-directed to the "Guidelines." 
It would appear that Adobe's AI has some sort of dirty mind. 
A "drag strip" is not something filthy. It is a place where cars go to race. 
Reported this bug, and Adobe just closed out the report. 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@gascolator totally agree - it might be flagging "Strip" - report it via the violation pop up to help - that is the proper place to note issues with false flags.

In the meantime, get creative like "straight race track" or something else.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Also I dont see a bug filed under your account - did you post it on the bug forum here or ?

[gascolator]

Neither "drag" nor "strip" seem to be allowed. I tried them individually. 

Not sure the "I" in "AI" actually stands for "Intelligence." 

[gascolator]

Customer Care case number ADB-32299169-W7S8

[gascolator]

I did flag it. 

To no avail. 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@gascolator it's called Machine Learning - its learning as it goes. The more feedback and user input that you can give via the reporting features improves the system. This has only be released for less than 6 mo.

[stockphotog.miller]

jay.sims my experience has been exactly the same. The only time I ever have the orange "guidelines" warning is when there's a female in the image, often fully clothed. The maddening thing is the inconsistency of the program and Adobe's complete lack of support on the matter. I was editing a set of images, a nude model in a outdoor scene. there was a junky carport thing in the corner of the image, partially covered by a tree limb making it a bit laborious to remove. G Fill worked like a charm on the first three (of ten) images and then it was a community guidelines parade from that point on. I've sked for clarification directly from Adobe, I have tweeted them asking what the issue was, absolutely zero response. If Adobe wants to censor what we work on using their products they should be fully forthcoming with that and spell it out. Also, they should design a program that either works with nudes or doesn't, not the way it is. if they had just come out and said "you can't use this with nudity present (and sometimes females in general)" I could say "fine, theres a rule and I can live with that", but I've wasted so much time tryring to get something to work with no warning that it wouldn't, it has me for the first time in my life considering looing for a different software to use. 

[paul7nt]

Tried that on a partially nude woman without a head. On a new layer above the image I painted in overups over the nude's breasts and crotch. Then extended the Stamp Visible merge and hit AI Gen. Same refusal dialogue by Adobe was received. Adobe (if you are listening) ease up and allow full AI generation on nude bodies.

[stockphotog.miller]

Same results as paul7nt, The only thing I havent tried is removing the entire model from the image "permanently" and then copy/paste back in. 

[Christopher345829120ql7]

Listen, the software morality police know what's best for all of us, and we should just acceppt that we common folk should not be allowed to do certain things for our own good.

[stockphotog.miller]

It's offensive to me that what work I decide to do is judged by a company I pay for a product, but it's their program and they can put any caveats in place that they feel necessary. What I find truly unfair is that they refuse to come out and say "if your work/art includes any nudity at all you will not  e allowed to use all of the features you pay us for". If Adobe wants to restrict the features we're allowed to use in certain instances then they should discount their price instead of charging us full price and then shorting us if we do something they disapprove of. 

[Wolfhund7]

Shoot, I tried to create an image of an o ring... yes, the type of seal that's been around for over a century and has been used in everything from cars and garden hose to the friken Space Shuttle, and I couldn't, all because it violated Community Guidelines! I suppose trying to create a picture of crankSHAFT is out of the picture (pun intended). We pay for this stuff, we shouldn't have this kind of limitation! 

[Nicksonian]

It is unfortunate that Adobe has joined the legions of woke, neo-Victorian prudes. Why does Adobe get to decide what is acceptable? Sure, there are extreme examples that should not be allowed, but even total nudity is now commonplace, and Adobe prohibiting the artistic use of a Photoshop function is absurd.

[radioparanormalium]

Remember guys, This Is All About Creating A Safe Space For Everyone. Creating A Safe Space by LIMITING YOUR CREATIVITY and (cursing removed) about every single thing a big ultra-freakin'-puritan corpo doesn't like.

[Dorielle35242488wy3r]

Dear Adobe Photoshop Team and Community,

I hope this post finds you well. I am writing to express my disappointment and concern regarding the limitations of Generative AI Fill tool in handling images featuring the nude figure. As an artist who frequently utilizes Adobe Photoshop for creating art that revolves around the human form in non-sexual contexts, I find the current restrictions to be restrictive and counterproductive.

Artistic expression has long been a fundamental aspect of human culture, and the depiction of the human body is a significant element of that expression. It is disheartening to discover that the Generative AI Fill tool, a powerful feature in Photoshop, excludes images of the nude figure based on the current guidelines.

I firmly believe that nudity in art is not inherently inappropriate. In fact, the human body has been a subject of artistic exploration for centuries, contributing to the rich tapestry of our cultural heritage. While I understand the importance of implementing guidelines to ensure responsible use, the aggressive exclusion of images featuring the nude form feels like an unnecessary restriction on artistic freedom.

Specifically, I am concerned about the impact of these restrictions on the representation of women's bodies. It is crucial to recognize that artistic depictions of the female body can go beyond mere objectification and explore themes of empowerment, vulnerability, and self-expression. By enforcing stringent guidelines that limit the use of the Generative AI Fill tool for such content, Adobe Photoshop inadvertently contributes to the ongoing censorship of women's bodies in art.

I urge you to reconsider these guidelines and to develop a more nuanced approach that respects the diversity of artistic expression. Allowing artists to use the Generative AI Fill tool for their non-sexual, artistic explorations of the human form, including nudity, would be a step towards fostering a creative environment that values freedom of expression.

Art has the power to challenge societal norms, spark conversations, and promote understanding. By addressing these concerns, Adobe Photoshop can contribute to a more inclusive and supportive environment for artists working with diverse subject matter, including the depiction of the human body.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my perspective. I look forward to seeing positive changes that reflect a commitment to supporting the artistic community.