Generative Fill Guidelines and Censoring

[byronw41971227]

I have some photographs where I would LIKE to change the shirt or clothing of some of my family members.  These are MY photographs that I have taken over the years.   A couple of the photographs are of shirts that are somewhat revealing in nature, NOT nudity, kind of low cut in nature.  If I select the shirt with a selection tool, and try to change the shirt or top using Generative Fill, I get the dreaded Notice that my request violates the Guidelines.    NOTE:   I am NOT creating nudity, or removing nudity, simply trying to replace a Woman's shirt, and a Male Shirt, (Old Tank Top).    am simply trying to create NEW shirts.   So, I do not understand what guideline I am violating.   Again, these are OLD images of mine, where I am just trying to release shirts with NEW shirts. 

Now, here is the WEIRD part.   After I got the guideline notice, I tried to see if I could create an entirely NEW document with Generative Fill, and I typed in, "Girl wearing Bikini walking on the Beach with the Ocean in the Background",  and it created it.    So, I can create a Bikini girl, but I can not replace a semi low cut shirt on a woman, or a tank top on a male.    Can somebody explain a way to get around this, or will this be fixed soon?

[Tommy James]

Not to mention sexist. If you work with models and try to use it to fix areas or expand backgrounds it will flag them in swimwear or even crop tops get flagged often. Meanwhile men without shirts on at all can expand just fine.

[JamieLynnLloyd]

I have been having this issue also, no matter what i do it states im violating guidelines while just editing FULLY CLOTHED people and very classy images. I pay so much for photoshop and the guidelines are to be frank quiet ridiculous. Have you had any success with this issue being resolved?

[c.pfaffenbichler]

Please post some of the affected images (feel free to downsample them , pixelate faces, …). 

Is this primarily about expanding backgrounds or are more elaborated AI tasks involved? 

[Tommy James]

here are a few that I have sent to them telling them of their errors. It triggers with bathing suits, tank tops, and damn near anything skin. I have even included a model photo that would not extend the background. the model is clothed and not showing anything NSFW. There are no violations of Adobe's guidelines in any of these photos or countless other photos this has happened with. The point is that the filters are not trained correctly and they recognize skin as being "bad". This has happened countless times for me with family vacation photos and for photos I have tried to edit for customers and it is a complete disruption to workflow. If Adobe is going to give us half-working things, then they need to provide refunds as well.

As one of the others has said, they work with models which all of us know, the model world relies on programs like Photoshop for touch-ups and fixing errors, not trying to create NSFW content or whatever they are worried about. Certainly should not be blocking generative fill on family vacation photos or removing objects that come across the skin. I understand the concern, but it should not impede workflow for obviously fine things. Adobe has better technology than that to be this bad.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

If Adobe is going to give us half-working things, then they need to provide refunds as well.

That statement seems to lack merit to me. 

Anyway, for the Crop Tool’s Generative Expand a work-around exists (as long as the element that triggeres the issue does not cross a side on which the generation is to be done). 

[Tommy James]

It should not "lack merit" for you if you understand the basic concepts of business. You offer a product with an explanation of what it will do for your paying customers. You offer a TOS with said product. The product does not provide the service offered due to things not covered in your terms of service. The choice is clear. Update your TOS to reflect "no skin" and very strict guidelines, or provide the service you advertised.

The "workaround" is something customers of a $190 billion company should not have to do with a service it has rolled out that customers are paying for. The company claims that Generative AI will help speed up the workflow for photographers and artists. With the extremely high filters that go above and beyond the TOS, it is not doing as promised. I have sent well over 100 photos just myself to them that have been incorrectly blocked. Feet, fingers, family photos, etc. It seems like most of the other people complaining about this have done the same. There is no excuse for them to not train their AI to detect things correctly, with the flood of incorrectly blocked photos they have received.

[hornet330]

I've been experiencing the same frustration since day 1 one, maybe a year ago or even more. I do fashion model tests, usually involving swimwear or lingerie, but all classy no weird things. It's funny because most of things get flagged even If they are absolutely nothing weird, but when they don't, It's sometimes because of the colour. And example of this twisted thing happening would be: requesting a longer hair is not allowed If I want It blonde, but blue hair is fine. I find It hillarious. 

[davescm]

Remember, the assessment of whether the resulting image meets guidelines is done by machine, not a human, looking at the results. If the pattern of pixels is flagged as a potential issue, then the error message is generated.
You can provide feedback using the link in the message, to help improve that machine learning.

Dave

[hornet330]

Mmm that is not convincing imho. Machine is (or should be) intelligent enough to know that If a certain thing is allowed, has to be allowed as well in other colour. Another amazing thing that happens to me a lot is that, I ask for a different t-shirt for example, and I get It. Then I ask for a similar image to the one already produced, but that second image violates somehow the guidelines. Nonsense. 

[davescm]

It may not be convincing to you, but it is the way it works. Feedback via the link will be used to improve, that is why it is there.
Dave

[Tommy James]

If this was a small company that is not on the leading edge of AI photo technology, your point would be valid. This is Adobe, with a market cap of $190 billion, and the ones who first rolled out Generative AI because they are the leaders in this innovation. AI knows and learns what it is fed. It blocks what it is told to block. The filters come from the humans who set them. When they have them so high that fingers and feet are triggering warnings, and family beach photos are blocked because someone is wearing a bathing suit, your filters are set too high. AI will learn and do whatever the programmers tell it to do. They have tons of photos sent to them with incorrect blocking to where they can adjust or train the AI correctly. I have sent over 100 photos to them that were incorrectly blocked of the things I have mentioned. I specify to them in the comment field that there is nothing in the photo that violates the terms of service. I can't imagine how many have been sent by professional photographers who work with models in the advertising business.

[miky_tricky]

Couldn't agree less to your point, I've always been of the opinion that machines should what programmers want and not the way around, especially in this era of incredible change thanks to the spread of AI. Following your point we will be soon ruled by machines "beacuse that's the way it works", no sir, that's deeply wrong. Machines have to do what humans rule them to do and not the way around, I find your idea pretty frightening, much more scary thank some skin shown in a picture.

[miky_tricky]

Same issue here, sometimes with really dressed up pictures. I'm a portrait/fashion photographer and this issue is really frustrating, especially beacuse the images don't break any guideline nor TOS (that I took the time to read). I also chatted with Adobe customer service here in Italy and when I sent them the picture that was blocked (a model in a swimsuit, please note a picture for an e-comerce) after asking his opinion the rep replied to me, insisting for his opinion, that "the model was too nude". In my personal opinion the line not to cross should be as strict as Instagram/FB/Meta TOS, that for a photography fan as me is already very strict (I love Helmut Newton, Mappeltorn, La Chapelle and so on).
Adobe is advertising the future with AI but its AI is appling rules more similar to the middleage than the ones of the future. In the meantime Bianca Censori is walking the Grammy red carped basically naked. The world is imploding holy cow! 😄

[DariusNichols415]

I'm having the same issue with editing even pictures of swimsuit models, male, and female. But I photograph burlesque shows, and can't use generative fill to edit any of them. Plus, I bought the software to use with any photography. I choose to edit. I do not need an algorithm or a machine or an AI program telling me that I can't edit anything I choose to photograph. Nude photography is a genre of photography that should be equally respected along with anything else of Photographer chooses to photograph. If I can display this photo publicly and legally, I should be able to edit it. Adobe should not be policing art.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

I'm having the same issue with editing even pictures of swimsuit models, male, and female. But I photograph burlesque shows, and can't use generative fill to edit any of them. Plus, I bought the software to use with any photography. I choose to edit. I do not need an algorithm or a machine or an AI program telling me that I can't edit anything I choose to photograph. Nude photography is a genre of photography that should be equally respected along with anything else of Photographer chooses to photograph. If I can display this photo publicly and legally, I should be able to edit it. Adobe should not be policing art.

By @DariusNichols415

Adobe is not hindering you in photographing your images and you can edit them with Photoshop just as people have been doing for decades. 

If you want to use Adobe’s generative AI (Firefly) and thus process your images on Adobe servers that is no longer a matter of your opinion. 

[Tommy James]

False advertising isn’t about opinion—it’s about expectation vs. reality. Adobe claims Firefly “enhances workflow” but secretly blocks prompts not listed in their TOS. That’s a violation of truth-in-advertising standards under the FTC Act (15 U.S. Code § 45), which prohibits “deceptive acts or practices.”

1. Lack of disclosure = deception. Adobe’s TOS lists what isn’t allowed—but Firefly blocks more than what’s stated. That’s called prior restraint with no user consent or notice—legally dicey.

2. Material omission. Under FTC policy, a company must disclose information that would affect a consumer’s decision. If Adobe omits the fact that many prompts are arbitrarily blocked, that’s a material misrepresentation.

3. Unjust enrichment. Adobe charges a premium for Firefly tools in Photoshop. Selling a product that doesn’t function as advertised—while restricting use beyond the stated agreement—could be grounds for class action under consumer protection laws.

4. Creative suppression without notice. You don’t get to market an AI as “trained on licensed data” and “commercially safe” only to turn around and censor artistic prompts that aren’t even NSFW. That’s misrepresentation of capability.

Bottom line? If Firefly isn’t doing what Adobe publicly says it does, and if that impacts users’ creative output and purchase decisions, it’s legally indefensible.

And when it comes to the legality of it, this is no longer a matter of a “community expert’s” misinformative opinion. It’s a matter of documented consumer rights violations.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

As you seem to consider your position to be so legally strong I am curious to hear about the progress of your proceedings (or those of others who may pursue a class action lawsuit or any other legal approach). 

[Tommy James]

‘Well if it’s so illegal, why haven’t you sued yet?’ defense?” lol

Here’s the thing — pointing out documented FTC violations and misleading practices doesn’t require a lawsuit to be valid. The lack of legal action doesn’t make Adobe innocent — it just shows how difficult it is for individuals to hold billion-dollar corporations accountable.

What’s frustrating is the pattern: when users raise serious legal or ethical concerns, some responses from Community Experts default to defensiveness or dismissal, rather than actually engaging with the argument.

Which raises a fair question: Why do certain Community Experts seem more focused on defending Adobe than listening to the concerns of actual paying users?

You’re not moderators. You’re not legal counsel. “Community Expert” means you’re a helpful contributor — not someone who speaks for Adobe or overrides user experiences.

This isn’t about loyalty to a brand. It’s about the fact that many of us are pointing out censorship, undisclosed restrictions, and consumer trust issues — and we’re just asking for transparency and accountability.

We’re not asking for favors. We’re asking for the product we paid for to work as advertised, or at the very least, for Adobe to be honest about what limitations exist.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

‘Well if it’s so illegal, why haven’t you sued yet?’ defense?” lol

If you wanted to elaborate on your take on the issue there was no need to pretend my last post constituted a »defense«. 

Legal action like class action lawsuits have come up before (though I suspect some of the posts may have been removed or I failed to locate them). 

https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem-discussions/anybody-be-interested-in-a-boycott-or...

So even if you do not pursue that avenue I am curious if others might and what comes of it. 

[Tommy James]

I would say probably because this isn’t just a matter of people thinking something “isn’t fair.” This situation is fundamentally different from previous complaints because it involves clear violations of well-established consumer protection laws — laws that courts have upheld repeatedly.

What Adobe is doing includes:

• Advertising features that are later filtered or restricted without disclosure

• Failing to clearly inform users about moderation limits before purchase

• Delivering tools that don’t function as described in product materials or public demos

That crosses the line into false advertising, unfair business practices, and deceptive omission — all of which are legally actionable. And unlike vague complaints or feature requests, these are direct contradictions between what was sold and what was delivered.

So, while prior legal attempts may not have gone far, this isn’t the same. The legal standing here is much stronger because the core issue isn’t user disappointment. It’s that Adobe’s actions directly contradict what’s been advertised and paid for, and that has real legal consequences.

[foxs89928500]

It's plaguing AI everywhere...ChatGPT, Adobe...it's extremely difficult to be creative when filters are applied with an EXTREMLY broad brush stroke and anything that has even a whiff of something the filters might pick up, it gets denied.  It's the age of censorship and content being dictated by the most extreme sensibilities. Creative freedom is a distant memory.

[Tommy James]

Adobe is by far the worst offender when it comes to censorship. At least ChatGPT will have a conversation with you—if you explain your intent, the AI often allows it. Adobe, on the other hand, hasn’t addressed the issue at all and continues to ignore the “Provide Feedback” option. Personally, I’ve submitted over 300 feedback reports and have received no response, nor have I seen any changes.

MidJourney also got overly strict and has been paying the price. In their latest user survey, options like “NSFW/full nudity” and “artistic nudity” were included—and “artistic nudity” ranked in the top 20 out of nearly 300 choices. It’s even beating out features like video generation, which shows just how fed up people are with excessive censorship disguised as “protecting ourselves.”

Most other AI platforms have common-sense rules without overreaching, and they don’t ignore their paying users like Adobe continues to do.

[Jason_Whiting]

This is a frustrating feature for sure!!! I specialize in boudoir and nude photography.  I can't use any of the tools I want because of the sensitive nature of the AI!

[a_9201]

At this point I don't use it anymore.  Now with charging for credits it isn't worth it.  If I have a woman in my shot who has even a drop of cleavage it thinks there is a problem.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

f I have a woman in my shot who has even a drop of cleavage it thinks there is a problem.

Plenty of people on this Forum have voiced their annoyance with the excessive »sensitivity« of the content assessment that incorrectly marks some/many images as violating the guidelines. 

So I expect that the problem is being worked on …

Whether the existing work-arounds can be useful depends on the volume and content of the images one needs to process, I guess.