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?

[robertw44482386]

Having this issue exactly. Wake up Adobe. People have breasts and we have to retouch the material that clothes them, just the same as bellys ankles and elbows.

[byronw41971227]

I am sure they will at some point reconsider their Guidelines, but it does seem a little heavy handed to not allow Subscribers to use the tool when NOTHING is wrong with the photos we are trying to fix.   It is not like we are trying to create NUDITY at all.    And regardless, nudity is part of Photography, as long as the nudity is not pornography, or of children.  Then it is STRICTLY against the law, and Adobe could simply report it.    So, I expect Adobe to fix this issue at some point.

[Ciana34776120jew7]

I'm having the same issue! I've been trying to simply remove a bit of unwanted chest hair from a MAN (you can't even see his n*pples! -- yes I'm censoring myself because who knows) but they keep telling me it's against guidelines. I love the fact that they're kind of acting like children about the idea of nudity in photography, not allowing us to even use creative nudity. Eye roll. I hope they do something to fix this. Just wanted you to know you're not alone in your frustration!

[davescm]

@SheldonvL Please read the community guidelines before posting.
https://community.adobe.com/t5/using-the-community-discussions/adobe-community-guidelines/td-p/47881...

Dave

[byronw41971227]

If something was said, or posted against the Community rules, please just say so.   When you post a link to the rules, it appears as though you are saying something was violated, and we have to GUESS what was violated.

So, please, just advise us, of what was a violation.  I am quite sure NOBODY meant to violate any community guidelines, we just asked a simple question.

[robertw44482386]

@davescm This is extremely unhelpful. Why post this reminder without pointing out what the issue is

Passive aggressive bot-posted nonsense like this should be against community standards.

[davescm]

@byronw41971227 @robertw44482386 The post I was responding to, with the link to the guidelines, has since been removed.

Dave

[MatrDatr]

Still not Fixed, I have the same type of issue, not just once but constantly. All I want to do is fix skin blemishes, skin tones, make smooth skin.  The word skin almost always triggers a violation.  Other words that trigger violations: lips, hair, blonde hair, bikini, mini skirt, woman, face, nose. Not like I am creating masterpieces, much of what i do is for Amazon review photos that I want to look better. All photos are fully clothed, though they might be with underwear or bras - you know the stuff they sell on amazon. Try taking a photo of yourself in underwear, then edit it PS and use gen-fill to smooth leg skin - Big ugly blinking orange message pops up saying I violated community guidelines and I need to read them.  Well, I've read them at least 5 times and don't see what I am violating. There is no advice on how to correct the issue and none of the suggestions I seen so far are of value – (IE: use a different program, are you kidding? PS is the world’s best photo editor, it needs to be able to do these simple tasks without upsetting users with censorship)
Sure doesn't seem like they are listening, going to install Stable Diffusion this weekend and try it.  I read there a plug-in versions for it inside photoshop with much less limits on content generation. Instead of a big ugly violator error, I wish the response would say specifically what is unacceptable and then help me to correct it and get PS to do what I need.  Afterall this is what was advertized and why I pay monthly for it.
Oh my :The message body contains [removed], which is not permitted in this community. 

[abuse removed by moderator]

[Gene5FBC]

My goodness. Please do something about this isssue.

I get the dreaded brown box way too often when trying to edit photos showing too much skin even though the "model" is wearing clothing that's appropriate for being in public.

I recently tried to change a shirt on a model and after waiting , I was rejected.

[Alexander273181375ayt]

I have been a Creative Cloud user for many years. I appreciate the new features introduced on the platform, such as Generative Fill, and I actively use them. However, I am unpleasantly surprised that Adobe has taken it upon itself to censor my content.

I am not violating any terms of service, yet the Generative Expand feature is simply unavailable for a large part of the images I edit.  If I want to adjust image proportions, I need to generate a small strip of background, and Adobe restrictions prevent me from doing so, forcing me to cover the woman’s figure with a black fill bevore using Generative Expand. Since when is an image of a woman in a swimsuit considered illegal by Adobe?

I have a question for Adobe employees: Do you want Adobe tools to be used to edit only pictures of cats and bunnies? Which clause of your terms of service is violated by the image of a woman in a swimsuit that I am attaching as example to this post?

[D Fosse]

I am constantly amazed by how many people fail to see the obvious potential for abuse. Of course there needs to be guidelines and restrictions. The algorithm has no way of knowing the user's intent, so it just has to flag certain types of content. Adobe is, unlike many others, just being a responsible operator in this area.

Nothing stops you from making whatever images you want with Photoshop. You just can't use AI without some reasonable restrictions. People used Photoshop for many years without the AI capabilities, and you can still do that.

If it bothers you in this instance, just crop out the woman and put her back in.

[Alexander Kanti]

As you can see, the potential for abuse doesn't diminish just because Adobe decided to make life harder for regular users. This in no way makes Adobe a responsible operator in this area.
Furthermore, what potential for abuse do you see? Even if someone is a professional creating 18+ content, is it really Adobe's business as long as their work is fully legal?

[Alexander273181375ayt]

I pay for a Creative Cloud subscription, which includes all current tools, including the Adobe Firefly model. It turns out that if I have to work a lot with photos that, in Adobe's subjective opinion, are illegal content, I'm overpaying for something I can’t fully use.

It's not about my inconvenience; if I decide I no longer want to use Adobe’s software, I will cancel my subscription. The issue is that this is an intrusion into the creative process and the introduction of censorship. Today it’s a woman in a swimsuit, and tomorrow it could be the emblem of an unfavorable political party, and the rules are unclear — there’s no way to appeal, even though the content in my example doesn’t violate the service’s guidelines.

[Sean5FAD]

I’m a creative professional with nearly 30 years of Photoshop experience, working with legal, consensual adult content. I believe all creatives should have fair access to tools without censorship.

Currently, I can’t use Adobe Generative AI to edit backgrounds or make adjustments to my adult images. It’s frustrating to see these limits imposed on my work.

[matthewh45509]

By this logic, we should also not be able to buy kitchen knives because we could stab someone.  There's a potential for abuse of any technology.  The algorithm having no way of knowing the users intent is exactly why they shouldn't impose content restrictions.  They're only stopping those without malice from acomplishing their goals.  Those with malice, will find another way.

[Markellos Plakitsis]

Using a kitchen knife as a prop in your photos is permitted—unless it is being held by a WOMAN. The problem for Adobe is not the object; the problem is the WOMAN.

[Tommy James]

It's obvious to see why from a legal standpoint. But they have not trained their AI to recognize that skin doesn't equal bad. It blocks when you are trying to fix any errors that are close to the skin. It blocks family vacation photos if a woman is in a bathing suit. As advanced as Adobe is, they can do much better when it comes to this instead of severely handcuffing their customers' workflow.

[Ashley35002683irh0]

Photoshop Firefly couldn't create abusive AI content if it wanted to - it's just incredibly bad at it (the results would be  laughable at least). Basically any Stable Diffusion model out there blows Firefly out of the water. Where Photoshop excels is easy editing of details and the censorship seriously cripples that advantage. 

[davescm]

'Since when is an image of a woman in a swimsuit considered illegal by Adobe?'

The recognition of image content is also carried out by AI. It does not really 'know' what the image contains. It can only recognise patterns of pixels and assess whether those pixel patterns are likely to be images breaking the guidelines,  which Adobe created and are here : https://www.adobe.com/uk/legal/licenses-terms/adobe-gen-ai-user-guidelines.html  On that basis it makes a decision, and sometimes it gets it wrong, just as sometimes it generates incorrect content. If it is getting it wrong on a regular basis then give feedback on the Firefly forum https://community.adobe.com/t5/adobe-firefly/ct-p/ct-adobe-firefly but keep it factual rather than emotional. No-one is 'censoring' your work, but Adobe do have the right to accept/not accept images into its AI generator. Factual feedback helps to improve the decision making algorithms.

Dave

[Tommy James]

There is plenty of factual evidence showing that Adobe’s AI filters are overly restrictive. Users have uploaded blocked images that clearly do not violate the Terms of Service (TOS), and many of us regularly submit feedback when legitimate photos are flagged.

Adobe’s Firefly team has been consistently receiving this feedback. Personally, I’ve started numbering my submissions, and I’m now up to 128 feedback reports with photos included. Given the volume of similar reports from other customers, Adobe has more than enough data to adjust its AI filters or improve its training models if needed.

At the end of the day, AI only enforces the rules set by its human trainers. If the system is overblocking content, it’s because the parameters were designed that way. At this point, the filters are so restrictive that they’ve effectively become censorship.

[Gene5FBC]

Indeed !

[Terence H]

We should not be censored, i want to work with aome nudes and A.I, why ahould Adobe decide what i can or cant do. ? 

[Stephen Marsh]

Because Adobe host the service on their servers, so it's their choice to avoid possible legal liability for things that their users upload.

[Markellos Plakitsis]

Most of us are professionals, my dear friend. Our photos are legal. Nudity is not illegal in Europe. Maybe it’s not legal in Saudi Arabia, but in any civilized country, it is our right to use our own bodies as we choose.

But the real problem here is not that Adobe has issues with nudity… Adobe has issues with nudity or any kind of skin exposure—not even geniiiiiiiitals!— (the forum does not allow the word gen*tals !!!!!) if that nudity belongs to a WOMAN. A woman, not a man—a woman.