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]

The problem is it blocks even family vacation photos if someone is in a swimsuit. It blocks swimsuit models, etc. So professional and amateur model photographers have a hard time even using it for touch-ups with photos that would be considered pg-13, that you see every day in magazines, commercials, billboards, etc.

[BlipSpurb]

I have been a subscriber to CC full subcription for years. And at first I was excited to have AI image gen included on my subscription. But often get that annoying "Can't load" message, saying I might be violating this or that. I started testing by adding specific words that I suspected might get blocked and sure enough, "Can't load" blah blah. Now for fun, I just throw words at it to watch it block me. Again. And again. For example, I typed in "WWIi naz1 soldier", (I can't even include the word in this post so I had to misspell it to get it through) and unpleaseant yet non violating query imo. "Can't load". What is I was doing an article on WWII and wanted to include specific graphics? It's BS. Sure, people will use it for questionable purposes, but legit artists should be able to express themselves in their art, and not have Adobe watching over our shoulder, breathing down our necks, hindering our creativity by causing use to learn the new habit of contantly questions ourselves while with create. People are going to abuse it. That is reality. The way of the world. Why should us legit artists whi work hard to pay the subscription fee every month have to compromise our passion? I am using a different non Adobe image generator now with much better results. I create images for dark YouTube channel content, perfectly within YouTube terms of service. Firefly can take a [removed].

[Gene5FBC]

Adobe's frequent censoring of my images is disturbing.  "Too much" skin, as defined by some AI algorithm, can pop up the dreaded brown box of censorship after waiting for a change in the background or perhaps a clothing color change. 

Adobe's business is software development, not morality.

[Markellos Plakitsis]

"Morality" has nothing to do with a picture of a woman. A picture of a woman is moral.

[Markellos Plakitsis]

Welcome to the Middle Ages, my friend. Sadly, Adobe has decided to follow the path of other parts of the world, where women are seen only as tools for reproduction and household work. The issue isn’t with skin or nudity—the problem is with women in general. The next step for Adobe might be to refuse to open any photo that includes women in any of their applications.

Sadly, my dear friend, we are in an ideological and humanitarian war.

[andr�s_7309]

I have not been allowed to translate content about a dictatorship because it violate terms, even the whole world knows about this dictatorships and this content is available worldwide. Adobe is blocking me to call dictator and regime the ones that are considered dictators in every source you can check. I cannot use the translation for asylum statements of customers so I will have to change my subscription.

[prob001]

Agreed! they need to tone the pearl-clutching by about 60% at least. Fact: currently, PS often reads peoples backs as cleavage, including shirtless men? if their backs crease enough, its apparently considered cleavage? wtf, Adobe? It aint 1918 anymore.

[DeanAllman]

I have been a Photoshop user since 1999. I don't produce p*orn. Yet Adobe is treating us as if we are. The AI revolution has brought a slew of new applications that I am forced to go to because of the sloppy implementation Adobe has created witof their gudelines. This needs to be corrected now. Time is going to determine the wisdom of this move. Just sayin'

[JuanTrujillo]

I completely agree with this 100%. Adobe's move is not only unfair, it's absurd. I'm a photographer and have been using Adobe Photoshop for over 20 years. Photoshop should remain a tool that serves its users, not one that enforces the worldview of a particular group.

I photograph a lot of women, they're my clients. I don’t do pornography or anything illegal, yet many of my photos are being rejected when using Generative Fill, which is making my work unnecessarily difficult.

Why (removed) does this company think it can tell me what I can or can't do with my work? It's like going to buy a car and the seller tells you, "I won’t sell it to you because you might kill someone with it." [Removed by moderator]?

[davescm]

The company does not tell you what you can and can't do with your work, outside of the terms and conditions in section 6 which you agreed to when you took out a subscription : https://www.adobe.com/uk/legal/terms.html

However the company does decide what it (not you) is prepared to generate using its AI systems and has built its interface accordingly. Undoubtably, it sometimes gets it wrong, as does any machine based analysis of an image, but the aim is to keep Adobe's generated images within the company guidelines.

Dave

[JuanTrujillo]

Sorry Dave, but I disagree with your point of view. I still believe Adobe is not doing things right, as it’s harming thousands of legitimate users like myself who are not doing anything illegal or outside of their own policies and terms of use — the same ones you’re quoting here.

Adobe has taken the liberty of censoring content that it shouldn’t. I'm not forcing the tool to generate anything inappropriate — I’m simply using Generative Fill for professional tasks like extending borders, filling empty areas, or reframing images. And yet, Adobe scans my photos and arbitrarily decides that what I’m doing violates their policies, when that’s clearly not the case. This makes my workflow much more tedious and frustrating.

And what’s worse, this isn’t even about Adobe deciding what can or can’t be generated — because sometimes what I’m asking for is as innocent as generating a patch of sky. What Adobe is doing is analyzing my original work and telling me that it goes against their policy, when it absolutely doesn’t.

I could show you hundreds of ridiculous examples where simply including a woman in a bikini triggers Adobe’s censorship. It’s absurd. This tool should be at the service of the user, not enforcing a selective moral standard that doesn’t align with how many of us use it professionally.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

»Adobe has taken the liberty of censoring content that it shouldn’t.«

Adobe is not censoring your images, it is refusing to create new content based on (some of) them. 

»What Adobe is doing is analyzing my original work and telling me that it goes against their policy, when it absolutely doesn’t.«

How do you think Generative Fill would create content to fit into an image other than by first analyzing the image? 

So the complaint about the image being analyzed seems incongruent in principle. 

Aside from that: Data on Adobe’s servers? Adobe’s potential responsibility – so they apparently prefer to err on the side of caution. 

[Tommy James]

Respectfully, that’s some serious mental gymnastics.

If Adobe refuses to generate content based on my own original work because it analyzes and flags it — that’s still a form of censorship. Calling it “refusing to generate” instead of “blocking” doesn’t change the user experience or the legal implications.

Case in point: I’m currently working on a superhero comic-style piece where I’m literally just trying to use Generative Fill to add finger bones — so I can blend them into a hand. And guess what? “Finger” gets flagged before the bar gets halfway through, even when it’s obviously part of a hand.

That’s not Adobe protecting itself. That’s overactive word filters, plain and simple. AI doesn’t do that on its own — it gets trained to. And if Adobe is training it to block common anatomy terms not listed in the TOS, that’s undisclosed restriction.

Which is exactly what people are complaining about. Most of the blocked prompts in these threads — like “fingertip,” “lace,” “silhouette,” or “abs” — aren’t mentioned anywhere in Adobe’s official guidelines. That’s the problem.

If you’re going to restrict creative tools, be transparent. Customers shouldn’t be playing a guessing game with a paid product.

[Sean5FAD]

Hi Dave,

Many artists rely on Photoshop as a core part of their creative process, and nudity has always had a place in art — often challenging censorship and reflecting deeply human expression. While I understand that Adobe chooses not to generate adult content with its tools, it’s deeply frustrating that even core features are restricted when working on projects that include nudity or adult themes.

We’re in a time where censorship is becoming increasingly aggressive, and it’s hard not to draw parallels to dystopian narratives like The Handmaid’s Tale. Limiting tool access based on the presence of adult content — which remains protected free speech in the U.S. — feels like an unnecessary and discriminatory overreach.

What’s especially problematic is that I can’t even use Photoshop’s Generative Fill to cover nudity to make content suitable for wider platforms, or to fix unrelated parts of the image, simply because the AI detects something “adult.” That’s not about preventing generation of explicit material — it’s about blocking artists from editing their own work. It feels like a moral judgment is being placed on us and our art, and that’s a disappointing stance from a company that has long been central to creative freedom.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

• As you felt compelled to mention how »very« long you have been using Photoshop let me ask: What did you do back when Photoshop had no Generative Fill? 

• What imagery you store and process on your computer/network is none of Adobe’s business, what you send to Adobe’s servers for processing becomes a potential liability for Adobe. So they apparently took a cautious approach and employ extremely »narrow« filtering – but pretending this equates censorship (or telling you what you »can or can’t do«) seems unjustified. 

What  does »unnecessarily difficult« mean, which work-arounds do you employ? 

What tasks are you talking about anyway – background extension, beauty touch-up, …? 

[JuanTrujillo]

I believe the answer I gave to Dave explains my point clearly.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

I believe the answer I gave to Dave explains my point clearly.

By @JuanTrujillo

But your reasoning seems specious to me. 

You have been using Photoshop before Generative Fill was a thing, so you should more or less be able to achieve the intended results either way. 

For canvas extensions the work-around of temporarily covering the »offending« elements should not take more than a minute or thereabouts and seems manageable to me. 

[JuanTrujillo]

I understand your point, but I don’t think it’s about whether I can work around it — of course I can. I’ve been using Photoshop professionally for over two decades. I know how to mask, clone, retouch, and do whatever it takes.

The issue is not about my ability — it’s about workflow efficiency. Adobe introduced Generative Fill as a tool to speed things up, not to force extra steps just because their filters are overly aggressive. If I have to start covering up parts of my own legitimate image just to get the tool to work, that’s already a sign that something’s broken.

And honestly, even if the workaround takes “just a minute,” that minute repeated dozens of times over hundreds of images becomes wasted time. For high-volume work, that’s not negligible — that’s a productivity issue.

I’m simply pointing out that Adobe’s implementation is flawed in how it flags and blocks legitimate content. That’s what I think needs to be fixed.

[MatrDatr]

It’s disappointing to see the moderators attack people expressing their frustration with using Gen-fill.  I thought the community was a place to find answers and get helpful information. Someone needs to tell Adobe Marketing people that a large section of their advertising lies about what gen-fill does.  While it may be possible for it to do it there are all kind of community standards not allowing it to function as implied in the advertising.  I very much feel cheated as I only started subscribing because of the Gen-Fill advertising.
The commentary from the moderators explaining how did you do it before is unhelpful.  Instead, it would be much better if they acknowledged the frustration then explained what the exact restrictions are and methods or ways to accomplish the gen-fill people need. At a minimum they could provide some feedback on the thinking from the developers and what changes are anticipated in the future if any.  As it stands, they seem to be defending the current restrictions which implies to me that there is no anticipation of any changes in the future. In which case I have an answer I hoped I wouldn’t get.  I have to decide what to do in the future as the Adobe product doesn’t do what I need.  I totally agree with others comments about the time sink with gen-fill.  I expected it to save time.  In reality it is a gamble.  If I get past the restrictions then there is the issue of getting what I want from prompting.  There are times I tried 10 or more different prompts and still didn’t get a usable result. Having to make or find a reference image just adds to the time involved. Many times, the results are cartoonish, not realistic, deformed or childish. Sometimes (20%) it nails it first try. If it worked much better and the restrictions were much less it would be incredible.  But from the moderator commentary I’m not expecting that to happen.  

[c.pfaffenbichler]

»Community Expert« is not equal to »Moderator«. 

»The commentary from the moderators explaining how did you do it before is unhelpful.«

You are right that it is indeed not helpful for new Photoshop users. 

But when someone else posts »I have been a Photoshop user since 1999.« it does not seem completely unfitting. 

[JuanTrujillo]

You keep missing the point entirely.

Whether someone has used Photoshop since 1999 or started yesterday is irrelevant. This discussion is not about skill or how we used to do things. It's about how Adobe promotes a feature that in reality doesn’t function as advertised — and how that affects professionals who rely on efficiency and consistency.

Also, if you’re not a moderator, then maybe stop speaking as if you were one, especially when your tone comes across as dismissive and patronizing toward legitimate user feedback.

This forum should be a space where people can express concerns and get constructive help — not be belittled for pointing out flaws in Adobe’s implementation.

If you're not here to help or contribute to a solution, maybe reconsider how you're engaging with others.

[alexander_4662]

I agree about the overall mentoring tone, which, unfortunately, often comes from people who aren't even Adobe employees.
These "community experts" tend to shame users who point out obvious flaws in the software instead of passing the feedback along to the development teams assuming they even have the means to do so.
This kind of blindness and deafness toward user feedback fits perfectly with the company's outdated approach and its attempts to censor content.

[prob001]

We are in agreement, brother! i mean, even Bing will do cheesecake pinup
shots, for goodness sake!

[JuanTrujillo]

Seriously, what’s next? Bing becomes the go-to for creatives and Adobe turns into the new parental control? 😂 The world’s gone mad.

[BlipSpurb]

I don't care what Adobe says, they OVER CENSOR. I can understand some censorship, particularly when it comes to cp. But they waaaay over do it. I've posted here on this topic before when I first tried their Firefly. They censor on subjects and words that are not related to adult pictures. Anything they think is even slightly controversial is censored. I still pay for the premium subscription, but I keep it for After Effects and Premiere. If they start censoring that, I will cancel my membership of over 10 years. For AI graphics, I've already moved on Chat GPT, Grok, there are plenty of alternatives to Adobe. Which is sad because not only am I paying Adobe for a overly censoring AI app, but my subscription charge recently went up - again. Shame in you Adobe. Your long time loyal customer as well as new customers deserve better respect and consideration than this. We are not children for

you to parent, nor are we suckers for you to take money from.