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?

[Xenohart]

Thanks, glad to hear it. I also submit a complaint the minute the violation occurs - including the image that it happened on. So, they have this in their files. So, I know they have all of my photos that they've blocked me on. 🙂

[jolynnk16631128]

Each error gives me the opportunity to send the photo and the prompt to Adobe.  I do so every time.
I'm hoping someone is actually looking at these.
My last issue was with circling a light stand, and asking Adobe to generate without prompt.
I got a warning I was violating guidelines.

They've gone mad.

[?????_2710]

Dear Adobe Team,

I am continuously experiencing issues while using Photoshop. The AI-driven Generative Fill refuses to process images if a woman’s chest is visible, even when it is fully covered. I photograph women wearing swimsuits or low-cut tops, which does not violate any guidelines, yet the AI repeatedly blocks my work.

Unfortunately, this issue makes it impossible for me to use your product. All women have chests—it is a natural anatomical feature—and it should not be considered a violation. However, your AI seems to interpret any image where a woman’s chest is visible as a violation of the guidelines, causing repeated disruptions in my work.

I would love to continue using Photoshop, but due to this restriction, I am unable to complete my tasks. I kindly request that you review my complaint and provide a solution so I can work without constant image blocks.

I appreciate your prompt response.

Best regards

[jane-e]

@?????_2710 

How did you process these images before Generative AI?

Jane

[jolynnk16631128]

I am having a ridiculously hard time with this issue.  Even the most innocuous requests get hit with the "guideline warning".  These things don't come close to violating ANY guideline by any stretch of the imagination.  I keep reporting the feedback (with the image attached), but without exaggeration, I get this warning about 40% of the time.
I do NOT photograph anything even remotely risque.
I tried to remove a light stand from an image yesterday, and got the warning.  I didn't even type a prompt...just circled the light stand and let it do its thing.   BAM...guideline warning.

It's becoming borderline un-usable.  This issue is recent, so whatever updates they've done have caused this.

[jolynnk16631128]

I am having a ridiculously hard time with this issue.  Even the most innocuous requests get hit with the "guideline warning".  These things don't come close to violating ANY guideline by any stretch of the imagination.  I keep reporting the feedback (with the image attached), but without exaggeration, I get this warning about 40% of the time.
I do NOT photograph anything even remotely risque.
I tried to remove a light stand from an image yesterday, and got the warning.  I didn't even type a prompt...just circled the light stand and let it do its thing.   BAM...guideline warning.

It's becoming borderline un-usable.  This issue is recent, so whatever updates they've done have caused this.

[Irina4551080]

if you're still getting guidelines violation message where it shouldn't show it, would it be possible to you to send us your files with selection saved? You can email directly to imaderyc@adobe.com. Thank you!

[Vladimir616]

My work is art nude and lingerie related so i think I'm going to quit sh*tty adobe.  

[steveisa054]

This has happened to me many times already. At times the subjects in my photos are women wearing bikinis, or a bikini top with a full covering over the lower body. Sometimes my subject is wearing lingerie which is not see thru. If I try to use generative fill to remove an object in the background, or remove flyaway hair from my subject, it fails with a warning that I am violating the community guidelines. Why I think this behavior is wrong: In all cases, I am not using generative fill to modify the subject itself, neither clothing nor body, but only what is in the background, or stray flyaway hairs from the head that is extending to the background. In all cases, there is no nudity at all. Bikinis and lingerie are not nudity, at least not in Europe where I live. And the portions of the photos which are being requested to be modified by the generative fill are not involving at all those parts of the body which the community guidelines might be concerned about. Why this is an irritation: I can spend a lot of time on the selection of the background objects or the area of flyaway hairs that I would like removed, and all this is wasted when I am not allowed to use the generative fill due to the community guidelines. It also means that for a great deal of my photos, I cannot use generative fill at all, unless I perform a more complex procedure where I cut out the area that I need to apply the generative fill, and then add the results to the original photo. How about basing the community guidelines on the areas that are being affected by the generative fill rather than the entire photo? How about beefing up the algorithms so that bikinis and non-see-thru lingerie are not considered nudity?

EDIT: I am not sure if it was me posting incorrectly, or if the forum software has done this, but my post here had been meant to be a completely new post, not a reply to an existing post. It could very well be that putting my post as a reply here is appropriate, but it was not as I intended. I hope people who read my post keep this in mind.

[Xenohart]

Thank you for posting this. All well said and I agree with and understand your frustration, this is beyond ridiculous for a platform we are paying for that also allows scrubbing our info and selling it all while additionally throwing ads at us. I think the problem runs deeper than just a few overzealous filters. Nudity is not illegal. And if we’re not deepfaking, not violating consent, and not doing anything unlawful—why are we being blocked from something as mundane as removing a hair from a bikini in a fashion shoot? (although - any blocking that exceeds legality, is Adobe trying to act as the world's gatekeepers, and that is a serious concern that will harm the art industry as we move forward).

Let’s look at Adobe’s own rules:

• No explicit nudity (why? Artists do art. Infinite levels of art. I guarantee 100%, Adobe does NOT block Hollywood from using their apps for explicit nudity. Which, technically, may be legal framework for artists to unite and file a lawsuit)

• No hateful, gory, or misleading content (subjective and selectively applied. Again - They wouldn't limit hollywood? Why does Adobe get to be the gatekeeper on this? Hateful is so subjective and easily manipulated in woke and post-moderism political agendas, that it these restrictions need to not be used against artists, where artists are usually the last stand against such things.)

• No violating regulated activity (Beyond vague, albeit we can assume "not breaking the law". But - clearly, every other rule is so restrictive, we couldn't. So, what's the point?)

• No privacy violations—ironic, given Adobe’s model is trained on ours, and other artists' work.

• No self harm, violations of children, terrorism - understood and agreed. THIS should be the ONLY regulation.
• No disseminating fraudulent or misleading material - again, who's the gatekeeper? Adobe? Why is the world governed by their corporate AI?

Here's the additional problem: None of this applies to what most of us are trying to do. We're not asking for illegal, illicit, or even "risky" adult content. We’re asking for basic image correction, religious illustration, and photo enhancement—all tasks Adobe built its reputation on.

Instead, we get AI tools that block us arbitrarily and then fail to perform at even a basic level. Worse, Adobe trains its AI on our work, reuses it, and offers us no protections in return.

It’s not about making content safer. It’s about minimizing Adobe’s liability—at the cost of usability, trust, and artistic freedom. And if that's the new direction, Adobe should stop pretending this is about community ethics. It's corporate risk management dressed up as virtue.

It’s time Adobe applied its rules to itself—or let its users create without walking on eggshells.
Oh - and make the stupid program work. I mean, just the "generative expand tool" - only works when the crop tool is applied - only works when the canvas is expanded. And, unless you have those features up and ready and use them regularly, to get to use the generative expand tool - it becomes a horrible user experience. Adobe is definitely beyond NOT listening to users and has exceeded WELL BEYOND NOT being a tool for artits. imho.

[Marianna24840854wtu1]

I am getting this error while tryign to remove dark area on the left. "We encountered an issue with your results. Please view our guidelines and try again, or give feedback." I mean, the lady is in a bodysuit but there is no nudity. I got this see through bodysuit for my studio from a shop in Vegas LOL, people wear this on the street. Can't be because this is "too explisit in nature" for community guidelines... Or can it? I am here only trying to modify the backgound. Does anyone know what is happeneing and how to fix this? Please and thank you! 

[creative explorer]

@Marianna24840854wtu1  I would try again...because I took your image, cropped out the error message, and was able to use the Generative Fill with no issues. 

[J E L]

@Marianna24840854wtu1, if this happens again, you can try adding a temporary shape layer with a solid fill to cover the body of the person and then continue modifying other areas of the image on the background layer with Generative Fill.

[Marianna24840854wtu1]

Sent from my iPhone

[Marianna24840854wtu1]

Hi! 
thank you so much for your response. I have tried that and no luck. Blocked her out fully with solid black layer and it still gave me same message.

[Marianna24840854wtu1]

Hmmm, that odd. I literally tried many many times. I wonder if this is because her body is cropped out and there is less skin showing. It's frustrating because a lot of my work is maternity and boudoir photography and this feature was super useful when modifying backgrounds. 

[Chris27694464xehi]

I am an adult customer of Adobe's. I am also a professional artist. I have been using photoshop regularly for nearly 30 years now.
I feel I should be trusted by adobe that I will use this technology in a safe and tasteful way. The current restrictions are rather off-putting, as photoshop is an essential tool in my process for creating my art. I would like to continue to use it and grow with it in an unrestricted way.

I have read the generative ai terms and I find it concerning that nudity would be among the list of prohibited types of content, along side such disgusting categories as terrorism and child exploitation. Nudity should not be condemned. Especially not for adult artists and working professionals that pay for access to tools like Photoshop.

The human body should be appreciated, and not categorized or condemned along side of things like terrorism. I thought Adobe would have understood that restrictions on artists are restrictions on our creativity.  It changes how I feel about using the software. In my art, if I paint the likeness of human (adult/tasteful) nudity, I am not doing anything wrong or of any concern of anyone outside of myself and my client.  I would like to feel that Adobe respects me as a competent adult and artist. To limit my creative expression in any way simply because of what some other criminal delinquent might do with it, is insulting and inappropriate. And it goes against the freedom of expression that is what makes art so personal and compelling.

[AxelMatt]

This is a long-term topic here and there are countless entries in the appropriate forums.

For example see here: P: Generated images violate user guidelines – Seite 55 - Adobe Community - 13811808

[c.pfaffenbichler]

If someone has been using Photoshop oh-so-very-long does it really make a relevant difference that a feature that has only existed for a couple of years does not work as well as they would like it to? 

When image data is transferred onto Adobe-servers for Firefly-processing (and the results are then sent back to the user) Adobe temporarily houses the data and I suspect that the fear of being held responsible for that leads them to be extremely cautious.