Since when Adobe is a content censor?

[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.

[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.