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.

[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

[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.

[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].