Feature Request: Premium License for Generative-Fill

[MikeAllebach]

As a professional boudoir photographer, with a large following and hundreds of raving reviews and positive feedback, the limits on the Generative Fill for nudity is (while understandable) a bit frustrating. I know it's a difficult workaround but I'm wondering if the following idea could gain any traction for my fellow boudoir photographers.

I'm proposing photographers' ability to apply for an Adobe approved professionally licensed use of the AI functions by submitting a body of work, alongside testimonials of clients, as well as reviews. Maybe even proof of the success of the business and it's ethical practices.

Based on the limited language of the Generative Fill's guidelines, we don't actually violate them. But the simple nature of the nudity we sometimes have in individual photos, has continuously blocked my ability to lighten the load of manual retouching. There is no generating nudity or "p0rn" or violence or anything. But even using GF to smooth out distractions on our sometimes messy backdrop and floor, gets blocked because of nudity elsewhere in the photo. 

We've been a long established, ethical and empowering business for individuals and couples and have been categorized as "p0rn" by more than this particular function. (Stripe kicked us off of their platform citing similar issues with our work.) We would like to be able to take advantage of this growing technology but can't with these restrictions that lump us in with a lot of actually harmful and unethical users.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@MikeAllebach your theory is flawed - Generative Fill does not give violations due to the content of your image. More likely it's either the "false-flag" violation by not entering a prompt or the prompt is actually violating the terms.

[MikeAllebach]

Not according to Adobe after an hour long chat with them. I was told specifically that the violation notices I get are because of the content of our work. 

[MikeAllebach]

Not according to Adobe after an hour long chat with them. I was told specifically that the violation notices I get are because of the content of our work. 

[MikeAllebach]

@Kevin Stohlmeyer for example, they told me to avoid the violations, I could make a new layer select the background to remove the subject (ie the nudity) and retouch whatever I was trying to retouch out using GF. Then photoshop the subject back in.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@MikeAllebach who specifically did you talk with? Online chat?

[MikeAllebach]

@Kevin Stohlmeyer Honestly, I'm not sure how to go about finding the name of the person I was chatting with. 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@MikeAllebach name doesnt matter but was this through online chat on Adobe.com?

The reason I ask is this is completely opposite of what has been discussed with the internal teams and in this community.

We have many other boudoir and other fashion photographers that have shown they are using without issue if using prompts no matter the image content.

Here are some publicly posted resrouces:

https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html - "We don't analyze content processed or stored locally on your device."

https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/06/is-adobe-using-your-photos-to-train-its-ai-its-complicated/

[MikeAllebach]

@Kevin Stohlmeyer It was through the online chat and they were VERY specific about the reasons and how to get around it. They were the one who suggested I post here about this idea. I asked in several different ways and they said that the AI can't differentiate between what is acceptable nudity and unacceptable. What's weird is most of them are fine but then some aren't and get the violation. The prompts are almost always "remove" because I'm taking out things that are distracting in the background that I usually would work with content aware to fix. But this function is much more accurate in replicating the patterns and gradations. 

[D Fosse]

There's a bit of meta-irony here...online chat is probably AI. I don't know specifically about Adobe, but it is everywhere else now.

I think I'd take Kevin's word over an algorithm any day 😉

[MikeAllebach]

@D Fosse Totally get that. It's just the prompt of either "remove" or even just a . which was suggested in FB groups, still prompts violations that I can't quite figure out. And, not every time either. I did an image today that I took out a lightswitch and outlet. As soon as I went to remove some varicose veins (using remove then . ) gave me a violation. I did chat with 2 people by the way. The first disconnected and the second I asked if they could read my past one so I didn't have to go through it all again and they were able to. So maybe that was still AI... Idk. It's so frustrating!

[jane-e]

@MikeAllebach 

How did you remove varicose veins before the days of Generative Fill?

Jane

[MikeAllebach]

@jane-e Oh, I'd use content aware or the clone stamp. I just keep playing around and testing it to see if I can detect any pattern at all in the violations. Everthing I'm using it for is stuff I've been doing without it. But I'd love to be able to use it to speed some things up. I most certainly don't "need" it but it's nice to use for some of my more annoying and time consuming work. 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@MikeAllebach I can say that the violations are becoming less frequent as the AI learns and Adobe pivots on the back end. The latest release to the algorithm was this month and I've been told saw significant reduction in posted violations. Reporting "false flags" when you get them helps the team and AI learn from mistakes and improves as a whole.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@MikeAllebach Ive also been told the period trick may no longer work as the AI learns. You may have to be descriptive in your prompts to avoid violations. This alone is a new frontier for most creative people - learning how to be eloquent in their descriptions to get more accurate and expected results.

[MikeAllebach]

@Kevin Stohlmeyer Yea, that all makes a lot of sense. Although, when I use specific prompts besides "remove" or "." I sometimes get the weirdest results. For example, a client had a bandaid on his knee. I prompted "remove the bandaid" and it came up with an eyeball lol

Anyway, thank you so much for your insight. This is clearly not a suggestion that is necessary. Based on my conversation with an Adobe rep, it appears I was misinformed. 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@MikeAllebach I keep using remove no matter what the little dialog box says. It works!

Besides the good discussion - I wouldn't dimsiss your original request at all - there may still be some validation in a tiered format as this evolves. I focused on the violations not your premium point.

[MikeAllebach]

@Kevin Stohlmeyer Much appreciated!! 

[LightningPlugins]

One trick that might help is to make a new temporary layer and roughly paint in some "clothing" on your subject. It wouldn't help if you are trying to generate certain body parts, but it should reduce the violations for other things as the AI would see this temp layer.