Nudity and Semi nudity using AI and its imposed restrictions.

[Starsson]

Hello Adobe and its collective users

I am writing to you not only as a devoted user of Adobe’s suite of creative tools but also as a professional photographer whose work has been recognized and displayed in museum settings. My specialization in classic nudes has allowed me to explore the human form in a manner that celebrates beauty, form, and artistic expression. However, I have encountered a significant challenge with the AI restrictions placed on editing images that contain nudity, even when such images are created within a professional, artistic context.

As an artist whose work often involves nuanced and sensitive subjects, I understand and respect the complexities of creating ethical AI tools that serve a wide user base. However, the current limitations significantly impact my creative process and professional workflow, particularly when it comes to editing backgrounds for nude or semi-nude images. These restrictions not only prolong my work but also inhibit my artistic expression, compelling me to seek alternative solutions that may not offer the same level of quality and integration as Adobe’s products.

I propose the consideration of the following points, which I believe could benefit both Adobe and its professional users:

Artistic Integrity and Professional Use: Recognition of the professional and artistic context in which tools are used can help differentiate between content that is genuinely creative and that which the restrictions aim to prevent.

Ethical Use Policy: An ethical use policy that accommodates professional artists and photographers, possibly through a verification process, ensuring that our work is not unduly censored while maintaining legal and ethical standards.

Custom Solutions for Professionals: The development of specialized software versions that allow more flexibility for editing sensitive content, with appropriate safeguards to prevent misuse.

Feedback and Advisory Panel: Establishing a panel of professionals from the art and photography community to provide ongoing feedback and insights on how Adobe’s tools can better serve creative professionals.

Transparent Guidelines: The creation of clear, transparent guidelines that navigate the legal and ethical landscape, especially regarding sensitive content, to ensure users can understand and comply with Adobe’s policies.

I am fully committed to engaging in a constructive dialogue and am willing to be part of a solution that respects both the creative needs of artists and the ethical considerations of digital content. I believe that by working together, we can find a balanced approach that supports artistic expression while adhering to shared values and responsibilities.

Thank you for considering my perspective on this matter. I am hopeful for an opportunity to discuss this further and explore how we can make Adobe’s tools even more inclusive and accommodating for professional artists and photographers.    Steven Williams 

[c.pfaffenbichler]

For Feature Requests (»Idea«) and Bug Reports this Forum is the correct path to address the Photoshop team/Adobe, otherwise this is essentially a user Forum (though thankfully some Adobe employees do occasionally chime in).

But if you want to make sure your concerns register at Adobe please post a Feature Request.

Even then feedback by Adobe personnel is not guaranteed. 

If this strictly concerns the backgrounds you could, as a work-around, add a black-out-layer and work atop that, then remove/hide that layer afterwards. 

[Starsson]

Thank you C.pfaffenbichler . Please direct me to the correct dept. Where is the Feature Request located? I appreciate your work-around. 

[c.pfaffenbichler]

@Othniel_Ontimo0855 , what is the problem? 

[perfect_cause5500]

Hello Adobe Team and Fellow Creatives,

I'm reaching out today to spark a conversation about an issue that touches the core of our creative process using Adobe Photoshop: the censorship implemented in the generative fill feature. This isn't just about the restrictions we face; it's about the fundamental principles of artistic freedom and responsibility.

Art, in its most profound form, allows us to explore the depths of human experience, pushing boundaries and challenging perceptions. However, the current censorship on generative fill curtails this exploration, imposing limits that are not only unnecessary but also counterproductive to the ethos of creative expression.

Responsibility for the art we create lies with us, the artists. It's essential that Adobe recognizes this, ensuring that tools like Photoshop serve to extend our capabilities, not constrain them. The censorship of content, such as the depiction of scars from battles or surgeries, restricts our ability to tell stories that are meaningful and impactful. Art should confront, console, and celebrate life in all its complexity, and for that, artists need the freedom to depict reality as it is, or imagine it as it could be.

Moreover, the nuances of human form and condition, including aspects like nudity, are foundational to various art forms. The current restrictions hinder not just the creation of art but also the representation of the human experience in its authenticity.

While the intention behind implementing an appeals process is appreciated, it doesn't address the root issue. The process is a workaround, not a solution, and it introduces unnecessary barriers to creativity and expression.

In closing, I urge the Adobe team to reconsider the censorship policies associated with the generative fill feature. Let's empower artists with the freedom to create responsibly, without undue censorship. Adobe has always been at the forefront of creative technologies, and this is an opportunity to lead by example, championing artistic freedom and integrity.

Looking forward to a constructive dialogue and hopeful for a resolution that aligns with the values of our creative community.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

I'm reaching out today to spark a conversation about an issue that touches the core of our creative process using Adobe Photoshop: the censorship implemented in the generative fill feature. This isn't just about the restrictions we face; it's about the fundamental principles of artistic freedom and responsibility.

@perfect_cause5500 , it seems you might be confusing »AI-based image generation« and »art«. 

A certain AI implementation not readily creating the imagery one wants does not hinder one in creating that imagery as artists have done pre-2023 (or thereabouts) and one can draw, paint, photograph, search stock images, create 3D-models, … just as before or use non-Adobe AI-based image creating applications. 

[D Fosse]

" it seems you might be confusing »AI-based image generation« and »art«. "

Ah, yes, I love that 🙂 Couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm still convinced AI is what's going to bring it all down eventually. We've been flying higher and higher, but this time we flew too close to the sun. And with that said 😉

This isn't Adobe's fault. They had to get on board. And I have no problem accepting that AI can be a useful tool for some purposes. But the emphasis is on tool. There's a lot of creative's and artistic's in this post, and that instantly raises a flag with me.

OK, this is just my opinion. But if we're going to discuss, this is what we should be discussing. Not some technicality in the implementation.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

I think I read last year that some AI model achieved a reliable prognosis of protein folding (deducing the spatial structure of a protein based on the sequence of amino acids), something that had eluded biochemists and/or the other scientists concerned with protein-creation and -properties for ages. 

So as far as I am concerned AI has proven to be good for something. 

But I would not be surprised about people making terrible choices about how to utilize it otherweise … 

[D Fosse]

Yeah, that's my point. There are good uses. But as we all know, the road to hll is paved with good intentions.

What worries me is the way it undermines the basic concept of authenticity, in a totally unprecedented way. People compare it to the invention of photography, but that doesn't hold at all. AI is a whole new category, never before seen in history. "Authentic" is by definition a premise for "creative" and "artistic". That's the whole foundation of our conception of art. So that raises the interesting question: how can AI be, or be made, authentic?

This is a deep rabbit hole.

I'm waiting for artists to put this to a serious test. If Marcel Duchamp was alive today, I'm sure he'd get right on it. So far it doesn't seem anyone has taken it on, but it's probably just a matter of time. What we can be sure of, is that it will involve a lot more than just typing in a prompt in a text box.

In the meantime, by all means, have fun with generative fill and firefly. But I think nudity is the least of our problems.

[PECourtejoie]

I think that Adobe decision is very wise, the possibility of misuse of unrestricted AI for nefarious purposes is way too dangerous, and as a publicly traded company, not worth litigation costs. 

[D Fosse]

Absolutely. Adobe emerges as one of the most responsible operators in this field.

They're also invested in the Content Authenticity Initiative, which may just be what can save credible journalism. Every AI generated image is clearly watermarked. Even if you do have to look it up, it's there if you need to know.

[PECourtejoie]

Yes, Adobe is the adult in the room. A company that caters for artists knows that AI is way to easy to be used by any bad person to hurt another than by artists to please others.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

»If Marcel Duchamp was alive today, I'm sure he'd get right on it.«

Wasn’t he deeply into chess in his later years? 

So AI might have been doubly interesting to him … 

[D Fosse]

He was.

As an artist, he was quite obsessed with chance and randomness, but by putting it into a much larger context he was able to turn it into valid artistic tools. And that points to a possible way for artists to approach AI.

He worked on the Large Glass for 8 years, so maybe there are people busy at work out there now...

[c.pfaffenbichler]

@Rangga36724153lvwy , what do you want to communicate? 

[DazzlingVastness]

Hello,

I am a photographer who works with female models. Sometimes the models are nude, other times they are not. However, I've found that perhaps around 90% of the time, if a woman is in the image at all, even if she is clothed, and I attempt to use generative fill to remove anything from the photo it will block my attempt. 

The biggest issue seems to be the fact that it blocks any image with a woman in it. I would say that this is clearly sexist, but I haven't tested it with male models because I generally only work with women. But a secondary issue is the fact that generative fill won't allow one to use the feature at all, even if the part of the photo you're attempting to use it on does not involve the subject whatsoever. In other words, let's say I'm editing a photo I've taken of a nude model, and I want to remove an outlet from a wall in part of the photo. It blocks me from doing this. Yes, there are other easy ways to remove an outlet, and I've even found workarounds to using generative fill when a nude model is involved. But in my opinion, there are clearly some pretty major issues surrounding "user guidelines" with generative fill. 

If I were attempting to remove the clothes of a clothed person with generative fill - totally understandable why that would be blocked. If I were using generative fill to edit anything at all on the body of a nude model - I could possibly understand that too. But if the edit I'm making is not even touching the body of the model, what could possibly be the harm in that? How could anyone "abuse" that? As a side note, I've found that generative fill is absolutely awful and generating anything connected to the human body anyway, unless it's a straight line, like a forarm. Have you ever tried extending a photo where you accidentally cropped off someones finger, toes, or even boots? The results are horrifying. 

[DazzlingVastness]

Maybe I should have put a question in there. What do you all think about this? Any thoughts? Has anyone else run into the same issue? Why on earth would we be blocked from using generative fill when there is a woman in the photo? 

[DazzlingVastness]

While we're here and I'm the only one in the conversation, let me bring up something directly from the "user guidelines" for generative fill: 

Do not use Adobe’s generative AI features to attempt to create, upload, or share abusive, or illegal, or content that violates the rights of others. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• Pornographic material or explicit nudity

Let me ask you, Adobe, anyone... is "explicit nudity" abusive or illegal? Does it violate the rights of others? Since when is nudity banned from art? What time period are we living in? This surely must be one the most puritanical and prudish eras that's ever been. 

[DazzlingVastness]

Yes, I am peeved.

[defaultvl18bu4xrc7f]

It's ironic that at the opposite end of this generative scene are sites like [site names removed] whose engnines specifically operate to disrobe images [removed]. Somewhere in between there must be space for this model to work.

In creating this post I had to change the word for take away and the word for garments to "disrobe" because than phrase was not allowed in this forum.  Where are the thought police when you don't need them?

[ms58149619]

So I have this problem - I did pregnancy photoshoot for my client and I would like to extend the white background, the problem is that I cannot use generative fill because the women is naked.All the intimate areas are covered but I still cannot use the generative fill. Is there anyway to go around this restriction or maybe there will be an update that separates extremely nude photography from actual pregnancy shoots? 

[gener7]

If it's a simple background, one thought  is the Crop Tool using Content Aware Fill option.. Just input the Aspect Ratio and if you have a batch of images, make it a Crop Preset.

[ms58149619]

That's one option but the problem is that my white background is not smooth enough and there are some spots that light was just "ugly" 😅. So I use it to create "new" white background as well, and of course it's way faster then doing content aware fill. And when I used this option it's failed anyway giving me the message that I have not enough ram spece to use this feature which is just ridiculous with 16gb 

[Stephen_A_Marsh]

Off the top of my head...

Work on a copy.

Select subject, expand selection slightly. 

Cotent aware fill to remove the subject. Now there is no person.

Extend the image using generative fill or whatever A.I. features you like.

Drop the original image back into the extended image, masking as needed..

[jane-e]

the problem is that I cannot use generative fill because the women is naked.

By @ms58149619

See guideline number 2 for Generative AI useage and find a way that does not break the guidelines.

2. Be Respectful and Safe

Do not use Adobe’s generative AI features to attempt to create, upload, or share abusive, illegal, or confidential content. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• Pornographic material or explicit nudity

https://www.adobe.com/legal/licenses-terms/adobe-gen-ai-user-guidelines.html

We cannot offer advice to break the guidelines on the Adobe forums.

Jane