SoulGen vs Adobe Firefly: Compare the Approval Record for Fictional Character Art
Current policy: SoulGen’s Terms §5.2(a) prohibit uploading, sharing or transmitting pornographic content. This comparison uses ordinary fictional character art; a search phrase is not permission. Read the provider’s current Terms.
For a character project with an approval process, compare what you can document before comparing which sample looks more polished. Can you identify the input, the chosen tool and model, the permitted use, the cost basis, and the final file? A screenshot without that record can leave a team unable to explain how an asset was made.
This is a comparison of public documentation checked October 21, 2026. We did not run either generator. It is written for original fictional adult characters, including readers arriving through a SoulGen AI Porn query who need a clear account of the product boundary. Adobe’s generative AI user guidelines also prohibit pornographic material or explicit nudity. This comparison concerns ordinary character artwork within the respective rules.
The project: approve one character, then adapt it
A small magazine needs an illustrated guide narrated by an original fictional 35-year-old botanist, Ellis. The first delivery is a square portrait. A later page needs a wider greenhouse scene. Two people must approve the design, and a third person will assemble the article.
The team is not hiring a generator to settle questions about copyright law. It needs a practical record: where the inputs came from, what was requested, which output was approved, and what future uses the team has actually cleared. Those requirements make this a workflow decision rather than a universal quality ranking.
What can be compared from the public sources?
| Approval question | SoulGen evidence | Adobe Firefly evidence | Action for this project |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can we start from a written character brief? | About lists text-to-image; public character screen has prompt controls | Firefly documentation and credit FAQ cover image generation | Save the same written Ellis brief before choosing a tool |
| Can we add space around an approved image? | Official Extend screen describes image expansion | Firefly Expand documentation gives ratio/freeform and prompt choices | Approve the square portrait before adapting its frame |
| What does the provider say about ownership? | Terms §4 says the provider does not claim ownership of creations | Adobe’s approach page says it does not claim ownership of user content | Record the relevant provider statement; separately clear inputs |
| Can we identify the cost basis? | Public page lists task/model credit rates | Adobe distinguishes standard, premium and partner-model usage | Save the actual model and cost indicator before generating |
| What provenance handling is specified? | No comparable Content Credentials commitment was established in this audit | Adobe guidelines address Content Credentials where attached | Preserve supplied metadata and keep your own asset log |
Sources: SoulGen About, character screen, Extend, Terms, pricing; Firefly Expand documentation, Adobe generative credits, Adobe’s model approach, and user guidelines.
Keep “the app” and “the selected model” separate
Adobe’s documentation distinguishes Adobe Firefly models from partner models available within Adobe products. The credits FAQ also distinguishes standard operations from premium ones. A familiar application name therefore does not tell you everything about the selected operation or its charging rules.
For an approval log, write the model name shown in the interface, not just “made with Firefly.” Do the same with SoulGen when a model is selectable. If a screenshot shows only a branded workspace but omits the active model, the record is incomplete for comparing a later attempt.
This matters when two colleagues try to reproduce a choice. One may be using a different model, output size, or account entitlement. A mismatch does not by itself mean either person followed the brief incorrectly.
Ask the approvers to decide the same things
Give both approvers a compact checklist before sharing candidates:
- Ellis reads as a fictional adult, with no requested resemblance to a real person.
- The coat, notebook, and greenhouse setting support the article.
- The portrait remains readable as a small thumbnail.
- The selected output has no distracting text fragments, logos, or implausible objects.
- There is an agreed path to the wider layout without redesigning the character.
Request written approval of a particular file version. “I like the second one” becomes ambiguous after exports are renamed or more variants are added. Use a filename or asset ID and preserve the unedited download as well as the final page image.
If both tools are evaluated, show equal briefs and equal review criteria. Do not give one tool a polished reference image and the other a vague sentence, then present the result as an objective capability comparison.
Build the handoff packet
The page assembler needs five items: final asset, source brief, input provenance, tool/model/settings note, and approval record. Add a note when an image contains generated surroundings or other synthetic details. Preserve Content Credentials when present; Adobe’s guidelines prohibit disabling or removing them.
An ownership statement from a provider does not supply permission for a third-party photo, a trademark, or a borrowed character. Nor does it guarantee legal protection for every output in every jurisdiction. If a real commercial constraint is unresolved, obtain the specific permission or review that constraint before delivery.
Which should this team choose?
If the team wants a character-focused starting workflow and can maintain its own complete records, SoulGen is a candidate to evaluate. If the workflow specifically requires the Adobe editing environment or a documented Content Credentials process, Firefly is a candidate to evaluate. Those are fit criteria, not a declaration that one produces better faces.
For the Ellis project, choose the service that passes a small agreed trial and produces a handoff packet the team can actually maintain. If neither result meets the brief within the attempt limit, revise the design or commission an illustrator rather than treating additional generations as an approval strategy.
Limits: No image quality, speed, fidelity, watermark behavior, output metadata, or account entitlement was tested. Public statements about rights and training are provider statements, not an independent legal or technical audit.
Related decisions: Browse all five comparisons or use the homepage planner.