Nudify: what the word covers and where the line is

The first is a web editor: upload, mask, wait, download. This is the bulk of the catalogue and the format that scores best, because the interface has room for the controls that determine output quality.

The second is a chat bot, usually on Telegram, that accepts an image and returns a result. These are convenient and consistently opaque: the operator is typically anonymous, the retention policy unwritten and the recourse nonexistent. Where such a service appears in the catalogue, its privacy mark reflects that.

The third is an API, sold to developers by the image. These are the most honest products in the category in one narrow sense: they document their limits, publish their prices per call and state their retention, because their customers are engineers who ask. Two of the higher marks in our privacy column belong to services of this kind.

Output resolution and whether the free tier is a genuine sample or a degraded demonstration. Several services in the catalogue cap the free output at a size that conceals their own artefacts, which is a marketing decision rather than a technical limit.

Queue behaviour under load. A published commitment, even a modest one, scores better than an unpublished best effort, and in our scenarios the variance between idle and peak was larger than the difference between the fastest and slowest tools at idle.

Retention and company identity. A provider that names a legal entity, publishes a deletion window and answers a support address is in a different class from one that publishes a landing page and a card form, regardless of which produces the better image.

The Ley Olimpia reforms criminalise disseminating intimate content without consent, and in most states the wording reaches simulated material. A synthetic nude built from a real person’s photograph and then shared falls inside that description.

Consent has to be explicit and it has to come from an adult. A photograph being publicly available is not consent, a past relationship is not consent, and a provider’s terms of service asking a user to confirm consent transfers nothing: the obligation stays with the person who uploaded the file.

Where the subject is a minor, no consent exists and none can be given. The material is child sexual abuse material regardless of any synthetic component, every provider in the catalogue prohibits it, and reporting it is the only correct response.

For anyone who finds material of themselves circulating, the report route on this site works independently of the service that produced it, and it is the first step rather than the last.

Lawful use only with your own photos, or photos of adults who have given explicit consent. Responsible AI (in Spanish).

• Rombach et al., High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models — The paper behind the diffusion inpainting that every tool in this catalogue relies on.
• Kirillov et al., Segment Anything — The segmentation approach used to find a garment region automatically.
• Diario Oficial de la Federación, Ley Olimpia reforms — The Mexican text criminalising dissemination of intimate content, real or simulated, without consent.
• Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, the AI Act — Article 50 sets the disclosure duty for synthetic content that this site follows.
• StopNCII.org — The international route for having non-consensual intimate images removed.
• TAKE IT DOWN Act, S.146 — The United States takedown obligation, relevant where a provider is hosted there.

Technical claims on this page rest on the published research above; legal claims rest on the published texts. Everything else is what the desk observed in its own standardised scenarios, with the date recorded beside each figure.