French Politician Proposes Warning Labels On Any Photoshopped Ad Or Marketing Label
from the no-digital-slimming-down dept
Mr. LemurBoy points out that some French politicians are pushing a law that would require a label on any marketing or advertising image that was photoshopped, airbrushed or edited in some manner. The idea, of course, is that they don't want ad campaigns to portray things in a manner that is not quite truthful. But shouldn't there just be a simpler rule against deceptive advertising (one I imagine must already exist)? If it's just a little edit to make the photo more reasonable, why should it require some special disclosure?Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: france, photoshop, warning labels
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if you allow "little edits"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if you allow "little edits"
once you introduce judgment the line gets all fuzzy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Molehill -> mountain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These guys are right, though. This is a self-esteem-promotion law, not a truth-in-product-advertising law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Molehill -> mountain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Molehill -> mountain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Molehill -> mountain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Molehill -> mountain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your Answer
Just a tiny edit/blur/filter/distortion to a product photo can make a fake product look legitimate--make pewter look like silver, make a a common wool sweater look like cashmere, turn a model's lips that perfect shade of red...these (retouching methods) are all things intended to change the final appearance of the ad, which is supposed to be a reasonable representation of the product (assuming it is pictured...and it almost always is.)
I am very free-market, but I do not pretend that a law against deceptive advertising in our digital age would be easily enforced or self-explanatory. Advertising almost always ends up being fake, some way or another. There is no (and, fundamentally speaking, there can be no) clear line between "little edits" and deception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your Answer
"There is no (and, fundamentally speaking, there can be no) clear line between "little edits" and deception."
So, then how does putting a warning on every single advertisement help things? I challenge you to find even one photo advertisement that is not edited in some way. Instead of putting these stupid warnings out, maybe we should expect people to have a little common sense and understand that advertisements are there to sell a product, no to educate them. Almost everyone understands this already, so what is the point of a warning label? And what possible meaning could it have when it would have to be plastered on nearly every advertisement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your Answer
I do think that many retailers are not honest with depictions of their products. I think it is reasonable that a consumer, when shown an image of a product by that product's seller, would believe that the picture is a good indication of the actual quality of the product. However, this is not the case in many fields, especially clothing and food. The shirts on mannequins are rather than worn normally; the clothing that a model wears will generally be tailored specifically for them despite the fact that no customer will have access to this service; color ranges are often edited into existing photographs, throwing off someone looking for a particular color...and of course the many exploits of the food industry as pertaining to depictions of food are well-known.
This is all becoming more important by the day because more and more of our shopping is likely to occur online, where we may never have the chance to encounter a product in person before purchase--and where returns are far more troublesome than they might be with traditional brick/mortar retailers. Overly edited photographs will inevitably lead to false sales in these situations. Remember the Wal-Mart kiddy pool that was photoshopped to appear roughly twice as large as it actually was?
The problem is the editing, not the lack of a warning or disclaimer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your Answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Show us what the product really does and not someone in front of a computer who probably never uses the product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HA!
There are none - all digital cameras substantially process the image before you ever see it. The actual "original" images from the CCD are awful they have to be changed substantially by the camera before they are any use.
Of course you might try to distinguish between "automatic" modifications and "manual" ones - but if you investigate the subject properly (look up for example "image inpainting" on citeseer or web of science) you will find that that is practically impossible to do.
eg Model has skin blemish - do you:
a) cover it with make up;
b) adjust lighting/ camera angle so it doesn't show;
c) postprocess colour balance so it doesn't show;
d) remove it with photoshop ?
Which of these will your law catch/not catch?
Is there really a difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: HA!
eg Model has skin blemish that you wish to show for artistic purposes but it doesn't show up properly in the photo - do you:
a) enhance it with make up;
b) adjust lighting/ camera angle so it shows better;
c) postprocess colour balance so it shows better;
d) paint it in with photoshop ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HA!
It's the same photo. One is just edited to make her look thinner, and the other to make her look fatter. See how the hair is EXACTLY the same? That is the problem people have with advertising. Not pimples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: HA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HA!
What problem will this law solve when EVERY picture is labelled as being edited/modified? As I understand it, there won't be any detail listing what was modified (what a nightmare that would be!) which makes this a bit pointless.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's why I find this problematic. I'm all for truth in advertising. But a law like this would only cause us to see a "WARNING: IMAGE WAS DIGITALLY ENHANCED" label on so many pictures that it would lose all meaning. Maybe a simpler rule wouldn't cover all the necessities in the digital age, but a law like this will catch too much in the crossfire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike's point makes much more sense. Photoshopped images only really matter if they materially alter the product or the results of the product, which should already be covered by deceptive advertising laws. For example, if you are advertising an acne cream and airbrush a model's face for the "after" photo, it matters. However, if you are advertising a clothing line, airbrushing the model's face is fine and does not affect the truth of the advertisement at all. What a silly, bureaucratic proposition this is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It will become more noise
People strive for ideals because they're ideals, not because that's how they think everyone looks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sooooo not needed
I remember being 7 years old and the board game "Crossfire" came out. The commercial for it was so bad ass everyone wanted it. Well, at least until that first kid got it. Word quickly spread that the game sucked. I believe he also returned the game and got battleship instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
like Prop 65 warnings
My apartment complex has a Prop 65 warning on each and every building and parking structure. Not exactly informative!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the world needs...
For example, I am a computer programmer and worked on a system where on one screen the user could do many things. We always prompted them if they were sure they wanted to do the action they just selected as a double check. Well guess what, when you are prompted every time you click, the prompts no longer stand out. You just accept them and go on. Sometimes completing an action you didn't want to do because you ignored the warning.
So the point is, every ad would have to have the label for fear of being sued/prosecuted for being deceptive. If every ad is labeled, then they are all equal, no ad stands out and the label will be ignored as commonplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OIC
Personally, I don't see a problem with enhancing physical features. We're not that far from just computer generating the models we want for Ads, posing them exactly as wanted, lit perfectly, and getting the pefect angles. Will they need to put a warning on those shots?
If so, what if they made a wax figure exactly how they wanted it and then took a picture of that? Does that need a warning too?
If so, why aren't they mandating that they put warnings on current ads that say "The model in this ad is bulimic", or "The model in this ad has had breast implants that took her from a 34A to a 34C"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 thumbs up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truth In Advertising
Look at this video to see what is possible with jury-rigging photos...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2gD80jv5ZQ
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truth?
My life has been served well by assuming that every ad is lying to me somehow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we have that here in the US but it doesn't do any good since no one enforces it like many laws here. The only person that can effectivly get a point accross to companies that rely on false advertising is YOU.
STOP PATRONIZING THESE COMPANIES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Before photoshop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
then what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not a lawyer but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]