Makeup Companies Run Into Legal Trouble For Too Much Photoshopping... And Not Enough Photoshopping

from the damned-if-you-do,-damned-if-you-don't dept

Tue, Aug 2nd 2011 1:18pm — Mike Masnick

There's a story making the rounds about how the UK Advertising Standards Authority is banning certain cosmetics advertisements including Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington, because the images are way too Photoshopped.

The ASA says that ads can't mislead, and the makeup company (in this case L'Oreal) did not provide enough evidence that the digital alterations did not, in fact, mislead.

Now, this story was interesting on its own, but what made it even more interesting is that another makeup firm, Estee Lauder, seems to be in a legal dispute, for the exact opposite reason. Ima Fish recently alerted us to the news that model Caroline Louise Forsling had sued the company for the following advertisement:

She claims that the photo was just a "test shot" before any makeup was applied, and was for a different product. She claims that the showing of her untouched-up face on the left has 'irreparably' damaged her career. Of course, in suing over this, she effectively admits that the image on the left is the untouched-up image. She could have just as easily told people that the right-hand side was the "real" image, and the left-hand one was digitally altered, and gotten on with her life.

Either way, it should be noted that in both of these stories, they're about supposed "anti-aging" products, and I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that digitally altering images is how such products are advertised, rather than showing any actual before and after shots, because I imagine "real results" are likely to vary from what's seen in any of these ads.

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: caroline louis forsling, christy turlington, julia roberts, makeup, models, photoshop, uk
Companies: estee lauder, l'oreal

24 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Atkray (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 1:31pm

*runs off to patent/trademark/copyright "photoshop anti aging cream"*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 1:50pm

Really, Caroline Louise Forsling? The difference between the two face halves is so slight that it's hard to see how one could "irreparably damage" a career but the other one couldn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 1:55pm

Photoshop
I always thought those pictures were just one picture with both sides photoshopped. I now know better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 1:56pm

Re:
You know, along those same lines, here's another question:

Why can't women just accept that they're still hot as hell without the makeup?

Sincerely,

All non-retarded men everywhere....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Todd S. (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 2:08pm

Just confirms my thoughts...
that Julia Roberts requires photoshop to appear as a pretty woman. I think it's the lack of a philtrum.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheStupidOne, 2 Aug 2011 @ 2:12pm

Re: Re:
Correction ... they CAN be hot as hell. Some women really need that makeup ...

Google image results for "with and without makeup"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 2 Aug 2011 @ 2:26pm

"She could have just as easily told people..."
Assuming TRUTH is of no consequence. -- YES, I do consider it significant that MIke writes that casually.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
drewmo (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 2:33pm

In the second case, you didn't link to a story, but googling I find this: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/swimsuit_beauty_it_ad_nau_ea_dmi_3FAVKsgVT7MrN4spjXmu8M#i xzz1OD46GExu

And from that, it doesn't seem that she's saying that the left-side of the photo is untouched. In fact, she's stating that the photo is digitally manipulated (obviously), but makes no claim about what specifically (or, which side) is manipulated.

"the so-called 'dramatization' of the product did not result from the use of the product by Forsling, but rather reflected [their] manipulation of a photograph." So all they're saying there is that the photo is touched-up. Where do they say that the left-half is untouched?

She's saying she didn't consent to that use of that photo, and that's where she notes that it was just based on a test photo. So that just sounds like a disagreement about who owns what rights to the photo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 2:36pm

Re: Re: Re:
A lot of those pictures have more to do with lighting, pose, clothing, etc than they have to do with make up.

Some of those pictures are obviously comparing without to touched up/photoshopped images.

Some of those pictures I have a hard time believing that the "without makeup" picture is even the same person as the "with", for example, Angelina Jolie. If the "without" is really Angelina, it's her from a long time ago, before any plastic surgery she's done. So again, make up isn't the factor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wnyght (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 2:38pm

Re: Re:
"along those same lines".... perfect unintended pun
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 2:42pm

Re: Re: Re:
God I wish it had been intended....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
eclecticdave (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 2:42pm

Well, of course it's perfectly valid to use photoshopped images - these are intended to represent the reflections vain women see in the mirror after applying moisturiser with 1000% markup. Such delusions cannot be captured with a camera lens ;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 3:00pm

Re: Re:
Amen. My wife pretty much never wore makeup (and as far as I know, still does not), and I was always happy with things that way.

The Ms. Forsling on the left looks quite attractive to me. Of course, I'm not trying to hire her as a model.

I guess the real issue is what sells, and real people don't sell. Glitz and plastic sells. Unrealistic and distorted body images sell. Removing all signs of physical maturity sells. But real faces, real bodies? Disgusting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2011 @ 3:03pm

She could have just as easily told people that the right-hand side was the "real" image, and the left-hand one was digitally altered, and gotten on with her life

Or...

She could have just as easily told people that the left-hand side was the real image and that she looked great for her age and was proud, and happy, of the way she looked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
thedigitari, 2 Aug 2011 @ 3:12pm

my wife asked me........
what the hell is make up? she always thought that was something you did after a fight
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 3:52pm

Hrm.
I think the real lesson here is that Adobe has a huge untapped market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 3:54pm

Re: "She could have just as easily told people..."
Umm, her complaint is about the fact that a photo does not misrepresent her looks enough to make her as falsely-perfect as she wants people to believe. She has already established that "truth" is not an issue for her.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 4:10pm

Re:
you didn't link to a story,

Oops! Added back the link that must have been cut out in the editing...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 4:13pm

Re: Re:
If it were about impressing guys, 1 trip to the gym > all makeup and clothes in the world.
But makeup and fashion isn't about impressing guys in the least.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2011 @ 7:02pm

darned if you do, darned if you don't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike allen (profile), 3 Aug 2011 @ 12:59am

Has anyone thought that the only way they would sell these things to women is to photo-shop if they saw the real results they would know they were a waist of money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 3 Aug 2011 @ 10:35am

Re: Re: Re:
That. Makeup is ok but a fresh natural girl/woman is also wonderful. Women in advertisements and magazines are virtual today. Most of them.

Reminds me of a collection of Playboy front pages I've seen recently. The older ones didn't have photoshop and.. wow, they are the hottest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chris, 4 Aug 2011 @ 5:40am

Re: Re:
Here, here.

Also, what's with the anti-aging crap? Why is it considered bad to look old when you are old? In other cultures it's something that commands respect. But not us, noooooo. Even if I could look 20 years younger, I wouldn't want to. It would be totally awkward and it usually looks that way.

Let's suppose that a women wears makeup to make herself look attractive. However what she really cares about is looking attractive in a relative sense, compared to those around her. However, now all the women around her begin to do the same thing. What has been gained? Nothing. Between makeup and clothes, it just becomes a race to the bottom and that is exactly what is happening.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2011 @ 5:43am

Re: Re: Re:
Maybe not for all, but I'm sure for many, it is about that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]