Law in France that requires disclaimer for photoshops

[Kuya]

WARNING: PhotoShop | Diálogo Digital

French Politician: Photoshop Should Come With Disclaimer - Valerie Boyer - Zimbio

Valerie Boyer, a French parliament member from Sarkozy's UMP party, is trying her hardest to make fashion magazines safer products for women. Her proposal: make it illegal to print a photoshopped picture without a disclaimer that notes it as such.

Ms. Boyer told the UK's Telegraph that she hopes to "combat the stereotypical image that all women are young and slim...these photos can lead people to believe in a reality that does not actually exist, have a detrimental effect on adolescents. Many people, particularly girls, do not know the difference between the virtual and reality, and can develop complexes from a very young age."

Now this is interesting. I kind of think it's a good idea, but at the same time it does seem kind of silly, and i can just hear the comments about natural selection already (if teenagers are too stupid to know the difference between the real and not real, let them have health problems!). So what are your opinions, would it be a good idea to pass a law like that in the US? Requiring photoshop disclaimers on photoshopped adversiting images?

[Jakson]

Sounds like a neat idea, but it will probably end up like cancer warnings on cigarette packs.

[orson]

No this is stupid unless it's false advertisement or something horrendous like photoshopping child pornography then the Government should not be involved in this shit. Too much emphasis on making our Governments nanny states. It's a waste of money to enforce and overall the negative effects are extremely minimal. Isn't NA's waist still getting bigger? I hardly think that fashion magazines cause as many health problems as McDonalds (and no I'm not saying the Government should force McDonalds to serve "healthly" food.)

[Mayareira]

Stupidest thing I've heard recently. Every picture in a magazine is shopped for the sake of aesthetics.

You'll just end up with an extra "shopped, lol" line in every single ad.

Oh, and it'll add another dimension to the competition. Certain companies can always splash cash on a very good studio&photographer and end up "fooling" teenagers by using the law on their advantage.

...unless, you force them to put "passport photos" on their ads.

[Eratosthenes]

I don't expect any advertising images to be accurate depictions of reality. They're always enhanced in some way, like how the food you get in a restaurant never looks as good as it does on the menu. I think it would be sad if we needed a law to get this idea across, and hope we never resort to passing one.

[Kaylia]

WARNING: PhotoShop | Diálogo Digital

French Politician: Photoshop Should Come With Disclaimer - Valerie Boyer - Zimbio

Now this is interesting. I kind of think it's a good idea, but at the same time it does seem kind of silly, and i can just hear the comments about natural selection already (if teenagers are too stupid to know the difference between the real and not real, let them have health problems!). So what are your opinions, would it be a good idea to pass a law like that in the US? Requiring photoshop disclaimers on photoshopped adversiting images?

I like the idea. While it's a bit ridiculous on its own, the average person is fucking retarded, and any reality check is good.

I dont think people care if it's photoshopped or not, but if it can make people stop one seconds to think about the choice they are going to make, I'm down.

[BRP]

I am not really for or against it, but I don't see it as being destructive if:

1) Only applies to people. (lol)

2) The warning appears only once on the magazine and only if such images appear outside ads. Ads should get their own warnings.

Though to be honest, it is such a non-issue to me. Maybe have disclaimers for the "faked" information magazines give while we are at it. lol

[Blarg]

Do they specifically mention photoshop or just digital retouching in general. If you could just use another kind of program to edit pictures to get around the law it would be pretty funny.

[Ramor]

I like the idea. While it's a bit ridiculous on its own, the average person is fucking retarded, and any reality check is good.

I dont think people care if it's photoshopped or not, but if it can make people stop one seconds to think about the choice they are going to make, I'm down.

this about sums up my feelings exactly

[Mirage]

I would assume it's any sort of heavy retouching. Singling out one program would be stupid.

[Stumblingdrunk]

A law seems silly, but perhaps necessary. A disclaimer certainly strikes me as the responsible thing to do. Pictures did exist before photoshop, and our reliance on it is kind of sad imo
obligatory:

[Kaylia]

^
That was pretty cool. Not surprising or shocking, but still impressive.

[Mayareira]

Which, ironically happens to be an ad campaign of a company that's also into cosmetics.

Let's see what this law would bring.

A) Almost every company will add a "this is shopped" line to their advertisements, which may have a little effect until people get used to it.

B) Models that are more beautiful/photogenic will be the new targets of companies. With the assistance of technological developments in photography, certain companies will be able to gain advantage by pulling a "our lady is not shopped!". They may start doing new researches on how to impress people by changing the angle, background, etc.

C) Again, there is no way you can avoid being mislead by these products. You don't know the model personally, you don't know how she'd look without makeup in real life and when you get used to the new law/system, you'll get back to the point where you've started.

I just don't see how this would be beneficial for consumers. Educating people regarding this issue would be a much more sensible/effective strategy.

[Mistress Stowastiq]

WARNING: PhotoShop | Diálogo Digital

French Politician: Photoshop Should Come With Disclaimer - Valerie Boyer - Zimbio

Now this is interesting. I kind of think it's a good idea, but at the same time it does seem kind of silly, and i can just hear the comments about natural selection already (if teenagers are too stupid to know the difference between the real and not real, let them have health problems!). So what are your opinions, would it be a good idea to pass a law like that in the US? Requiring photoshop disclaimers on photoshopped adversiting images?

It actually sounds like something American society would implement. I am mixed about its ability to help since people do not read disclaimers with any religious duration. Still, imagery influences whether or not it is deceptively fake or clearly fake.

For example:
I can attest to how white Barbie and Ken dolls and a white hairstyler Barbie playset seriously skewed my personal perception of my own archetypes in beauty yet the Barbie is clearly a doll. Fortunately my mom was a doll collector, though I could not play with the fancy dolls, she eventually got me dolls that matched my skin color and hair texture.

As for magazines and media influencing a false sense of identity and unrealistic goals through artificial touch ups: What I learned starting in Ballet school before age 5 through half of my young adult life in training for it, ripped apart any chance of me having realistic perceptions about body image. Magazines and media did not impact me before Ballet did its 'damage'. I guess the same influence could be gained in heavy sports training, with steroid use creating some image.

I think school and peer groups are a stronger influence than realistic or shopped media but one can say those scrutinizing social groups are also a product of it.

The input of imagery also starts at the designer's level and how they decide what models they use to portray their products to the public.

[Beckwin]

I think it's a pretty good idea. I feel it would nurture more healthy perceptions of beauty/self-image and on the other hand you are facing a legitimate claim of false advertising, I think. Particularly in the case of cosmetics and fashion, you're basically seeing ads implying the claim of "our clothes/make-up look this good" when really it's Photoshop that shapes much of the final image.

[Howard Roark]

SAVE ME FROM ME!

[Demosthenes11]

i hate laws that protect people from themselves, on this level at least

maybe they should put a disclaimer on clothes when you buy them that say they won't make you beautiful

[Kaylia]

I think school and peer groups are a stronger influence than realistic or shopped media but one can say those scrutinizing social groups are also a product of it.

No one is going to deny this, but our society is still producing less gifted individual. One particular action like this warning won't have any noticeable impact on the overall education of a population, but they eventually add up.

A) Almost every company will add a "this is shopped" line to their advertisements, which may have a little effect until people get used to it.

B) Models that are more beautiful/photogenic will be the new targets of companies. With the assistance of technological developments in photography, certain companies will be able to gain advantage by pulling a "our lady is not shopped!". They may start doing new researches on how to impress people by changing the angle, background, etc.

C) Again, there is no way you can avoid being mislead by these products. You don't know the model personally, you don't know how she'd look without makeup in real life and when you get used to the new law/system, you'll get back to the point where you've started.

I just don't see how this would be beneficial for consumers. Educating people regarding this issue would be a much more sensible/effective strategy.

I don't believe anyone think it's going to be a magical solution to the problem. However, it can always trigger a series of thought that will make the consummer more prudent and conscious


It's just like The Game...you don't want to think about it, but it come back sooner or later anyway. Maybe people will start ignoring the warning after a bit, but it will never dissapears completely.

[Max™]

Fuck you Kaylia, that was masterfully played.

As for this law, I don't think it's such a big deal, I can tell from some of the pixels anyway.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/photoshops.png

[Dense]

I'm all in favour of the law. I think that we've bridged a gap with technology (which I also think is pretty fantastic, tbf) that needs to be explained in a fair way.

I've had conversations with people that are unaware of the amount of post-processing involved in magazine shoots and such. Albeit, most of those people were of an older generation and completely oblivious to the technology involved, but it still can make a small difference.

I also do not think it is "saving people from themselves" as a seatbelt law or something of the like (whereby the governing body is making money from a law based on personal safety, etc). This is more or less making sure that information is available no matter the level of education or naïvité.