Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

French Deputies Want Labels On Photo-Altered Models

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the ministry-of-culture dept.

Government 512

Psychophrenes writes "A number of French deputies are proposing to pass a law requiring all published photos that were modified by means of an image manipulation program to include a statement indicating that 'the photo was altered in order to modify the appearance of a person.' This indication is to be mandatory on all ads, packaging images, political posters and even art photos, and is considered a matter of public health, aimed at fighting anorexia." The related article is in French, but Google Translate does a pretty good job.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Porn and hamburgers (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503713)

It might be a little annoying reading a porn magazine which has the text "'the photo was altered in order to modify the appearance of a person." thrown all over it.

But does this apply to persons only? I hope we'd finally get to know the truth about McDonalds hamburgers. Or can we count them as persons?

Soylent Green (5, Funny)

ATestR (1060586) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503769)

But does this apply to persons only? I hope we'd finally get to know the truth about McDonalds hamburgers. Or can we count them as persons?

Well, maybe they were at one time...

McSoylent Green (5, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503851)

Two all-beef Patties, Special Scott and Lester Cheese picking bunions on a Sesame Street Bus?

Re:McSoylent Green (1, Funny)

jockeys (753885) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504097)

The way I've heard it told is "two obese Patties, special Ross, Lester Heath picking bunions on a Sesame Street bus"

interesting regional variant.

Re:McSoylent Green (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504183)

Wassat? All I can hear is

"They're people! The burgers are people!"

Re:Porn and hamburgers (1)

tompeach (1118811) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503817)

But does this apply to persons only? I hope we'd finally get to know the truth about McDonalds hamburgers. Or can we count them as persons?

Pictures of burgers are representative of the type of burger you can expect, you do not expect the exact burger that is in the photo otherwise they would have to take a lot of photos!

Good for the French anyway, this can only be a positive thing.

Re:Porn and hamburgers (5, Insightful)

A coward on a mouse (238331) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504319)

Pictures of burgers are representative of the type of burger you can expect, you do not expect the exact burger that is in the photo otherwise they would have to take a lot of photos!

I can only assume that one or more of the following is true:

  1. You have never seen a McDonalds hamburger.
  2. You have never seen a picture advertising McDonalds hamburgers.
  3. You are vision-impaired.

Re:Porn and hamburgers (4, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504529)

That reminds me of a scene in one of my favorite movies [imdb.com] . Michael Douglas takes a fast food joint hostage because the burger doesn't look like the picture ;)

"Turn around. Look at that picture. It's big, it's juicy, it's three inches thick. Now look at this sorry sad squashed thing. What's wrong here? Can anybody tell me? Anybody at all?"

Re:Porn and hamburgers (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504413)

Pictures of burgers are representative of the type of burger you can expect

Except that the burger in the picture is big and plump and juicy with ample lettuce and fresh red tomato and big fluffy bun. Whereas the burger you receive is a squashed soggy piece of garbage with shredded lettuce and a green tomato, and some other shit that you can't even identify. Not exactly a match to the photo..

Food styling (3, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504625)

But does this apply to persons only? I hope we'd finally get to know the truth about McDonalds hamburgers. Or can we count them as persons?

Pictures of burgers are representative of the type of burger you can expect, you do not expect the exact burger that is in the photo otherwise they would have to take a lot of photos!

Good for the French anyway, this can only be a positive thing.

Food styling and photography is at least as complicated as fashion styling and photography. People at least do not dry up, wilt, sag, and turn funny colors over the course of an hour under the lights. Burgers are one of the harder foods to style and photograph. The burgers you see in photographs are not even edible. For some interesting tricks of the food stylist/photographer's trade, see here: http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=102996&catId=100406&tid=100008&p=1&title=Food+styling [choice.com.au] .

Re:Porn and hamburgers (1)

Tim4444 (1122173) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504635)

I went to a McD's and asked what the guy recommends. He said "the restaurant down the street." Sure enough, the pictures of McD's burgers were representative of the type of burger I could expect...at the restaurant down the street.

Re:Porn and hamburgers (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29503827)

Reading?

IT'S MADONNA'S BIRTHDAY TODAY! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29503853)

Slashdotters love Madonna!

madonnanaked.jpg [wordpress.com]
MADONNA IS THE BEST! [madonna.com]
I made it through the wilderness
Somehow I made it through
Didn't know how lost I was
Until I found you

I was beat incomplete
I'd been had, I was sad and blue
But you made me feel
Yeah, you made me feel
Shiny and new

Chorus:

Like a virgin
Touched for the very first time
Like a virgin
When your heart beats (after first time, with your heartbeat)
Next to mine

Gonna give you all my love, boy
My fear is fading fast
Been saving it all for you
cause only love can last

You're so fine and you're mine
Make me strong, yeah you make me bold
Oh your love thawed out
Yeah, your love thawed out
What was scared and cold

MADONNA IS THE BEST!

Re:Porn and hamburgers (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29503875)

Should they also need text "this model has been modified to alter her appearance"?

Re:Porn and hamburgers (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504223)

Photo annotation: Here we see the gorgeous Cindy wearing her* sexy slinky evening gown while showing off that fantastic figure of hers.

* That's really a dude.

Re:Porn and hamburgers (4, Insightful)

agentgonzo (1026204) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503891)

I hope we'd finally get to know the truth about McDonalds hamburgers. Or can we count them as persons?

You can barely count them as food, let alone persons/people.

Unintended consequeces (5, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504037)

Actually in Australia for many years Playboy and Penthouse published nude photos with women's genitals airbrushed smooth to look like a Barbie doll. That created a generation of women that think something is wrong with them and that they should have bits cut off.

Re:Unintended consequeces (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29504445)

All the Barbie dolls I've ever seen were, uh, completely smooth down there. No features whatsoever (well, except the seams where her legs attached). Surely that's not what you mean...

I mean, Ken just kinda had this lump, but that didn't frighten me into worrying about the strange dangly thing hanging between my legs, much less make me want to cut it off...!

Re:Unintended consequeces (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29504531)

I mean, Ken just kinda had this lump, but that didn't frighten me into worrying about the strange dangly thing hanging between my legs, much less make me want to cut it off...!

It did for me. Many times a day I used to pull it hoping it would fall off.

Re:Unintended consequeces (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29504553)

Yeah, that's just the story you told your mom when she caught you doing it...

Re:Porn and hamburgers (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504071)

There are porn magazines?

Re:Porn and hamburgers (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504497)

They're like websites, except there's no video.

Re:Porn and hamburgers (2, Insightful)

Ian Alexander (997430) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504615)

They're like websites, except there's no video.

But for how long? [wired.com]

Re:Porn and hamburgers (5, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504267)

"It might be a little annoying reading a porn magazine which has the text "'the photo was altered in order to modify the appearance of a person." thrown all over it."

I'm reminded of California's cancer "warning label" law. I stayed at a hotel a couple months ago, and there's a sign right at the door - "This building may contained substances known in the State of California to cause cancer." Same at the parking garage.

Label everything, meaning nothing.

Re:Porn and hamburgers (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504435)

Clearly, the problem isn't with the idea, but with the label: it should say which thing contains carcinogens so that you can avoid the problem.

Re:Porn and hamburgers (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29504541)

actually in France food pictures have a "Suggestion de présentation" note on them, which you could translate as "you are not going to get something as goodlooking".

Aren't ALL photos modified these days? (5, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503743)

Isn't the very act of scanning and printing using a computer a digital modification?

What if the camera's software tweaked the lighting or white-balance as the picture was being taken?

If all photographs are labeled, then the label becomes meaningless.

Re:Aren't ALL photos modified these days? (2, Insightful)

polar red (215081) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503823)

f all photographs are labeled, then the label becomes meaningless.

not necessarily, i think there are enough people around not knowing that photo's can be tampered with.

Re:Aren't ALL photos modified these days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29503979)

I think that there are a lot of people around that don't know when to use an apostrophe.

Re:Aren't ALL photos modified these days? (1)

agentgonzo (1026204) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503877)

I think the point is that you have to put it on if you "modify the appearance of a person". I would doubt that modifying the white-balance would count as this, but agree that it will be hard to choose an arbitrary point to draw the line of what does and what does not need the disclaimer.

white balance and racial implications (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503985)

I've seen photographs where altering the white balance, brightness, contrast, and gamma can make a light-skinned Black person look White and make a White person look Black. This is especially true in black-and-white photography.

I remember at least one instance in the last 20 years where an American politician used a picture of his opponent and the ad mad the opponent look much lighter or darker than he looks in person in normal room light. There was some backlash charging the campaign with race-baiting or something like that.

Re:white balance and racial implications (3, Insightful)

D'Sphitz (699604) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504119)

Erik Paulsen made a attack ad where he darkened the skin of Ashwin Madia, apparently to make sure nobody mistook him for a white person.

Re:white balance and racial implications (1)

BJZQ8 (644168) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504321)

Sheesh, first he's running the Treasury and now he's making attack ads?

Re:Aren't ALL photos modified these days? (5, Interesting)

raju1kabir (251972) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504007)

I think the point is that you have to put it on if you "modify the appearance of a person". I would doubt that modifying the white-balance would count as this, but agree that it will be hard to choose an arbitrary point to draw the line of what does and what does not need the disclaimer.

More like impossible, if you want it to be meaningful.

If you've spent some time working with photographers, you know that moving a light just a tiny bit can dramatically change how much someone appears to weigh. Changing the colour of light - or even the colour of other nearby objects that reflect some light - can change someone from vibrant to sickly. And don't even get started on makeup. Labeling only an arbitrary set of electronic manipulations is at best a joke. It'll be great news for touch-up artists who still have their old-school airbrushes, though.

Re:Aren't ALL photos modified these days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29504649)

maybe removing photoshop will require photographers to perfect their art -- just another positive

Re:Aren't ALL photos modified these days? (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504099)

Isn't the very act of scanning and printing using a computer a digital modification?

Yes, they are. And they pretty much always have been. All photos are pretty much artifact to a greater or lesser degree.

It used to be done in the studio and the darkroom in the early days of photography. See Ansel Adams pics for expert darkroom manipulation.

Models have always been shot with artificial make-up, hair, fans blowing their hair and carefully controlled lighting to create an artificial image of the person.

But most of all -- all food photography is pretty much fake. It's near impossible to shoot food realistically. So there's always been cold tea replacing whisky, mashed potato replacing ice cream and many other tricks of the trade. That's why your restaurant food looks much better in a photo than in real life -- because it rarely ever is the same food. It's fake.

Almost every photo needs to be flagged, which makes the whole exercise completely and utterly pointless.

Re:Aren't ALL photos modified these days? (2, Insightful)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504461)

Isn't the very act of scanning and printing using a computer a digital modification?

Yes, they are. And they pretty much always have been. All photos are pretty much artifact to a greater or lesser degree.

No, it's not. Digitization and digital modification aren't the same thing. The comment about white balance and such done by the digital camera itself is more questionable, but I would think common sense would cover that.

Models have always been shot with artificial make-up, hair, fans blowing their hair and carefully controlled lighting to create an artificial image of the person.

Controlled, optimized, sure. But that is a real image of that person. If you're dropping chemicals on your film to cover a splotch on someone's face, that's altered, but slapping some baby oil on Arnie and having him flex or having Paris Hilton bend over and spread is just putting them in the position that makes them look best, not modification.

Re:Aren't ALL photos modified these days? (4, Informative)

Fantom42 (174630) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504189)

Those kinds of modifications shouldn't and likely wouldn't be covered by the provision. There is already a pretty well-established metric by which photojournalists follow. It can be summed up in this statement, "Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects."

Cropping and white balance adjustments are considered ok. Adjusting lighting, posing, or other things are not considered ok, although most people consider it ok as long as the context is obvious (e.g., a portrait for someone's profile or similar). Adjusting the face, removing/adding hair is not ok.

Re:Aren't ALL photos modified these days? (1)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504377)

Let's get to the heart of the issue here. Maybe I'm feeling particularly crabby this morning, but when will people just start taking responsibility for their actions? Will putting a label on the photo really stop girls from doing harmful things to their bodies in order to imitate what they see in ads? Does it even work for people who smoke cigarettes? I say you either pull the ads altogether *OR* you let people make their own choices and live with the consequences instead of creating excuses for self destructive behavior.

Re:Aren't ALL photos modified these days? (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504527)

Maybe I'm feeling particularly crabby this morning, but when will people just start taking responsibility for their actions?

Never, at least not in the way you want. As people, we don't work like that. It's not our nature.

Now, we have two choices: we can either discuss the rules we would make it people acted in the rational, self-interested way you want, or we can talk about ways to make the real world, with real, flawed people a better place. Me, I'd opt for the latter. Complaining that people just don't take responsibility for their actions is just wishing you were living in a dream world.

Re:Aren't ALL photos modified these days? (5, Interesting)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504593)

Reminds me of the Evolution [youtube.com] video from Dove. Apparently advertising does affect some girls, at least some of the time.

Re:Aren't ALL photos modified these days? (1)

joeyblades (785896) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504387)

I agree, 100%. My first take on this was that the point that they want to make will be completely lost in the implementation. They want to fight anorexia, but making the models appear thinner is only a small fraction of the kinds of photo editing that is done. Usually complexion is the thing that is modified the most and is modified in nearly every photo of people used in advertising. If every photo has the label, then the label becomes meaningless.

Maybe the label needs to be more specific and say something like "People in photo are larger than they appear".

Girlfriend (1)

psYchotic87 (1455927) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503779)

Good thing I don't live in France, because if this law were to pass, I'd have to admit to all my friends that this picture of my girlfriend was actually altered.

Re:Girlfriend (5, Funny)

MrMr (219533) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503861)

You mean removing the antlers?
We knew that.

Re:Girlfriend (3, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503917)

He doesn't mind that, its the airbrushing out of her penis that bothers him.

What about analog retouching? (2, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503789)

Assuming the law only applies to "significant" digital retouching, will we see a resurgence in non-digital techniques to make people look skinnier on film?

After all, we had skinny people in magazines long before the 1990s.

Re:What about analog retouching? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29503965)

You mean a diet? How Absurd!

Actually, I meant lenses and mirrors (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504017)

I was thinking of lenses and other optics, but driving actresses into anorexic starvation is actually more sinister. Plus it does exactly what the law is intended to stop.

It'd be really annoying.. (1)

defireman (1365467) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503799)

if this is taken seriously. Didn't the Dove commercial show that anyone can be "modified" to become a superstar?

All movies pretty much would have to have this notice tagged at the bottom right corner of the screen, as well as all advertisement posters.

I won't be surprised if this is not repealed soon.

Re:It'd be really annoying.. (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503837)

> I won't be surprised if this is not repealed soon.

It would have to be enacted first.

Re:It'd be really annoying.. (2, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504045)

It would have to be enacted first.

Man, the French can't do anything right these days, can they?

Re:It'd be really annoying.. (3, Interesting)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504619)

link [youtube.com] to that Dove commercial.

lol, wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29503805)

f that in the a.

is that a digitally modified a? (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503893)

f that in the a.

*checks for disclaimer before f'ing*

This ad paid for by... (2, Interesting)

reebmmm (939463) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503811)

Let's assume that this was even effective for the purpose. The text would become so omni-present to basically become meaningless. In one sense or another, every ad will somehow be "manipulated." Even if that means merely cropping the person's body to only have the head, blurring people in the background, etc.

The other issue is who is going to enforce that right? France? An individual on behalf of France? A private right of enforcement? In any event, a company will put that notice on any ad simply to avoid being sued/fined.

Re:This ad paid for by... (2)

MrMr (219533) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503947)

is who is going to enforce that right?
It's a proposal in french parliament, so we could guess.

The obligatory warnings and disclaimers are printed across all kinds of products like cigarettes and electrical appliances in the US, why should ads be exempt?

Re:This ad paid for by... (1)

reebmmm (939463) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504117)

is who is going to enforce that right?
It's a proposal in french parliament, so we could guess.

As with ANY laws, that's the case. But that doesn't answer the question. In the end, it probably doesn't matter since the warnings are going to be on everything. The only exception might be if the power to enforce is left with someone who has no intention on ever enforcing it.

The obligatory warnings and disclaimers are printed across all kinds of products like cigarettes and electrical appliances in the US, why should ads be exempt?

Well, it depends on what you mean by "obligatory warnings and disclaimers." Many are not enforced by the law. Most are CYA warnings in hopes of providing evidence that the manufacturer told consumers that they should not put their cellphones into the microwave in a products liability case. Though, others are mandated by law: cigarette warnings.

As to the latter, there is some evidence to support the efficacy of warning labels where there is a serious gap in knowledge [bmj.com] about the risks of the product to which it applies. But this proposal seems to require a generic warning be applied across huge swaths of products and advertising. But, in any case, I assumed that the warning would be efficacious for its purpose. The concern was more that it would become meaningless anyway because it would merely be applied everywhere just like the "this ad is paid for" statements in political campaigns.

Re:This ad paid for by... (5, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503953)

You sound like a programmer who is completely ignorant of how legal systems work.

Laws aren't written like "if photo.is_manipulated() then display_disclaimer() end". They actually use words and sentences to express the intent of the law in a reasonable way. Cropping will not be considered manipulation; airbrushing will. Furthermore, even "gray area" can be part of law, thanks to an amazing technology called "courts."

Basically, your objections are complete nonsense.

Re:This ad paid for by... (1)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504201)

Yes, the purpose of courts is to rule in those gray-areas. However some laws (or proposed laws) are more ambiguous than others. In the case of photo-alteration, there is a wide and continuous spectrum, and I have a hard time seeing where the line would be drawn. (Or, just as bad, an end result where every photo has the disclaimer, "just in case".)

For instance, one might consider that doing a simple color-adjustment (which is necessary for any photo, really) shouldn't be covered under this law... and yet creative use of levels can certainly make models look artificially good (e.g. by hiding blemishes and other skintone variations). Airbrushing seems like an obvious candidate for "is model alteration"... but some forms of airbrushing and photo-manipulation are neutral (e.g. changing the color of a piece of clothing). Having the law try to specify "only in cases where you're trying to make the model look artificially good" is hard to define unambiguously.

I also wonder to what extent this will apply to the photography itself. There are plenty of lighting and camera tricks used to make models look better. In an extreme case I could imagine photographers using lenses that alter aspect ratio (making models look thinner), or photographing the model in front of a non-planar mirror. Would they be able to side-step the law if the photos were not altered after the fact? Of course you could broaden the law to include manipulation during the photoshoot itself, but again it's hard to imagine a photoshoot that doesn't involve manipulation (makeup, clothing, choice of lighting, camera lens, shutter speed, shooting angle, etc. are all designed to make the model look good).

Certainly courts could make decisions on all of the above. But it seems like it would be very difficult for agencies to decide whether they were crossing the line or not. What I'm getting at is that requiring a blanket "this photo has been engineered to make the model look artificially good" on every single photograph doesn't do much to help the public. Awareness campaigns could achieve the same effect by reminding people that *all* photographs (especially professional shoots in ads, magazines, etc.) are inherently manipulative and not representative of reality.

Re:This ad paid for by... (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504397)

My first draft of where to draw the line:

Any operation that is not applied equally to every piece of the image.

This draws a line between white balance or levels adjustment, which I think should be OK, and actual "editing" with an airbrush, clone tool, liquify/warp tool, etc.

Obviously it needs a lot more qualifiers, but you see where I am going here.

Re:This ad paid for by... (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504367)

Many laws ARE written like "IF(this) THEN (that). Very many laws are written that way--especially regulatory laws and criminal laws. Your tax law, for example, has many provisions within it that can easily be translated into language that can be programmed into a computer. Don't forget that many statutes are written by government bureaucrats with computers. They want computer-friendly statutes to make their jobs more efficient. Legislators are often responsive when such laws are proposed.

"Gray" areas are created only when legislators (intentionally or not) pass on the job of law-writing to the judges. The most efficient law eliminates or minimizes the gray areas.

Re:This ad paid for by... (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504109)

My guess is that they will probably ensure that they law does not cover things like cropping and red-eye reduction. On the other hand, one can never tell.

In regard to enforcement, I've heard that in between revolutions, France actually has this thing called a government. It's may be on it's Fifth Republic, but I understand that one is still going strong. It's got police and prosecutors and everything. I presume that they would be the ones to enforce it. And in theory, they have some control over what is printed and distributed in France. Paris Match, watch out!

If you insist on having a named individual, I'm sure that they can get Inspector Clouseau to handle the ground work.

Re:This ad paid for by... (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504339)

I think the intent would be to reduce the use of image manipulation. Sort of like how the labels on cigarettes have made them.

My response to this is photography is an art, and the intent is not to duplicate reality, but to offer a personal interpretation of reality. The simplest way to push this is simply to hire artists to paint the scene, and then photograph the painting. Likewise, if the photographs were run through a filter to make the entire image appear less real, then perhaps the more gullible people would not mistake a photograph for reality.

None of this, however, helps anorexia, or unhealthy body types. That requires a change in designer attitude. Just like one has a hard time buying fashionable clothes for obese people, one might find underweight persons. Of course while there are many terms for obese people, there are few terms for underweight persons. It is considered not only a non issue, but a positive characteristic that designers like to accentuate. Simply adding a label is not going to fix the fact that many designs are made for size zero crowd, and interest in high fashion dwindles as the size increases. I mean a size 14 women, or a 44 waist in men, in not particularly unhealthy, yet finding a true 12 or 44 can be very difficult.

Why stop there? (5, Insightful)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503819)

Why not make it mandatory to label surgically altered models also? I want to know the boobies I look at are all natural.

Re:Why stop there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29504055)

Just search for 'all natural' you will find alot of theses out there.

If it's as true as they claim.... Don't know for sure. Maybe ask to see the model in person just to be sure... ;)

Re:Why stop there? (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504095)

Why stop there. What about hair-colour and makeup. Come to think of it what about clothes.

Makeup too? (1, Redundant)

LuckyKnave (703770) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503883)

Maybe a hat or tee-shirt should be required for anyone wearing make-up in public just so that it doesn't women (and some men) to hate their complexion!

Yes! Also they should ban makeup! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29503907)

Why not? That creates a false impression that can't be healthy for young girls, right? They already ban deodorant and shaving under the arms, so...

it's not men driving this phenomenon (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503921)

men's magazines are full of pictures of... women

women's magazines are full of pictures of... women

except the women in men's magazines are usually well-proportioned in the t&a department

meanwhile, the women in women's magazines are pure heroin chic: ribs showing, no curves. yuck

i really don't know why, but for some reason the female standard of feminine beauty (as opposed to the male standard of feminine beauty) is starvation porn. women for some reason or another think the ideal female form is that of a prebuscent boy

as for the magazine industry "creating" or "feeding" this phenomenon: no, if it didn't appeal to women on some level, the magazine wouldn't sell. media and consumer exist in co-dependency. media follows what its audience wants, for obvious reasons: $. (as an aside, this simple truth should dispel the whole idea of media-created trends on a whole number of other issues that some people believe: its the audience, not the media, stop blaming the media)

if you want to know what men want and like in the female form, it is well-established fact, biological fact, not cultural, that men prefer women who are heck of a lot more well-fed than what women see as an ideal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf [wikipedia.org]

the whole scary skinny trend in high fashion is created by, and perpetuated by, and invested in, by women, not men. yes, there are few strange men who actually prefer their women to be unfeminine stick figures, but these men are not the norm

so girls, listen up, from the male perspective of beauty: go fix yourself a sammich. its your fellow women that want you to waste away, and on some archaic level we don't understand, its your own strange female mind that wants you to be so skinny, not us men

Re:it's not men driving this phenomenon (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504543)

so girls, listen up

While I agree with you, I think you forgot you are posting on slashdot.

Re:it's not men driving this phenomenon (2, Informative)

operagost (62405) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504567)

the whole scary skinny trend in high fashion is created by, and perpetuated by, and invested in, by women, not men.

Well, maybe gay men. They do dominate the world of high fashion.

Would be a great move (2, Insightful)

bossanovalithium (1396323) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503927)

Imagine the kudos that would come about and the prized badge that a few pics without this tag would hold. It's time people were no longer brainwashed into this aspiration for what is clearly not possible without a few layers of photoshop. We'd all be a bit nicer to each other and ourselves if we started to accept the fact that no-one is perfect.

What about lighting? (-1, Redundant)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503941)

Are you also required to place a notice if you waited until the lights were in a position to dramatically light the face? Or if you used flash to alter the scene at hand?

Or if you shoot IR to give them demon eyes...

There's more than one way to alter an image, Photoshop is just the end of a long chain of possibilities.

Simple (4, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#29503973)

As a graphic designer, allow me to simplify things - EVERY image published has been altered with photo manipulation software. Whether it's as minimal as colour adjustment or removing some insignificant blemishes from the image to outright "enhancing" of the image. EVERY image has been manipulated. Trust me.

Re:Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29504155)

Remember: French deputies don't know anything about computers.

Re:Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29504205)

Lets add to that, if it wasn't manipulated, it probably should not have been published.

Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29504227)

Trust me - we lie.

(rather like one of those sci-fi, evil computer killer spells...)

Re:Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29504459)

You should probably amend that to say, "EVERY non-news image published has been altered with photo manipulation software." Incredible as it may seem, some publications have very specific guidelines on what images can and cannot be altered.

Did I step into another world? (-1, Flamebait)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504019)

Yesterday the FCC takes a stand on net neutrality I agree with and today it's French officials. What happens tomorrow, Microsoft open sources Windows Se7en? Glenn Beck apologizes to Obama? Uwe Boll throws himself from the Golden Gate Bridge to atone for his crappy movies?

Re:Did I step into another world? (0, Offtopic)

operagost (62405) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504623)

Glenn Beck apologizes to Obama?

I'm curious. What should he apologize for? Beck apologizing for merely disagreeing with the President would certainly be a cats-and-dogs-living-together occurrence. I'm not holding my breath waiting for Cindy Sheehan to apologize to the last President for disagreeing with him.

Awesome! (3, Insightful)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504029)

Right-on, France!

I don't know if such a law can even work, but just the fact that this kind of thing is even being considered is really cool.

My fellow male geeks don't truly get what girls go through and what a mind-job it does on them. But there IS one example which might resonate. . .

Remember when all those new Star Wars toys came out, and all the characters you once identified with were now PuMpEd up? I know it affected me in a negative way, and I thought I was fairly impervious to such things. I found it surprising and illuminating.

Advertising and media stereotypes fuck you in the head. Remember: Body hair was at one time not considered ugly on a woman. It wasn't until quite recently that this changed when a razor-blade company decided to start equating dirtiness with body-hair on women. Doubled the number of customers for its product. This was only a century or two ago.

Fuck advertising. Rock-on France! If it wasn't for Sarkozy and the creep of evil, France would be the true hero of the world.

-FL

Re:Awesome! (4, Interesting)

jeffasselin (566598) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504179)

Heck, how about diamonds? They're not that rare or valuable (compared to say emeralds or rubies), but DeBeers made a very successful campaign at the turn of the last century to create a market for their product by convincing women (and men) that diamonds were the only jewel worth giving as a betrothal ring.

Heck, until Queen Victoria had a lavish, highly-publicized wedding, they were simple affairs usually involving only the immediate family and simple ceremonies often taking place at the home of the couple.

Re:Awesome! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29504419)

Right-on, France!

I don't know if such a law can even work, but just the fact that this kind of thing is even being considered is really cool.

My fellow male geeks don't truly get what girls go through and what a mind-job it does on them. But there IS one example which might resonate. . .

Remember when all those new Star Wars toys came out, and all the characters you once identified with were now PuMpEd up? I know it affected me in a negative way, and I thought I was fairly impervious to such things. I found it surprising and illuminating.

Advertising and media stereotypes fuck you in the head. Remember: Body hair was at one time not considered ugly on a woman. It wasn't until quite recently that this changed when a razor-blade company decided to start equating dirtiness with body-hair on women. Doubled the number of customers for its product. This was only a century or two ago.

Fuck advertising. Rock-on France! If it wasn't for Sarkozy and the creep of evil, France would be the true hero of the world.

-FL

Hey, Why should I care about women's problems? I have been harassed, ostracised, and just plainly humiliated by women most of my life. First because of my weight, after that because of my hobbies, after that because of my Msc in applied mathematics. I just don't give a damn about women's problems anymore. Let one female come forward and tell her sisters that I deserve some basic human respect, then I will join the fight. Until then, women reap the fruits of what they have sown. Regarding the question of female body hair. I have personally witnessed young women bragging to their female friends about dumping boyfriends, because the men in question had hair growing on their toes.

To sum it up. There is absolutely no sympathy for any female appearance anxieties coming from me, until one single female actually steps up and tells her sisters that I have the right to be respected as a basic human being.

Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29504077)

What are the odds of NOT finding a doctored photo? And shouldn't people always be wary of what they perceive in any advertisement?

Is there where Democracy leads? (4, Insightful)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504087)

Seems like the longer our democracies go on, the more bureaucratic and insane they start becoming. This isn't "fascism," this isn't the will of the people being usurped, this is the system working as it should, and these are the results.

It seems to me that democracy results in a sort of populistic legalism where you have thousands and thousands of little laws trying to create the perfect existence. But you can't make a perfect existence by putting strings on everyone and letting everyone else play everyone else's puppet master. Nobody can know even a fraction of the laws, yet break one that gets enforced and you're fined or jailed or forced into temporary involuntary servitude. Democracy may be freedom of the masses, but it's not freedom of the individual. The machine may be free to operate but the cogs are not free to turn. Is that really how you envision a free society?

And once we start trying to plug every possible hole that could cause mental illness or otherwise undesirable behavior we become an even more nightmarish version of Brave New World, where instead of people being conditioned by birth the governments ("the people") try to heavily restrict and control all social influences because of the undesirability of emotional problems in society, the end result being an overall loss of individual autonomy and in particular freedom of speech.

Anorexia as a role model is the problem... (5, Insightful)

yogibaer (757010) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504103)

not Photoshop. As long as fashion models have to be under normal weight to be accepted for the top fashion shows and magazines, young girls will follow this role model and that is the real problem, not photoshopping bad skin. If you type "anorexic models" into any search engine you find a lot of gruesome stories about girls who literally starved themselves to death on the job. Alternatively: force yourself to watch "Fashion TV" for an hour. That's not a new problem ("Twiggy" turned 60 last week, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twiggy [wikipedia.org] ) and not one likely to be changed by any law.

Autotune (0, Offtopic)

Loosifur (954968) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504111)

Next comes an Autotune warning, and all of a sudden your average local band playing at the bar Friday night is seen in a whole new perspective...

Absurd (5, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504113)

"Disclaimer:

1) This two-dimenstional photo is an alteration of the model depicted. The actual model exists in three dimensions and has volume, unlike this photo. Do not attempt to reduce your volume to zero, as it might affect your health.

2) The photo of this model is only 7 inches tall. The actual model is over 5 feet tall. Do not attempt to reduce your height to only 7 inches, as it might affect your health."

Going to be obsolete anyway (1)

Clairvoyant (137586) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504137)

Okay, so what if they use CGI? It's becoming more and more easy to just pick a CGI model that looks exactly the way you want it to. Do these "photos" have to have this text too? What about changing background etc?

On a whole different note; I fail to see the connection between altered photos of models and anorexia. Usually they don't make these models more skinny. They might smudge out a navel here or there (models are atomically weird), or make a boob a bit bigger (Emma Watson?) but I seriously doubt they're making models even more skinnier.

Re:Going to be obsolete anyway (1)

herojig (1625143) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504369)

I bet they ARE making them skinny...my wife makes me use content-aware scale in PS Extended all the time, just for that reason. I wish they would pass this law here in Nepal, and then maybe my wife would quit nagging me all the time - if I had to put a label saying "my wife is really fat, and this photo has been altered" I bet she would leave me alone. As a designer I just don't get this at all, but the French are French, so what more to say?

Re:Going to be obsolete anyway (1)

Chatterton (228704) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504637)

Actually, they do. Not by making them more skinnier (where we see all the bones) but by making them thinner, more elongated. The Dove ad is very good at demonstrating that. If not exagerated it is the kind of manipulation currently done by Ad company (see Dove evolution [youtube.com] )

Yes, also add.. (1)

mkdx (1314471) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504251)

..contact lenses, fake eye lashes and artificial hair. Also, too bad most redheads are not natural.

That sounds cool ! (2, Interesting)

7 digits (986730) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504285)

I'd love to see that mention on Paris-Match pictures of Sarkozy...

For the uninformed, Paris-Match magazine published an altered [20minutes.fr] picture of Nicolas "cocainomaniac chihuahua" Sarkozy.

Re:That sounds cool ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29504647)

Photographs of Sarkozy in the presence of others should bear a statement indicating that 'photographic conditions were altered in order that Sarkozy not appear as short as he actually is [google.com] .'

Ethics of photomanipulation (5, Insightful)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504305)

As a photojournalist, I think it would be interesting to see just how many photos in fashion magazines are airbrushed or otherwise manipulated after the fact. In terms of ethics, I was taught and have come to believe that there are a few "ethical" manipulations -- cropping, limited use of burning and dodging, etc., that you can use while still maintaining the integrity of the original photo. But once you change what was actually there -- whether it's airbrushing the blemishes off a model's face or using the clone stamp tool to take a few pounds off her hips -- you've crossed into photomanipulation. And it's only fair for people to know when this is taking place, IMO.

Including corporate persons? (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504355)

If some PR company tries to spin a bad story, they should be forced to say "The truth has been altered to change the appearance of this corporation".

YRO (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504379)

How is this affecting anyone's rights on line?

Especially when one reads the very first line of the article (emphasis added):

The UMP member Valerie Boyer filed in the National Assembly a bill aimed to put a warning on the publicity photos where physical appearance was altered by software for image processing, it was reported Tuesday in his entourage.

Seems to me this is a tempest in a teapot.

I like that (1)

celibate for life (1639541) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504483)

At least we wouldn't see anymore of those photomanipulations of racial motivation, i.e. when a company decides to replace one person in order to add ethnic diversity to a picture. To overly politically corect minds, there must be people of all ethnic groups in all photos.

A more efficient solution... (1)

walt77 (1601935) | more than 5 years ago | (#29504505)

A more efficient solution would be to mark only those images actually displaying unmodified people. These days hardly anything is printed without some level of retouching. You'd be surprised about the amount of retouching applied even to images of regular people and politicians before they get printed in newspapers.

The Trend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29504575)

I am French, and I am fed up with deputies working on laws of very little interest, rather than discussing the real issues (G20 anyone? Tobin tax? etc).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?