×

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!

US Watchdog Bans Photoshop Use In Cosmetics Ads

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the or-as-some-people-call-it-lying dept.

Advertising 383

MrSeb writes "In an interesting move that should finally bring the United States' fast-and-loose advertising rules and regulations into line with the UK and EU, the National Advertising Division (NAD) — the advertising industry's self-regulating watchdog — has moved to ban the misleading use of photoshopping and enhanced post-production in cosmetics adverts. The ban stems from a Procter & Gamble (P&G) CoverGirl ad that photoshopped a model's eyelashes to exaggerate the effects of a mascara. There was a footnote in the ad's spiel about the photo being manipulated, but according to the director of the NAD, that simply isn't enough: 'You can't use a photograph to demonstrate how a cosmetic will look after it is applied to a woman's face and then — in the mice type — have a disclosure that says "okay, not really."' The NAD ruled that the ad was unacceptable, and P&G has since discontinued it. The ruling goes one step further, though, and points out that 'professional styling, make-up, photography and the product's inherent covering and smoothing nature' should be enough, without adding Photoshop to the mix. The cosmetics industry is obviously a good starting point — but what if the ban leaks over to product photography (I'm looking at you, Burger King), video gameplay demos, or a photographer's own works?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

383 comments

I think we should ban cosmetics completely (-1, Troll)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398572)

Women's use of cosmetics bordens with pure fraud. They're faking themselves better looks than they really have to fraud men and thus try to gain money, power or anything else for their own advantage. It just isn't defined as fraud because the scheme has been going on for so long, but in reality it's the same. They're advertising something which they don't have and take advantage of men.

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38398650)

This seems like a rather misogynistic perspective. Not all women are looking to take advantage of men.

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (0)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398694)

You're right, but it still doesn't change the fact that cosmetics are practically real life version of Photoshop, and both are used to fake stuff.

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398726)

Ban clothes too! All they're doing is adding color to otherwise rather monotone skin color.

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (4, Funny)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398756)

I actually agree with this. I don't use clothes at home either (or when browsing Slashdot), and if the weather permits, why should I need to use them outside either? Besides, we can all agree that it's just nice to see good looking naked people.

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (5, Insightful)

general_re (8883) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398908)

Yeah, the trouble is, the people who want to walk around naked are generally the ones you'd least like to see undressed...

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (3, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398910)

I actually agree with this. I don't use clothes at home either (or when browsing Slashdot), and if the weather permits, why should I need to use them outside either?

Hm, good question. Let me think about that for a while...

Besides, we can all agree that it's just nice to see good looking naked people.

That's why most people shouldn't be allowed to walk around naked.

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (4, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399244)

You don't want to see me naked.

--
BMO "Have you ever seen a grown man naked?" - Airplane

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (2)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399276)

Besides, we can all agree that it's just nice to see good looking naked people.

Should I link to goatse? Or would you propose to euthanise bad looking people? Or lock them out of sight?
BTW: what about the eye of the beholder?

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (4, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398832)

You're right, but it still doesn't change the fact that cosmetics are practically real life version of Photoshop, and both are used to fake stuff.

Well, on the same line: everybody in this world would need to wear a uniform - after all, different clothing are faking the stuff underneath. Should I continue?

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (2)

adonoman (624929) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398954)

That's why in the future they all wear full-body spandex (see Star Trek)

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399058)

doesn't that logic actually suggest that everyone should go naked unless absolutely necessary for for temperature reasons?

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38399226)

OK I think this is wandering off point a bit. The complaint is about using these techniques to try and sell you something by telling you that if you buy this product it will look like X when in reality it will not. So if the seller showed you an ad where you bought a pair of jeans and it turned your shirt red, but in reality did not, then you might have a point. But equating this to simply wearing close is off course.

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38399304)

90 percent do

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (-1, Troll)

xero314 (722674) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398776)

Then day I'm out of mod points I see this post modded as Troll. This post is completely on topic, and full of factual information (with the possible exception that cosmetics are used to fraud more than just men).

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (5, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398982)

In my experience, woman that use more than a minimal amount, tend to look worse. Makeup in almost all cases is *way* too obvious.

It does tell me something of their thought processes, so I'm not too bothered. it's a useful metric.

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (4, Funny)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399042)

Women's use of cosmetics bordens with pure fraud. They're faking themselves better looks than they really have to fraud men and thus try to gain money, power or anything else for their own advantage. It just isn't defined as fraud because the scheme has been going on for so long, but in reality it's the same. They're advertising something which they don't have and take advantage of men.

Don't worry, that all stops once you're married.

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399154)

Women's use of cosmetics bordens with pure fraud. They're faking themselves better looks than they really have...

So? Stop buying them...

Right... actually something in you post suggest you aren't getting them for free, so you start blaming the "high prices" and "misleading advertising".
I know that they may look a bit alien/outlandish for you now, but maybe it will get better if you'll stop treating them as "burgers to be bought" and see them more as human beings?

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (1)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399262)

Are you saying that if you get something for free, then there's no problem with fraud?

Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38399242)

Well doesn't sound like anyone will be taking advantage of you, at least not while you have that rather sad, tiny-minded attitude! So women only make themselves look good to please men, eh? Hmmm, sure they do. I can only conclude you obviously don't speak to many women if that's what you truly believe!

Count on the NADs (5, Funny)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398586)

Interesting that the NADs would be protecting me from beautiful women. Hm.

They're not protecting you (5, Insightful)

Foxhoundz (2015516) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398630)

They're protecting millions of impressionable young girls who might be exposed to these ads.

Re:They're not protecting you (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38398704)

How do you know that "Toe, The" is not one of these millions of impressionable young girls?

Re:They're not protecting you (2, Insightful)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398718)

Why only girls? Are you saying women are somehow more stupid than men? Both are equally stupid.

Re:They're not protecting you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38398760)

Why only girls? Are you saying women are somehow more stupid than men? Both are equally stupid.

Because women are the target audience for these commercials.

Re:They're not protecting you (1)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398786)

There are lots of cosmetics that target men too. It is quite common today for men to use cosmetics.

Re:They're not protecting you (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38398978)

Guys who wear makeup aren't called "men".

Re:They're not protecting you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38399018)

There are lots of cosmetics that target men too. It is quite common today for men to use cosmetics.

Not real men!

Re:They're not protecting you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38398772)

Men don't tend to wear mascara as much!

Re:They're not protecting you (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399134)

Yes, but digital manipulation ban isn't really an answer.
I mean the cosmetics companies can make adds and show these people without using any of their stuff. Also it is applied by professional makeup attest. Using the correct lighting and angles to hide imperfections.
Find a skinny girl (one with anorexia will work best because they are already a skeleton, you can always build up not down) Pad up the right places and put layers of makeup and there you have an unrealistic image of the cultures version of a beautiful woman used to sell a product.

New invention (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398622)

I'm creating an analog version of Photoshop for beauty enhancement. I'm kicking around 3 names for it right now: 1) Flugrup, 2) Snibb, and 3) Makeup.

Re:New invention (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398962)

I'm creating an analog version of Photoshop for beauty enhancement. I'm kicking around 3 names for it right now: 1) Flugrup, 2) Snibb, and 3) Makeup.

What... is any person wearing them a merchandise? (did the economic crisis evolve bad enough that the slavery was reinstated?)
Really... don't you really see any difference between wearing makeup and deceptive advertising of a product?

Huh? (3, Funny)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398624)

Since when did cosmetics, and most especially the advertisements thereof, have anything to do with reality? They are like real life photoshop.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38398690)

Apple taught that advertisements are there to "Think Different. Lie."

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38399160)

It's a question of fake fakes vs real fakes. If you see a fake and assume it's a real fake and then buy it and find out it was a fake fake, you're going to feel cheated. They advertise believable lies and deliver transparent lies. That's fraud.

Adobe eight times (4, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398658)

The ExtremeTech article mentions an Adobe product by name eight times but doesn't mention its competitors once. I haven't had a chance to read the regulation myself, but someone reading the ExtremeTech article might come away with the impression that people who use non-Adobe software might get off easier, even if the capabilities of non-Adobe software are GIMPed by comparison.

Re:Adobe eight times (4, Informative)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398734)

The actual ruling uses terms such as "post production techniques" as the catch all term.

Re:Adobe eight times (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398780)

Probably because nobody in the professional advertising world (the people who make up the NAD) is using anything other than Photoshop.

Re:Adobe eight times (4, Funny)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398984)

Or maybe... the name "photoshop" has become so ubiquitous that it has come to be synonymous with "computer aided photo manipulation". It is not uncommon for brand names to infiltrate culture so successfully that the trademarked brand name ceases to be relevant.

I suggest that you take a sharpie and a post-it note and write yourself a reminder to google this phenomenon. If that sounds like too much of a headache, take an aspirin and maybe tivo a documentary on it.

Government Regulations Ruin My Business Model! (4, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398662)

But who will I sell my "Circus Clown Photoshop Plugin Set" to now?! Who else could possibly need my patented "Whorify" brush?

Re:Government Regulations Ruin My Business Model! (2)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398952)

Obligatory Conan analogy:

Britney Spears is to 115 lbs of energy as Christina Aguilera is to 115 lbs of clown whore make up.

Re:Government Regulations Ruin My Business Model! (5, Informative)

theillien (984847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399052)

As humorous as that is, it isn't a government regulation. At least, not in the sense that I think you're presenting. NAD is an regulatory body set up by the cosmetics industry to police itself.

How silly (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38398696)

Regardless of the technology used, the entire photographic process is totally artificial and at several removes from reality in the first place.

Re:How silly (3, Funny)

Malties (1942112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398808)

Not to mention all of those souls being stolen by the devlish devices taking the pictures

Re:How silly (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398820)

Yet somehow they manage to make those photograph purely from real items. It must be some kind of magic. Or, as Arthur C. Clarke put it; "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.".

FWIW, without Photoshop, most glamour photo's would actually make the girls look far more ugly than they are in real life. The brutal clarity of a still frame is not something we're used to seeing in reality.

Product photography (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398712)

I'd be fine with this. The burger you get at the counter doesn't look anything like the ones in the ads or on the poster in the store, clearly misleading. Whether a *law* needs to be added into the mix is a whole other matter, and one I'd rather not see enacted.

Re:Product photography (3, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399046)

Well, you won't get individual burger chains voluntarily making their ads look like crap (it won't improve sales but it will make their competitors look better), the same goes with cosmetics companies, et al. Voluntary compliance simply won't happen.

Ok, what about the watchdog? Well, as the FCC found out when trying to impose rulings on network neutrality, the courts regard watchdogs as being not much more than mere advisory panels. In short, if a company took a watchdog to court, claiming that Congress had ruled these kinds of deceptive advertising to be non-protected Commercial Speech that they had First Amendment protections to be as deceptive as they damn well felt like, the company would almost certainly win.

Which means that if you honestly believe that there's a limit to the acceptable level of deception, Congress has to have some involvement. It needn't be a full-blown law, and that would likely also fail as UnConstitutional, but there has to be something that is at that level which clearly denotes that there is a difference between protected commercial speech (satire/parody, comedic representation, figurative representation, et al) and actual attempts to deceive a customer into buying something that never existed. And, no, what the US currently has is obviously not enough, or the cosmetics companies would be up the proverbial creek without paddle (or indeed canoe) via lemon laws. The product is, after all, "defective" when compared with what it's sold as. They aren't and the watchdog didn't even bother using such laws, showing the laws have no value or significance.

Re:Product photography (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399054)

Since this is the involved industry's own 'self regulation' body acting, it is generally safe to assume that the issue is seen as quite serious, and that the risk of actual legislation has been pushed back by at least half a decade...

Re:Product photography (5, Insightful)

Drew_9999 (750818) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399132)

Your burger doesn't look as good as the one in the picture for a couple of reasons. One is that the artists making the picture are extremely good at showing the product in a flattering way, and that's not going to change. Another part of that is because some products simply can't sit under hot lights for an hour, so they don't even use the real thing. The only thing that removing digital alteration from the process will do is force advertisers to use non-digital means of making their products look good. Non-digital airbrushing is still effective, just not as cheap. The burger on the menu will still look like a team of professional artists worked to make it look at good as possible, and the burger on your plate will still look like it was assembled by a high school kid in a hurry.

Burger King was my first thought too (3, Insightful)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398720)

Yea, I really wish someone in the government would make the fast food industry stop the clearly deceptive advertising. The pictured sandwiches are nothing like what you are actually buying. It is one thing to say "we took extra care to make it look good, positioned all of the parts perfectly, and photographed it under good lighting, it is quite another to photograph larger portions than the customer will ever get.

Re:Burger King was my first thought too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38398888)

"it is quite another to photograph larger portions than the customer will ever get."

Or not show a picture at all.
The patty size of a "value" hamburger just went down in size to about 2", and went up in price 20 cents.

Re:Burger King was my first thought too (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398892)

Yeah, when I see a picture of a burger covering the entire front window of Burger King, I want a burger that big. And for $2 too!

Re:Burger King was my first thought too (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399048)

They could take a burger that was made in the shop, spray it with some kind of preservative / sealant, and put it out on display. I've seen this done in cafeterias. Then you know that, what you see, is what you're gonna get.

Of course, they don't want you to see this . . .

What is that "Crunchy Frog" on the menu . . . ?

Re:Burger King was my first thought too (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399110)

They're photshopping. Or at least they were recently, I think they got caught. This spring I think it was they put up the pictures in the window of the new triple stacker burgers, compared to the double stacker. One day while waiting at the drive-thru I looked carefully and realized the top buns were identical. (sesame seed placement the same) Closer inspection showed the top and bottom of the double and triple stacker were pixel-for-pixel identical, they appear to have started with a triple stacker and "deleted" a layer for the double stacker.

I was tempted to contact them on this, but never got around to it. Not too much later I noticed the ad in the window, though it looked identical, had received a burger change, and now the burgers were more unique looking. So I suppose they got called out on it?

I think where they get away with this is they are a franchise and no doubt in their training etc they are telling their outlets that they are supposed to aim for making their product look identical to the ad. (an impossible task for sure, and they know it since they supply most of the raw ingredients and equipment) But then you look at "the standard" and then to look and realize that 0% are getting even close. I'd call it false advertising even when trying to hide under this.

Re:Burger King was my first thought too (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399124)

Depends on the microscope they used. Seriously, though, there is nothing at the moment that prohibits deceptive advertising and the watchdog would likely lose if any actual ban on any piece of advertising got challenged in court. The situation is currently futile and will remain so until all branches (SCOTUS included) uniformly agree that selling a product that doesn't exist is not "artistic license". (The view of courts in the past is that it is and therefore it is protected speech.)

Out-of-control big government (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38398722)

Fucking big government.

Self Regulation (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398848)

This wasn't the federal goverment. "National Advertising Division (NAD) — the advertising industry's self-regulating watchdog" It is a trade group that acts as a regulator.

Re:Out-of-control big government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38398902)

The NAD is a private organization. The US government has nothing to do with this.

Re:Out-of-control big government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38399098)

what part of "self-regulating" didn't you understand?

"I'm looking at you, Burger King" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38398746)

What? You didn't notice they've added glycerin as a condiment next to the ketchup?

Young women don't need makeup.... (5, Informative)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398796)

A gal's perspective here. This is something that I learned as a teenager: Makeup is actually bad for your skin. If you care for your skin properly as a teenager and a young adult, and don't slather twenty layers of makeup on it daily, then your skin actually stays pretty nice looking through your thirties and forties. However, if you wear makeup regularly as a youngster, you'll need to wear makeup for the rest of your life. (Not smoking also helps a lot as well.)

I do wear light makeup on special occasions, but during the week at work I just don't bother. I use a clear combo gel/powder with sunscreen called MagicX instead of foundation on "bad skin days." That's all I need, even though the cosmetic industry thinks I need to have twenty different products on my skin daily. I splurge on good lotions and night treatments, but because I do that, I don't need makeup - or photoshop - to have a nice looking face.

Re:Young women don't need makeup.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38398944)

Somehow I doubt that a female posting on slashdot has a "nice looking face".

Re:Young women don't need makeup.... (4, Funny)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398996)

Ignore him, he hasn't had a date, in, well, he's never had a date.

Re:Young women don't need makeup.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38399190)

It's funny because it's true!

And LOL @ Internet White Knight who came to try to rescue her.

Re:Young women don't need makeup.... (-1, Troll)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398972)

There's a gal on slashdot?

Re:Young women don't need makeup.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38399128)

If you are asking? No.

Re:Young women don't need makeup.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38399158)

Ignore him, he hasn't had a date, in, well, he's never had a date.

But kudos for trying to get laid over the internet, as sad as it is.

Re:Young women don't need makeup.... (4, Funny)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399194)

Girls on the internet: Single, sane, attractive. Pick two. (I'm the latter two. Got snatched up by a lucky guy nerd ten years ago.)

Re:Young women don't need makeup.... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399086)

Your UV exposure matters a fair bit as well(as does the genetics fairy; but you can't do much about that at present...).

Shockingly, a pattern of frequent mild radiation burns doesn't really do one's skin much good.

Re:Young women don't need makeup.... (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399210)

Very much true, which is why I've worn more sunscreen than foundation in my life. MagicX has SPF 15 built in.

Re:Young women don't need makeup.... (3, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399216)

A guy's perspective here:

Makeup looks bad. I mean, ugh. Horrifyingly bad. I can't count how many times I looked a girl's makeup-caked face in high school and felt like throwing up.

Unless you're a professional makeup artist. Those people know to use the absolute minimum, and exactly how to get the effect they want.

Definition of "Photoshop?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38398812)

Aside from the brand name, a photo is often manipulated before it leaves the photo with the likes of color correction, sharpening, smoothing, etc.

Post Proccessing is Too Vague (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38398844)

I assume when the say "Photoshop" they really mean any kind of image editor, otherwise we can ignore the whole thing.

Even the idea of banning "post processing" has no clear meaning. In the digital world there is no such thing as an unmodified image. There is RAW data, but this is not a viewable image until it's been post processed. Even a JPG directly from the camera has already been processed to include color shifts, sharpening changes, and relative lighting. Professional photographers often take RAW output (data not images) from the camera and post process that on their computers to produce an image. This begs the question of the line, how much post processing is acceptable and when is it too much?

Re:Post Proccessing is Too Vague (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399032)

There is RAW data, but this is not a viewable image until it's been post processed. Even a JPG directly from the camera has already been processed to include color shifts, sharpening changes, and relative lighting.

Those affect the picture as a whole. They don't lengthen eyelashes, "airbrush" blemishes, whiten eyes and teeth, add shine to lips, remove stray strands of hair and that sort of thing.

Good! (5, Insightful)

sootman (158191) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398878)

I'd rather marketers be over-restricted than under-restricted. Talk about lying: just the other day I got an ad in the form of a fake rebate check. It looks just like a real check, of course, and it says "REBATE CHECK" in big letters and "This is not a check" in very small letters. WTF? Can I sell a pill that says "CURES CANCER!" in big letters and then "Does not cure cancer" in small letters just below it?

(I'm not kidding. I can post a pic later if anyone wants to see proof.)

Re:Good! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38399062)

That pill you talk about: we call it "homeopathy".

Re:Good! (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399218)

It would be a delightful twist if that junk-mail rebate check happened to qualify under the "The Nine Criteria for a Negotiable Instrument.", which would allow you to cash it despite any verbiage to the contrary...

For simple ease of sorting, and avoidance of check-washers and the like, the checks that people actually use are fairly heavily standardized(either the slightly smaller human-use ones or the 1/3 of an 8.5x11 machine print ones, with MICR codes in all the right places, printed security features, etc.); but the set of things that could legally be checks is considerably larger than the set of things that are commonly used as checks...

Seems reasonable enough... (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398904)

Unless one wishes to cling to the trivially false illusion that humans are rational actors, who weigh all data inputs objectively, it seems fairly obvious that a gigantic picture asserting that Product X will make your face look like you've been born with perfect genes and then worked over by a talented retouch guy is a lie, even if accompanied by a 2pt flyspeck disclaimer that 'results not typical, you ugly hag, buy our product anyway or die scorned and alone'.

Of course, on that basis, it's hard to imagine much of the advertising industry being left(Note, this does not represent criticism of this basis, no not at all). So much of advertising consists of more or less blatantly false images and video, followed by a tiny text disclaimer.

As for the concerns mentioned at the end of TFS, I'm not sure I see the problem: this [alphaila.com] is arguably even more divorced from reality than cosmetics advertising, and the battle over pre-renders being pimped as "in engine"(recorded at 1FPS, with known-unusably-bugggy effects enabled with command line switches, on $10,000 workstation, played back at 30FPS, or just created by importing our highest resolution art assets into 3DSMAX...) in gameplay advertising has gone on for ages. As for 'photographer's own work', unless you assert that you, as a photographer, take 'pictures that objectively represent reality' rather than 'aesthetically pleasing pictures', why would photoshop be any worse than using a good lens or a low-noise sensor? In photojournalism, photochopping can be a serious problem; but in photography as art, you aren't making a truth claim, so it's pretty hard to lie...

As voluntary standards by a private industry body, this seems like an unimpeachable step. The issue would get a bit more dicey were the state to step in, you'd have to adjudicate the line between expressive free speech and commercial fraud through deception; but if the marketweasels want to clean up a small part of their slime trail, all the better...

Honest advertising (1)

wye43 (769759) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398948)

Next we know, any misleading advertising will not be allowed anymore. That's just nuts. Where is the world heading to?

If they do this to food, it kills the industry (3, Insightful)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398958)

Well, at least if they outlaw all the pre-photoshop fakes they use. Typically a picture of pancakes is done using motor oil because it looks like the perfect maple syrup. They add sopay water to cofee to make it look extra hot and bubbly. They stain barbecue ribs with wood stain to make it them extra juicy. They use dyed whipped crisco to make milkshakes look dense and creamy. As for milk - Elmer's glue sure takes a nice photo.

Which of course is why the pictures of food NEVER look like what they serve you. On the plus side, you wouldn't really want to eat what they took pictures of.

Adobe still allowed! (2)

ewg (158266) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399000)

Note that Adobe is still allowed to Photoshop ads for Photoshop, since that's what they're selling

Re:Adobe still allowed! (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399180)

Well that's only fair I guess, if the cosmetics companies are still allowed to put make-up on the magazines.

Re:Adobe still allowed! (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399240)

true, but the before and after comparison capabilities arent nearly as strong of a selling point now that they are the same picture.

This should extend to cell phone adverts (2)

Layer 3 Ninja (862455) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399002)

On some tv commercials you'll see "Screen images simulated, sequences shortened." So what you're seeing is fantasy compared to how the phone actually works. Its a bit much.

no power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38399016)

they can do nothing

"or a photographer's own works?" (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399020)

I'm not sure what we're alluding to. Does this mean that we'll see art that actually looks like something?

People are soft & stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38399056)

Its a silly thing. You all say *you're* so smart that you don't need to be protected, its all those *other* people who are dumber who need to be protected.

Does it bother you that beer ads show a guy gets to sleep with supermodels because he buys a six pack?

Does it bother you that car ads make the car look low-slung and sexy.

Does it bother you that people eating fast food are all in great shape?

Advertising is a fantasy. Are you so soft that you can't distinguish an ad from reality? Or do you think you're immune bur the rest of the world needs help?

Get over yourself. Nobody needs that kind of help. Or rather, those that need that level of help should be Darwined out of the gene pool anyway.

Waste of time (1)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399096)

If there are people alive today who don't know that they should be skeptical about advertising, they probably aren't watching American cosmetics ads anyway.

I can't see I say a problem with this... (2)

Millennium (2451) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399156)

The end product of cosmetics is an improved appearance. If an ad tries to sell cosmetics based on an appearance that the cosmetics themselves cannot deliver, that's fraud.

Taco bell - All fast food (1)

Bardwick (696376) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399206)

i want to see this for fast food to. What you get out of the bag is no where CLOSE to what you get served. Discovery channel did a great show about it. It takes several days to put together a picture of a big mac and fries. Airbrushed, bun molds, glue....

Fraud (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399232)

Misleading advertising should be illegal anyhow. I don't see why this group should have to specifically ban it.

Photo Editing Freelance jobs just took a hit! (2)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38399236)

Put a disclaimer on the photo and provide links to the source images used. If you're interested you can look it up.
A few years ago in the UK they ran a Dove soap advert with real women. They ran it just about everywhere. After a week of looking at those real women on my morning commute, I longed for the fake photo shopped lie. I don't expect pictures of beer gut real men on the cover of men's health either. Real is grim, lets live the lie :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...