Originally published at: Norway law requires photoshopped photos to be disclosed | Boing Boing
…
Should we start the gofundme to get you out of the Norwegian prison now?
Dette bildet ble endret litt av datamaskinen, men til og med mer med sminke, belysning, listig fotografisk plassering av draperi og skygge.
(this image was changed a bit by the computer, but even more with makeup, lighting, cunning photographic placement of the curtain and shadow)
futhermore:
A Møøse once bit my sister… No realli! She was Karving her initials on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretti nasti…
Pretty sure that would be ALL of them and it will be as ubiquitous as the CA Cancer causing stickers on so much stuff that it becomes completely ignored.
But I dunno - if you made it big enough that it was like smoking warnings, it might be ugly enough that marketers will just use light and angle tricks more often and at least tone down the photoshop reshapes. Here’s hoping. Between ads and social media, everyone is worried they are horrible when they really are just like literally almost everyone else on earth.
PS - Is that ad in the post real? Everything looks disproportionate and off - unearthly.
If they are considering similar laws in the UK, that won’t bode well for the current cast of Love Island: https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagramreality/comments/oevfeh/this_looks_like_her_sister_cousin/
“This photo was taken with the latest iphone. God only knows what computational tricks were used to change the image before it was saved.”
Does this apply to practical effects or glaring obvious adjustments?
(Makeup, lighting, green screen, “fictional/extinct creatures.”)
Asking for a friend.
I wonder if this will apply to the addition of mouth eyes?
That’s a sarcastic question - but also a good one.
Literally every photo printed is going to go through some color correction or color interpretation. I assume they mean photoshop where they reshape body parts and smooth out wrinkles and lines and folds which everyone has when they move. Of course pre-photoshop used other tricks, from make up and lighting to airbrush work.
I would hope they make a clear rule set on what would require the warning and not - but even then, the marketing companies will still make people look their “best” with what ever techniques they can get away with.
Good times.
The general thrust of this thread is correct, in that the law seems to not to target the real problem (“bodies edited to conform to unrealistic beauty standards”) in favor of targeting an abstraction (“edited photographs of people”) that will only result in the notifications being an ugly nuisance that accomplish nothing and poison the public’s attitude toward the real problem.
WOW. That is just soooo bad. Like someone did a bad job out of spite and the directors were like, “Perfect! Run it!” Or one of those “AI looks at 10,000 ads and draw a human”.
Finally, a full employment bill for the studio photography industry. If you can’t rely on neural networks, and can’t “fix it in post”, you have to hire people who can get it right the first time.
There’s so much that you can do to give the appearance of altered body proportions with simple contrast adjustments and selectively editing color and contrast by layers without actually changing the shape of the person’s image. This is going to be one of those laws that will be hellishly difficult to effectively enforce.
Not to mention what happens once the legal, lobbying, and PR departments of Adobe get done with it. Market cap of 285 billion - that buys a lot of lawyers.
Probably ubiquitous, but not ugly or a nuisance once they figure it out. I’m imagining something like “serving suggestion” on food packaging where they show more than is included.
the person’s body in the advertisements deviates from reality in terms of body shape, size and skin
“Not actual size, shape, or color”
Kristine Kochanski!