It would make drawing lines that are both clear and approximately where you want them (even) harder; but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if to achieve the goal they would actually need to both mandate and forbid the label: unless it’s forbidden wherever it isn’t mandatory the obvious move by anyone who wants to keep using techniques that require disclosure would be to aggressively and copiously disclose on absolutely anything they can, especially stuff that isn’t edited in ways that strike people as misleading, in order to flood the label into Prop 65 status(as you mentioned).
FIFY 
Define “photoshopped”. “Digitally manipulated”? How much? In camera or out of camera? I’ve been moving digital images to print ever since we had to manually combine separately taken Red, Blue, and Green images using filters ( a few years before the release of the first Photoshop.) Literally all digital photos have been digitally altered. These laws are going to be based on definitions that will get chewed up in court.
3 Likes
Once again, Norway has to go and make all of us other countries look bad by comparison…
Why would they care? It’s not like they will sell fewer products because of that. Every photographer will still own a copy of Photoshop for jobs that don’t need the disclosure. And it all comes bundled anyway and they will continue to use Lightroom. I think their extortionate business model will be just fine.
1 Like
Worse than that, I think that the “This image has been digitally altered,” disclosure will end up appearing on everything, which will have the effect of diluting its impact.
There are more details here:
Basically, enforcement is through the Norwegian equivalent of the US FTC, and they will count on complaints and tips to bring action (in the form of fines). This moots some of the objections raised in this thread, about (a) whether it applies to practically every photo, and (b) how they’re going to find a precise definition that will withstand legal dissection. (The answers are (a) no, and (b) they won’t have to.)
1 Like
I am guessing you are American? In passing this law there is no expectation that cops are going to be kicking down the doors of 17 year old instagrammers, handcuffing them and confiscating their belongings.
We’re talking of a society where a written slap on the wrist from a public watchdog still counts for a lot. For comparison, a newspaper journalist being found guilty of misrepresentation/poor judgement, even with no fines or arrests made, is still a BIG deal in Scandinavia. It genuinely affects their career and will affect their standing in their local community. No cops or courts involved.
1 Like
This is an obvious reply to a sarcastic question, but begs a further question that I think you have hinted at:
Never had a digital image or video come to me that doesn’t need the most basic cropping and colour correction. This is the new “darkroom” process… All photographic and digital images and video need to be altered to a certain extent for colour balance and composition but the final straw comes down to pure manipulation to create something that is other than what the captured image represents to the photographer, the subject and the “agreed” upon deal of the “use” of the image or video.
Are people ignoring that label? Seems like a bad idea considering a lot of the stuff it appears on is banned elsewhere (and I assume would be banned in California if they could)
1 Like
Exactly! Where do you draw the line? Is airbrushing allowed? If you change five pixels in the top corner because they are the wrong colour, is that allowed? You might as well give a blanket inclusion to every photograph “this has been altered in some way”.
“This photograph uses cookies…” oh, wait, that’s a different thing.
1 Like
Yes, exactly. With no further explanation. Just guess at which part of what ever you got even caused the warning to pop up.
1 Like
This shit is real. And I hate it.
2 Likes
How does a photographer or advertiser or “influencer” know what they can or can not do to an image before running afoul of this new labeling requirement? Does this law only apply to photographs of people? or does it apply to all photographs? (article is not clear on that)
I would [like to] assume that basic things like cropping the image, or color correction, adjusting brightness, etc are still allowed, because every single image used in a ad would require those. What about erasing backgrounds in images? (very frequent in advertising, or retail websites). A “We know it when we see it” law is not at all helpful to someone trying to comply with the law. Do they need to submit the image to some committee beforehand to have it inspected and approved?
No, I’m Canadian. I have no expectation that there will be any police involvement because it’s going to be a civil offence. My contention is echoed by several other posters to this thread - how can this possibly be effectively enforced when almost no images you see don’t have some form of post processing.
Yeah - You’re probably right.
“So Good - It’s banned in Norway!”
I was going to post something about the required prop 65 warnings on rice and coffee products, but it appears that was amended back in 2018.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
