French politicians want Photoshop warning

What would be considered to be an over-photoshopped image? What is the line between great advertising visuals and misrepresentation?

As extreme as this sounds though, I tend to agree that there should be some disclaimer. I consider myself to be a successful, secure woman and yet, inspite of being a marketing person and knowing that the models in the ads are photoshopped, I feel I have to achieve that look. I am not proud of that – but it is just a subconscious human feeling. As a teen, such feelings can only get worse.

This reminds me of a funny story – when I was a kid, there used to be a TV ad for sneakers that kids wore and instantly they were able to walk on walls and ceilings. I insisted my mother purchase those shoes and once I got them, I really tried to climb walls. Imagine my disappointment when I realized the shoes did not give me spiderman like abiities. But then the function of the shoes was not to make me climb walls.

In the case of beauty products – it is unfair to use the photoshopped images, because you know what? I do pay to get that look.

who wants to look at ugly people all day? keep on photoshopping!!!

I am in favor of a similar law for the US as well. Any image in which the product being advertised or the people in the image have been altered, should contain notice of such (large enough to be read by the average person and displayed on screen for the entire length of the video).

I hope that the same thing will be imposed on any photography contest. hahaha.

Disclaimers should be required if the photoshop edit makes the product look more effective. For instance, if a photo for a skin care product ad is edited to remove any blemishes from the model, that should have a disclaimer on it. But if they photoshop someone in a car ad, then that should be left alone.

Once again, lazy thinking people want more warning labels. When does this ever end?

Fast Food and restaurant commercials need the same disclaimer: "Burgers not as stout as in real life." "Waiters not as friendly in real life."

I believe this should be instituted. Not only for the reasons of self esteem as listed above but also because other stories with photoshopped images significantly alter the images power and content in some cases. I remember where there was a soldier holding his had up and held a gun looking to be about 10 feet away from a citizen when in fact the soldier was 100 feet or more away and at a checkpoint. So it alters the image from a guy doing his job to overly oppressive military being overzealous. I don't think it is the images job to help form a particular opinion. It is it's job to give us facts we can use to make our own opinions. Truth is key in that.

As the parent of a teenage girl who keeps pointing to the ads with impossibly perfect faces and bodies, then begs for those products, I would be 100% for a rule like this here. My daughter is beautiful on her own merits, but thinks she can be "prettier" if she only had the right makeup/hair products/clothes/body–things that only exist in manipulated print and on runways (with that "healthy" anorexic look!).

Dove has a video somewhere on its site showing the steps they used to go through to make a pretty model look like she was drop-dead gorgeous. Jamie Lee Curtis also came out without makeup to show just what makeup and airbrushing hides. The tabloids make fun of celebrities when they are in public looking like their real selves, which just serves to make the fake more desireable.

Time for a real reality check!

We do the same thing on cereal boxes (if you haven't noticed the "enlarged to show texture" wording on the front of most boxes), so why not on published, professional photos in magazines ... things aren't being "enlarged" or reduced for texture reasons, but same difference – lol

This is just plain stupid. I think it makes a lot of sense for the French...

Remember the "Truth In Advertising" law? Or did that die when we weren't watching?

Anything that isn't real in advertising should either be flagged as such or not used.
It's only purpose is to convince people to buy something.
Once they buy it and realize the truth, they are going to backlash against the vendor.

Did you guys even look at the picture? It has nothing to do with an impossible standard of beauty; the chick's legs are impossibly long, judging by the angle of her head and the top of her torso. Imagine for a second what the rest of her body must look like.

As a professional photographer......absolutely!

Frankly, I am really disappointed with where professional photography has gone, in terms of image manipulation. It is nearly impossible to find anything being published, anywhere, that has not had significant image manipulation, on computers, today.

The public should not believe, much of anything they see, in images. Even in news media, there is a lot of clever manipulation going on.

As a pro, I can spot most of this, but the average person, will not know it has been done.

On the other hand, some of it is soooooo contrived, that it is obvious, and I see young people, who think the obvious is "neat". I can only shudder.

Another great example of politicians coming up with a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

How long would it take for the law to get changed to any image that is photoshoped is in violation?

"Truth in Advertising", that's all we asked for.
If it's retouched, say so. If your products are
as good as you portray them to be, what are
you hiding?

CyberArtist... this is not a "warning" label like "cape does not enable user to fly," this is disclosure of what is otherwise false representation.

The disclosure will do nothing to help the self esteem of teens... the pictures won't change, there would just be some micro-text underneath saying "this picture is faked."

Even as a libertarian I agree with laws that protect people from fraud, which would include photoshopped images.

I look at it this way, if I see a picture of a used car in like new condition, and I get there, and it a rust bucket I'd feel cheated. The same should apply to health and beauty products. Over all, I believe it should be considered for a more basic reason. The purpose of the adds is to demonstrate a non misleading ability of the product. If you are altering the model to make the person appear better than they are , you are misrepresenting the ability of the product. Fixing high lights, shadows and other things the product would not be used for is fine, but when you blur the line between the products performance and the enhancements by artists you cross into misrepresentation.

I propose a rider to this bill that bans "HDR" images as well.

If we have to start labeling everything that isn't going to be the way it is IRL, then you need to do EVERYTHING that way. Having a false assumption of what to expect on anything is going to have to be labeled. All advertisements that glorify any product will have to have a disclaimer. Before you walk into a store, there should be a disclaimer of what to from the peopel that work there (they're human not barbie and ken dolls with no emotions and just a smile). Every product will have to have a disclaimer on it. Manequins will have to have them because they don't have everyone's body type. Where does it stop? What will determine "over-photoshoped?" Just another vague term for the ignorant and assuming public. People can be really stupid, especially the general public.

That's a very good rule, any picture that has been touched up should state so. When I read a magazine, I'm interested in real photos.
When I want fake images, I get a comics book.

I am not in favor or against creating a law but I believe by creating a law for photoshopped photography, governments are merely shifting the blame. Young adults need to be educated about advertising and media from a parental perspective.

On a side note:
Putting a warning label on magazines will only make the companies create loop holes. Instead of "photography," a company may choose to display "digitally enhanced images" that may not require the same label.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Regulations cannot possibly draw where the line should be on this.

Why not have disclaimers if the lighting is positioned favorably for a model? Why not have a disclaimer that the model is wearing makeup? Had their hair done? Had plastic surgery?

Disclaimer: The model in this ad had good looking parents, and so is also good looking.

Foolish in the extreme.

Would photorealistic paintings, drawings, and 3D animation require labels, too? Why stop with photography? Let's put a label on every image we are presented with: "Warning! People, places or things portrayed here may look better than reality."

What a ridiculous idea.

As a professional graphic designer who frequently enhances images I say such a law is silly. Yes my perspective is skewed, I'm on the inside looking out. Even before I got into graphic design I knew people and products were enhance to present them in the best possible light.

Young people are and have been copying whatever look is fashionable at the moment for far longer than Photoshop or any other means of manipulating images has existed. Maybe if parents acted like parents and taught their children the difference between reality and fantasy this issue would never have become an issue.

LOL : Warning: supermodel not as sexy as may appear.

A tiny disclaimer that most people won't read?!

I'm more in favor of encouraging high schools to teach students the possibilities of photo manipulation and marketing tricks.

Kids are computer savvy nowadays. Many of them use Photoshop already. They'll understand.

Put up a disclaimer? Yawn.
Educate people about the tricks of Madison Avenue? Better.

This idea was written about in Outside magazine this month. It seems their prediction has come true sooner than expected.

http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200909/digital-photography-1.html

Most definitely. Photoshop/photo manipulation/enhancement should be noted honestly. Even a short phrase like, "enhanced for appeal" would do the trick added to all that other small print no one reads anyway.

I am a fresh college grad with a degree in marketing, I can see both sides of the issue and I think it comes down to where is the line between showing off what the product can do, and where does it become false advertising...if the results can only be acheived through photoshopping the image extensively then why shouldn't there be a disclaimer. Its much the same as health products not tested by the FDA having to state as such and that the actual results are not typical.

As a graphic designer I've come to not believe anything I see in advertising. I for one plan on telling my two daughters about the the image manipulation and show them how it is done!

I love photoshop. I love making a picture "perfect". It is the direction art has now taken and it is not going to stop. I don't care if ads have a disclaimer or not.

It's amazing the things you can do with photo editing programs and it takes creativity to a whole new level. This is the computer age and everyone needs to get up to speed!

I am a digital artist and use Photoshop exclusively as a career tool. 99% of printed photography in any respectable publication must go through the rigors of digital photo retouching. From a marketing standpoint you simply cannot print an unphotoshopped image.

Polished, photoshopped imagery is how our society accepts what is to be sold. You simply cannot publish a supermodel covered in potmarks and scars on the cover of Cosmo. It is this same imagery that has driven our society into the physical, mental and sociological pursuits of happiness, all in the name of capitalism. But if governments regulate these extremities, large or small corporations and publications will simply go out of business.

People need to be educated so that they can make their own judgements.

Ban those damn images..

I have struggled since I am 13 with Anorexia, then Bulimia.. they "thinspired" me before Anorexia even became such a 'hot commodity' apparently. Just remember that eatting disorders are not an image issue directly, but it is they harmful way in which some of us end up dealing with other issues; still, those magazines do not help.

It is really hard to recover from Eatting disorders, and at almost 23 years of age, I find it an every day battle. So bring me "real", it will be much more comforting to know that a bit of celulitis, a couple of strech marks and short legs is OK.

Think about it, if they airbrush everything is because it IS more appealing. How will newer generations rate/know what true beauty is.. that you dotn need to be perfect to feel good about yourself..

There should be a disclaimer a couple of years back I was bored and surfing you tube. Found a video of a woman going through the stages of getting ready for a shoot. After which they showed the picture and how they manipulated the woman in photoshop to the point where you really couldn't tell if that the same person. Raising check bones, shifting the eyes. I mean its deceiving unless you know about these kind of manipulations.

Who is this "we" who is being asked if they want to ban other people's images that they might disapprove of? What a creepy notion that images must be subject to political approval. Just what we need: Image Commissars.

I just don't see a problem given that we are the fattest country in the world, any effect this has on teens doesn't seem to be enough to make them change eating habits on a large scale.

Plus if they had access to playboy or other adult magazines then they would see men aren't interest in the paper thin models that are in the teen mags.

Perhaps there is another explanation for this picture. The legs actually belong to another model lying underneath the torso that we can see. Never mind complaining about retouching, I for one would like to see the whole picture and find out what the other model is up to down there:)

You can put the text on the page stating that the image was enhanced, but no one will read it. They will look at the model on the page, look at the product, then produce an image in their head that Image = Product. Who on earth is reading the verbage in all these ads?

Here is some reality check

Sooo... what's the next step after that? Do we make any woman who goes to the bar after doing her hair and make-up wear a T-shirt that says "WARNING: I WILL NOT LOOK LIKE THIS IN THE MORNING!"

Or the steroid freak muscle bound college kid with a tag that reads "WARNING: IN 10 YEARS I WILL BE BALD WITH A POT BELLY AND MAN-BOOBS!"

Get a grip people and teach your kids not to believe what they see on TV or in Advertisements.

This should be implemented in the U.S.

As a male who dates females, it is incredibly frustrating when a female obsesses over trying to reach a look that doesn't exist.

I've tried many times to explain that those girls are fake and photoshopped, but to no avail.

Who cares... Photoshop FTW!!!

Photoshop Billions and Billions Deceived!!!

Photoshop disclaimers are ridiculous! Why don't we stick a disclaimer on the new Beatles remasters for being digitally enhanced....the audiophiles will love that one.

What happened to pure raw talent ? Lighting, exposure, COMMON SENSE ? OH WAIT ... we got too vain !!!

I think that much of what is wrong in the US actually IS the fault of so called regulations meant to keep us safe or the like. If the FDA used their present standards on say Asprin, asprin would not be allowed on the market. How such things like Yaz and other products that you end up seeing law suits about only get approved because of bribes. There is ALWAYS a fair amount of trickery involved in the advertising industry. Getting us to buy lots of what we don't need and convincing us that it is essential to our lives to have it, when we don't. That is the core of advertising. Now it might be nice to have some controls on it and have "truth" in advertizing but honestly, not going to happen. So give up.

Now on a personal note: I do feel it is wrong to show the models advertising a beauty product when in all likelyhood the results of the image of the model have nothing to do with the beauty product at hand. Just good, doctored pictures, and a voice saying that this product is good, IMPLYING that the product is the cause. This is why they get away with it. They don't SAY that the model's beautiful appearence is due to the beauty product.

What conversly could be done is a service that a photographer can offer is to take pictures and produce just as good quality of pics for your daughter or son. This picture set can be given digitally and they can then perpetuate the "look" through their facebook or some other non-sense. The photographer could stand to make a fortune offering that type of photoshopy and makeup and clothing to give the "Model, photoshopy look"

That is nither here nor there. Should their be a law? No but I think that if there is to have the proverbial before/after pics and make the after no photoshopy allowed could be a winning advertising campaign.

Do we put captions for models who have had plastic surgery?

Some models do exercise and follow a very strict diet as part of their professional responsibilities. This is difficult to keep up by the average person, should there be a caption there, too?

Photographers: isn't Photoshop another layer above the lenses, filters, lighting, etc.?

IMHO, What we're really asking for is a result oriented, clinical trial or researched based rating scale for various products. With those facts, photoshop or any marketing are rightful artistic inspirations...

This is beyond stupid. In your average magazine (even non-beauty mags), 99% of photos are photoshopped. As long as little girls know this, I'm sure they'll be just fine.

And if you really want to help young girls' self esteem teach them 1. to go outside and look at what real people look like and 2. that their self worth should be based on more than how beautiful they are.

this could cause another problem for models. A model could be deemed to "flawed" to appear in a company's ad and subsequently decide that they need so highly invasive extreme surgery to become perfect enough to get work. An adult knows that images are photo shopped a child/teen doesn't so why is it so hard for a parent to simply say that the woman in the ad is just about as real as Santa Claus?

Yes I agree that we should not manipulate photos, its misleading and perhaps in some cases just like lying. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then they have a far more greater impact on us. We are just selling ourselves a thousand lies at every single photo.

 
Marry an ugly woman and be happy..
If there were no ugly women, all men would be unhappy ?

Well.. If people nowadays ate healthy, exercised, and got off their fat asses instead of sitting in front of the boob tube eating fries and other trash food, they wouldn’t be intimidated by good looking “normal bodies”.

This country is becoming really pitiful with all the fat it’s accumulating.

Let’s face it – FAT is NOT pretty.

So yes, outlaw PhotoShop that way y’all can sit on your fat asses and get even fatter while you turn your brain to jello by watching TV non-stop.

Hey the perfect body would be a thing of the past if we outlaw the use of pShop!!!!!!!!! Yeee-haaaa, pass those cheese soaked fried tatter skins and another gallon of soda.

Give me a break!

100% support this idea.

In fact, any picture that involves *ANY* modification of the subject should require the disclaimer.

I'm not so concerned if you photoshopped a backdrop behind the person, or something like that..

I use photo manipulation to the fullest extent as an artist that started in the dark room, I have come to value the cost cutting software. Considering I am not backed by a money guy.Digital background are cost effective.That being said I am an artist, not a photo journalist.I show you what I would suspect that you wanted to see.Nobody wants a model with pimples on her/his face or body.Long ago with ads somebody opened Pandora's Box now because of its effect, you want to stick the wild cat back in the bag..sorry can't be done.Have you ever seen the painting Starry Night, that is not real it is Van Gogh's drug or std infected mind,but yet we swoon over it.If someone starts with this "law" what will be next movies,music.Don't forget the right to freedom of expression.That is one right you will never take from Americans.And paranoid as it sounds that is what it would lead to.Maybe we should just throw down now and start a Ministry of Thought or better yet a Ministry of Expression.Maybe we should stop my first grader from painting purple trees, cause it ain't real and may upset those go green guys. What Nonsense!

Who gets to keep the money taken from the advertisers if this fine is levied? The government? Why?

People complain about what they see in advertisements but still live in ways that surround themselves with advertisements. Why not view less television so you don't come to think of the made-up actors and actresses shown there as "more real" than what you see in face-to-face conversation? Why not have a lifestyle that doesn't require you to seek government protection from pictures?

It seems many are willing to do anything except take personal responsibility.

I agree with Photoshop in Photography because there are very few talented Photographer's who know how to do the job correctly without using Photoshop.

As a Photographer, manipulating light and contrast destroys the character of the picture. Using a tool like Photoshop, limits a photographers skill.

For example, if I Photographed your teenage daughter in a sunday red dress with no make-up, do you think the photograph would be as glamerous if I didn't use Photoshop? Of course not.

Before Photoshop, there was "the darkroom" where most published photos were 'prettified', some extremely.

Blemishes being removed is understandable. 50 years ago it began with simple darkroom techniques and now with Photoshop here in modern times, the practice will remain. However, what is truly heinous and extremely common, is the stretching of arms, legs, waists, etc. to alien proportions – THAT is a mockery of humans and should be stopped. Freakish long arms and legs – I see them daily in ads – they make real people appear to be unreal dolls. Their proportions match the fake dimensions of manikins...

Modern practices are abhorrent but folks are mostly oblivious just like they were oblivious to the last 50 years of blemish removals... Until that changes, alien proportions are here to stay.

Companies are free to advertise to stupid people, and stupid people have the right to do buy their crap.

When will we be a free country again?

Although an admirable idea in theory, in practice this would be quite difficult. Photoshop is not the only way to manipulate an image. I.e., it can be manipulated prior to the image ever being recorded on film (or CCD, as the case often is these days). If film is used, in can be manipulated on film prior to it being uploaded to a computer. Photography fakery existed long before computers came along…

Last time I checked, this is still called the United States of America right? We are a free country right?

If you wish to live in a communist country, I hear China is nice. Lets restrict access to Google while we are at it.

Where does it stop? Pretty soon we will not be able to touch any image with a computer without placing a warning on it for fear of breaking a law. While you're at it, place warnings on pictures that were taken with really nice cameras.

Law makers are the new plague of the U.S. They believe that they have been elected to create new law and work tirelessly trying to do so. Sometimes the simplest answer is the best. Try educating our people.

Yes, there should be a misclaimer for Photoshopped Images; and no, it wouldn't make a difference.

I agree that a disclaimer should be required. Since the purpose of image manipulation is to catch someone's eye, not to tell them what they are going to look like (anybody with any common sense knows that they aren't really going to have an instant change in their body), the disclaimer is unlikely to change the effect of the photo. In fact, I'm not even entirely convinced that it will make everyone aware that the photo's were manipulated, because I have a feeling that most advertisements are likely to try and make the disclaimer in "fine print", therefore many of the adolescents are not real likely to even notice it. If the law decides to have requirements as to the size of the print for the disclaimer, that may solve that problem, but I still think many adolescents would just ignore it like they do most of the text in advertisements. But I still strongly agree with the idea of requiring a disclaimer.

People actually NEED a disclaimer?! How stupid are you all?!

If you look at an add you should expect it to be a photoshoped image, I don't know why you wouldn't . That is kind of the idea behind advertising, to make it look better then it actually is.

I consider it be false advertising when beauty products imply that their product will make the appearance of one's skin look a certain way by posting an "unrealistic" model with skin only obtainable only in Photoshop.

I can also see why the French politicians are more concerned about youth making the correlation between what they see on the label and the lack of results they get from usage of the product as they are more impressionable. I also concur that it does damage one's self image when they don' t see the advertised results implied from the Photoshopped picture.

I would be in favor of such a law here in the U.S.

This sounds like a good idea, once clear parameters are defined for "over-photo shopped" images.

It's not so much a self esteem issue as it is false advertising, especially for weight loss and skin care products.

I get the intention of the disclaimer, but does anyone actually think that an adolescent is going to read (and interpret) a small disclaimer hidden at the bottom of an ad? These are the same aged people that are prone to start smoking, even though the surgeon general has a large warning right on every pack of cigarettes.

That is all we need right now...more regulation, more fines, and more rules. If someone cannot distinguish reality versus virtual, text in a magazine ad is not going to change that.

YES, there needs to be disclaimers in all the advertisements and magazines! Because people are ignorant to the fact that EVERY photo has indeed been photoshopped.

Instead of coming after the graphics community, how about we start with the politicians in Washington? Lie about what you will do when in office? – Automatic impeachment!

Leave us Photoshop users alone.

While I think that photoshopping is a useful tool for artistic expression, advertisers allow overuse of this tool to the point where it leads to false advertising for their products. But on the otherhand, what person looking at an image of a model doesn't realize it was most likely photoshopped? Personally, it doesn't bother me either way. The only ads that get on my nerves are the mascara ads that show models with beautiful long lashes when in reality, they're wearing false eyelashes with the mascara over the false lashes.

Would it not be a better and cheaper solution to just educate our children not to believe advertisements?

Seems simple to me.

As a magazine publisher, I deal with "photoshopped" (is that really a verb now?) images all the time. In fact, there isn't a single published image that doesn't run through Photoshop for some sort of "correction" before I send the magazine off for printing,

When I cross the line from simply adjusting levels to really altering the appearance of something, I simply add the tag "Photo Illustration" below the image as a caption. Problem solved.

I commented on this Thursday,but I have to ask even through my own comment.Have people, kids, and America lost common sense.You know the Bud beer girls have caught my eye as a male,but even I knew at a very young age I might add,that just because I preferred Bud Light to Coors Light,did not mean I would end up with an air brushed model.All I am saying is use some common sense.Do we not have any,are we not responsible as teens and young adults and adults,to have a sense of reality?Or are we just suppose to be lazy and not think for ourselves?

Altering, airbrushing, and manipulation of photos has been going on long before photoshop was created. Photoshop just made it all easier...even I can do it!

Playboy centerfolds displayed beautiful women...with no zits, no wrinkles, no stretchmarks, no moles, no pantylines...etc.

Even as a hormone-cooked teenager back in the 1960's I knew that these women were too perfect, and hey, I probably wasn't the brightest penny in the roll!

Which brings me to the point...children need to be taught reality from fantasy by their parents, teachers, counselors, et al., NOT by a "nanny state" full of overzealous lawmakers.

This is the job of the parents. Parents need to point out things like this to their children at an early age. Even educators such as art teachers in schools can help as well. Showing before and after pictures and pointing out how advertisements work.
I don't think it's a bad law though and it's intentions are to protect children.

It may be easier to add the disclaimer to those images that are NOT Photoshoped.

air brushing definnitely portrays a misconception and leads the pubilc to aim for that image, when indeed, that image is not gained by true efforts, but with falsified imaging.

This is how we mislead our young people, besides, it aids in useless expense.

I believe they should put a disclaimer stating image editing software was used. People would then be educated that "The Gimp image editor is open source and completely FREE to use."

How about a disclaimer on an un-Photoshopped image of one who has had beauty enhanced by cosmetic surgery?

Forget photoshopping - they need a surgeon-general-like disclaimer and warning about fake breasts. I'm disgusted by fake breasts, and there's a bunch of self-esteem issues there alone no matter how 'sexy' they make a woman look on the outside.

There should be a warning label when breast implants or liposuction are involved.

“WARNING: This model was surgically enhanced to make him/herself feel better and make you feel inadequate. Only those individuals who are perfect should subscribe to this publication.”

I think it's a great idea to put a label on any photo that "shaves" off the wrinkles or fat on anyone. Just like they do for food, tobacco products, and the like. It should make the media more honest with it's advertising and help our kids stop looking at them for the image of perfection.

WARNING
Femme fatale is on the prowl
Photoshopped to hypnotize and destroy all men

Telang, what is the difference between good policy and self absorbed nonsense? So what if you're insecure? These companies should have the freedom to advertise their products without the issue becoming politicized. Don't these politicians have anything better to do?

What about pictures in restaurant menus? Pictures are also misleading... :-p
Watch out because soon they will ban the use of make-ups!
Don't u just hate it when they come up with near-useless laws & expect you to follow?

I'm wondering if Adobe is loving or hating all of this press with their name. Probably loving it. But, they're not the only creators of digital manipulation software, not to mention that Photoshop has little to do with caking on makeup and special camera angles, prosthetics, wearing of girdles, and the multitude of other low-tech and non-tech means of manipulation of what's in a picture/video vs what's real. Not that I'm condoning the current practice at all (I have a young daughter that will undoubtedly be faced with dealing with the advertising onslaught soon enough) but the false portrayal of the human form/body has been going on for several thousand years, and typically (but not always) illustrating the idealism or contemporary taste/preference of how societal woman should look. I must say that I do find it a bit ironic that the French, supposed leaders of fashion (although I've never been certain who actual wears the aforementioned "fashion") and how women are portrayed would be the ones to go this route. Is this just a knee-jerk reaction to something they've let get beyond the borders of human decency and ethical conduct in a seemingly (unseemly?) unregulated industry? As earlier posters have pointed out, where does it end? Truth in advertising has been a white elephant which usually leaves the customers/consumers scratching our heads. For the last 30+ years I've been wondering why fast-"food" stores are allowed to continue portraying products that don't exist on their menus as pictured. That the static displays that they videotape for commercials is usually not edible and often includes various glues and sprays to make it look more "mouth-watering," and a host of other tricks of the trade. It's all knowingly done to deceive the public at large to become customers at large and sell something...which as usual is the bottom line, whether its clothes, computers, or Big Mac's (ou pardon, Le Mac). The almighty Dollar/Yen/Franc/Euro/Pound/Ruble/Rupee shall prevail. Unless this issue is addressed multilaterally/multi-nationally it's going to be a huge waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

Maybe the French government could just warn the advertisers a few times then disconnect the offending agencies internet!!!

Is this misrepresentation any different than the commercials where, if a guy drinks a certain brand of beer, he's suddenly surrounded by gorgeous babes throwing themselves at him? Am I to believe that if I drink it, the same thing will instantly happen? C'mon, people! Maybe those who are so gullible should be naturally thinned from the herd.

Completely ridiculous.

At first, i felt that this was a great idea. Advertisements should be truthful and let us know when they have doctored images to sell a product. However, i now feel that this law would just be masking the problems. We should be informing our children on the lies that are spewed by the advertising business and advertising agencies should be more concerned with the repercussions of their actions rather than profit (that will never happen). Women wear make-up everyday and more and more people have superficial plastic surgery... should these people come with warnings as well?

Hi. I'm a professional photographer. While I agree that too much emphasis is placed on a person's appearance, every image in any beauty or fashion magazine has some level of Photoshop work. There's color correction, cropping, minor retouching, removing distracting elements in the background, etc. There's no clear way to define what has been Photoshopped a little, and what has been Photoshopped a lot – that's too subjective and impossible to police. So, the idea of putting warning labels on photographs is pointless – every image would need one, and viewers would learn to tune the warning out.

I would like to see such disclaimers on food items, nothing ever looks as good as the advertisement!

If people are so stupid to want to look like a picture in a magazine, tabloid, highway billboard, tv ad, etc. then then they should indeed pay the price of lowered self esteem and all the other ills of damaged egos.

Self esteem begins with breaking from the pack, recognizing you're not some herd animal. Love your body, celebrate yourself regardless of what the herd thinks, it's Creation's gift to you, make the best of it. You're human, not a sheep. If you behave like sheep you deserve to be shorn.

The worst part of the anology to sheep, is that sheep aren't given a choice. People are free to choose, so how can I have sympathy for pathetic whiners who bleat their way through life cluelessly following the herd from one manipulation to another.

They should just wake up and understand how they are enslaved, of their own choosing, by images that bind more tightly than chains and shackles. They are permitting technology to master them rather than making an effort to recognize technology's pervasive presence and by understanding it, learn to master it.

Now the government will step into the picture and "take care" of these pathetic people by requiring these messages be displayed, as if the image "enhancements" aren't already clear to all but the clueless. The net result, government gains yet another opportunity to control our environment all in the name of "protecting" the consumer. That's smart, real smart people - baaaaaaaaa!

who decides what is "too much" photoshoppery? some other government bureaucrat? just what we need: even more government control............

LOL

You're kidding me right?

No seriously. Advertising existis to make a product seem bigger and better than it is. Not just in doctoring images.

Add in Politics, TV shows, Movies, propaganda for wars, ....... add in everything.

If you wish to stop this type of blatent "upselling" then pass one law that states "You cannot lie when selling a product, service, or idea".

There is already a "Buyer Beware" Law. How about a "Seller Be Honest" Law.

Really? Do French politician think their people are that stupid?

Do they disclaim that Mickey La Mouse is a cartoon? Do they need to state that the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park "Le Monde Perdu" were not real?

There is a global economic crisis going on, so it seems to me they should have more important things to do... unless the economy was airbrushed in France.

I got my pot belly from drinking a lot of beer. now i have to do a lot of Cardio to remove my pot belly.,;`

[...] Kudos to France, who are mulling a law that would make it a requirement to add a warning on any retouched photo, indicating that it was, [...]

pot belly is sometimes very annoying, it make you looks quite fan~"'

Since there is not a single portrait image of any person in any magazine or ad, including politicians, that is not altered to smooth out complexion or some other minor issue, the effect of this law will be to simply add this disclaimer to every single image in every magazine and advertisement.

I'm not sure how effective that would be. It's rather like the boy that cried wolf. The warning loses its effect when people see both overweight and underweight people carrying the same disclaimer.

Some are more altered than others, and what are we going to do, set up a committee to decide on which images are substantially altered, and which are simply subtly altered?

That sounds very civilized. They're not saying you can't do it, but that you should let people know "Hey, this isn't what this person actually looks like." I mean, really, there are plenty of beautiful men and women out there with near-perfect bodies in real life to feel envious of. We don't need fake ones too.

Most of those images you see on the Web are usually fakes and you can't really trust them. To get rid of such confusion, a handy and useful tool called Photoshopped Image Killer will tell you whether an image has been edited by some software, or it's real. As indicated by it's name, the tool has best performance for Photoshop. However other image editors are covered as well.

When I view your RSS feed it just gives me a webpage of weird text, is the problem on my reader?

Only wanna remark on few general things, The website pattern is perfect, the subject material is real great : D.

Yesterday, while I was at work, my cousin stole my iPad and tested to see if it can survive a thirty foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation. My iPad is now destroyed and she has 83 views. I know this is entirely off topic but I had to share it with someone!

Court Union,fund alone visitor specific hit loss ignore manager subject her reasonable visit usually manner article south think strike slip seem affair century along have hit centre output leaf dead murder them miss desk over aspect dress pretty may apply occur refuse normal society them around expensive soon regional disease benefit release hear run before street earth history threat tool division dead total identify behind we wine mountain attitude everybody break student recent degree launch grant beginning equipment phase partly grey union earth return ship

Just wish to say your article is as surprising. The clearness for your submit is simply cool and i could suppose you are knowledgeable in this subject. Well along with your permission let me to grasp your RSS feed to stay up to date with imminent post. Thank you one million and please carry on the enjoyable work.

The first Givenchy store opened its doors in 1952, the brainchild of owner Hubert de Givenchy.

To trace the origins of this event though however, it is necessary that we step back a few years in time. Givenchy was born in 1927 in France. At the age 10, having shown a flair for fashion from an early age, he attended the World's Fair in Paris. Leaving the Pavilion of Elegance and filled with awe by the beauty of the gowns and models of the prominent Fashion Houses his decision to become a fashion designer was cemented.GivenChy Bags

Following the Allies liberation of France towards the end of World War II, Givenchy relocated to Paris. One of his first mentors was Jacques Fath, who along with Christian Dior and Pierre Balmain was considered as one of the major influences on the postwar fashion industry.

His training continued under the expert guidance of Robert Piquet and Lucien Lelong. When in 1947, Elsa Schiaparelli appointed him to manage her boutiques on Place Vend?me, his entrance into the world of high fashion was secured.GivenChy Handbags

Indeed, 5 years later in 1952, Givenchy opened his own Maison de Couture at No8, rue Alfred de Vigny, on the Monceau Plain and won instant acclaim with the release of his very first collection.GivenChy Bags

Meeting the famous Audrey Hepburn in 1953 was a fateful event for Givenchy. Hepburn eventually became both an ambassador for the Givenchy brand, and a life long friend.

Givenchy's associations with masters of the industry continued. The influence of his friendship with Cristobal Balenciaga, for example, is reflected in many of the Givenchy collections.GivenChy Bags

In 1954, Givenchy became the first designer to present a collection of luxury women's ready to wear clothing. Among his many contributions to the fashion world were the "Bag Dress", the "Enveloped Dress" and the funnelled collar coat. His work was both audacious and elegant. Some of his most original designs were of printed textiles, inspired by Miro, Matisse and Christian Berard.

Givenchy continued to diversify and in 1973 released the "Gentleman Givenchy" menswear line. In 1987 Givenchy joined the French luxury group LVMH Mo?t Hennessy Louis Vuitton, along with other prestigious names like Dior, Louis Vuitton, Christian Lacroix and Céline.GivenChy Handbags