@hildebrandtbernd just shared on Discord that Norway passed a law declaring that influencers have to label their images as ‘altered” for any digital or physical manipulation. I hadn’t heard this, but, it absolutely makes sense. Why the feck do I have to type a legal on a spot stating “Screen images simulated” for a silly phone scromp or a “Do not attempt” for a woman jumping through a plate glass window but I don’t have to type a legal claiming Random Celebrity #6012 doesn’t ACTUALLY look like this or Random Makeup Product #4807 has been retouched within an inch of its life?
And why don’t we do this for ALL advertising, not just “influencers?” I mean, isn’t an actor a “temporary influencer”
Do they need to include disclaimers for plastic surgery too? Generally no one looks like them even without retouching
Maybe those with plastic surgeries that are not medically necessary have a tattoo on their foreheads stating as such. I mean, thats the slippery slope that we could all agree is ridiculous and should be avoided at all costs.
Hopefully my silly career messing with other people’s pictures can teach my children that every…single…image we see is manipulated.
Definitely. People in my family have become a lot more savvy in terms taking any type of imagery or film with the appropriate dose of salt.
I have no issue with making things look more inspirational than they are in everyday life. As long as we had theater, advertising, photography, and film we have created stylized versions of stories for entertainment and to sell people on experiences. And I’m keenly aware of the negative side effects this has on young people in the age of social media (and others)
But it does need to come along with education that these are not realities off the shelf anyone can just have. In many ways that education cannot just happen with a disclaimer. This is something we all can contribute to, including sometimes taking the veil off how this works, whenever the people that pay our bills allow us a bit of leeway.
Vogue magazine should include a giant disclaimer stamp on the front cover if you took this too literal. And they’ve peddled in this for decades.
Yea chances are they will slap this disclaimer in everything now just to make sure and then it becomes useless.
Also defining “retouched” is hard, grading could be considered retouching, adding a glow/soften certainly hides skin imperfections.
Lot of asian android phones just do face retouch by default also, iPhones uses AI to enhance lighting, what is even “untouched”.
as a technical person, the only thing that I would count as “original” would be a analoge dia photo directly projected(and even that… what about… makeup and other optical tricks/filters).
I find it inpossible to come up with a clear ruleset to whats ok and what isnt.
I mean, take this further and shouldn’t we also have to declare that the actors shown are wearing makeup and look different without it? And that the lighting was staged for best look, the sound is all recreated and designed. This was a stage set, and not an actual location. It’s entertainment and advertising. Of course it’s not reality.
Silly, slippery slope IMO.
I think we can all agree that 95% of all people have absolutely no idea that images are being manipulated like this and that that in an of itself is a problem. When we have a family movie night and watch a pre-2000 ish film, my kids said to me “Wow Dad, why do the people in this movie look ‘normal’? And then I realized my kids HARDLY see any pictures that aren’t digitally manipulated. And now with social media, HEAVILY manipulated images direct from overzealous influencers with a $99 a year subscription to Skin Tune are served directly to my kids’ eyeballs.
How is that not more damaging then a “Screen images simulated” legal?
1606, Stratford-upon-Avon, England. First live performance of Macbeth, actor working disclaimer into performance:
“Is this mascara which I see before me?”
in germany we dont even have those.
Apparently they assume people have a bit of common sense.
Norway Vs Derrida (the latter arguing the case for originary prosthesis, or the “prosthesis of origin”)
Cute @GPM but I’m not following your point. An advertiser is legally required to include a “Screen images simulated” on content because…
-Screens don’t photography terribly well
-If we didn’t manipulate screens then nobody would buy this product
-Not knowing that screens are manipulated gives us a false sense of how screens actually look in real life
Now, change “screens” to “humans.”
-Humans don’t photography terribly well
-If we didn’t manipulate humans then nobody would buy this product
-Not knowing that humans are manipulated gives us a false sense of how humans actually look in real life
How is this not a problem?
in germany we dont even have those
I think also in Norway screeninserts don’t have to be labled