pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes  (Read 7757 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #175 on: October 02, 2017, 15:16 »
0
Just because there's a problem at one end of the spectrum (obesity) doesn't mean there isn't also a problem at the other (anorexia and bulimia).

Let me paraphrase you: "Just because there's a problem at one end of the spectrum (alcoholism) doesn't mean there isn't also a problem at the other (hyponatremia)"

According to your logic, the "state" should also regulate drinking water sales and advertising, because some might end-up drinking too much water and die.
Such law could sound like: no one should buy more than, let's say 6 bottles of water, at once. How would you feel about such laws meant to protect YOU from the danger of hyponatremia?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318619.php

I'm fully aware this might be an extreme example but it highlights a principle.

The other end of the spectrum from alcoholism is abstaining from drinking alcohol, not hyponatremia. So your principle is out the window.

Ha, Ha! What a great argument!
Water is actually at the other end, if you consider the percentage of alcohol in a liquid. Pure alcohol is at one end of the spectrum, while water is, obviously, at the other end. But analogies, metaphors and principles work only for those able to cope with basic abstractions.

Nevertheless, even without being gifted with this power, according to your logic, you must ask your "nanny state" tot issue laws regulating selling and advertising water, because you can really die from water intoxication. Obviously you need that "benevolent entity" to protect you, from yourself.

"analogies, metaphors and principles work only for those able to cope with basic abstractions."

Says the genius who thinks alcoholism is created by drinking pure alcohol. And that consuming too much water is caused by it not containing alcohol.  ::)

Ok, take that, if you insist, since this was not the point. I admit alcoholism is not about drinking pure alcohol! Wow, how could I even think that?

Regardless of my "poor understanding"  :o of what alcoholism means and independent from the above paraphrase, to stay true to your logic, you still must ask your "nanny state" to issue laws regulating selling and advertising water.

You can really die from water intoxication. No metaphor, no paraphrase, no abstraction involved.

Obviously you need that "benevolent entity" to protect you, from yourself.
I think if there were a major Public Health issue around people dying from water intoxication they would. I think in this never ending circle you did say some laws are necessary. Most people are pragmatic and don't take extreme examples and derive a manifestly absurd conclusion.

True.

Similar to your argument, I doubt there is a "major Public Health issue" for people looking at photoshoped models advertised without retouching disclaimers.

Therefore there is as much need for this anti-photoshop/skinny models law, as there is for laws aimed to regulate water intoxication, sunbathing, etc or other such innocent activities, which might lead to death, in case of abuse.
Possibly....but why do you persist in drawing the sweeping conclusions?


« Reply #176 on: October 02, 2017, 17:49 »
0
Have you maybe considered that I might lose money?
That I might be good at making regular models look as the public and advertisers want?
That I might not afford to pay skinny or fit models, only regular?
That skinny and fit models might even ask a premium now, knowing that their competition has shrunk?
That my normal looking models might also lose money?
What about that?
« Last Edit: October 02, 2017, 17:53 by Zero Talent »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #177 on: October 03, 2017, 03:23 »
0
I would have thought that was everyone's first thought. When it comes to work related stuff, my usual thoughts when it comes to any changed in the rules, are what will it cost it me. Whether that be time or money. Depends on how ethical/unethical were talking... but more often than not, my financial concerns Donald my ethical ones.

« Reply #178 on: October 06, 2017, 13:46 »
+1
I am not French. I don't live in France. I don't care what French do there or anywhere. But, I do care that Getty is making a worldwide movement to appease French! I would just not offer those kind of images to a French market. Photographer willing to go extra mile will supply that market but why does Getty restricts selling those images to, say, US market? They don't care for additional paperwork.

« Reply #179 on: October 08, 2017, 16:35 »
0
Not only the French government is good at issuing stupid laws.
In US, we suffer from a similar over-regulation tendency.
Bill Maher said it well this weekend: https://youtu.be/jnb9k4DfzMw

Shelma1

« Reply #180 on: October 08, 2017, 18:52 »
0
Yeah, saving babies' lives is soooo not worth it.

« Reply #181 on: October 08, 2017, 19:26 »
+2
Yeah, saving babies' lives is soooo not worth it.

You don't get it and your reaction is no surprise to me!  ::)

Following your line of thought, the next step for you is to advocate for a "Baby Bubble Wrapping Act", as suggested by Maher, and make baby bubble wrapping mandatory for everybody at home and everywhere else. Home accidents are very frequent. Even more frequent than "hot car" accidents. Such law will save a lot of babies.  ::)

Or maybe even better: we need an law to take all babies away from their parents since only your "nanny state" (pun intended) can be trusted with their whole upbringing and education. This is will definitely solve all these accidents, protecting babies from their irresponsible genetic parents, including from those prone to forget them in a "hot car"!

Because the nanny state is the perfect parent.

Nineteen Eighty-Four!
« Last Edit: October 08, 2017, 19:50 by Zero Talent »

Shelma1

« Reply #182 on: October 08, 2017, 20:16 »
0
I understand your outrage. I mean, you have every right to be angry and paranoid about a light on your dashboard that you'll never notice and that will never go on unless you leave a baby in the back seat of your car. It's worse than the shooting in Vegas!

« Reply #183 on: October 08, 2017, 21:07 »
+1
I understand your outrage. I mean, you have every right to be angry and paranoid about a light on your dashboard that you'll never notice and that will never go on unless you leave a baby in the back seat of your car. It's worse than the shooting in Vegas!

In case you didn't watch all Maher's monologue, I'll subtitle it for you:

"No one is for leaving babies in hot cars! It's just common sense tells most people this is an issue of personal responsibilities, especially when the liberal solution to your human frailty is me paying more for crap that can break in my car.

Thanks government! We'll get to gun control later!
(<=since you mentioned Vegas)

And that's the point: We do need regulation!
Oh yes! For big things! Real Things! Like guns and carbon emissions and banks...

But when Democrats get to regulating everything, regulation itself gets a bad name.

And I don't want the right-wing to own freedom!

Yes, I understand you have a thousands good ideas for how I should live my life, check my privilege and sort my recycling...  :D But first we need to get some Democrats elected. And that's hard when the movement to childproof the world has made Republicans the party of Freedom and the Democrats the party of poopers!


Shelma1

« Reply #184 on: October 09, 2017, 07:35 »
0
I watched it. I like Maher. I think he was grasping for something, anything to criticize Democrats about because everyone's piling on the Republicans now, with good reason. I think the bit was a real stretch, and unfortunately not very funny. There are studies showing why parents leave their kids to die in hot cars...has nothing to do with common sense.

BTW, GM already started adding rear seat sensors to its cars in 2016. So whatever you do, don't buy a General Motors car.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2017, 07:37 by Shelma1 »

« Reply #185 on: October 09, 2017, 10:26 »
0
I watched it. I like Maher. I think he was grasping for something, anything to criticize Democrats about because everyone's piling on the Republicans now, with good reason. I think the bit was a real stretch, and unfortunately not very funny. There are studies showing why parents leave their kids to die in hot cars...has nothing to do with common sense.

BTW, GM already started adding rear seat sensors to its cars in 2016. So whatever you do, don't buy a General Motors car.

You really don't get it, do you?  :o

Nobody has problems with GM adding additional safety features on their cars!
You see... there is a big difference: GM added these features, without your nanny state forcing them them to do so!

A lot of car manufacturers sell a lot of additional safety features like: lane keep assist, collision control, etc, without being mandated. They do that because the market is ready to pay for safety, not because some bureaucrat forced them to do so!

BTW, do you have collision control, lane keep assist, automatic front pedestrian braking, dynamic radar cruise control and all available safety features on your car?

If you have them, congratulations! But most probably you don't.

Why not? Because you could save your own life and the life of people trusting your driving skills.
You must be consistent with your beliefs. If you want others to pay for extra safety, why don't you show us a good example and buy only top of the line, super-safe cars?

I'll tell you why: because you probably considered that all these features are too expensive (duh) and you can manage the risk of not having them.

Nevertheless, in your world, the government should force you to pay many thousands of dollars extra, for these additional safety features, against your will.

Did you even considered that a collision control might save more lives (including baby lives) than the hot car feature?

Why not regulating the collision control first? Even more: why not mandating all the above mentioned safety features? There are many studies proving that all these features are saving many lives!

See above for the answer, and watch Bill Maher again, to understand why, as a registered democrat, your line of thought is anti-freedom and counter-productive.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2017, 10:44 by Zero Talent »

Shelma1

« Reply #186 on: October 09, 2017, 11:37 »
0
Lol. I hope you weren't around when the government forced automakers to include seat belts. Don't drive in New Jersey...we have primary enforcement here.

« Reply #187 on: October 09, 2017, 12:00 »
0
Lol. I hope you weren't around when the government forced automakers to include seat belts. Don't drive in New Jersey...we have primary enforcement here.

You do enjoy your sophisms, don't you?

The seat belt is such an obvious and affordable safety feature, these days, most of us would pay for it, without thinking twice. It would have become a de-facto standard anyway, with or without government mandate.

Yet, you fail to explain why you don't already have collision control, lane keep assist, automatic front pedestrian braking, dynamic radar cruise control on your car.
 
You clearly need a nanny to do force you to do what is definitely good for you and your kids  :P

Shelma1

« Reply #188 on: October 09, 2017, 14:30 »
0
"A number of groups and individuals are opposed to seat belt legislation. The most common grounds for opposition are:

    The view that laws requiring the wearing of seat belts are an infringement of individual liberty."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation

« Reply #189 on: October 09, 2017, 15:38 »
0
"A number of groups and individuals are opposed to seat belt legislation. The most common grounds for opposition are:

    The view that laws requiring the wearing of seat belts are an infringement of individual liberty."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation

It doesn't necessarily mean that they are against seat belts. Most of them are most probably responsible persons, who understand that it is healthy to wear a seat belt

On the other hand, following your logic, it looks to me that, while you favor seat belt legislation, you are opposing collision control, lane keep assist, automatic front pedestrian braking, dynamic radar cruise control legislation, since you don't ask your state to enforce these features on you and the rest of us.

But, I am sure your are not against those expensive life saving features, are you?

You only decided that these features are too expensive for you. As simple as that!
You probably consider yourself a responsible driver who can manage the risks of not having additional expensive life saving features on your car.

So back to the original anti-Photoshop legislation and to Bill Maher's monologue: you don't have to regulate, as he put it, everything, do you?
« Last Edit: October 09, 2017, 15:43 by Zero Talent »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
3327 Views
Last post April 20, 2007, 15:32
by a.k.a.-tom
5 Replies
3218 Views
Last post November 06, 2009, 04:23
by FD
52 Replies
7477 Views
Last post July 01, 2012, 18:40
by OM
2 Replies
801 Views
Last post February 02, 2013, 22:22
by disorderly
989 Replies
62106 Views
Last post March 18, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors