MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes  (Read 24622 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #125 on: September 29, 2017, 20:15 »
+4
Why do people think that the some total stranger bureaucrat can do a better job in protecting and educating our kids than us, their loving parents?

Probably because how loving a parent is, is always going to be on a bit of a spectrum, how good a parent they feel they are in comparison with how good a parent they actually are, may vary considerably... and the level of knowledge and education a parent has is also going to vary considerably. Children aren't taken away from their parents on a daily basis just for fun.

You may feel it's important for a child to wear a seat-belt in the car, for example, another person might not... an instance when I think a decent amount of people wouldn't really mind some total stranger bureaucrat making it compulsory.

In fact, it's quite paradoxical to think that nobody can protect or educate better than a child's parents. Take the seat-belt example again. You make your child wear one. Your child goes on a day out with their friend, and their friend's parents. They have no seat-belts in their car and feel that they are protecting and educating their child by not making them wear a seat-belt, for whatever crazy reason.

By your logic, you are doing the right thing in making your child wear a seat-belt. However, by your logic, the other child's parents are also doing the right thing by not making their child wear a seat-belt. It doesn't really compute. Maybe not the best example, but thinking that oneself might be the best person in the world to protect and educate a specific child, purely due to the fact that they are that child's parent... is a bit far-fetched.   


« Reply #126 on: September 30, 2017, 03:09 »
+2
We were allowed to use lard to replace ice cream in a toothpaste commercial, however, because we weren't actually selling ice cream.

According to your logic this fake food deceiving practice must be banned as well!

Let me remind you that skinny models are not selling diet pills but clothes, cars, travel, insurances etc.

Those "ignorant" kids and parents (you want "protected" by complete strangers), will see your fake ice-cream and fake juicy burger and want one for themselves. Maybe another one. And become obese.

This is no different than assuming that the same kids will not want their ice cream nor their burger anymore, when they see a skinny model advertising jeans.

Of course when kids see the ads for burgers and ice cream they'll want it for themselves. That's what advertising is for. To sell stuff to people.

Hey, wanna know a secret? If you live in the USA and you love Clementines, those cute little oranges, you'll be sad to find out that the orange growers of Spain actually grow oranges the same size as our navel oranges. They keep the big ones for themselves, separate out the runts and send them to us, then market them as cute little oranges kids love and charge a premium for them.

We had to argue with the clients for hours because they insisted on putting big oranges in the commercial and we kept explaining that nobody in the USA would recognize them because we're used to getting the tiny ones.

True story.

Nice story. Maybe there is a connection between clementines, tangerines, mandarines, oranges and government fiat, but I don't really see it now.

My point is: once you agree that it is OK to "trick" people to buy ice-cream and burgers based on fake food and poisonous food, it means you must also agree that it is OK "trick" people to buy jeans worn by "fake models" or skinny models.

It is undeniable that all advertisement today is nothing else than fiction, illusion and, in the best case, a metaphor.

Who do you think really believes that, when a woman eats chocolate, she transforms herself in that sensual, voluptuous diva we see on TV? Should the nanny state ban chocolate ads, because they mislead young girls in believing that eating chocolate makes them more attractive, when, in fact, it might lead to obesity?

What are we talking about here? Why do people think that the some total stranger bureaucrat can do a better job in protecting and educating our kids than us, their loving parents?

Somehow you missed the part where laws and regulations were passed to rein advertisers in. You'd never make it shooting assignments for major advertisers, because you'd constantly be ranting about all the laws and regulations we're required to follow, which are much more stringent than an asterisk mentioning the skinny model was retouched to be even skinnier.

I'm not advocating civil disobedience here. Respecting the law is one thing and advocating against it, is a different story. We have to follow these edicts, until we manage to change them.
A few post above I gave a few examples of stupid laws we have to respect. I'm sure that even you will find that, at least some of those, are ridiculous or unnecessary.

I would be interested to know more concrete examples of those restrictions you mentioned.

And I'm still waiting for your opinion in relation to: "Why do people think that some total stranger bureaucrat can do a better job in protecting and educating our kids than us, their loving parents?"

...and if we the government should also ban those chocolate ads featuring voluptuous divas, to protect our kids.
All parents are loving? - ha ha are you aware of the number of child abuse cases where children are killed before the state has a chance to intervene? The world is not as black and white as your philosophy suggests.

« Reply #127 on: September 30, 2017, 08:15 »
0
We were allowed to use lard to replace ice cream in a toothpaste commercial, however, because we weren't actually selling ice cream.

According to your logic this fake food deceiving practice must be banned as well!

Let me remind you that skinny models are not selling diet pills but clothes, cars, travel, insurances etc.

Those "ignorant" kids and parents (you want "protected" by complete strangers), will see your fake ice-cream and fake juicy burger and want one for themselves. Maybe another one. And become obese.

This is no different than assuming that the same kids will not want their ice cream nor their burger anymore, when they see a skinny model advertising jeans.

Of course when kids see the ads for burgers and ice cream they'll want it for themselves. That's what advertising is for. To sell stuff to people.

Hey, wanna know a secret? If you live in the USA and you love Clementines, those cute little oranges, you'll be sad to find out that the orange growers of Spain actually grow oranges the same size as our navel oranges. They keep the big ones for themselves, separate out the runts and send them to us, then market them as cute little oranges kids love and charge a premium for them.

We had to argue with the clients for hours because they insisted on putting big oranges in the commercial and we kept explaining that nobody in the USA would recognize them because we're used to getting the tiny ones.

True story.

Nice story. Maybe there is a connection between clementines, tangerines, mandarines, oranges and government fiat, but I don't really see it now.

My point is: once you agree that it is OK to "trick" people to buy ice-cream and burgers based on fake food and poisonous food, it means you must also agree that it is OK "trick" people to buy jeans worn by "fake models" or skinny models.

It is undeniable that all advertisement today is nothing else than fiction, illusion and, in the best case, a metaphor.

Who do you think really believes that, when a woman eats chocolate, she transforms herself in that sensual, voluptuous diva we see on TV? Should the nanny state ban chocolate ads, because they mislead young girls in believing that eating chocolate makes them more attractive, when, in fact, it might lead to obesity?

What are we talking about here? Why do people think that the some total stranger bureaucrat can do a better job in protecting and educating our kids than us, their loving parents?

Somehow you missed the part where laws and regulations were passed to rein advertisers in. You'd never make it shooting assignments for major advertisers, because you'd constantly be ranting about all the laws and regulations we're required to follow, which are much more stringent than an asterisk mentioning the skinny model was retouched to be even skinnier.

I'm not advocating civil disobedience here. Respecting the law is one thing and advocating against it, is a different story. We have to follow these edicts, until we manage to change them.
A few post above I gave a few examples of stupid laws we have to respect. I'm sure that even you will find that, at least some of those, are ridiculous or unnecessary.

I would be interested to know more concrete examples of those restrictions you mentioned.

And I'm still waiting for your opinion in relation to: "Why do people think that some total stranger bureaucrat can do a better job in protecting and educating our kids than us, their loving parents?"

...and if we the government should also ban those chocolate ads featuring voluptuous divas, to protect our kids.
All parents are loving? - ha ha are you aware of the number of child abuse cases where children are killed before the state has a chance to intervene? The world is not as black and white as your philosophy suggests.

First of all, there is no such thing as "state". The "state" is a product of our collective imagination. In fact, you are talking about politicians, bureaucrats, policemen, most of them perfect strangers. Like you and all of us, these human beings will always protect their own interest first. Believing that they are super-beings who dedicate their life helping others is naive.

In all "philosophies" human life is sacred, the primordial axiom we must comply with. Not sure why you bring murder in discussion here.

The question debated here is the claim that a stranger knows better than you, what is better for you.

It is interesting to see that all those who support this "philosophy" believe it doesn't apply to themselves. It is only for the "others", for those ignorants, who must be coerced to do what we know it is better for them.
Breaking news, you are among those ignorants who must be helped against their will.
Of course, you are NOT free to refuse this unwanted help, when your turn will come, or you'll see you property or freedom confiscated by those strangers.

Down to earth, I am sure you can protect your children better than me and you will never trust me, Zero Talent, to do it, even if I'll tell you that "I only want their well being, believe me"

We need laws to keep our society together.
Of course. Why jumping to such extremes? I'm not advocating chaos and anarchy.
There are shades of gray between all these extreme examples given here.

What I'm saying is that we don't need a "state" to overstep boundaries and "teach" us what we should like, who we can love, etc. Maybe not even who we should be allowed to do business or work with, as long as it is based on mutual consent.

Someone said above that those decisions are made based on elaborate studies. Maybe.
The fact is that such decisions originate first and foremost from self interest and self preservation and maybe after that, from the generosity to dedicate oneself to the general good.

There are laws imposed only because the husband, the wife or the daughter of some politician had an opinion about a topic.
It is very possible that this anti-Photoshop law is one of them.
Several well known American politicians changed their position on gay rights only when a close member of their family came out of the closet.
So much for an "elaborate" decision!
« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 09:11 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #128 on: September 30, 2017, 08:58 »
+1
You are making the assumption that all parents are loving...sadly that is not the case. If everyone were well informed and rational then your model works....it may be just my opinion but I don't think they are.

In circumstances where parents don't care about their kids and where they don't have the knowledge and ability to care then yes "bureaucrats" or Social Workers who in fact normally work closely with the children's family can look after them better. 

I think it is yourself who is drawing general sweeping conclusions from a specific example and now seem to be actually back tracking from the logical conclusions of your own argument.

You use terms such as All and always a lot
"In all "philosophies" human life is sacred, the primordial axiom we must comply with." not so...
"It is interesting to see that all those who support this "philosophy" believe it doesn't apply to themselves. " no evidence to show this is the case






« Reply #129 on: September 30, 2017, 09:21 »
0
You are equally making assumptions that "all" government workers and politicians, "all" their laws are good and will protect us, even against ourselves.

You give the benefit of the doubt to perfect lawmaker strangers, but not to other strangers impacted by them.
You don't trust me Zero Talent, a perfect stranger to you, with the well being of your kids, but if the same me will wear a child protection badge, I will be trusted, no other questions asked.
No, I'm the same Zero Talent, with my values, my biases and my own interests, with or without my child protection badge.

I can give you examples of numerous laws, issued in the name of the greater good, with disastrous consequences for the public, laws that benefited only a marginal few.
Don't expect the embodiment of perfection to admit their product was bad. It is always the fault of something or somebody else. More laws will be issued to fix what was not really broken to start with.

There was nothing really broken before the anti-Photoshop an anti-skinny model law was issued.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 10:12 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #130 on: September 30, 2017, 10:12 »
0
You are equally making assumptions that "all" government workers and politicians, "all" their laws are good and will protect us, even against ourselves.

You give the benefit of the doubt to perfect lawmaker strangers, but not to other strangers impacted by them.
You don't trust me Zero Talent, a perfect stranger to you, with the well being of your kids, but if the same me will wear a child protection badge, I will be trusted, no other questions asked.
No, I'm the same Zero Talent, with my values, my biases and my own interests, with or without my child protection badge.

I can give you examples of numerous laws, issued in the name of the greater good, with disastrous consequences for the public, laws that benefited only a marginal few.
Don't expect the embodiment of perfection to admit their product was bad. It is always the fault of something or somebody else. More laws will be issued to fix what was not really broken to start with.
Where have I ever said all laws or bureaucrats  are good?

« Reply #131 on: September 30, 2017, 10:15 »
0
You are equally making assumptions that "all" government workers and politicians, "all" their laws are good and will protect us, even against ourselves.

You give the benefit of the doubt to perfect lawmaker strangers, but not to other strangers impacted by them.
You don't trust me Zero Talent, a perfect stranger to you, with the well being of your kids, but if the same me will wear a child protection badge, I will be trusted, no other questions asked.
No, I'm the same Zero Talent, with my values, my biases and my own interests, with or without my child protection badge.

I can give you examples of numerous laws, issued in the name of the greater good, with disastrous consequences for the public, laws that benefited only a marginal few.
Don't expect the embodiment of perfection to admit their product was bad. It is always the fault of something or somebody else. More laws will be issued to fix what was not really broken to start with.
Where have I ever said all laws or bureaucrats  are good?

Ok, so you agree we have bad laws and ill intended bureaucrats.
That's exactly what I wanted to hear.

The law debated here is one of them.

« Reply #132 on: September 30, 2017, 10:28 »
+1
You are equally making assumptions that "all" government workers and politicians, "all" their laws are good and will protect us, even against ourselves.

You give the benefit of the doubt to perfect lawmaker strangers, but not to other strangers impacted by them.
You don't trust me Zero Talent, a perfect stranger to you, with the well being of your kids, but if the same me will wear a child protection badge, I will be trusted, no other questions asked.
No, I'm the same Zero Talent, with my values, my biases and my own interests, with or without my child protection badge.

I can give you examples of numerous laws, issued in the name of the greater good, with disastrous consequences for the public, laws that benefited only a marginal few.
Don't expect the embodiment of perfection to admit their product was bad. It is always the fault of something or somebody else. More laws will be issued to fix what was not really broken to start with.
Where have I ever said all laws or bureaucrats  are good?

Ok, so you agree we have bad laws and ill intended bureaucrats.
That's exactly what I wanted to hear.

The law debated here is one of them.
Indeed and we have good laws and well intentioned "bureaucrats" too. This has moved from the particular to the general. Actually I think the particular law that started this is good intentioned but probably will have minimal effect...let's remember all the law states is that the photographer needs to indicate that the image  retouched! If Istock freely choose to impose some other draconian conditions that's for their own commercial reasons.

« Reply #133 on: September 30, 2017, 10:48 »
0
You are equally making assumptions that "all" government workers and politicians, "all" their laws are good and will protect us, even against ourselves.

You give the benefit of the doubt to perfect lawmaker strangers, but not to other strangers impacted by them.
You don't trust me Zero Talent, a perfect stranger to you, with the well being of your kids, but if the same me will wear a child protection badge, I will be trusted, no other questions asked.
No, I'm the same Zero Talent, with my values, my biases and my own interests, with or without my child protection badge.

I can give you examples of numerous laws, issued in the name of the greater good, with disastrous consequences for the public, laws that benefited only a marginal few.
Don't expect the embodiment of perfection to admit their product was bad. It is always the fault of something or somebody else. More laws will be issued to fix what was not really broken to start with.
Where have I ever said all laws or bureaucrats  are good?

Ok, so you agree we have bad laws and ill intended bureaucrats.
That's exactly what I wanted to hear.

The law debated here is one of them.
Indeed and we have good laws and well intentioned "bureaucrats" too. This has moved from the particular to the general. Actually I think the particular law that started this is good intentioned but probably will have minimal effect...let's remember all the law states is that the photographer needs to indicate that the image  retouched! If Istock freely choose to impose some other draconian conditions that's for their own commercial reasons.

No, it a perfect example of "noble intentions" followed by unintended consequences.

The unnecessary "noble intention" was maybe meant to protect kids from starving themselves, or maybe it was not such a "noble intention" after all, if the intent was to protect the egos of some offended family members of some French politician.

The undisputed unintended consequence is that Getty overreacted.

As mentioned in my previous post, it is always someone else's fault. Excuses are easy to find.
It is never the fault of the "good" law, which triggered the "bad" reaction.

How many times greed, laziness commercialism, foreigners, etc must be blamed for the failure of "good" laws and "well intended" politicians?

« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 11:21 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #134 on: September 30, 2017, 11:04 »
0
What Getty do is entirely their responsibility no one elses

« Reply #135 on: September 30, 2017, 11:08 »
0
What Getty do is entirely their responsibility no one elses
I'm afraid this is narrow sighted. It is a common fallacy.
It is very safe to assume that Getty would have never issued this "draconian" restriction, if not pushed by a law.
Laws have consequences.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 11:17 by Zero Talent »

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #136 on: September 30, 2017, 11:24 »
+1
The question debated here is the claim that a stranger knows better than you, what is better for you.

Frequently, the strangers do know what is best for you because they have an external and non-emotional view on the subject.

For example, when stricter laws about safety on the workplace were approved and with a stronger enforcement of their application, there was a huge resistance in the construction industry.

And the resistance wasn't just from the companies because they incurred in extra expenses. Helmets, fluorescent jackets, gloves, protections for the scaffolding and so on. The largest resistance was from the workers themselves who benefited from those measures. They complained about everything, thought that macho men did not need protections in the scaffolding, gloves did not offer protection and made them slower, helments were hot and so on.

The result? After a few years the number of work accidents in the construction dropped continuously, and in an era where the whole country looked like a construction shipyard. So, after a few year the number of accidents, especially deadly ones where a fraction of the original ones with a much larger number of workers in activity!

Those anonymous bureaucrats as you call them, managed to collect information from the national healthcare system, insurances, police and so on, and by observing the best practices already in use internationally ended up to create and impose laws that faced a lot of resistance with fantastic results.

The seat-belt was already mentioned. I had a friend who was absolutely against seat-belts. He argued that in case of accident people would be trapped inside the car and could not escape in case of fire and what not. Well a few years later the seat-belt save my life. Absolutely no doubt about it. A law created by anonymous bureaucrats.

So nothing is perfect and you have a point in some cases where idiotic laws are passed, but generally, reality blows your arguments to pieces.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 11:31 by StockPhotosArt »

« Reply #137 on: September 30, 2017, 11:34 »
+1
Drink Driving is another good example --why should some bureaucrat decide I'm not fit to drive?

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #138 on: September 30, 2017, 11:40 »
+2
There was nothing really broken before the anti-Photoshop an anti-skinny model law was issued.

That is your opinion.

A HUGE amount of professionals in the fashion industry and healthcare system, including the psychology and psychiatric fields disagree absolutely with you.

And those are the opinions of the ones suffering from the abuses and demands of employers, and the people in charge of treating them.

Not like you who's upset because it messes with your photoshop workflow, a few bucks at the end of the month and your amoral work ethic.

« Reply #139 on: September 30, 2017, 11:56 »
0
I haven't been here for many moons, but can't help responding to this.

There are many legitimate reasons why people are over weight. for example... many people who have been sexually abused put on weight to "protect" and hide themselves. And in Canada, it has been stated that 1 in 4 women have been sexually abused at some point in their lives and many do not get help.

Also, thyroid problems often go undetected and can cause weight gain. Quitting smoking leads to weight gain (I know I put on 28 lbs when I quit and it just won't go away - no matter what I do). Alcoholism causes the body to put on weight to absorb the alcohol, but personally, I don't know any alcoholics that are vegan and frequent the gym.

Arthritis and injury can stop peoples ability to exercise, medications like lyrica can make you put of as much as 30 lbs in just three months. Then their are people in their 60s and 70s who just don't have the energy anymore do to aging.

Many people work a 40+ hour week, look after their children, their aging parents, do their own housework, and have to prepare meals that a "family" will all actually eat, all in 15 minutes so these things do not leave time (or money) to go to the gym let alone convincing your children that not eating hamburger helper will save the planet. (it probably would - lol)

Its all fine and dandy to think that all "fatties" can be cured by eating less and an hour at the gym every day, but this is not always true nor feasible. I think tolerance and support, not judgement are necessary. I know obesity is on the rise and is a health issue but we should look at "why" it is, and not stoop to name calling.


« Reply #140 on: September 30, 2017, 12:02 »
0
The question debated here is the claim that a stranger knows better than you, what is better for you.

Frequently, the strangers do know what is best for you because they have an external and non-emotional view on the subject.

For example, when stricter laws about safety on the workplace were approved and with a stronger enforcement of their application, there was a huge resistance in the construction industry.

And the resistance wasn't just from the companies because they incurred in extra expenses. Helmets, fluorescent jackets, gloves, protections for the scaffolding and so on. The largest resistance was from the workers themselves who benefited from those measures. They complained about everything, thought that macho men did not need protections in the scaffolding, gloves did not offer protection and made them slower, helments were hot and so on.

The result? After a few years the number of work accidents in the construction dropped continuously, and in an era where the whole country looked like a construction shipyard. So, after a few year the number of accidents, especially deadly ones where a fraction of the original ones with a much larger number of workers in activity!

Those anonymous bureaucrats as you call them, managed to collect information from the national healthcare system, insurances, police and so on, and by observing the best practices already in use internationally ended up to create and impose laws that faced a lot of resistance with fantastic results.

The seat-belt was already mentioned. I had a friend who was absolutely against seat-belts. He argued that in case of accident people would be trapped inside the car and could not escape in case of fire and what not. Well a few years later the seat-belt save my life. Absolutely no doubt about it. A law created by anonymous bureaucrats.

So nothing is perfect and you have a point in some cases where idiotic laws are passed, but generally, reality blows your arguments to pieces.

Safety is a valid concern, indeed.
Not really linked to law discussed here and its consequences, but it is a valid point.

Mind you that I'm not arguing against traffic laws and other common sense laws. I repeat that we need rules to enable cooperation between society members.

What I'm against is laws invading my privacy and blocking my rights to take my own decisions, good or bad. I was wearing seat belts before it was mandated by laws. Same with my kid, when it was not mandatory for backseats. I paid premiums to buy cars with all airbags and safety gadgets included, even those not mandated by laws.

But, if I want to die, please allow me this right.
 
I am aware this is a sensitive debate and this discussion deviates in an extreme way, but you are addressing a principle and a difficult question.

Several European countries allow euthanasia.
Why not blocking it, for the benefit of those wishing to die?
Shouldn't these countries stop enforcing air-bags and seat belts, if they already allow people to take their own lives?
Not an easy answer, but a valid question from a principle point of view.

The other point you make here is related to the cost of safety.

Here is a good debate about these principles:
https://youtu.be/Ob1msCnHqIQ

There was tremendous progress made in work safety, since the industrial revolution, progress that saved countless lives, without being triggered by laws, but by unions, public opinion and from pure economical reasons.

The fact that I was fined $85, for "my own safety", while running in a park, after sunset, instead of endangering myself on a busy road, with no sidewalks and no lights, is an example of stupid laws made and enforced by strangers who thought they know better what is safe for me.
Moreover, I had to stay in bed, missing a week from work, because I got a cold, while waiting, all sweaty on a cold winter night, for that enforcer to verify my ID. I was really "protected" by that law, indeed!
« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 12:28 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #141 on: September 30, 2017, 12:27 »
0
"There was tremendous progress made in work safety, since the industrial revolution, progress that saved countless lives, without being triggered by laws, but by unions, public opinion and from pure economical reasons." How have you managed to factor out the huge amount of Health and Safety at Work Legislation that was being enacted at the same time to derive this conclusion?

http://www.historyofosh.org.uk/timeline.html
« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 12:32 by Pauws99 »


StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #142 on: September 30, 2017, 12:29 »
+1
But protecting the models from the pressure of the agencies and fashion designers to lose weight down to dangerous levels are safety laws. Safety laws specific for their profession.

In the case of the Construction Industry, many workers who agreed with the safety laws and wanted to comply with the them suffered pressure from the employers to keep up with the speed of execution. The workers argued that the gloves slowed them down just a bit but their bosses pressured so much that many didn't want to work with gloves so they didn't lose the job. The construction is a very precarious profession most of the time.

In the case of the fashion industry, the models don't starve themselves to dangerous levels voluntarily just for the fun of it. They are pressured to do it and the consequences became an unacceptable professional hazard, needing regulation. Plus, it has showed to have consequences to the rest of society, which worsens the case.

Each profession has its risks, and many of those risks report directly to unscrupulous employers. It the obligation of the state to protect those workers through safety laws.

« Reply #143 on: September 30, 2017, 12:45 »
0
"There was tremendous progress made in work safety, since the industrial revolution, progress that saved countless lives, without being triggered by laws, but by unions, public opinion and from pure economical reasons." How have you managed to factor out the huge amount of Health and Safety at Work Legislation that was being enacted at the same time to derive this conclusion?

I didn't factor it out. The same way you can't factor out what I just said.

The first example that comes to my mind: "Intellectuals" by Paul Johnson. It is a good read and you can see how he is debunking Marx, for claiming that the British factory worker was oppressed by the capitalist owners and forced to work in dangerous conditions. While this might have been true 30 years before Marx made that assertion, those very capitalist "oppressors" realised that it is not economically good to have work accidents. Simply because it degrades morale and productivity and it is expensive to replace qualified workers and train new ones. Hard to digest, but true! No laws triggered these work conditions improvements. This is maybe why marxism didn't succeed in England, as Marx has hoped for, but in a much less developed Russia, something Marx himself never considered.

Examples can continue: neither the safety belt nor the air-bag were invented by bureaucrats, but by private companies with no mandate from bureaucrats.

Have you considered that maybe the companies that have invented those expensive (back then) safety devices, have lobbied governments to impose these regulations, to obtain an advantage over their competitors forced to play catch-up and buy patents? It turned out to be a good law, but maybe it was not the bureaucrat concern with the public good who made it, but rather his own interest and private innovation. 

Or maybe how many innovations never materialised because of artificial regulations?
And drug safety is a great example: how many had to die while waiting for FDA to approve some blood pressure drug, already available in Europe and elsewhere?
« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 13:13 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #144 on: September 30, 2017, 12:52 »
0
But protecting the models from the pressure of the agencies and fashion designers to lose weight down to dangerous levels are safety laws. Safety laws specific for their profession.

In the case of the fashion industry, the models don't starve themselves to dangerous levels voluntarily just for the fun of it. They are pressured to do it and the consequences became an unacceptable professional hazard, needing regulation. Plus, it has showed to have consequences to the rest of society, which worsens the case.

I am afraid that healthy models, who didn't have to starve themselves to comply with the current beauty standards, because they had Photoshop to "help" them, will not have this option anymore.
These otherwise healthy models, might have to start starving themselves to keep their jobs, or accept what can be considered "shaming", when publishers are forced to specify that retouching was applied. Or undergo liposuction and cosmetic surgery to avoid the embarrassment.

Since you talked about safety, what is safer: the scalpel and starving or Photoshop?

Again: a law meant to do good, will end-up doing the opposite.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 12:57 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #145 on: September 30, 2017, 13:18 »
+2
Quote
What was the original title? I missed it.

Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images.

lol. what.

This whole thread ... lol

Personally, I don't edit people's body or shapes but, I did give a guy new teeth a few weeks ago :/ I'm not sure why anyone cares much about this rule ... find models that portray your message ... or just simply not submit to Getty ...

« Reply #146 on: September 30, 2017, 13:29 »
0
"There was tremendous progress made in work safety, since the industrial revolution, progress that saved countless lives, without being triggered by laws, but by unions, public opinion and from pure economical reasons." How have you managed to factor out the huge amount of Health and Safety at Work Legislation that was being enacted at the same time to derive this conclusion?

I didn't factor it out. The same way you can't factor out what I just said.


So in other words you have no evidence that the huge strides in health and safety weren't a result of Health and Safety legislation....I didn't suggest they were or weren't just asking for evidence of your assertion...

Shelma1

« Reply #147 on: September 30, 2017, 13:47 »
+1
But protecting the models from the pressure of the agencies and fashion designers to lose weight down to dangerous levels are safety laws. Safety laws specific for their profession.

In the case of the fashion industry, the models don't starve themselves to dangerous levels voluntarily just for the fun of it. They are pressured to do it and the consequences became an unacceptable professional hazard, needing regulation. Plus, it has showed to have consequences to the rest of society, which worsens the case.

I am afraid that healthy models, who didn't have to starve themselves to comply with the current beauty standards, because they had Photoshop to "help" them, will not have this option anymore.
These otherwise healthy models, might have to start starving themselves to keep their jobs, or accept what can be considered "shaming", when publishers are forced to specify that retouching was applied. Or undergo liposuction and cosmetic surgery to avoid the embarrassment.

Since you talked about safety, what is safer: the scalpel and starving or Photoshop?

Again: a law meant to do good, will end-up doing the opposite.

Well, you're a guy who thinks he should be allowed to drive drunk and put everyone else on the road at risk, so there's that.  ::)

After all, why should hundreds of thousands of people be spared from being killed in drunk driving accidents when YOU want to drive drunk? You, the world's most responsible parent, who knows what's right for his kids. Like driving them around while drunk.

You also keep pretending women will now have to START starving themselves, when the problem is that this has already been happening for a long time, and the law in question requires models to have a safe BMIin other words, to STOP starving themselves. The Photoshop label is there to show other young women that "liquified" images are not real, so they'll stop trying to starve themselves too.

It's been explained to you 50 times now.

« Reply #148 on: September 30, 2017, 13:56 »
0
"And drug safety is a great example: how many had to die while waiting for FDA to approve some blood pressure drug, already available in Europe and elsewhere?" So are you saying there should be no Drug Regulation....or better Drug Regulation? I think most people agree there should be better laws

« Reply #149 on: September 30, 2017, 13:58 »
0
"There was tremendous progress made in work safety, since the industrial revolution, progress that saved countless lives, without being triggered by laws, but by unions, public opinion and from pure economical reasons." How have you managed to factor out the huge amount of Health and Safety at Work Legislation that was being enacted at the same time to derive this conclusion?

I didn't factor it out. The same way you can't factor out what I just said.


So in other words you have no evidence that the huge strides in health and safety weren't a result of Health and Safety legislation....I didn't suggest they were or weren't just asking for evidence of your assertion...

Then we agree.
While legislation has a contribution, indeed, the origin is not a good idea or the good will of politicians and bureaucrats, as most tend to believe.
A lot of it originates from pressure coming from:
- unions forcing those bureaucrats to issue regulation in exchange for votes and more rules to protect their jobs against their fellow labor market competitors.
- private companies lobbying for legislation working in their advantage, in exchange for funding election campaigns or granting lucrative jobs to those bureaucrats once their mandate expires.
- pure economical reasons and competition on the labor market.

To highlight this last point, let me share that I have 6 weeks of vacation, in a country with no mandatory paid leave granted to employees.
My company offers even 3 weeks of paternity leave, in a country where not even all women are granted paid maternity leave, by law.
A lot of work implying risk is made through third parties, instead of jeopardising the safety of the regular workforce.
These are just a few examples highlighting how in a competitive market (still far from being "free", not even in US) modern safety practices are protecting employees, beyond what law mandates.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 14:30 by Zero Talent »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
4130 Views
Last post April 20, 2007, 15:32
by a.k.a.-tom
5 Replies
4630 Views
Last post November 06, 2009, 04:23
by FD
52 Replies
10492 Views
Last post July 01, 2012, 18:40
by OM
2 Replies
1874 Views
Last post February 02, 2013, 22:22
by disorderly
989 Replies
92532 Views
Last post March 18, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results