MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes  (Read 23918 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

« Reply #25 on: September 26, 2017, 06:37 »
+4
Quote
What was the original title? I missed it.

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

Which was so rich coming from the person who only last week claimed to want people to be judged according to the content of their character.


niktol

« Reply #26 on: September 26, 2017, 06:55 »
+1
This new rule sounds excessive. It doesn't affect me though in the least. Unless they introduce some kind of a figure drawing proportions police.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2017, 07:08 by niktol »

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #27 on: September 26, 2017, 08:19 »
+4
Quote
Which was so rich coming from the person who only last week claimed to want people to be judged according to the content of their character.

It was one of those Daily Mirror type headlines just to get the people's attention. A harmless joke.   :P

Did anybody here get offended?

« Reply #28 on: September 26, 2017, 08:44 »
+1
Quote
Which was so rich coming from the person who only last week claimed to want people to be judged according to the content of their character.

It was one of those Daily Mirror type headlines just to get the people's attention. A harmless joke.   :P

Did anybody here get offended?
Not offended but didn't feel it was particularly professional or considerate of others points of view

« Reply #29 on: September 26, 2017, 09:51 »
+4
The problem is, if they add a checkbox "this model was retouched", then probably nearly everything in their databank will probably get hit.

Sending out a nasty sounding legal email puts the legal responsibility on all photographers and they can claim to their customers everything coming in now is following the French guideline.

It puts the onus on us and makes it easy for them.

Programming a new checkbox for upload, adding a notice to images in france - how are they going to do that...it will take them years..

This is the fastest way to solve the problem for them. One email and officially it is all over.

What will other agencies do?

Personally I believe it should be clear that all creative content might be edited...it is creative after all...if you want the real world, buy editorial.

or pay for a custom shoot.

The law is well intentioned, but silly, why should a model not want to edit her image if she wants to? People use make up, they use clothes, some even photoshop lizard skin on, why not?

Caricature, art, satire? How does French law handle that?


« Reply #30 on: September 26, 2017, 09:57 »
+2
The problem is, if they add a checkbox "this model was retouched", then probably nearly everything in their databank will probably get hit.

Sending out a nasty sounding legal email puts the legal responsibility on all photographers and they can claim to their customers everything coming in now is following the French guideline.

It puts the onus on us and makes it easy for them.

Programming a new checkbox for upload, adding a notice to images in france - how are they going to do that...it will take them years..

This is the fastest way to solve the problem for them. One email and officially it is all over.

What will other agencies do?

Personally I believe it should be clear that all creative content might be edited...it is creative after all...if you want the real world, buy editorial.

or pay for a custom shoot.

The law is well intentioned, but silly, why should a model not want to edit her image if she wants to? People use make up, they use clothes, some even photoshop lizard skin on, why not?

Caricature, art, satire? How does French law handle that?
I reckon it will be a profitable playground for lawyers.....sounds complex and hard to enforce.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #31 on: September 27, 2017, 05:42 »
+3
Quote
The problem is, if they add a checkbox "this model was retouched", then probably nearly everything in their databank will probably get hit.

Sending out a nasty sounding legal email puts the legal responsibility on all photographers and they can claim to their customers everything coming in now is following the French guideline.

It puts the onus on us and makes it easy for them.

Programming a new checkbox for upload, adding a notice to images in france - how are they going to do that...it will take them years..

This is the fastest way to solve the problem for them. One email and officially it is all over.

What will other agencies do?

Personally I believe it should be clear that all creative content might be edited...it is creative after all...if you want the real world, buy editorial.

or pay for a custom shoot.

The law is well intentioned, but silly, why should a model not want to edit her image if she wants to? People use make up, they use clothes, some even photoshop lizard skin on, why not?

Caricature, art, satire? How does French law handle that?

I agree with the above. The law goes too far and typical of "nanny states", although the intentions are great it hurts the very people who they're trying to protect and imposes unnecessary burdens on industries.

I've been reading up on the law and some requirements are shocking (not for us but for the models):

- Models in France will have to undergo a medical examination every two years and be issued with a medical certificate certifying that their they are in good enough health to work according to their BMI. The World Health Organization considers a person underweight if their BMI is below 18.5 and seriously underweight if it is below 16.

Some people are naturally slim with super high metabolism and it doesn't mean that they're unhealthy.

------

What I find most puzzling of all is that a "nanny state" wants to change society's views in an artificial way. There's a demand for skinny girls and guys because that's what many in Western society want and expect (although I believe this trend is also prevalent in East Asia). In many parts of the world, including large parts of Africa, a woman is considered beautiful if she has massive curves.

Should overweight models also need certificates? The pendulum could easily swing the other way with regulators chasing their tail to catch up, as usual...

Then there's the concept that commercial photography is supposed to reflect reality. These policy-makers are confusing editorial with commercial. Since when are commercial images supposed to be realistic? Ok, fair enough that the scope of the law is narrow and only covers models' body shapes but that's how these things start...soon they'll want to start regulating ANY retouched images which will have to carry a notice for fear someone may be offended at some sort of "misrepresentation".

It's the politically correct times we live in and it shows on this forum when I tried to make a light joke about the matter and some people jumped on me for the use of the word "fatty". Let's not be Trumpish but meet somewhere halfway.

« Last Edit: September 27, 2017, 05:50 by Brasilnut »

« Reply #32 on: September 27, 2017, 06:00 »
+3
Quote
Which was so rich coming from the person who only last week claimed to want people to be judged according to the content of their character.

It was one of those Daily Mirror type headlines just to get the people's attention. A harmless joke.   :P

Did anybody here get offended?


Coming from someone trying to sell books and teach others, I would say pretty unprofessional. It's never funny or harmless to make jokes at someone elses expense. But I know, you were just trying to be one of the guys.  ::) 



Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #33 on: September 27, 2017, 06:01 »
0
Quote
But I know, you were just trying to be one of the guys. 

"Locker room talk"  8)

ShadySue

« Reply #34 on: September 27, 2017, 06:07 »
+3
It's the politically correct times we live in and it shows on this forum when I tried to make a light joke about the matter and some people jumped on me for the use of the word "fatty". Let's not be Trumpish but meet somewhere halfway.
It's far more Trumpish to be derogatory about a shape you don't like than to defend diversity.

H*ck, it's not even a new debate. Susie Orbach wrote Fat is a Feminist Issue in 1978.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/oct/11/gender.society
« Last Edit: September 27, 2017, 06:13 by ShadySue »

« Reply #35 on: September 27, 2017, 06:23 »
+4
Quote
But I know, you were just trying to be one of the guys. 

"Locker room talk"  8)
This isn't a locker room though. If you took some time to understand the audience on here you would see that many would consider this inappropriate. Learn the lesson and stop digging the hole ;-)

« Reply #36 on: September 27, 2017, 07:07 »
+4
Don't the lawmakers in France have more important issues to work on?  Like poverty, crime and terrorism? 


ShadySue

« Reply #37 on: September 27, 2017, 07:32 »
0
Don't the lawmakers in France have more important issues to work on?  Like poverty, crime and terrorism?
Crime and terrorism are up to the law enforcers, though maybe some laws could be tweaked.
Poverty, I don't know enough about France to know about how the law could impact on that and what's being done/in the pipelines.
However, at least in developed countries, progress moves in a broad front.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #38 on: September 27, 2017, 08:55 »
+5
I live in Italy and I'm looking to sign up to a new gym for a membership now that winter is coming and won't be able to bike. You know what, there's a government requirement that all new applicants to gyms must have a certificate from a doctor that they're in good health before they can sign up. Which is strange because why do most people join gyms anyway?  ???

So, I went to this stupid doctor and got the certificate which cost me 40 euros. All the test was to check I had a pulse and could breathe. Seriously? I bet you that the Italian medical profession lobbied to have this regulation put in place as another form of stealth tax.

Another nanny state strikes again!

« Reply #39 on: September 27, 2017, 08:56 »
+3
I think they should be consistent. Why is it ok to fix someone's nose in photoshop (or replace human head with the head of a moose) but not retouch somebody's body shape? What does it even mean? Does it mean that you can enlarge somebody's boobs if you don't make their waistline narrower? Or is it ok to retouch their feet because feet are not considered "body shape"? What happens if the model is a poodle or a cat? Is it ok to make the cat fat or the dog skinny?

What are they even aiming at? Why is it "bad" to make somebody look fat or skinny? That's how people are anyway. How about retouching eyes and lips and jawline? Doesn't that make people want go to needless cosmetic surgeries?

Where do they actually draw the line?




ShadySue

« Reply #40 on: September 27, 2017, 09:06 »
0
^^ No, you can't enlarge their boobs as the law says you can't make the person wider or narrower.

(In real life what would probably happen is that they'll only cast models with the exact looks they want)
« Last Edit: September 27, 2017, 11:51 by ShadySue »

Shelma1

« Reply #41 on: September 27, 2017, 11:42 »
+5
Sheesh. Calm down, people. This law was enacted because models are under pressure to make themselves alarmingly and unhealthily thin. There's no "demand" for that other than from male fashion designers who like their clothes to drape nicely over a pretty coat hanger so their pristine seams aren't muddled by a woman's natural curves.

They're just asking photographers not to make women appear so thin they'd basically be dead in reality.

Nobody's asking you not to retouch out wrinkles, bags, stray hairs or pimples.

If a "nanny state" saves young women's lives by forcing male designers not to starve them to death, then bring on the nannies.


StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #42 on: September 27, 2017, 12:21 »
+3
Sorry for the long post.

Some of the people against this decision are missing the whole point of it.

This is meant to protect children, teenagers and young adults to prevent they try to comply with unreal body shapes.

And in case you haven't noticed it (maybe you are asleep the whole time), children, teenagers and even young adults are extremely easy to influence. Plus they are not the brightest people when determining what is real or not since they are really inexperienced in life (Doooh!).

And to worsen all they easily adopt risky habits because they are forming their personality and finding their place in the world through trial and error most of the times. The problem is, there are some dangerous errors which are hard to recover from.

To look at this question just from the viewpoint of the adult models and what they want or do not want, allow or not,  the ability of people to know what has been photoshopped or not when they look at a picture, is absolutely narrow minded and egotistic.

I actually think it borderlines a somewhat worrying lack of empathy ability...

I had three female friends that almost died from anorexia. Another one escape because despite being very, very skinny the agency (one of the top ones in my country) wanted her to loose several more kilos. She gave up her career because she did not want to destroy her health.

So I totally agree with this law and decision.

As for the misandrist comments in this post I can only classify them as despicable, since society is made by men and women and in my personal experience women are as machist, bigots and as cruel (or more) than men when it comes to attack other women.

And what happens in the fashion industry does not reflect the choice of "male fashion designers". It reflects the choice of a lot of people that are physically men but actually do not like women and prefer an androgen look where female features are erased.

I never met a man that actually likes women to prefer a female skeleton over a well built and healthy woman with curves were they are supposed to be. In fact, if there's a skew in choice it's for the larger women instead of the skinnier ones.

So leave men out of this and focus on the constant name calling and shaming women are so keen on making over each other.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2017, 12:43 by StockPhotosArt »

« Reply #43 on: September 27, 2017, 14:24 »
+5
Some of the people against this decision are missing the whole point of it.

This is meant to protect children, teenagers and young adults to prevent they try to comply with unreal body shapes.

I'm afraid obesity plagues western society much more than anorexia.
This law will not only work against most models' interest (as explained in a previous post), but might also encourage even more unhealthy eating patterns with the general public.
We should probably be more concerned with the majority of children, teenagers and young adults becoming overweight, instead of "trying to comply with unreal body shapes"

A classic example of idealistic good intentions from a nanny state, followed by brutal unintended consequences in the real world.

PS.I have no problem if Justin Bieber wants his fans to believe his "package" is bigger than it is.  ;D
https://petapixel.com/2015/01/09/unretouched-photo-justin-biebers-calvin-klein-shoot-reveals-photoshop-enhancements/
The size of his penis (or his hands) is definitely NOT a matter a government should be concerned with!  ;D (although it is true that the size of our presidential hands is a matter of national interest these days!)
Bieber can be sued for false advertisement  ;) through the regular legislation, if anyone has a problem with "that"!
« Last Edit: September 27, 2017, 14:56 by Zero Talent »

Shelma1

« Reply #44 on: September 27, 2017, 14:52 »
+1
Sorry for the long post.

Some of the people against this decision are missing the whole point of it.

This is meant to protect children, teenagers and young adults to prevent they try to comply with unreal body shapes.

And in case you haven't noticed it (maybe you are asleep the whole time), children, teenagers and even young adults are extremely easy to influence. Plus they are not the brightest people when determining what is real or not since they are really inexperienced in life (Doooh!).

And to worsen all they easily adopt risky habits because they are forming their personality and finding their place in the world through trial and error most of the times. The problem is, there are some dangerous errors which are hard to recover from.

To look at this question just from the viewpoint of the adult models and what they want or do not want, allow or not,  the ability of people to know what has been photoshopped or not when they look at a picture, is absolutely narrow minded and egotistic.

I actually think it borderlines a somewhat worrying lack of empathy ability...

I had three female friends that almost died from anorexia. Another one escape because despite being very, very skinny the agency (one of the top ones in my country) wanted her to loose several more kilos. She gave up her career because she did not want to destroy her health.

So I totally agree with this law and decision.

As for the misandrist comments in this post I can only classify them as despicable, since society is made by men and women and in my personal experience women are as machist, bigots and as cruel (or more) than men when it comes to attack other women.

And what happens in the fashion industry does not reflect the choice of "male fashion designers". It reflects the choice of a lot of people that are physically men but actually do not like women and prefer an androgen look where female features are erased.

I never met a man that actually likes women to prefer a female skeleton over a well built and healthy woman with curves were they are supposed to be. In fact, if there's a skew in choice it's for the larger women instead of the skinnier ones.

So leave men out of this and focus on the constant name calling and shaming women are so keen on making over each other.

I didn't say "men;" I said "male fashion designers." in fact, I specifically pointed out that there is really no call for that look from anyone other than fashion designers, and that rest of the world other than fashion designers includes men. So you basically repeated and expanded on what I said yet claimed misandry on my part.   ::)

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #45 on: September 27, 2017, 15:02 »
0
I'm afraid obesity plagues western society much more than anorexia.

I don't understand how you interpret this law as a promotion of obesity, instead of a fight against eating disorders, no matter which ones, anorexia or obesity.

This law does not force you to hire obese models! Where is that written? What it does is force you to chose healthy looking models. As simple as that. Go scout models in the gym instead of the toilets for girls throwing up!

I think you and others are over-dramatizing this issue and blowing out of proportion something that's only in your head.

Plus you try to sound like a defender of the current hyper-skinny models, when I'm pretty sure most of them will be extremely happy to be able to eat more normally. Honestly I do not believe you are worried with the models future. You sound like you only care about the manipulation you are allowed to make on the images to get an extra buck.

Sorry, but that "model's defense" attitude some of here claim have less than noble objectives.

Believe me, I'm extremely critical of the obesity plague that's hitting my country also. I'm not very sympathetic to all the BS excuses most of all those people invent. Suddenly they "barely" eat and all suffer from hormonal problems (LOL).

If the fashion and advertising industry simply promote normal or athletic looking girls. What's wrong with that? Man prefer them anyway and teen girls will not feel the need to starve to look like them!

Just look at the women parading in the Rio Carnaval. Men all over the world drool at the slightest image of them. How many anorexic and obese parade there as Rainha da Bateria or Passistas?

This is absolutely a non issue. Plus, if there's anything a model or the photographer wants to hide, it's our job to chose the right angle.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2017, 15:16 by StockPhotosArt »

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #46 on: September 27, 2017, 15:12 »
+4
I didn't say "men;" I said "male fashion designers." in fact, I specifically pointed out that there is really no call for that look from anyone other than fashion designers, and that rest of the world other than fashion designers includes men. So you basically repeated and expanded on what I said yet claimed misandry on my part.   ::)

In the first page you made a comment that simply stated, and I quote: "Men.  ::)"

Plus, it's not the first time you make considerations about "Men" (general, all) without any type of relativism. In fact, it's quite common.

So yes, unless you're not very articulate in expressing your opinions (doubtful) many of your ideas involving men have a clear  taste of misandry. And that's a pity because you sound like an intelligent woman. But then again, there are intelligent men who suffer from misogyny too, so...

« Reply #47 on: September 27, 2017, 16:12 »
+2
I'm afraid obesity plagues western society much more than anorexia.

I don't understand how you interpret this law as a promotion of obesity, instead of a fight against eating disorders, no matter which ones, anorexia or obesity.

This law does not force you to hire obese models! Where is that written? What it does is force you to chose healthy looking models. As simple as that. Go scout models in the gym instead of the toilets for girls throwing up!

I think you and others are over-dramatizing this issue and blowing out of proportion something that's only in your head.

Plus you try to sound like a defender of the current hyper-skinny models, when I'm pretty sure most of them will be extremely happy to be able to eat more normally. Honestly I do not believe you are worried with the models future. You sound like you only care about the manipulation you are allowed to make on the images to get an extra buck.

Sorry, but that "model's defense" attitude some of here claim have less than noble objectives.

Believe me, I'm extremely critical of the obesity plague that's hitting my country also. I'm not very sympathetic to all the BS excuses most of all those people invent. Suddenly they "barely" eat and all suffer from hormonal problems (LOL).

If the fashion and advertising industry simply promote normal or athletic looking girls. What's wrong with that? Man prefer them anyway and teen girls will not feel the need to starve to look like them!

Just look at the women parading in the Rio Carnaval. Men all over the world drool at the slightest image of them. How many anorexic and obese parade there as Rainha da Bateria or Passistas?

This is absolutely a non issue. Plus, if there's anything a model or the photographer wants to hide, it's our job to chose the right angle.

1.
You are the one who said that:  the law is meant to protect children, teenagers and young adults to prevent they try to comply with unreal body shapes
I agree with you: this is the "noble" intention: to prevent children, teenagers and young adults to look at retouched models as role models and starve themselves to look like them. Remember, in this scenario the role-model is not skinny, the role-model is "retouched". So it is not about the model, it is about the public who is too stupid to know better!
As I said, while trying to look too skinny is an issue, obesity is tenfold worse. Having some children, teenagers and young adults trying to look skinnier, might be beneficial for their health, when obesity is a constant threat.

2.
The law is not made to protect female models from male designers nor male models from themselves (when they want to enhance their private parts).
Again, remember that the models are retouched, in this scenario!
These models are always free to eat as much as they want and Justin Bieber to show his true bulge size. If they decide otherwise, is because they know better.
These models know better than any government what is good from themselves. Believing the opposite is very arrogant from a governmental bureaucrat!

3.
You got it wrong! I am not the defender of skinny models!
I am the defender of a free market. Let the consumer decide what they want:
If they want gym models, let them have them.
If they want obese models, let them have them.
If they want skinny models, let them have them.

Let the Photoshop artist do what the public wants!
I prefer that, instead of seeing models undergoing liposuction or cosmetic surgery to comply with public preferences!
Let the model enjoy eating and the Photoshop expert do his job!

I'm in favor of the clone tool instead of a scalpel, if this is what the public wants.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2017, 16:37 by Zero Talent »

Shelma1

« Reply #48 on: September 27, 2017, 16:50 »
+5
I didn't say "men;" I said "male fashion designers." in fact, I specifically pointed out that there is really no call for that look from anyone other than fashion designers, and that rest of the world other than fashion designers includes men. So you basically repeated and expanded on what I said yet claimed misandry on my part.   ::)

In the first page you made a comment that simply stated, and I quote: "Men.  ::)"

Plus, it's not the first time you make considerations about "Men" (general, all) without any type of relativism. In fact, it's quite common.

So yes, unless you're not very articulate in expressing your opinions (doubtful) many of your ideas involving men have a clear  taste of misandry. And that's a pity because you sound like an intelligent woman. But then again, there are intelligent men who suffer from misogyny too, so...

That was in reference to the fact that a bunch of men started whining in this thread about "nanny state" and not ever being able to retouch anything ever at all, which is certainly not the case with this law. I didn't see any female photographers complaining; rather they pointed out that the thread title was awful and why this law unfortunately has to exist. But maybe I was wrong. Perhaps the people I thought were women are actually men masquerading as women, and perhaps some of the "men" are secretly women. Doubt it, tho.

« Reply #49 on: September 27, 2017, 21:20 »
+6
Quote
Which was so rich coming from the person who only last week claimed to want people to be judged according to the content of their character.

It was one of those Daily Mirror type headlines just to get the people's attention. A harmless joke.   :P

Did anybody here get offended?

Yeah, fatties and feminists.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
4081 Views
Last post April 20, 2007, 15:32
by a.k.a.-tom
5 Replies
4480 Views
Last post November 06, 2009, 04:23
by FD
52 Replies
10294 Views
Last post July 01, 2012, 18:40
by OM
2 Replies
1754 Views
Last post February 02, 2013, 22:22
by disorderly
989 Replies
90464 Views
Last post March 18, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results