MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Brasilnut on September 25, 2017, 16:44

Title: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Brasilnut on September 25, 2017, 16:44
From Gettyimages / iStockphoto:

Quote
Effective October 1, 2017 a new French law obliges clients who use commercial images in France to disclose whether the body shape of a model has been retouched to make them look thinner or larger.

As a result, also effective October 1st, we have amended our Creative Stills Submission Requirements to require that you do not submit to us any creative content depicting models whose body shapes have been retouched to make them look thinner or larger.

Please note that other changes made to models like a change of hair color, nose shape, retouching of skin or blemishes, etc., are outside the scope of this new law, and are therefore still acceptable.

Effective 1st October 2017, any content submitted where this type of retouching has been carried out will be a breach of our Submission Requirements and your Agreement with us.

Nanny state strikes again!  :-*
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on September 25, 2017, 17:01
The title on your post is not descriptive and has a really nasty tone to it. Do you really want to mix complaining about excessive rules with your views on how they came about?

You can always photograph women who do not need Photoshop to look rail-thin, so you can easily find your way around the rules you don't like if you want to make the effort.
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: ShadySue on September 25, 2017, 17:14
The title on your post is not descriptive and has a really nasty tone to it.

That's exactly what I thought, really nasty and unnecessary. Where are the downvotes when you need them?

One could see it as a victory for 'all shapes are beautiful', as it is for all images which have been changed to make bodies smaller or larger, so making a slender woman curvier is likewise forbidden. (Or changing men's shapes likewise) Good for France!

It could also be seen as a victory for 'real is best'. Why shouldn't someone's natural shape be acceptable? Why should people be subjected to images of 'desirable' which isn't even real? Heck, back in the day I was astonished and delighted to be let into the secret of airbrushing (because I kept wondering why no-one I ever saw had 'model proportions')!

Keep your sizeist prejudices to yourself, if you must have them at all (better still, grow up). There has been a lot of publicity around overthin models, how the models are pressurised to be almost skeletons, and the effect that seeing that has on other women and girls. It's a serious health issue.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=models+pressurised+to+be+thinner&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=roDJWcWmN8Tv8Af9l7KADw (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=models+pressurised+to+be+thinner&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=roDJWcWmN8Tv8Af9l7KADw)

(BTW, I didn't like the way they had changed the model's skin in the email highlighting the issue, it implied that her natural skintone was undesirable.)

Wonder how they're going to deal with images submitted before Oct 1st - make them all unobtainable in France?
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: Zero Talent on September 25, 2017, 17:26
From Gettyimages / iStockphoto:

Quote
Effective October 1, 2017 a new French law obliges clients who use commercial images in France to disclose whether the body shape of a model has been retouched to make them look thinner or larger.

As a result, also effective October 1st, we have amended our Creative Stills Submission Requirements to require that you do not submit to us any creative content depicting models whose body shapes have been retouched to make them look thinner or larger.

Please note that other changes made to models like a change of hair color, nose shape, retouching of skin or blemishes, etc., are outside the scope of this new law, and are therefore still acceptable.

Effective 1st October 2017, any content submitted where this type of retouching has been carried out will be a breach of our Submission Requirements and your Agreement with us.

Nanny state strikes again!  :-*

What is safer and better for models: Photoshop retouching or real surgery "retouching"?
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: ShadySue on September 25, 2017, 17:28

What is safer and better for models: Photoshop retouching or real surgery "retouching"?

That's a lesser of two evils argument.
Better for everyone that we accept that many body shapes exist, get over it; and designers should be able to design for everyone.

It's not only in France, there have been quite a number of issues in UK advertising recently where there has been a backlash on overphotoshopped models, not because they look overphotoshopped, but because the models are well known in other spheres and people know what they look like, and don't want to see their appearance changed. Several advertising campaigns have been pulled due to public pressure (even as far back as 2009 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/dec/16/twiggys-olay-ad-banned-airbrushing (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/dec/16/twiggys-olay-ad-banned-airbrushing) [heck, I can't believe that was eight years ago!]). It relates to truth in advertising.
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: stockastic on September 25, 2017, 18:18
I think in this case the "Nanny State" is taking action because of health risks to young girls who internalize those unrealistic body images, contributing to anorexia, anxiety and depression, which can have very bad consequences.   One could argue that this is an overreaction, but it's not without purpose.  I'd compare it to warnings on tobacco products.
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: Shelma1 on September 25, 2017, 18:48
I'd like the OP to share a photo of his amazing, bodacious bod.
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: ShadySue on September 25, 2017, 19:12
I'd like the OP to share a photo of his amazing, bodacious bod.
Maybe he'll soon link to his blog post detailling how to lose 2 stones in 24 hours.
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: Clair Voyant on September 25, 2017, 19:53
Brasilnut: Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microbrain.
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: chaoss on September 25, 2017, 19:54
This news from Getty is the most stupid thing that I saw on stocks!
First. French laws don't prohibit to retouch images. They tell that it should be mentioned that image was retouched. So why don't Getty just add small check box: this image was retouched, model shape was changed. No. They forbid any images with model changed shape.
Second. This law is only acting in France. So why all people in the world should follow that stupid law? Ok Getty let your customers from France see special warning: fashion and beauty images that you see was retouched.
Finally. In general I don't agree with this law. May be we should write on all movies that FX was created on computer, and that blood is not real, and heroes can't fight so good? No, every human have his own head to think and understand what is good, and what is not. Government should not write on every stone and every tree "this is danger, don't touch, don't go..... don't worry that you are not like slim retouched super model".

Why just don't prohibit beautiful woman at all? On stocks, on everywhere. No make-up, no medical body changes, no jewelry. Just a real people in simple clothing. How this bureaucrats can't understand that Photoshop retouching is just another level of a very long story, story of intention to beauty and perfection.
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: stockastic on September 25, 2017, 20:03
It's a big question, actually.  Society is certainly damaged by the violence and brutality in movies and TV.   We aren't quite ready to face up to that and do anything about it, yet, but movies do at least have to carry ratings in the U.S, although they mean next to nothing.

I live near one of the nation's biggest retail complexes, the Mall of America, and I'm in there frequently, and I see all the ads on the clothing stores.  There's an accelerating trend towards "honest" model shots and inclusion of big people.  It's really becoming a thing.

 
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: chaoss on September 25, 2017, 20:14
There's an accelerating trend towards "honest" model shots and inclusion of big people.  It's really becoming a thing.
If this trend is coming from people, coming from business owner and his management team I totally agree. Every market can select what type of models do they need. But I'm totally disagree that government should take any lows about this.
May be government should forbid adv at all? Cause on every adv we see "do this, do that, this will bring you success, with this you will be better, lowers price, last chance" and so on. In real world most of this things in adv are not so good, not so perfect, and price is not lowest, and we are not getting better. In real world of totally truth most part of adv should be forbidden. So why are they only looking on perfect slim models... bad low, and even more bad decision from Getty.
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: Shelma1 on September 25, 2017, 20:35
Men.  ::)
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: Zero Talent on September 25, 2017, 21:21

What is safer and better for models: Photoshop retouching or real surgery "retouching"?

That's a lesser of two evils argument.
Better for everyone that we accept that many body shapes exist, get over it; and designers should be able to design for everyone.

Yes, indeed. I'm not saying otherwise, I'm all for it!

My question is only concerning those aspiring models fiercely competing for the front page.

This law will work against most models!

If consumers want un-retouched models, advertisers will certainly listen to what the public wants. They will always know better than any government.

A lot of models who might need a little retouching, here and there, according to public preferences, might find themselves out of job!
This is why, I'm pretty certain that many will go straight for the knife, instead of the clone tool in PS.

There is no need for the nanny state to intervene in such cases.
It has been proven, over and over again, that good and noble intentions often backfire, with unintended consequences!
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: dpimborough on September 26, 2017, 00:39
Men.  ::)

Yes men make up 50% of the population  ;D

As for fatties, well if the lard buckets have no self control and want the rest of society view their wobble ass, muffin top physique as "beautiful" then I say go for it indulge yourselves, it still doesn't change the fact they are fat.
 

As for body shaming, why not, they should be ashamed for letting themselves go and becoming porkers while a good portion of the human race are under nourished.



 ;D
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: Brasilnut on September 26, 2017, 02:40
Quote
I'd like the OP to share a photo of his amazing, bodacious bod.

Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: Pauws99 on September 26, 2017, 02:53
Its not about "fat" its about borderline anorexic  being portrayed as a desirable body shape...the industry only has itself to blame for this "over correction"
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: qunamax on September 26, 2017, 03:45
Not that I've ever done anything similar, but I can still photoshop horns on people's heads right?

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: Pauws99 on September 26, 2017, 04:08
Not that I've ever done anything similar, but I can still photoshop horns on people's heads right?

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk
Putting one on a horse and claiming its a unicorn might be considered questionable
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: qunamax on September 26, 2017, 04:22
Not that I've ever done anything similar, but I can still photoshop horns on people's heads right?

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk
Putting one on a horse and claiming its a unicorn might be considered questionable

Well, only if submitted as editorial.  :)
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on September 26, 2017, 04:37
Fat people are fat, yes, but calling them a 'fatty' moves it from what could be considered a statement of fact, to a derogatory term. Like calling somebody a black person or a... something else. 
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: Semmick Photo on September 26, 2017, 04:37
Maybe Leaf can edit the title of the article
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Brasilnut on September 26, 2017, 04:50
Quote
Fat people are fat, yes, but calling them a 'fatty' moves it from what could be considered a statement of fact, to a derogatory term. Like calling somebody a black person or a... something else.

I agree and edited it accordingly.

I'll draft a serious reply to this subject soon.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on September 26, 2017, 06:20
What was the original title? I missed it.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Brasilnut on September 26, 2017, 06:22
Quote
What was the original title? I missed it.

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

Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: ShadySue on September 26, 2017, 06:37
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: niktol on September 26, 2017, 06:55
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Brasilnut on September 26, 2017, 08:19
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?
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Pauws99 on September 26, 2017, 08:44
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
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: cobalt on September 26, 2017, 09:51
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?

Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Pauws99 on September 26, 2017, 09:57
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Brasilnut on September 27, 2017, 05:42
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.

Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: pixel86 on September 27, 2017, 06:00
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.  ::) 


Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Brasilnut on September 27, 2017, 06:01
Quote
But I know, you were just trying to be one of the guys. 

"Locker room talk"  8)
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: ShadySue on September 27, 2017, 06:07
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 (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/oct/11/gender.society)
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Pauws99 on September 27, 2017, 06:23
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 ;-)
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: trek on September 27, 2017, 07:07
Don't the lawmakers in France have more important issues to work on?  Like poverty, crime and terrorism? 

Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: ShadySue on September 27, 2017, 07:32
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Brasilnut on September 27, 2017, 08:55
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!
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: ravens on September 27, 2017, 08:56
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?



Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: ShadySue on September 27, 2017, 09:06
^^ 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)
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 27, 2017, 11:42
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: StockPhotosArt.com on September 27, 2017, 12:21
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 27, 2017, 14:24
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"!
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 27, 2017, 14:52
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.   ::)
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: StockPhotosArt.com on September 27, 2017, 15:02
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: StockPhotosArt.com on September 27, 2017, 15:12
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...
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 27, 2017, 16:12
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 27, 2017, 16:50
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Dumc on September 27, 2017, 21:20
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Video-StockOrg on September 28, 2017, 01:38
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.

Wouldn't this law do the opposite to what is meant to? Because if it won't be solved with photoshop, agencies will look only for bodies that suit their taste... with that forcing model to be dead in reality. Or staying without the job.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: dpimborough on September 28, 2017, 01:47
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...

Whats worse than a male chauvanist? A female chauvanist using the same tactics but claiming the moral high ground  ;D

All humans are chauvanisitic irrespective of gender.

Cats on the other hand don't care, all humans are furless meat bags who are only on this earth for our pleasure  :D
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: StockPhotosArt.com on September 28, 2017, 01:56
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.

Sorry but that's just a bunch of BS excuses! When you write "Men.  ::)" you are actually not just talking about the people in this thread. Please don't try to play innocent because I know you know better.

You're using their sex/gender as derogatory term and a form of criticism for them being from a sex/gender they were born in. And in the process include all men.

If you actually wanted to specifically refer to the men of this thread you could easily build a phrase to state that. But no, you simply stated: "Men.  ::)"

All along my life I've heard a lot of comments just saying "women" in the exact same context and intention you wrote yours. It has always been considered an offense by all the women present and considered a misogynist and machist comment. And they didn't even need to be feminists to be offended by the "women" comment.

And I would bet a million dollars (if I had them) that you got angry all along your life when you heard the comment "women" in the same type of context your wrote yours.

So, I do not see how I can interpret your comment differently from the example above and not consider it a misandrist comment. And as I said it's not the first or tenth time you make comments in this line of thought. So I'm doubtful this was kind of slip, but rather a reflection of your reactions towards men.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Chichikov on September 28, 2017, 02:20
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!

If you are regularly leaving in Italy, as a foreigner, you should have a "Permesso di Soggiorno / Carta di Soggiorno" or similar, and so you should have a “Tessera Sanitaria” like any Italian resident.
This card allows you to consult the “medico di base” who is assigned to you for free…

The "certificato di attività sportiva non agonistica per fini assicurativi" (certificate of non-competitive sporting activity for insurance purposes) costs 40 euro. It is like this for everybody.
It is necessary for the insurance covering you in the case of an accident in the Gym (in fact the insurance asks it, not the gym).
As accidents happen enough often in the Gyms it is absolutely normal that the owner of the gym asks you to have an insurance.

And if you don't agree with the rules and the laws of the country hosting you, you are always free to go to live elsewhere… Baciami il culo e arrivederci… :D
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: everest on September 28, 2017, 04:02
Although I agree that the measure innocently wants to tackle a problem that is happening in our hyperconnected societies where fitness gods and goddess are pushed up in the social media altars, magazines tv shows etc the measure will backfire in many ways. I thinks these are some negative implication of this measure:

1-      The beauty trend of slim bodies is fortunately not going away from our societies. We are following again the classic greek aesthetics of body shapes and that is not going to change soon. And I am glad for it. As it has been already said western societies have a much bigger problem with obesity and overweight population than the contrary. It is all those images that are pushing millions of people to practice sports and eat better. Anorexia might kill some hundreds in Europe every year.....overweight kills hundred thousands. You cannot even compare the problem. You need a strong and regular will to do sport and to eat healthy. It is much easier to watch the latest tv show on the couch while eating some fries. But we don’t want to look fat we want to look in shape in our mirrors and here the influence of all those published “perfect” bodies is a strong incentive.
   
2-      Thank to photoshop the tyranny for the models to be a their 100% is over. A little overweight can be corrected without a problem at the push of a button. If this is not more possible photographers,agencies etc will look for even more perfect bodies. This will be much harder to maintain and I think a jump to surgery will be more common.
     
3-      Photography the same as movies drawing music is a form of artistic creation. It is wrong to impose arbitrary artificially limitation to it. Should we ban from the museums painter John Currin and only show Rubens. Should be forbid violence in movies because some idiot might be influenced and do so terrible act. Should be forbid rap music etc, where do trace the line ?

4-      What are the consequences for Getty. It depends. If all the other agencies follow this decision everything will balance out. But if other agencies do not follow this rule or for example use a button to just specify if image has been retouched or not they will have a competitive advantage. They will get images that Getty wont. It will not matter in a few months time but in a couple of years Getty will notice this disadvantage and will have to act.  I would think that to make clear if an image has been retouched (changed body form, nose,hair etc) would be much more interesting for buyers. The “no filter” trend is exploding and to know that an image has been altered or not at all would be for sure interesting for clients.

5-      The argument that Getty is taking this action because of the french law is a lie. They are taking this action because they want. There are many laws in dozens of nations that conflict with some images of the library but they don’t limit it, and they shouldn’t. Because if tomorrow Poland comes up with a law against nudes or Mexico forbids showing images of children will Getty follow. I don’t think so. By this new french law they are simply obliged to state if the image has been retouched or not. They went all the way to banning any body shape contouring. Of course they can do what they find convenient but to attribute it to the french law is not speaking the truth.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: StockPhotosArt.com on September 28, 2017, 05:20
There are MILLIONS of slim girls out there, and people here talk like they are an endangered species! Incredible!

The truth is, for some people on this forum the use of the word "Slim" actually means anorexic and even alien with impossible long legs. You are just masquerading your actual preference with a "political correct" term. Not different from obese people wanting to be called plus size, or BBW or whatever.

Anorexic girls with visible rib cages, protruding collarbones with a non-existent stomach and sucked in faces are NOT slim! Stop calling them that! As I said, there are MILLIONS of slim girls out there. Hit the gym at any hour and you get to see more slim girls than in any model agency casting. Those are slim girls, not anorexic ones you try to pass as slim.

As for the nanny state comments they are simply absurd. Unless you live in a civil war zone, you all live in nanny states. One more than others, but all states are nanny's. We all have to comply with thousands of rules and laws created to protect people from others actions.

To take in such disregard the health of younger generations by neglecting the education through positive row models, good examples and best practices is absurd.

Put it in your heads, young boys and girls are very easily influenced. They tend to follow what is considered cool with extremely limited critical spirit. So, like parents need to educate their young, the society as a whole (through state) also needs to take some measures to educate and protect their young.

That's why the consumption of alcohol, driving, and thousands of other examples are restricted for younger people. All this commotion about a couple stupid clicks in photoshop is absolute non-sense.

This has nothing to do with the promotion and acceptance of obesity as normal. That's another war altogether. And I agree with all the criticism here about the way obesity is starting to be seen as normal, and even beautiful and it's almost forbidden to criticize it. But it's another issue.

The truth is, if you're complaining about not being able to make a couple adjustments in photoshop, that means that the girl you've photographed is already beautiful to the point you only need a couple adjustments! Just leave it be.

It's not like you're photographing a 300kg woman to make her look 50kg! This is absolute non-sense.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 28, 2017, 05:50
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.

Sorry but that's just a bunch of BS excuses! When you write "Men.  ::)" you are actually not just talking about the people in this thread. Please don't try to play innocent because I know you know better.

You're using their sex/gender as derogatory term and a form of criticism for them being from a sex/gender they were born in. And in the process include all men.

If you actually wanted to specifically refer to the men of this thread you could easily build a phrase to state that. But no, you simply stated: "Men.  ::)"

All along my life I've heard a lot of comments just saying "women" in the exact same context and intention you wrote yours. It has always been considered an offense by all the women present and considered a misogynist and machist comment. And they didn't even need to be feminists to be offended by the "women" comment.

And I would bet a million dollars (if I had them) that you got angry all along your life when you heard the comment "women" in the same type of context your wrote yours.

So, I do not see how I can interpret your comment differently from the example above and not consider it a misandrist comment. And as I said it's not the first or tenth time you make comments in this line of thought. So I'm doubtful this was kind of slip, but rather a reflection of your reactions towards men.

Men.  ::)
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Brasilnut on September 28, 2017, 06:20
Quote
And if you don't agree with the rules and the laws of the country hosting you, you are always free to go to live elsewhere… Baciami il culo e arrivederci…

If I made a list of pros and cons about Italy, the pros would outnumber 5:1!  8)

Brazil would be the other way around I think!
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Chichikov on September 28, 2017, 06:24
Quote
And if you don't agree with the rules and the laws of the country hosting you, you are always free to go to live elsewhere… Baciami il culo e arrivederci…

If I made a list of pros and cons about Italy, the pros would outnumber 5:1!  8)

Brazil would be the other way around I think!

I agree.
I could add that if it was not for some of the cons, some of the pros would not even exist ;)
Title: Re: Victory for the fatties - Getty images notice on retouching commercial images
Post by: topol on September 28, 2017, 07:27
Its not about "fat" its about borderline anorexic  being portrayed as a desirable body shape...the industry only has itself to blame for this "over correction"

Its not about "anorexic" its about borderline obese being portrayed as a normal body shape... the society only has itself to blame for this "correction"
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Brasilnut on September 28, 2017, 07:39
Quote
Men.  ::)

You love us.  :-*
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: topol on September 28, 2017, 07:40
I grew up in a communist country. This whole thing straightforward reminds me of what the commies did to art and portrayal of people in art and commerce. It was the proletariat, the "workers paradise" so on almost all depiction, especially public statues and painting, they hand to be these chunky, robust characters with cubic heads and large thick hands, women having the same large thick hands as men. Sad to see the total cluelessness to the point of mental degeneration in western ppl, probably coming from near zero history education, not noticing what their culture is sliding into ever more rapidly. It will be sad, bleak and painful, believe me.

Despite this incredible lack of education & knowledge about humanity's history, I still don't see why it is so hard recognize the severe threat when you such ideologies rapidly invading every field of life, flooding everything with dictates. When you see that either push back as hard as you can, or if you can't.... run!
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: topol on September 28, 2017, 07:49
There are MILLIONS of slim girls out there, and people here talk like they are an endangered species! Incredible!

The truth is, for some people on this forum the use of the word "Slim" actually means anorexic and even alien with impossible long legs. You are just masquerading your actual preference with a "political correct" term. Not different from obese people wanting to be called plus size, or BBW or whatever.

Anorexic girls with visible rib cages, protruding collarbones with a non-existent stomach and sucked in faces are NOT slim! Stop calling them that! As I said, there are MILLIONS of slim girls out there. Hit the gym at any hour and you get to see more slim girls than in any model agency casting. Those are slim girls, not anorexic ones you try to pass as slim.

As for the nanny state comments they are simply absurd. Unless you live in a civil war zone, you all live in nanny states. One more than others, but all states are nanny's. We all have to comply with thousands of rules and laws created to protect people from others actions.

To take in such disregard the health of younger generations by neglecting the education through positive row models, good examples and best practices is absurd.

Put it in your heads, young boys and girls are very easily influenced. They tend to follow what is considered cool with extremely limited critical spirit. So, like parents need to educate their young, the society as a whole (through state) also needs to take some measures to educate and protect their young.

That's why the consumption of alcohol, driving, and thousands of other examples are restricted for younger people. All this commotion about a couple stupid clicks in photoshop is absolute non-sense.

This has nothing to do with the promotion and acceptance of obesity as normal. That's another war altogether. And I agree with all the criticism here about the way obesity is starting to be seen as normal, and even beautiful and it's almost forbidden to criticize it. But it's another issue.

The truth is, if you're complaining about not being able to make a couple adjustments in photoshop, that means that the girl you've photographed is already beautiful to the point you only need a couple adjustments! Just leave it be.

It's not like you're photographing a 300kg woman to make her look 50kg! This is absolute non-sense.

"Anorexic girls with visible rib cages, protruding collarbones"

The only reason for those bones not be visible is severe obesity. For your ribs / rib muscles not show you have to be really-really fat my friend. You and others need to catch up on human anatomy and standards of health. I guess his is what happens to people when they grow up in a society where obesity is the norm. Prime example is women (usually misandric ones) going around showing pics of Marilyn Monroe saying, " look this the true normal for being hot, she was size 'M' ". Then someone comes in and reminds them that Marilyn's size "M" clothes would be "XS" now, as the size charts adopted to most of society becoming FAT. Even the BMI chart got modified, os it doesn't bother people so much in the process of eating themselves to death. Meanwhile Obesity is the biggest, most tragic epidemic in the world.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: StockPhotosArt.com on September 28, 2017, 07:59
I grew up in a communist country. This whole thing straightforward reminds me of what the commies did to art and portrayal of people in art and commerce. It was the proletariat, the "workers paradise" so on almost all depiction, especially public statues and painting, they hand to be these chunky, robust characters with cubic heads and large thick hands, women having the same large thick hands as men. Sad to see the total cluelessness to the point of mental degeneration in western ppl, probably coming from near zero history education, not noticing what their culture is sliding into ever more rapidly. It will be sad, bleak and painful, believe me.

Despite this incredible lack of education & knowledge about humanity's history, I still don't see why it is so hard recognize the severe threat when you such ideologies rapidly invading every field of life, flooding everything with dictates. When you see that either push back as hard as you can, or if you can't.... run!

Your comment is a contradiction in it self.

For one part you criticized the manipulated representation of the human figure to unreal standards, which is what is now happening with models and photoshop. If in your country the distortion of the human figure served ideological purposes, on the west it serves economical ones (economy which actually control western ideology).

On the other hand you criticize the decision of Getty and the French law, that has the objective to end that artificial manipulation of unreal human bodies by saying ideology is invading every field of life.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on September 28, 2017, 08:02
I grew up in a communist country. This whole thing straightforward reminds me of what the commies did to art and portrayal of people in art and commerce. It was the proletariat, the "workers paradise" so on almost all depiction, especially public statues and painting, they hand to be these chunky, robust characters with cubic heads and large thick hands, women having the same large thick hands as men. Sad to see the total cluelessness to the point of mental degeneration in western ppl, probably coming from near zero history education, not noticing what their culture is sliding into ever more rapidly. It will be sad, bleak and painful, believe me.

Despite this incredible lack of education & knowledge about humanity's history, I still don't see why it is so hard recognize the severe threat when you such ideologies rapidly invading every field of life, flooding everything with dictates. When you see that either push back as hard as you can, or if you can't.... run!

I'll have what you're smoking!
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: topol on September 28, 2017, 08:12
I grew up in a communist country. This whole thing straightforward reminds me of what the commies did to art and portrayal of people in art and commerce. It was the proletariat, the "workers paradise" so on almost all depiction, especially public statues and painting, they hand to be these chunky, robust characters with cubic heads and large thick hands, women having the same large thick hands as men. Sad to see the total cluelessness to the point of mental degeneration in western ppl, probably coming from near zero history education, not noticing what their culture is sliding into ever more rapidly. It will be sad, bleak and painful, believe me.

Despite this incredible lack of education & knowledge about humanity's history, I still don't see why it is so hard recognize the severe threat when you such ideologies rapidly invading every field of life, flooding everything with dictates. When you see that either push back as hard as you can, or if you can't.... run!

Your comment is a contradiction in it self.

For one part you criticized the manipulated representation of the human figure to unreal standards, which is what is now happening with models and photoshop. If in your country the distortion of the human figure served ideological purposes, on the west it serves economical ones (economy which actually control western ideology).

On the other hand you criticize the decision of Getty and the French law, that has the objective to end that artificial manipulation of unreal human bodies by saying ideology is invading every field of life.

100% strawman. I never talked unreal standards, ppl doing hard physical labor all their life do look like those commie statues. Then you just swapped the individual's decision with the outside dictates. :) Complete nonsense, doesn't fly, try again.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: topol on September 28, 2017, 08:16
I grew up in a communist country. This whole thing straightforward reminds me of what the commies did to art and portrayal of people in art and commerce. It was the proletariat, the "workers paradise" so on almost all depiction, especially public statues and painting, they hand to be these chunky, robust characters with cubic heads and large thick hands, women having the same large thick hands as men. Sad to see the total cluelessness to the point of mental degeneration in western ppl, probably coming from near zero history education, not noticing what their culture is sliding into ever more rapidly. It will be sad, bleak and painful, believe me.

Despite this incredible lack of education & knowledge about humanity's history, I still don't see why it is so hard recognize the severe threat when you such ideologies rapidly invading every field of life, flooding everything with dictates. When you see that either push back as hard as you can, or if you can't.... run!

I'll have what you're smoking!

12yaerold's copy paste answer.  "Am I cool yet? Am I cool yet?" This isn't youtube.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: StockPhotosArt.com on September 28, 2017, 08:30
"Anorexic girls with visible rib cages, protruding collarbones"

The only reason for those bones not be visible is severe obesity. For your ribs / rib muscles not show you have to be really-really fat my friend. You and others need to catch up on human anatomy and standards of health. I guess his is what happens to people when they grow up in a society where obesity is the norm. Prime example is women (usually misandric ones) going around showing pics of Marilyn Monroe saying, " look this the true normal for being hot, she was size 'M' ". Then someone comes in and reminds them that Marilyn's size "M" clothes would be "XS" now, as the size charts adopted to most of society becoming FAT. Even the BMI chart is got modified! Meanwhile Obesity is the biggest, most tragic epidemic in the world.

FYI I did not grow in a country affected by obesity, and despite this problem is growing really fast it has happened only in the last decade or so. When I was a kid the fattest kid in my class is the new "normal". The fast food chains (McDonalds and such) only entered here about 20 years ago and only in the major cities. Coca-cola wasn't even allowed until the 1980's.

So I do not have a skewed view of the subject.

I'm not talking about visible collarbones. I'm talking about protruding collarbones like they are about to pop out of a thin layer of skin. The same for ribcages. It's obvious if a person is slim you see the contour of it and in some positions each rib too. But I'm talking skin and muscle sunken into the ribs even in the normal standing position. That's not normal.

Plus, I know what a 1,65m tall, weighting 50/53kg fit woman looks like and I never seen a sunken ribcage or collarbones about to burst out of the body on her.

I was a competition athlete and contacted daily with extremely fit women (the national champion type) and never saw what you describe as normal. The contours of the body sure and a hint of bones. But nothing sunken.

Just google slim woman on google images and tell me how many protruding bones you can see? People here accuse the obesity defenders of trying to pass obesity as normal, while defending the exact same but in opposite direction. A slim woman is not the same as skinny woman (search this too and compare).

Slim women are EVERYWHERE. There's no shortage of them and they don't need photoshop.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 28, 2017, 09:17

As for the nanny state comments they are simply absurd. Unless you live in a civil war zone, you all live in nanny states. One more than others, but all states are nanny's. We all have to comply with thousands of rules and laws created to protect people from others actions.


Yes, we all live in states governed by governments.  ;)

It's true that we all have to believe in written and un-written rules and regulations to facilitate trust and cooperation between members of society. But we should always be alert and speak-up against unnecessary and excessive rules and regulations, impacting our freedom.

In some states, bureaucrats believe they know better how much Coke I can drink in a restaurant, to be healthy.
In other states, bureaucrats tell you who you are allowed to love.
In other states, bureaucrats jail you for growing or smoking pot. They take money away from small farmers only to give it to Big Pharma to end-up with a massive opioid crisis.
In other states, bureaucrats fine you for walking in a park, after sunset.
In another state, wearing a bulletproof vest while committing or attempting to commit murder is an offense  :o
In France, bureaucrats regulate how to use Photoshop.
...
And I can go on forever with dumb and dumber laws imposed on us by strangers who know nothing about our lives.

So there is nothing absurd in demanding decency and common sense when it comes to regulations, in demanding respect for our freedoms.
There is nothing absurd in fighting against the abuse of power and the arrogance of strangers who believe they know better what is good or bad for us and coerce us to obey their beliefs.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: topol on September 28, 2017, 09:29
"Anorexic girls with visible rib cages, protruding collarbones"

The only reason for those bones not be visible is severe obesity. For your ribs / rib muscles not show you have to be really-really fat my friend. You and others need to catch up on human anatomy and standards of health. I guess his is what happens to people when they grow up in a society where obesity is the norm. Prime example is women (usually misandric ones) going around showing pics of Marilyn Monroe saying, " look this the true normal for being hot, she was size 'M' ". Then someone comes in and reminds them that Marilyn's size "M" clothes would be "XS" now, as the size charts adopted to most of society becoming FAT. Even the BMI chart is got modified! Meanwhile Obesity is the biggest, most tragic epidemic in the world.

FYI I did not grow in a country affected by obesity, and despite this problem is growing really fast it has happened only in the last decade or so. When I was a kid the fattest kid in my class is the new "normal". The fast food chains (McDonalds and such) only entered here about 20 years ago and only in the major cities. Coca-cola wasn't even allowed until the 1980's.

So I do not have a skewed view of the subject.

I'm not talking about visible collarbones. I'm talking about protruding collarbones like they are about to pop out of a thin layer of skin. The same for ribcages. It's obvious if a person is slim you see the contour of it and in some positions each rib too. But I'm talking skin and muscle sunken into the ribs even in the normal standing position. That's not normal.

Plus, I know what a 1,65m tall, weighting 50/53kg fit woman looks like and I never seen a sunken ribcage or collarbones about to burst out of the body on her.

I was a competition athlete and contacted daily with extremely fit women (the national champion type) and never saw what you describe as normal. The contours of the body sure and a hint of bones. But nothing sunken.

Just google slim woman on google images and tell me how many protruding bones you can see? People here accuse the obesity defenders of trying to pass obesity as normal, while defending the exact same but in opposite direction. A slim woman is not the same as skinny woman (search this too and compare).

Slim women are EVERYWHERE. There's no shortage of them and they don't need photoshop.

Pour these on someone else, I studied anatomy/art anatomy in university and I work with models, and I go the gym every 2nd day, I'm pretty hardcore. The only thing on ribs is very thin muscles (unless you are a roided up bodybuilder) and thin skin. It's some of thinnest skin, even if you start getting fat, it's some of the last parts where it builds. And no slim women (or men) are not everywhere, sadly. Go out on the street it's a potbelly (or worse) showcase. Even small kids are starting to be severely obese, that's why profs/docs are desperately ringing the alarm bell... and as I can see here too, nobody listens. I go look at a VS show, and those girls look like feminine athletes, picture of health. Or you show ppl like Rory Bosio, and they get bashed - saying that she is sick, and should got to a doctor -  by people who have to take a break with their heads going purple, going up to the 2nd floor. Ridiculous.

Google... plz. Google "white couple". rotfl.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on September 28, 2017, 10:00
I grew up in a communist country. This whole thing straightforward reminds me of what the commies did to art and portrayal of people in art and commerce. It was the proletariat, the "workers paradise" so on almost all depiction, especially public statues and painting, they hand to be these chunky, robust characters with cubic heads and large thick hands, women having the same large thick hands as men. Sad to see the total cluelessness to the point of mental degeneration in western ppl, probably coming from near zero history education, not noticing what their culture is sliding into ever more rapidly. It will be sad, bleak and painful, believe me.

Despite this incredible lack of education & knowledge about humanity's history, I still don't see why it is so hard recognize the severe threat when you such ideologies rapidly invading every field of life, flooding everything with dictates. When you see that either push back as hard as you can, or if you can't.... run!

I'll have what you're smoking!

12yaerold's copy paste answer.  "Am I cool yet? Am I cool yet?" This isn't youtube.

I'll have you know, I typed that all out myself; thank you very much. I'm just curious how Getty Images no longer accepting retouched body shapes, and people's comments on the situation... is down to 'total cluelessness to the point of mental degeneration', 'near zero history education' and an 'incredible lack of education & knowledge about humanity's history'? That's maybe a little bit extreme! 
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Pauws99 on September 28, 2017, 10:05
I grew up in a communist country. This whole thing straightforward reminds me of what the commies did to art and portrayal of people in art and commerce. It was the proletariat, the "workers paradise" so on almost all depiction, especially public statues and painting, they hand to be these chunky, robust characters with cubic heads and large thick hands, women having the same large thick hands as men. Sad to see the total cluelessness to the point of mental degeneration in western ppl, probably coming from near zero history education, not noticing what their culture is sliding into ever more rapidly. It will be sad, bleak and painful, believe me.

Despite this incredible lack of education & knowledge about humanity's history, I still don't see why it is so hard recognize the severe threat when you such ideologies rapidly invading every field of life, flooding everything with dictates. When you see that either push back as hard as you can, or if you can't.... run!

I'll have what you're smoking!

12yaerold's copy paste answer.  "Am I cool yet? Am I cool yet?" This isn't youtube.

I'll have you know, I typed that all out myself; thank you very much. I'm just curious how Getty Images no longer accepting retouched body shapes, and people's comments on the situation... is down to 'total cluelessness to the point of mental degeneration', 'near zero history education' and an 'incredible lack of education & knowledge about humanity's history'? That's maybe a little bit extreme!
Getty's decision is just based on risk aversion a) Of getting sued b) of touching anything on their IT "system" in case the whole precarious pack of cards comes tumbling down
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 28, 2017, 10:09
Not retouching already thin women to look skeletal is a stranglehold on people's rights in a nanny state dictatorship which will inevitably lead to a communist dystopia...the mental gymnastics in this thread are hilarious.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 28, 2017, 10:21
Not retouching already thin women to look skeletal is a stranglehold on people's rights in a nanny state dictatorship which will inevitably lead to a communist dystopia...the mental gymnastics in this thread are hilarious.

Why do you make it only about women and thinning?

Justin Bieber wants his penis and hands enlarged, not thinned!
Same goes for women wanting their breasts enhanced. Again, it is much better to use Photoshop, than a scalpel to achieve such wishes.

The law is applicable to all, not only to what fits your ideological agenda.
Let people do it, even if you arrogantly think you know better what is good for them!

Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 28, 2017, 12:08
Not retouching already thin women to look skeletal is a stranglehold on people's rights in a nanny state dictatorship which will inevitably lead to a communist dystopia...the mental gymnastics in this thread are hilarious.

Why do you make it only about women and thinning?

Justin Bieber wants his penis and hands enlarged, not thinned!
Same goes for women wanting their breasts enhanced. Again, it is much better to use Photoshop, than a scalpel to achieve such wishes.

The law is applicable to all, not only to what fits your ideological agenda.
Let people do it, even if you arrogantly think you know better what is good for them!

If you knew the history of what's going on in modeling, especially in the epicenter of the fashion industry, Paris, you'd understand why the law was passed.

This law was passed in 2015 and also bans extremely thin models.

And instead of being obsessed with women having huge breasts, by either photoshop or surgery, why has it not occurred to you that perhaps society should accept that women have different breast sizes?


Edited to correct some inaccuracies. I didn't realize one law covered both topics and was passed two years ago.

https://petapixel.com/2015/12/22/france-bans-too-thin-fashion-models-demands-that-photoshopping-be-labeled/
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 28, 2017, 12:34
Not retouching already thin women to look skeletal is a stranglehold on people's rights in a nanny state dictatorship which will inevitably lead to a communist dystopia...the mental gymnastics in this thread are hilarious.

Why do you make it only about women and thinning?

Justin Bieber wants his penis and hands enlarged, not thinned!
Same goes for women wanting their breasts enhanced. Again, it is much better to use Photoshop, than a scalpel to achieve such wishes.

The law is applicable to all, not only to what fits your ideological agenda.
Let people do it, even if you arrogantly think you know better what is good for them!

And instead of being obsessed with women having huge breasts, by either photoshop or surgery, why has it not occurred to you that perhaps society should accept that women have different breast sizes?

Yeah, maybe society should accept women with different breast sizes. And stars, like Justin Bieber, should also accept that men have different penis and hand sizes.

I'm all for it! I can even support a movement aiming to promote this ideal!
What I don't want is a government coercing beauty standards on its subjects.

Let people worship the god they like or the bodies they like!
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 28, 2017, 12:47
How do you know Justin Bieber wanted his body parts enlarged?
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Pauws99 on September 28, 2017, 12:51
How do you know Justin Bieber wanted his body parts enlarged?
Some hilarious stuff on this if you google how much is true I can't be bothered to try and find out
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 28, 2017, 13:09
...
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 28, 2017, 13:19
Oh....you mean there was negative publicity about it? Something Getty would rather avoid?
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Brasilnut on September 28, 2017, 13:35
Must be a mutant protein shake he's taking to get those triceps.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 28, 2017, 13:38
Oh....you mean there was negative publicity about it? Something Getty would rather avoid?

Negative publicity is a great tool to change opinions, behavior, preferences. It has been like this since dark ages. Our society has been shaped by the fear of negative publicity and by what others think of us.

See? There is no need for stupid laws and government involvement in such cases!
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: cobalt on September 28, 2017, 15:12
I don´t understand why all agencies don´t add a simple sentence below ALL creative content that this file might be altered with photoshop. I mean the whole point of creative content is to be creative...if you want the real world, that is what editorial is for.

One country will let you increase boobs, muscles, eyes, lips and...hands...but you can´t change the waisteline and the cheeks need to be realigned with lighting and make up, although it is easier to adjust in Photoshop.

Maybe another country will ban enhancing breasts, but doesn´t acre about the waist. Another will not allow a change in haircolour...I mean where does it end. There are artist that photoshop lizard skin and fake tattos on a model. or remove tattos and piercings.

And the next stage will certainly be mixies of 3D render and photographs, the way it is being done in other themes (home interiors and jewelry)

Creative content is not only for fashion, it is used in all kinds of industries.

Seems a lot easier to just make it clear that all of it is creative and if a company needs something  unedited, well, go and book a custom shoot.

Limiting creativity doesn´t solve the problem.

I am all for helping young girls develop a healthy view of their bodies, but like others have pointed out, obesity is the much bigger problem and affects everyone, not just girls.

I don´t think you can solve the anorexia problem by banning photoshop.

Certainly well intentioned, but I don´t see how you can change a cultural attitude this way.

The question is: why are customers preferring to buy products if they feature physically unhealthy or very, very extreme people? Where is the attraction of the body of a 10 year old with fake boobs?

Because if the customers wouldn´t prefer to buy products if they are presented this way, the problem would solve itself.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: StockPhotosArt.com on September 28, 2017, 16:01

I don´t think you can solve the anorexia problem by banning photoshop.

Certainly well intentioned, but I don´t see how you can change a cultural attitude this way.

Now I see why some people are having a hard time understanding the relevance of this decision... You think that the solution for the eating disorders is a one step process and not a strategy involving multiple decisions, actions and steps, of which this is only one of the measures!

You think that people behind this decision came up with an instantaneous and miraculous solution for this problem. Like, they were sitting around a table brainstorming and suddenly one snapped his fingers and proclaimed:

"I know how to eradicated eating disorders from allover the world for all eternity instantly! Ban photoshop manipulation of the bodies!"

And the crowd went nuts with this divine solution and immediately cancelled all education programs, banned Body Mass Indexes from all medical books, closed clinics and in an unexpected twist hunger on planet Earth was also cured!

Actually... I'm pretty sure things didn't happened that way... This measure is only one among hundreds of others with the same objective.

What is different is that since this decision affects some of the people here they are not happy.

Just like website owners of sites that teach people how to starve to death also get bummed when their sites are closed. I can even envision the main anorexia forum with webmasters complaining that anorexia won't disappear by closing their sites and that people starve because of a cultural attitude...
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 28, 2017, 16:08
"The customers" are influenced by their culture, and if fashion designers demand dangerously thin women so their clothes will hang better, and those images are everywhere, "the customers" will get used to seeing that and absorb it as being the normal standard of "beauty."

That leads to all sorts of women, not just models, struggling to reach an impossibe standard. Photoshopping extremely thin women to make them look even more thin—basically, physically impossible women—sets impressionable young girls and women up to try to starve themselves in order to look like the images they see.

If you think fashion designers have no influence on culture, just remember the huge shoulder pads and sweat bands of the 80's. Or the ankle-spraining platform shoes and psychedelic tie-dye of the 70's. Or the fact that businesswomen today teeter on stiletto heels that used to be sold only to "dancers" in Frederick's of Hollywood catalogs, but have somehow (hmmm, I wonder how) become de riguer accessories for women who are old enough to know better...but are still caught up in the influence of their culture.

Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: cobalt on September 28, 2017, 21:02
You are all saying people are totally stupid idiots and cannot make decisions and need a nanny to look after them.

I would be genuinely interested why so many customers prefer to buy clothes if they are presented on childrens bodies. Why is that so attractive and makes them spend more money?

Get to the bottom of the problem.

There must be a reason why it works so well.

Nobody would advertise with bodies that stop customers from buying their products.

And I am not convinced customers are braindead lemmings.

It certainly isn´t stopping the obesity epidemic and that affects millions of people in France. It is a genuine killer disease, destroys families, careers and costs billions in health care.

It is their country, but to ban photoshop and stop creative content from being creative content just doesn´t make sense, especially because how on earth are you going to police this?

Creative content is not the real world. People also understand movies are not the real world. Nor are computer games the real world. Watching a horror movie doesn´t turn people into mass killer machines when they leave the cinema, computer games don´t make us evil in real life. All through the eighties this myth was drummed into us, but computer games are still here in all their violent gory.

This is the same thing, people believing that the real world is run by a fantasy. It just doesn´t work that way.

People with anorexia have a very, very serious illness, they look at themselves and their brain makes them feel they are fat. They have their own online forums and groups where they compete with each other and just show horrifying images of themselves, but their peers keep telling them how fat they are.

I had a friend with the problem, so I followed the subject a bit. I really didn´t have the impression that reading magazines made any difference. At some point it started, she connected online with others. She finally got out of it, with family therapy (her family was quite supportive), personal therapy and some medication.


If the fashion houses all start advertising with Beth Ditto, do you seriously believe anorexia will disappear from this world?


So for me there is anorexia the disease, which is a mix of very, very personal problems and certainly a biological component.


And there is the question why all kinds of normal people, including obese people, apparently prefer to buy clothes if they are presented on a childs body.




And finally: why is the fashion world not having any effect on the obesity epidemic?




Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 28, 2017, 21:40
Well said, Cobalt.

You are all saying people are totally stupid idiots and cannot make decisions and need a nanny to look after them.

One more thing, they are not only assuming that "the public" is made out of a bunch of morons, they also imply that they are superior.
They know better.
And those ignorant "lemmings" must be coerced to obey for their own good and they must be educated to like only what the officials want them to like.

Nice! Heard that before. I take a knee.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: cobalt on September 28, 2017, 22:22
"One more thing, they are not only assuming that "the public" is made out of a bunch of morons, they also imply that they are superior.
They know better."

Very good point. Yes, indeed, they are superior and can see the truth but those poor helpless dumblings are blind followers of whatever fashion houses tell them.

So both need to be controlled, the fashion houses, the photographers, the models and the poor dumb lemmings.

Anorexia is a very serious illness that needs a lot of research by professionals.

Overall awareness how girls are systematically discouraged from developing their self esteem, why they dumb down to not stand out...all of that absolutely needs very critical attention.

But photoshop use on stock sites will not change how parents raise their daughters. And that is where you need to start.

Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: StockPhotosArt.com on September 29, 2017, 01:00
You are all saying people are totally stupid idiots and cannot make decisions and need a nanny to look after them.

Yes!!! The people this law intends to protect are totally "idiots"! Yes, they cannot make decisions! Yes, they need a nanny! They are called CHILDREN, TEENAGERS AND YOUNG ADULTS!!!


Is this that f*unking hard to get into your thick skulls?!

And sorry by the terms, but are you people so stupid and dumb that are completely clueless about the power of images?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really, in this forum people are so outrageously ignorant that haven't realized that images affect and even help change society?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really?!

Haven't you noticed how children books, and teenagers magazines and covered with images? Isn't that a sign of the power of visual communication? People, images are one of the most powerful tools of propaganda and World Wars were brewed using them!

It's because clueless (or selfish and greedy for a buck) people like you that these laws are created. People without the slightest common sense that force the state to be a nanny. You don't like nanny states? Then grown a conscience and an ethic so others won't have laws imposed about everything.

You people are the reason nanny states grow in power.  Stop playing the naive and caring role, because the last things that's in your minds is the welfare of others. You are simply bothered because someone messed with your photoshop workflow. Cry me a river...

And again, in case you have trouble processing this mind blowing idea:

Yes!!! The people this law intends to protect are totally "idiots"! Yes, they cannot make decisions! Yes, they need a nanny! They are called CHILDREN, TEENAGERS AND YOUNG ADULTS!!!
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Yuri_Arcurs on September 29, 2017, 02:42
You are all saying people are totally stupid idiots and cannot make decisions and need a nanny to look after them.

Yes!!! The people this law intends to protect are totally "idiots"! Yes, they cannot make decisions! Yes, they need a nanny! They are called CHILDREN, TEENAGERS AND YOUNG ADULTS!!!


Is this that f*unking hard to get into your thick skulls?!

And sorry by the terms, but are you people so stupid and dumb that are completely clueless about the power of images?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really, in this forum people are so outrageously ignorant that haven't realized that images affect and even help change society?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really?!

Haven't you noticed how children books, and teenagers magazines and covered with images? Isn't that a sign of the power of visual communication? People, images are one of the most powerful tools of propaganda and World Wars were brewed using them!

It's because clueless (or selfish and greedy for a buck) people like you that these laws are created. People without the slightest common sense that force the state to be a nanny. You don't like nanny states? Then grown a conscience and an ethic so others won't have laws imposed about everything.

You people are the reason nanny states grow in power.  Stop playing the naive and caring role, because the last things that's in your minds is the welfare of others. You are simply bothered because someone messed with your photoshop workflow. Cry me a river...

And again, in case you have trouble processing this mind blowing idea:

Yes!!! The people this law intends to protect are totally "idiots"! Yes, they cannot make decisions! Yes, they need a nanny! They are called CHILDREN, TEENAGERS AND YOUNG ADULTS!!!

StockPhotosArt. Your intentions are obviously novel. You want to protect the impressionable youngsters of our communities from the unnecessary harm of having to live up to ever increasing standards of beauty and “thin-ness”.

I disagree strongly with the way you are writing your reply. Your all caps, red bold text, suggests that you claim some kind of moral high ground compared to the rest of this thread. Discussion is healthy StockPhotosArt! Even if you disagree. In fact the way you write strongly resembles the kind of “hate speech” that the European Union will now demand that social media sites police and ban. So ironically, you seem to have fallen victim to the no-goes of the very same political correctness movement you seem to support so dearly.

The newly elected French government has another 3.5 years or so to find out that banning liquifying will not make the “children, teenagers and young adults” feel better about themselves. In fact. I am pretty sure the opposite will be the case. Before this ban on liquifying, the “children, teenagers and young adults” all knew that what they saw on posters and billboards, was most likely retouched. Now however, they have a legal guarantee that the beautiful and thin models actually look like that. This ban on liquifying won’t make big commercials suddenly change the kind of models they use, so they look more real. It will have the opposite effect. They will start booking models that look good enough, so that no liquifying is needed and thus avoid the label “this image has been retouched”. Like if a tobacco company could spend a little extra, and avoid the “this product causes cancer” label. Do you not think they would do so?

This ban, will make the very people we are trying to protect feel even worse about themselves, and it will make an already unhealthy model industry even more unhealthy. The intentions are good, and despite the differences in opinion in this thread, I think we all agree that it is a good thing to cause as little harm to our ““children, teenagers and young adults” as we can. It is the solution that is the problem.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: StockPhotosArt.com on September 29, 2017, 02:44
they also imply that they are superior.
They know better.

I'm not implying being superior or to know better.

What I am certain is that unlike some people in this discussion, who try to manipulate and dismiss FACTS to fit their egotistic agenda, I try to take into consideration actual facts that any person with half-brain knows to be a FACT.

Things like:
- the incredible power that images have in our society,
- how easily young people are influenced and how easily they take life threatening risks just to conform to what is presented to them as cool.

So, it's not me who's implying to be superior, It's you who's playing dumb, narrow minded and totally clueless.

Well, from your point of view, I guess that someone stating OBVIOUS facts that even the most illiterate person recognize as an evidence, may sound to you as arrogant...

Plus some argue with the obesity problem (which I completely agree). Do you actually believe that presenting impossible bodies, who will make anyone trying to accomplish that look fail, a good strategy to fight obesity? Is presenting impossible objectives a good way to motivate anyone?

What is more motivating for people to lose weight? A healthy natural slim girl with a 1.65m height and 50/53kg, or a photoshoped female skeleton with 1.65m tall and looking 40/43kg?

Obesity is another discussion, and in absolutely no way starting to promote natural slim bodies without photoshop manipulation will be looked as an excuse for obesity. Only in your distorted minds that happens.

Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: StockPhotosArt.com on September 29, 2017, 02:51

StockPhotosArt. Your intentions are obviously novel. You want to protect the impressionable youngsters of our communities from the unnecessary harm of having to live up to ever increasing standards of beauty and “thin-ness”.

I disagree strongly with the way you are writing your reply. Your all caps, red bold text, suggests that you claim some kind of moral high ground compared to the rest of this thread. Discussion is healthy StockPhotosArt! Even if you disagree. In fact the way you write strongly resembles the kind of “hate speech” that the European Union will now demand that social media sites police and ban. So ironically, you seem to have fallen victim to the no-goes of the very same political correctness movement you seem to support so dearly.

Well sue me for being angry with all the BS and nonsense being written in this discussion, and feel the need to express it.

Or will the anti-nanny state people feel offended that others express emotions with their opinions and try to pass a law to ban that? LOL

And I'm not supporting political correctness views. I'm expressing evidences that even illiterate people know as a reality of life.

EDIT: As for the rest. I totally disagree. This measure about photoshop is only a part of a more complex solution. But somehow, people here seem to think that the manipulation ban is looked as the miraculous and sole strategy to solve the problem. It's not. It's only a small part. The only reason people are upset it's because it affects them.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: topol on September 29, 2017, 03:45
I grew up in a communist country. This whole thing straightforward reminds me of what the commies did to art and portrayal of people in art and commerce. It was the proletariat, the "workers paradise" so on almost all depiction, especially public statues and painting, they hand to be these chunky, robust characters with cubic heads and large thick hands, women having the same large thick hands as men. Sad to see the total cluelessness to the point of mental degeneration in western ppl, probably coming from near zero history education, not noticing what their culture is sliding into ever more rapidly. It will be sad, bleak and painful, believe me.

Despite this incredible lack of education & knowledge about humanity's history, I still don't see why it is so hard recognize the severe threat when you such ideologies rapidly invading every field of life, flooding everything with dictates. When you see that either push back as hard as you can, or if you can't.... run!

I'll have what you're smoking!

12yaerold's copy paste answer.  "Am I cool yet? Am I cool yet?" This isn't youtube.

I'll have you know, I typed that all out myself; thank you very much. I'm just curious how Getty Images no longer accepting retouched body shapes, and people's comments on the situation... is down to 'total cluelessness to the point of mental degeneration', 'near zero history education' and an 'incredible lack of education & knowledge about humanity's history'? That's maybe a little bit extreme!

No it's not, your are clueless. Take your time to listen to this, not that long:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xss0vC3mRfE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xss0vC3mRfE)

If you don't see the connection with the discussion here (which is trivial to be honest), than obviously we have nothing to talk about.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: topol on September 29, 2017, 03:51
Not retouching already thin women to look skeletal is a stranglehold on people's rights in a nanny state dictatorship which will inevitably lead to a communist dystopia...the mental gymnastics in this thread are hilarious.

Nobody is retouching thin women to skeletal, this only exists in your mind. If you go around to look for icons of sexyness making living almost exclusively from their bodyshape, +being superstars known the world over, the prime example would be Victoria Secret girls. They all look like pictures of health, like moderately-highly trained athletes, they are basically fitness models. If that's not good enough for you, the problem is with you.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: topol on September 29, 2017, 04:33
And instead of being obsessed with women having huge breasts, by either photoshop or surgery, why has it not occurred to you that perhaps society should accept that women have different breast sizes?


since when society does not accept and adore women with all kind of breasts? One of the dumbest prole myths ever. Why do people like you come full out lying full throttle about things you can check on the net / IRL? Once again a thing that only exists in your skewed mind. Men's taste are so varied that you can literally build a business on running porn/sex sites that caters specifically to admirers of very thin girls, one that caters specifically to admirers of voluptuous girls, one that caters specifically to admirers of fat girls. They are all out there, so quit your nonsense. There is no point lying about stuff that the world contradicts in 0.0001 sec if you check. 

On IRL stuff, I have 3 best selling models. One is an italian looking, tiny (about 150 cm), voluptuous-type girl, she is slender but has a really big butt, strong cleavage (not huge breasts at all, just nice), and amazing sweet face with a million dollar smile. Second one is the exact model type, tall, very long legged, not flat chested but has smallish breasts, looks athletic, if she lost a bit more weight she would look "shredded". Third is also small like the first one, but she is also athletic, tiny breasts on tiny body. The only reason she doesn't look really fragile is because she works out and she has muscles. Do you know what they have in common? Men of all shapes and sizes and status adore them. They literally have 100+ of men to choose from that would drop everything and run to date them at a moments notice, they are often telling me some of the stories. One of them got hit on by yoshi form japanx. Other one has been courted for months now by the son of a billionaire winemaker, the guy looks and lives like james bond... just to know, we are not talking about your usual desperate men who would fk anything that moves. How does that fit into your tiny world of supposed huge-breast obsession?

The women you talk about get the huge breasts for other women, not for men, to make them envious. That's how they compete with each other because they are the type of women who have nothing else to compete with. As for the section of men who do like those huge breasts: it's not even about sex, they have mommy complexes. They want to suckle and feel secure :D
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: StockPhotosArt.com on September 29, 2017, 04:35
Not retouching already thin women to look skeletal is a stranglehold on people's rights in a nanny state dictatorship which will inevitably lead to a communist dystopia...the mental gymnastics in this thread are hilarious.

Nobody is retouching thin women to skeletal, this only exists in your mind. If you go around to look for icons of sexyness making living almost exclusively from their bodyshape, +being superstars known the world over, the prime example would be Victoria Secret girls. They all look like pictures of health, like moderately-highly trained athletes, they are basically fitness models. If that's not good enough for you, the problem is with you.

If you look at the standard runway shows, Victoria Secret models would be considered overweight! They do not represent the beauty standard of the industry. And that's why they are so popular among men. Because the fashion industry does not look for Victoria Secret girl types, but for the unhealthy type.

Lingerie models are a group apart from the standard fashion models, because there's a preference for girls with boobs, hips, legs and booty to show when they are barely covered.

My friend who was a model in one of the most famous agencies in the world (operating in my country) had a Victoria Secret type of body and she was asked to drop a huge amount of weight (to near 40kg) because they did not think she was thin enough! She would become a corpse.

And she was already making commercials centered around her on a very big brand in prime-time tv commercials.

Despite she had 17/18 years old at the time she was structured enough to say no and abandon her career and continue with her university studies. But how many have the courage to do it especially if there's no plan B?

The only reason laws are created it's because some people think we live in the Far-West where anyone can do what pleases him without explanation. When the lines start to get crossed, then it's the duty of the state to intervene. Especially when we talk about younger people.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: StockPhotosArt.com on September 29, 2017, 04:45
And instead of being obsessed with women having huge breasts, by either photoshop or surgery, why has it not occurred to you that perhaps society should accept that women have different breast sizes?


since when society does not accept and adore women with all kind of breasts? One of the dumbest prole myths ever. Why do people like you come full out lying full throttle about things you can check on the net / IRL? Once again a thing that only exists in your skewed mind. Men's taste are so varied that you can literally build a business on running porn/sex sites that caters specifically to admirers of very thin girls, one that caters specifically to admirers of voluptuous girls, one that caters specifically to admirers of fat girls. They are all out there, so quit your nonsense. There is no point lying about stuff that the world contradicts in 0.0001 sec if you check. 

On IRL stuff, I have 3 best selling models. One is an italian looking, tiny (about 150 cm), voluptuous-type girl, she is slender but has a really big butt, strong cleavage (not huge breasts at all, just nice), and amazing sweet face with a million dollar smile. Second one is the exact model type, tall, very long legged, not flat chested but has smallish breasts, looks athletic, if she lost a bit more weight she would look "shredded". Third is also small like the first one, but she is also athletic, tiny breasts on tiny body. The only reason she doesn't look really fragile is because she works out and she has muscles. Do you know what they have in common? Men of all shapes and sizes and status adore them. They literally have 100+ of men to choose from that would drop everything and run to date them at a moments notice, they are often telling me some of the stories. One of them got hit on by yoshi form japanx. Other one has been courted for months now by the son of a billionaire winemaker, the guy looks and lives like james bond... just to know, we are not talking about your usual desperate men who would fk anything that moves. How does that fit into your tiny world of supposed huge-breast obsession?

The women you talk about get the huge breasts for other women, not for men, to make them envious. That's how they compete with each other because they are the type of women who have nothing else to compete with. As for the section of men who do like those huge breasts: it's not even about sex, they have mommy complexes. They want to suckle and feel secure :D

This, I agree completely.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: topol on September 29, 2017, 04:55
You are all saying people are totally stupid idiots and cannot make decisions and need a nanny to look after them.

Yes!!! The people this law intends to protect are totally "idiots"! Yes, they cannot make decisions! Yes, they need a nanny! They are called CHILDREN, TEENAGERS AND YOUNG ADULTS!!!


Is this that f*unking hard to get into your thick skulls?!

And sorry by the terms, but are you people so stupid and dumb that are completely clueless about the power of images?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really, in this forum people are so outrageously ignorant that haven't realized that images affect and even help change society?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really?!

Haven't you noticed how children books, and teenagers magazines and covered with images? Isn't that a sign of the power of visual communication? People, images are one of the most powerful tools of propaganda and World Wars were brewed using them!

It's because clueless (or selfish and greedy for a buck) people like you that these laws are created. People without the slightest common sense that force the state to be a nanny. You don't like nanny states? Then grown a conscience and an ethic so others won't have laws imposed about everything.

You people are the reason nanny states grow in power.  Stop playing the naive and caring role, because the last things that's in your minds is the welfare of others. You are simply bothered because someone messed with your photoshop workflow. Cry me a river...

And again, in case you have trouble processing this mind blowing idea:

Yes!!! The people this law intends to protect are totally "idiots"! Yes, they cannot make decisions! Yes, they need a nanny! They are called CHILDREN, TEENAGERS AND YOUNG ADULTS!!!

Ohh, man, you look through history and you see those 100s of millons of peple killed by children's book and teen magazine publishers, cosmetics companies... ohh wait, that was people getting slaughtered by their own governments when those turned to oppression. Dude, you level of education about pretty basic facts of the world is... I don't even know. It's low. LOW. :)
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: topol on September 29, 2017, 05:07
The newly elected French government has another 3.5 years or so to find out that banning liquifying will not make the “children, teenagers and young adults” feel better about themselves. In fact. I am pretty sure the opposite will be the case.

This basically already happened. The war on 'model industry thin-nes' is something like a decade old scam now. When it got some traction, the 'thin-thing' got promtply replaced by the truly surreal and naturally completely unachievable nicky minaj-type blow-up doll look, and you have poor ghetto girls dead from cheap toxic butt implants.

The urge to compete is the most basic instinct of all. If you ban competing on slenderness, they compete on ridiculous implants, if you ban that too, they will compete on something even more surreal. Finally if you ban competing on almost everything, kids will compete on doing self harm and start cutting themselves. Hence the world record number of teen suicides in commie countries.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 29, 2017, 05:16
It's funny how you all decry the obesity epidemic but feel people should have the personal fortitude to not be influenced by images of unnaturally thin women.

Both problems stem from societal pressure. If you honestly think impressionable children and young girls should have the sense not to try to starve themselves, then surely all full grown adults should have the common sense to adopt a vegan diet.

After all, studies have shown vegans have the healthiest body weight, fewer diet-related illnesses like heart disease, cancer and diabetes, and we all know meat production adds just as much to climate change as the transportation industry. Everyone knows we'd meet our climate change goals if we simply stopped eating meat.

Since you're all sensible adults, I'm sure each of you has been vegan for quite a while now. None of you falls for marketing from meat and dairy producers. You're not tempted by fatty, salty foods. You've never eaten in a fast food restaurant. Sure, you're inundated with advertising for all that stuff, but you're smart enough to ignore it.

You all maintain a healthy diet and a healthy weight, get regular exercise, own the most sensible electric cars (no flashy gas guzzling sports cars for you..too smart to fall for that!).

Advertising definitely doesn't work, and it has no influence on people. Which is why I made a quite nice living working in the advertising industry. It was fun, going to focus groups and seeing how none of our messages made any impact! Ha ha !

And images don't influence people, and societal pressure doesn't affect the images you shoot, which is why you're furious that you can't photoshop skinny women into being even skinnier.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 29, 2017, 05:18
And instead of being obsessed with women having huge breasts, by either photoshop or surgery, why has it not occurred to you that perhaps society should accept that women have different breast sizes?


since when society does not accept and adore women with all kind of breasts? One of the dumbest prole myths ever. Why do people like you come full out lying full throttle about things you can check on the net / IRL? Once again a thing that only exists in your skewed mind. Men's taste are so varied that you can literally build a business on running porn/sex sites that caters specifically to admirers of very thin girls, one that caters specifically to admirers of voluptuous girls, one that caters specifically to admirers of fat girls. They are all out there, so quit your nonsense. There is no point lying about stuff that the world contradicts in 0.0001 sec if you check. 

On IRL stuff, I have 3 best selling models. One is an italian looking, tiny (about 150 cm), voluptuous-type girl, she is slender but has a really big butt, strong cleavage (not huge breasts at all, just nice), and amazing sweet face with a million dollar smile. Second one is the exact model type, tall, very long legged, not flat chested but has smallish breasts, looks athletic, if she lost a bit more weight she would look "shredded". Third is also small like the first one, but she is also athletic, tiny breasts on tiny body. The only reason she doesn't look really fragile is because she works out and she has muscles. Do you know what they have in common? Men of all shapes and sizes and status adore them. They literally have 100+ of men to choose from that would drop everything and run to date them at a moments notice, they are often telling me some of the stories. One of them got hit on by yoshi form japanx. Other one has been courted for months now by the son of a billionaire winemaker, the guy looks and lives like james bond... just to know, we are not talking about your usual desperate men who would fk anything that moves. How does that fit into your tiny world of supposed huge-breast obsession?

The women you talk about get the huge breasts for other women, not for men, to make them envious. That's how they compete with each other because they are the type of women who have nothing else to compete with. As for the section of men who do like those huge breasts: it's not even about sex, they have mommy complexes. They want to suckle and feel secure :D

This, I agree completely.

Men.  ::)
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: topol on September 29, 2017, 05:31
It's funny how you all decry the obesity epidemic but feel people should have the personal fortitude to not be influenced by images of unnaturally thin women.

Both problems stem from societal pressure. If you honestly think impressionable children and young girls should have the sense not to try to starve themselves, then surely all full grown adults should have the common sense to adopt a vegan diet.

After all, studies have shown vegans have the healthiest body weight, fewer diet-related illnesses like heart disease, cancer and diabetes, and we all know meat production adds just as much to climate change as the transportation industry. Everyone knows we'd meet our climate change goals if we simply stopped eating meat.

Since you're all sensible adults, I'm sure each of you has been vegan for quite a while now. None of you falls for marketing from meat and dairy producers. You're not tempted by fatty, salty foods. You've never eaten in a fast food restaurant. Sure, you're inundated with advertising for all that stuff, but you're smart enough to ignore it.

You all maintain a healthy diet and a healthy weight, get regular exercise, own the most sensible electric cars (no flashy gas guzzling sports cars for you..too smart to fall for that!).

Advertising definitely doesn't work, and it has no influence on people. Which is why I made a quite nice living working in the advertising industry. It was fun, going to focus groups and seeing how none of our messages made any impact! Ha ha !

And images don't influence people, and societal pressure doesn't affect the images you shoot, which is why you're furious that you can't photoshop skinny women into being even skinnier.

So people getting too thin is societal problem equal to obesity? yes/no

Show me those unnaturally thin women in recent ads... pics, links, etc, thanks

"why you're furious that you can't photoshop skinny women into being even skinnier."

Please show an example where I photoshopped a "skinny women into being even skinnier", thanks

Also if images/ads influence people so strongly + create societal pressure, and super-thin-nes is being pushed, how come we are in the middle of a severe obesity crisis? Could you untangle this logical knot for me, thanks :)
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: StockPhotosArt.com on September 29, 2017, 05:41
Ohh, man, you look through history and you see those 100s of millons of peple killed by children's book and teen magazine publishers, cosmetics companies... ohh wait, that was people getting slaughtered by their own governments when those turned to oppression. Dude, you level of education about pretty basic facts of the world is... I don't even know. It's low. LOW. :)

You couldn't be more wrong about my knowledge of history, politics and world facts. And I also suffered the effect of an oppressive government, the consequences of war, and live in a country totally controlled by no-elected powers, despite free elections.

What happens is that I don't keep staring to my bellybutton all the time thinking the world revolves around it and my own selfish interests.

As for that constant oppression speech you better find professional help. You may think you escaped from oppression to a free-for-all and help-yourself world where Wild-West laws apply, but you are wrong. Although I recognize that passing from an oppressive government system to a Mafia controlled state may give you that impression.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 29, 2017, 05:43
It's funny how you all decry the obesity epidemic but feel people should have the personal fortitude to not be influenced by images of unnaturally thin women.

Both problems stem from societal pressure. If you honestly think impressionable children and young girls should have the sense not to try to starve themselves, then surely all full grown adults should have the common sense to adopt a vegan diet.

After all, studies have shown vegans have the healthiest body weight, fewer diet-related illnesses like heart disease, cancer and diabetes, and we all know meat production adds just as much to climate change as the transportation industry. Everyone knows we'd meet our climate change goals if we simply stopped eating meat.

Since you're all sensible adults, I'm sure each of you has been vegan for quite a while now. None of you falls for marketing from meat and dairy producers. You're not tempted by fatty, salty foods. You've never eaten in a fast food restaurant. Sure, you're inundated with advertising for all that stuff, but you're smart enough to ignore it.

You all maintain a healthy diet and a healthy weight, get regular exercise, own the most sensible electric cars (no flashy gas guzzling sports cars for you..too smart to fall for that!).

Advertising definitely doesn't work, and it has no influence on people. Which is why I made a quite nice living working in the advertising industry. It was fun, going to focus groups and seeing how none of our messages made any impact! Ha ha !

And images don't influence people, and societal pressure doesn't affect the images you shoot, which is why you're furious that you can't photoshop skinny women into being even skinnier.

So people getting too thin is societal problem equal to obesity? yes/no

Show me those unnaturally thin women in recent ads... pics, links, etc, thanks

"why you're furious that you can't photoshop skinny women into being even skinnier."

Please show an example where I photoshopped a "skinny women into being even skinnier", thanks

Also if images/ads influence people so strongly + create societal pressure, and super-thin-nes is being pushed, how come we are in the middle of a severe obesity crisis? Could you untangle this logical knot for me, thanks :)

I just untangled it for you. You should re-calibrate your reading comprehension and oil your sarcasm detector.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 29, 2017, 05:48
Oh....you mean there was negative publicity about it? Something Getty would rather avoid?

Negative publicity is a great tool to change opinions, behavior, preferences. It has been like this since dark ages. Our society has been shaped by the fear of negative publicity and by what others think of us.

See? There is no need for stupid laws and government involvement in such cases!

That makes so much sense. Now I understand how negative publicity stops murderers and rapists, and keeps corruption out of government, and why we need no laws. Thanks!
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: topol on September 29, 2017, 05:59
It's funny how you all decry the obesity epidemic but feel people should have the personal fortitude to not be influenced by images of unnaturally thin women.

Both problems stem from societal pressure. If you honestly think impressionable children and young girls should have the sense not to try to starve themselves, then surely all full grown adults should have the common sense to adopt a vegan diet.

After all, studies have shown vegans have the healthiest body weight, fewer diet-related illnesses like heart disease, cancer and diabetes, and we all know meat production adds just as much to climate change as the transportation industry. Everyone knows we'd meet our climate change goals if we simply stopped eating meat.

Since you're all sensible adults, I'm sure each of you has been vegan for quite a while now. None of you falls for marketing from meat and dairy producers. You're not tempted by fatty, salty foods. You've never eaten in a fast food restaurant. Sure, you're inundated with advertising for all that stuff, but you're smart enough to ignore it.

You all maintain a healthy diet and a healthy weight, get regular exercise, own the most sensible electric cars (no flashy gas guzzling sports cars for you..too smart to fall for that!).

Advertising definitely doesn't work, and it has no influence on people. Which is why I made a quite nice living working in the advertising industry. It was fun, going to focus groups and seeing how none of our messages made any impact! Ha ha !

And images don't influence people, and societal pressure doesn't affect the images you shoot, which is why you're furious that you can't photoshop skinny women into being even skinnier.

So people getting too thin is societal problem equal to obesity? yes/no

Show me those unnaturally thin women in recent ads... pics, links, etc, thanks

"why you're furious that you can't photoshop skinny women into being even skinnier."

Please show an example where I photoshopped a "skinny women into being even skinnier", thanks

Also if images/ads influence people so strongly + create societal pressure, and super-thin-nes is being pushed, how come we are in the middle of a severe obesity crisis? Could you untangle this logical knot for me, thanks :)

I just untangled it for you. You should re-calibrate your reading comprehension and oil your sarcasm detector.

I did notice your attempts at humor about advertising, but you don't seem to able to answer anything. :)
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: topol on September 29, 2017, 06:04
Oh....you mean there was negative publicity about it? Something Getty would rather avoid?

Negative publicity is a great tool to change opinions, behavior, preferences. It has been like this since dark ages. Our society has been shaped by the fear of negative publicity and by what others think of us.

See? There is no need for stupid laws and government involvement in such cases!

That makes so much sense. Now I understand how negative publicity stops murderers and rapists, and keeps corruption out of government, and why we need no laws. Thanks!

Laws keep corruption out of government? :DD I almost fell from my chair :D
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: topol on September 29, 2017, 06:09
Ohh, man, you look through history and you see those 100s of millons of peple killed by children's book and teen magazine publishers, cosmetics companies... ohh wait, that was people getting slaughtered by their own governments when those turned to oppression. Dude, you level of education about pretty basic facts of the world is... I don't even know. It's low. LOW. :)

You couldn't be more wrong about my knowledge of history, politics and world facts. And I also suffered the effect of an oppressive government, the consequences of war, and live in a country totally controlled by no-elected powers, despite free elections.

What happens is that I don't keep staring to my bellybutton all the time thinking the world revolves around it and my own selfish interests.

As for that constant oppression speech you better find professional help. You may think you escaped from oppression to a free-for-all and help-yourself world where Wild-West laws apply, but you are wrong. Although I recognize that passing from an oppressive government system to a Mafia controlled state may give you that impression.

The largest number of people were slaughtered by their governments, nothing comes even close to compete, it's a simple historical fact.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: StockPhotosArt.com on September 29, 2017, 07:26
Ohh, man, you look through history and you see those 100s of millons of peple killed by children's book and teen magazine publishers, cosmetics companies... ohh wait, that was people getting slaughtered by their own governments when those turned to oppression. Dude, you level of education about pretty basic facts of the world is... I don't even know. It's low. LOW. :)

You couldn't be more wrong about my knowledge of history, politics and world facts. And I also suffered the effect of an oppressive government, the consequences of war, and live in a country totally controlled by no-elected powers, despite free elections.

What happens is that I don't keep staring to my bellybutton all the time thinking the world revolves around it and my own selfish interests.

As for that constant oppression speech you better find professional help. You may think you escaped from oppression to a free-for-all and help-yourself world where Wild-West laws apply, but you are wrong. Although I recognize that passing from an oppressive government system to a Mafia controlled state may give you that impression.

The largest number of people were slaughtered by their governments, nothing comes even close to compete, it's a simple historical fact.

So what?

Are you're proposing a society where state and government does not exist? Something like an anarchist or real communist society, right? Both have the objective of making the State obsolete and make Internationalism a reality.

Maybe you want a society ruled without constitution and based on religious principles where laws are barely written and decisions are left to religious leaders and their subjective interpretations like in some countries.

Or are you more into a Mad Max style of society, where the laws and rules are created by those with the biggest guns and the mood of the day? And those not clever enough to adapt get erased in some sort of post-apocalyptic Darwinism?

And finally what does this have to do with a French law and an agency decision, when every state has thousands of laws (even the most disorganized) and agencies make decisions all the time a hundred times worse than this one? Can you actually point a country that cannot be considered a nanny-sate?

Plus, have you campaigned against the restriction on selling fattening foods in the schools? I'm pretty sure French-Fries sellers are not very pleased with the nanny-state dictating what kids can or cannot eat in school. Why don't you side with them? Since it doesn't affect you (or even agree with it) I guess in that case you don't care about the nanny-state...
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 29, 2017, 07:39
Before this ban on liquifying, the “children, teenagers and young adults” all knew that what they saw on posters and billboards, was most likely retouched.

This is possibly the funniest sentence I've ever read. Children know the images they see on posters and billboards are retouched?

In children's TV commercials there are very strict laws in the USA. Because children are so susceptible and believe whatever they see, 30-second commercials can only have 5 seconds or less of "fantasy;" that is, for example, when Barbie "comes to life" and prances around the room. Kids will believe Barbie can really do that. The bulk of the commercial must show real Barbies only doing the things real Barbies can do. (I won't even go into the ridiculousness of selling children a doll modeled on a sex toy.) Advertisers were forced into this because if they had their druthers the whole thing would be fantasy.

Think of all the teary eyes when kids realize Santa isn't real.Think of all the images we sell based on one illustration of a fat, bearded, white, red-suit-wearing Santa Claus done for Coca Cola decades ago, when in reality Saint Nicholas was a skinny brown man.

Millions of people have died because they were influenced by cigarette advertising. Advertisers used to target kids and young adults, because they're so easy to influence and if you get them addicted when young you have them until their untimely deaths. Laws forced them to stop, but they can still target adults.

Millions have died because they're led to believe you can only get protein from meat and dairy and it's OK to eat fatty foods. The egg industry manipulated scientific studies to "prove" eggs have no effect on cholesterol levels by testing a statistically insignificant group of participants who already ingested incredibly high levels of cholesterol, so adding an egg a day to their diets had no significant impact because their cholesterol levels were already off the charts and had nowhere worse to go. "An egg a day has no effect on cholesterol! Yay! Eat an egg a day!"

I worked briefly on KFC and refused the account pretty quickly because I saw the way they manipulated people to eat more fatty fried chicken. I worked on Humira briefly and saw the way they manipulated testing to make it OK to market a dangerous biologic pharmaceutical to people with a skin rash. They even suggested I take it. HA! I read the data; no thanks.  I don't want to die from incurable systemic infection, lymphoma or tuberculosis.

The images you see and the messages you absorb influence every decision you make. That includes what (and who) you decide to shoot.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on September 29, 2017, 08:14
I grew up in a communist country. This whole thing straightforward reminds me of what the commies did to art and portrayal of people in art and commerce. It was the proletariat, the "workers paradise" so on almost all depiction, especially public statues and painting, they hand to be these chunky, robust characters with cubic heads and large thick hands, women having the same large thick hands as men. Sad to see the total cluelessness to the point of mental degeneration in western ppl, probably coming from near zero history education, not noticing what their culture is sliding into ever more rapidly. It will be sad, bleak and painful, believe me.

Despite this incredible lack of education & knowledge about humanity's history, I still don't see why it is so hard recognize the severe threat when you such ideologies rapidly invading every field of life, flooding everything with dictates. When you see that either push back as hard as you can, or if you can't.... run!

I'll have what you're smoking!

12yaerold's copy paste answer.  "Am I cool yet? Am I cool yet?" This isn't youtube.

I'll have you know, I typed that all out myself; thank you very much. I'm just curious how Getty Images no longer accepting retouched body shapes, and people's comments on the situation... is down to 'total cluelessness to the point of mental degeneration', 'near zero history education' and an 'incredible lack of education & knowledge about humanity's history'? That's maybe a little bit extreme!

No it's not, your are clueless. Take your time to listen to this, not that long:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xss0vC3mRfE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xss0vC3mRfE)

If you don't see the connection with the discussion here (which is trivial to be honest), than obviously we have nothing to talk about.

Interesting video, but I think you're reading far too much into this. I'd think you were trolling, but unfortunately it seems that you're being serious.

The issue here is that you have likened A to B... B being something that the majority of people agree is a bad thing. If somebody disagrees with you, then you act as if somebody is saying that B isn't a bad thing, when they're just actually disagreeing that A is anything like B. Lets take an exciting example...

You say that the new rule by Getty is similar to Nazism. I say... no, I don't think it is. You then say Nazism is really bad, how can you say it's not bad, you are clueless, you're suffering from mental degeneration, you have an incredible lack of knowledge and education about the * and near zero history education.

Now, that would be fine if I was saying "the * seemed pretty cool to me", but I'm not... I'm saying that I don't think the recent announcement by Getty is analogous to Nazi Germany. 

There's no conspiracy, no new world order is trying to take over the world through Getty's policies, iStock isn't run by the Illuminati or giant humanoid lizards...  and we did land on the Moon. Time to take off the tinfoil hat I think.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 29, 2017, 08:41
I disagree. I think Getty is definitely run by giant humanoid lizards.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: cobalt on September 29, 2017, 08:46
I am obese (working on it) and no, my obesity does not come from advertising.

I had two traumatic events in my life and each time gained 22 and the second time 25 kg.

I eat extremly healthy food and exercise regularly (swimming, weights, other work outs)
Actually during the months the events happened I went to the gym 5 days a week and used my bike for around 18 km a day just to get rid of the stress. Didn't help, my metabolism slows down dramatically under trauma and I am sure I am not the only one.

But I certainly do not feel any influence from fashion designers or from MacDonalds. And the ads didn't change my metabolism.

Again you are absolutely simplifying something you clearly don't understand because you probably don't have the problem yourself.

Banning Mc Donalds or Pizza Hut ads, won't make me lose a single pound.

Only careful work, in consultation with my Doctors will. (18 kg down this year - combination of OMAD, ambronite/bertrand/huel and signifantly more weight training instead of cycling for those interested) Still need to work on my sleep. I have been looking for a system that works for me for nearly 20 years. And yes, I do have willpower. And tried all kinds of life style changes, many different sports to find. something that has an effect (yoga is great, calms you down and lowers stress hormones), lots of experimenting with food types and food timing.

So, anorexia and obesity are very, very serious problems.

To blame them all on newspaper ads or to have the smug attitude that everyone who is not perfectly healthy is a dumb idiot who needs to be protected from "images" and the wider world is simply beyond arrogant.

People with all kinds of illnesses, including alcohol addiction, cancer, or ulcers, need professional, medical help and have to develop very individual, personal solutions.

If you really want to help, I would suggest to develop a genuinly caring attitude, free from condescending snobbishness.

And perhaps the acceptance that you don't know everything and ask those with the problems for advice what they would recommend and what they believe can really help them.

ETA: I agree with Yuri. Telling people that now everything they see in magazines is the absolute documented real world, then for those who might be influenced, this is much worse.

If you really are concerned about the effects of photoshop on children, the positive and empowering way would be to teach them basic image editing skills.

There are tons of apps you can do to add virtual make up, change your looks etc...

This can be easily done in school, alongside a look at how computer games are programmed, how a green screen works for movies, how 3D renders are created.

Teach them a skill that gets them creative instead of making them scared of the world around them.

After all in the future a lot of visual art might be completly people free renders, even in movies.

Empower children, don't make them weak.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 29, 2017, 08:56
Where did I say everyone is a dumb idiot? Never sad it. I said we absorb images and marketing messages and are influenced by them. You can see that in the obesity epidemic sweeping the world. The American diet is the worst diet there is; as American fast food spreads to other nations the obesity associated with consuming it spreads as well. 70% of Americans are now on medication for health issues associated with their crappy diets.

Not everyone is overweight because they consume an unhealthy diet. Some people have health issues that lead to weight gain. My sister gained a lot of weight when she was put on medication for her psychological issues. I gained weight after early menopause. Neither of those bits of anecdotal evidence—or your bit of anecdotal evidence—means the statistics about unhealthy diets being linked to weight gain and its associated health risks is incorrect.

The fact is that young models and other young women are starving themselves to death to meet unrealistic goals set by the fashion industry. So one country passed one law about models having a healthier weight along with labeling one method of retouching. They didn't ban the retouching—they just said you had to label it so people were aware of it. Getty reacted to that the way they did, by banning it from their site.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on September 29, 2017, 09:22
So one country passed one law about models having a healthier weight along with labeling one method of retouching.

Was there a law about models having a healthier weight, as well as the retouching issue?

Getty reacted to that the way they did, by banning it from their site.

Knowing full well that there's no surefire way for them to tell... so people can keep uploading as they normally do, Getty will continue approving them as they normally have, all safe in the knowledge that if anything comes of it... they can say they've done due diligence by imposing the ban, and there was no way for them to know that any of the images submitted tried to circumvent said ban. Business as usual. 
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: cobalt on September 29, 2017, 09:28
But I am not forcing my images on them.

Nobody has to buy my files. I am not forcing them to be models or the fashion industry to prefer children either.

Fashion doesn't interest me and I am clueless about trends, but if I do look for clothes I often miss seeing people with my own body type and clothes. But there are specialized companies for the obese and the others clearly don't want my money.

I see no point in forcing Karl Lagerfeld or Dior to by law design clothes for me or market towards people like me.

 If I sell images of peanuts I am not affecting someone with a peanut allergy. If I post a picture of a huge hamburger, I am not making someone gain a kilo. A wine image is not created to hurt a recovering alcoholic.

And I am absolutley not creating images to intentionally hurt children or adults with any kind of disease, like some posters here imply.

Mind you, my food images are probably more useful for people who want to diet...it is not my speciality.

People are not forced to go to horror movies. Some do, some don't.

I very much believe that having a discussion about health, including the effects of modern media is a very good thing. I fully support all kinds of intiatives, also from celebs to talk about this.

But I believe in empowering people and teaching photoshop skills seems like a logical step to me.

The future will keep changing and basically banning the future will simply not work.

Public health is a huge issue, but I would focus on asking those affected what they want and what really works for them.

As for the fashion world, from the outside it looks like there is a huge market opportunity for someone to come in with an empowering message that reaches out across all body types.

It might need someone special, a visionary with good communication skills, to blast the current fashion dinosaurs into the past.

And with obesity, there are thousands of groups where people are posting what works for them and what doesn't. We are all testing all kinds of approaches, but those who succeed longterm, don't all follow the same routine. That is what makes it so confusing.

And I have never once read - oh my, how I wish Pizza hat didn't have that huge ad in front of my house...if only I had not seen that Mc Donalds ad tonight...I would be sooo much thinner now...

No, people talk about the stress of their daily lives, how they are carers for their elderly parents, how they sit all day and commute for two hours. How exhausted they are and how helpless they feel,  if the pounds keep creeping up inspite of controling their food rigidly and going to weight watchers, how guilty they feel when they miss the gym. And how tired they are.


But many of us, do find a system that actually works. And for some it is surgery, if it makes them healthy, then good for them.

Personally, from seeing myself and friends and family, I'd say helping people to live a life without three jobs, a decent and affordable health care system and a sensible retirement program would be the best help.

But who knows, maybe science will come up with something different one day.

Everyone blamed ulcers on psychological problems before we knew it was caused by a certain bacteria. Maybe the obesity epidemic also has sides to it we are not yet aware of.

We will see, if anorexia drops drastically in France by banning the liquefy action in stock photos, then I will be perfectly happy if the rest of the world follows.


Reality is the biggest laboratory and reality always wins :)
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 29, 2017, 09:31
So one country passed one law about models having a healthier weight along with labeling one method of retouching.

Was there a law about models having a healthier weight, as well as the retouching issue?


Yes. The law was passed in 2015 and covered both things. Models have to have a healthier BMI and retouching to make someone look slimmer or larger has to be labeled. It's an effort to curb young women from starving themselves. Since the fashion industry refused to stop pressuring models to be unhealthily thin the French government required it. It goes into effect in a few days.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 29, 2017, 09:36
But I am not forcing my images on them.

Nonody has to buy my files. I am not forcing them to be models or the fashion industry to prefer children either.

Fashion doesn't interest me and I am clueless about trends, but if I do look for clothes I often miss seeing people with my own body type and clothes. But there are specialized companies for the obese and the others clearly don't want my money.

I see no point in forcing Karl Lagerfeld or Dior to by law design clothes for me or market towards people like me.

 If I sell images of peanuts I am not affecting someone with a peanut allergy. If I post a picture of a huge hamburger, I am not making someone gain a kilo.

Mind you, my food images are probably more useful for people who want to diet...it is not my speciality.

People are not forced to go to horror movies. Some do, some don't.

I very much believe that having a discussion about health, including the effects of modern media is a very good thing. I fully support all kinds of intiatives, also from celebs to talk about this.

But I believe in empowering people and teaching photoshop skills seems like a logical step to me.

The future will keep changing and basically banning the future will simply not work.

Public health is a huge issue, but I would focus on asking those affected what they want and what really works for them.

As for the fashion world, from the outside it looks like there is a huge market opportunity for someone to come in with an empowering message that reaches out across all body types.

It might need someone special, a visionary with good communication skills, to blast the current fashion dinosaurs into the past.

And with obesity, there are thousands of groups where people are posting what works for them and what doesn't. We are all testing all kinds of approaches, but those who succeed longterm, don't all follow the same routine.

And I have never once read - oh my, how I wish Pizza hat didn't have that huge ad in front of my house...if only I had not seen that Mc Donalds ad tonight...I would be sooo much thinner now...

No, people talk about the stress of their daily lives, how they are carer for their parents, how they sit all day and commute for two hours. How exhausted they are and how helpless they feel. if the pounds keep creeping up inspite of controling their food rigidly and going to weight watchers, how guilty they feel when they miss the gym.

But many of us, do find a system that actually works. And for some it is surgery, if it makes them healthy, then good for them.

Personally, from seeing myself and friends and family, I'd say helping people to live a life without three jobs, a decent and affordable health care system and a sensible retirement program would be the best help.

But who knows, maybe science will come up with something different one day.

Everyone blamed ulcers on psychological problems before we knew it was caused by a certain bacteria. Maybe the obesity epidemic also has sides to it we are not yet aware of.

We will see, if anorexia drops drastically in France by banning the liquefy action in stock photos, then I will be perfectly happy if the rest of the world follows.


Reality is the biggest laboratory and reality always wins :)

Nobody said anything about forcing anyone to do anything but you. "Influencing" is not the same as "forcing." But in many cases the outcome is the same.

And the French law isn't forcing any photographers to stop "liquifying." It just says you have to label it. If you don't like Getty's reaction to that, then I'd say stop working with Getty.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 29, 2017, 10:26
But I am not forcing my images on them.

Nonody has to buy my files. I am not forcing them to be models or the fashion industry to prefer children either.

Fashion doesn't interest me and I am clueless about trends, but if I do look for clothes I often miss seeing people with my own body type and clothes. But there are specialized companies for the obese and the others clearly don't want my money.

I see no point in forcing Karl Lagerfeld or Dior to by law design clothes for me or market towards people like me.

 If I sell images of peanuts I am not affecting someone with a peanut allergy. If I post a picture of a huge hamburger, I am not making someone gain a kilo.

Mind you, my food images are probably more useful for people who want to diet...it is not my speciality.

People are not forced to go to horror movies. Some do, some don't.

I very much believe that having a discussion about health, including the effects of modern media is a very good thing. I fully support all kinds of intiatives, also from celebs to talk about this.

But I believe in empowering people and teaching photoshop skills seems like a logical step to me.

The future will keep changing and basically banning the future will simply not work.

Public health is a huge issue, but I would focus on asking those affected what they want and what really works for them.

As for the fashion world, from the outside it looks like there is a huge market opportunity for someone to come in with an empowering message that reaches out across all body types.

It might need someone special, a visionary with good communication skills, to blast the current fashion dinosaurs into the past.

And with obesity, there are thousands of groups where people are posting what works for them and what doesn't. We are all testing all kinds of approaches, but those who succeed longterm, don't all follow the same routine.

And I have never once read - oh my, how I wish Pizza hat didn't have that huge ad in front of my house...if only I had not seen that Mc Donalds ad tonight...I would be sooo much thinner now...

No, people talk about the stress of their daily lives, how they are carer for their parents, how they sit all day and commute for two hours. How exhausted they are and how helpless they feel. if the pounds keep creeping up inspite of controling their food rigidly and going to weight watchers, how guilty they feel when they miss the gym.

But many of us, do find a system that actually works. And for some it is surgery, if it makes them healthy, then good for them.

Personally, from seeing myself and friends and family, I'd say helping people to live a life without three jobs, a decent and affordable health care system and a sensible retirement program would be the best help.

But who knows, maybe science will come up with something different one day.

Everyone blamed ulcers on psychological problems before we knew it was caused by a certain bacteria. Maybe the obesity epidemic also has sides to it we are not yet aware of.

We will see, if anorexia drops drastically in France by banning the liquefy action in stock photos, then I will be perfectly happy if the rest of the world follows.


Reality is the biggest laboratory and reality always wins :)

Nobody said anything about forcing anyone to do anything but you. "Influencing" is not the same as "forcing." But in many cases the outcome is the same.

And the French law isn't forcing any photographers to stop "liquifying." It just says you have to label it. If you don't like Getty's reaction to that, then I'd say stop working with Getty.

Logically, the next step is to do the same with food pictures, a very popular stock subject. We all know how many food designers use all kind of harmful chemicals to make food look good!

Because of this "fake food" ads, children, teenagers and young adults will eat more,  becoming obese. Since obesity is widespread, the government should ban "fake food" from advertisement. And Getty should comply.

This is because you believe the parents of those children, teenagers and young adults are morons, unable to educate their kids. Right? And we all know that the "nanny state" made of those unknown bureaucrats, most of them complete strangers, will do a better job in educating our kids than us, the untrustworthy and clueless parents!  :o

Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 29, 2017, 10:39
Man, are you guys over the top ridiculous in your reactions. Labeling one type of retouching leads inevitably to fascism. Saying people are influenced by images and messages inevitably means you're saying everyone's a moron. I'd hate to be in the room if one of you saw a spider.

By the way, there are already strict laws in place for shooting food advertising for big corporations in the U.S. advertisers used to fill soup bowls with marbles to make soup look chunkier than it really was, and fast food chains would add all kinds of ingredients to a McDonald's hamburger, for example, to make it look like it had more stuff in it than it really did. Ice cream places used lard to replace real ice cream because it melted too quickly under the lights.

Now the law requires McDonald's to shoot only the ingredients in an actual burger, though of course ad agencies make sure each of those ingredients is the freshest, plumpest, crispest, juiciest possible example, grilling 30 hamburgers to get the lines just right, and, of course, pushing the top bun back substantially so the ingredients between the buns pop out more.

Top food photographers and food stylists have to keep current with their knowledge of all restrictions.

We were allowed to use lard to replace ice cream in a toothpaste commercial, however, because we weren't actually selling ice cream.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 29, 2017, 10:52
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 29, 2017, 10:58
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 29, 2017, 12:57
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?
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 29, 2017, 13:40
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 29, 2017, 13:54
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on September 29, 2017, 20:15
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.   
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Pauws99 on September 30, 2017, 03:09
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 30, 2017, 08:15
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!
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Pauws99 on September 30, 2017, 08:58
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





Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 30, 2017, 09:21
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Pauws99 on September 30, 2017, 10:12
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?
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 30, 2017, 10:15
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Pauws99 on September 30, 2017, 10:28
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 30, 2017, 10:48
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?

Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Pauws99 on September 30, 2017, 11:04
What Getty do is entirely their responsibility no one elses
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 30, 2017, 11:08
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: StockPhotosArt.com on September 30, 2017, 11:24
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Pauws99 on September 30, 2017, 11:34
Drink Driving is another good example --why should some bureaucrat decide I'm not fit to drive?
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: StockPhotosArt.com on September 30, 2017, 11:40
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: PenelopeB on September 30, 2017, 11:56
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.

Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 30, 2017, 12:02
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!
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Pauws99 on September 30, 2017, 12:27
"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 (http://www.historyofosh.org.uk/timeline.html)
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: StockPhotosArt.com on September 30, 2017, 12:29
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 30, 2017, 12:45
"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?
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 30, 2017, 12:52
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: DallasP on September 30, 2017, 13:18
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 ...
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Pauws99 on September 30, 2017, 13:29
"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...
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on September 30, 2017, 13:47
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 BMI—in 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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Pauws99 on September 30, 2017, 13:56
"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
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 30, 2017, 13:58
"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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 30, 2017, 14:06
"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

As I said, I never advocated for anarchy. We need laws.

But when someone desperately sick has to wait 10 years for a drug to be approved, only to eventually die before having the chance to try it, we have to admit that something is wrong with a law that was initially meant to protect us.

Like this Photoshop law, too many such laws are unnecessary, excessive and counterproductive. Too many voters are indoctrinated to believe that an abstract benevolent entity (i.e. "nanny state") is looking out for their safety and well being, better than themselves.

This is the fallacy I want to address through these maybe way too long explanations.

Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Pauws99 on September 30, 2017, 14:11
Thats more interesting territory although of course straying way off topic (The things I do to avoid key wording). One of my issues with UK membership is that EU bureaucrats can initiate legislation. In the UK that role is reserved for Parliament who theoretically at least represent the people. Yes there may be too much and poor legislation but that doesn't been all of it is bad.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on September 30, 2017, 14:19
Thats more interesting territory although of course straying way off topic (The things I do to avoid key wording). One of my issues with UK membership is that EU bureaucrats can initiate legislation. In the UK that role is reserved for Parliament who theoretically at least represent the people. Yes there may be too much and poor legislation but that doesn't been all of it is bad.

Sure! Agree.

And to stay on topic, after so many digressions, maybe we can also finally agree that this anti-Photoshop/skinny model law is one of the bad, unnecessary and counterproductive laws.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: ShadySue on September 30, 2017, 18:12
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.
As a former teacher, I can very confidently say that not all parents are loving, and even of those who may be loving, not all make good decisions for themselves or for their children. I'll spare you the horrendous examples and just give an example of a pupil who was himself a father of a baby who loudly objected far and wide to a nutritionist suggesting he shouldn't put Irn-bru (the soft drink which often runs level with, or above, Coke in Scotland) in his baby's bottle instead of water.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: cobalt on October 01, 2017, 14:52
The topic of Getty banning the liquify action from their stock is certainly being widely discussed in many places on the net.

What I really don´t understand is, why nobody is talking about the main problem. The French cultural obsession with the "silhouette".

I don´t know that many countries, but in a different life in my early twenties I did go to France quite a bit to see friends. I weighed 66-68 kg, perfectly normal at 1.72m. But all the time I would be teased, in a very friendly and very loving way, about me being such a chubby girl and how I would be so much better looking if I lost at least 10 kg.

"Think of your silhouette", they would chime.

Some girls even suggested I should take up smoking, seemed to help many of them. It was weird, nobody ever suggested I should lose that much weight here. German students aren´t that focussed on elegance, at least my crowd wasn´t. Old T-shirts, jeans and the inevitable Birkenstock and a handknit pullover made from organic wool from a farm you had visited and maybe you even knew the sheeps name the wool came from...


I´ve been told the rest of France doesn´t necessarily share the obsession, but somewhere between ballet dance and a beauty ideal of having a childs body with incredibly huge eyes and lips, something went really wrong.

But to externalize blame on a photoshop action, instead of having a real cultural discussion about health and self esteemed, that a girls or womans value is not based on her outer shape alone.

So many cultures like healthy women, with volume coming out at the right places. Why not share the fun. It´s not like they don´t know how to party.

At least embrace some diversity, in the way you dress and in body shapes. people come in all forms and sizes, they are still human.

Banning photoshop is simply a way to avoid responsibilty and really tackle the issue of the French infatuation with a body type that simply looks underage and very vulnerable to me.

Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Brightontl on October 01, 2017, 16:22
I am from Italy, which on this topic is much, much stricter than France (I have lived in France for about 12 years, so I know).
While leaving in Italy I always had a perfect silhouette, it is simply unthinkable there to be overweight: your friends would avoid you and your girl friends would laugh at you. Don't even think about it.
Now I have been leaving in England for about 16 years and I have put up a few kilos too many: who cares anyway, they are all obese here, I am still much thinner than most...
Recently I went on holiday in Italy and France and realised than I am not that popular anymore with my former friends, some of the good ones took me apart and told me: what is the matter with you? Why did you let yourself go, you used to be a legend around here.
Coming back to England I started going to the gym everyday and control again what I eat and drink and I keep losing weight.
Thank you Italy for once
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on October 01, 2017, 16:30
The topic of Getty banning the liquify action from their stock is certainly being widely discussed in many places on the net.

What I really don´t understand is, why nobody is talking about the main problem. The French cultural obsession with the "silhouette".

I don´t know that many countries, but in a different life in my early twenties I did go to France quite a bit to see friends. I weighed 66-68 kg, perfectly normal at 1.72m. But all the time I would be teased, in a very friendly and very loving way, about me being such a chubby girl and how I would be so much better looking if I lost at least 10 kg.

"Think of your silhouette", they would chime.

Some girls even suggested I should take up smoking, seemed to help many of them. It was weird, nobody ever suggested I should lose that much weight here. German students aren´t that focussed on elegance, at least my crowd wasn´t. Old T-shirts, jeans and the inevitable Birkenstock and a handknit pullover made from organic wool from a farm you had visited and maybe you even knew the sheeps name the wool came from...


I´ve been told the rest of France doesn´t necessarily share the obsession, but somewhere between ballet dance and a beauty ideal of having a childs body with incredibly huge eyes and lips, something went really wrong.

But to externalize blame on a photoshop action, instead of having a real cultural discussion about health and self esteemed, that a girls or womans value is not based on her outer shape alone.

So many cultures like healthy women, with volume coming out at the right places. Why not share the fun. It´s not like they don´t know how to party.

At least embrace some diversity, in the way you dress and in body shapes. people come in all forms and sizes, they are still human.

Banning photoshop is simply a way to avoid responsibilty and really tackle the issue of the French infatuation with a body type that simply looks underage and very vulnerable to me.

France didn't ban the photoshop action. Getty did.

Sometimes it takes more than talking about something to effect change. Obviously the French government felt that talking to fashion designers wasn't working, so they passed a law requiring models to have a healthier BMI...but if their images are then photoshopped to make it look as though they were just as skinny as before, it doesn't really change anything for all the other young women in the world who think that body is desirable and achievable.

I was skinny as a rail until my 40's and was approached to model for Elite Petites when in my early 20's (an agency for those of us under 5'8"). But I'd have to lose 10 pounds...even though I was already naturally underweight. You could see my ribs up to my clavicle and my hipbones could slice through a tin can, but I still was not thin enough to model for a minor agency. (I wasn't interested in modeling, so I didn't pursue it.)

That was 30 plus years ago, and the models are just getting thinner. It has to stop.

Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on October 01, 2017, 17:48
The topic of Getty banning the liquify action from their stock is certainly being widely discussed in many places on the net.

What I really don´t understand is, why nobody is talking about the main problem. The French cultural obsession with the "silhouette".

I don´t know that many countries, but in a different life in my early twenties I did go to France quite a bit to see friends. I weighed 66-68 kg, perfectly normal at 1.72m. But all the time I would be teased, in a very friendly and very loving way, about me being such a chubby girl and how I would be so much better looking if I lost at least 10 kg.

"Think of your silhouette", they would chime.

Some girls even suggested I should take up smoking, seemed to help many of them. It was weird, nobody ever suggested I should lose that much weight here. German students aren´t that focussed on elegance, at least my crowd wasn´t. Old T-shirts, jeans and the inevitable Birkenstock and a handknit pullover made from organic wool from a farm you had visited and maybe you even knew the sheeps name the wool came from...


I´ve been told the rest of France doesn´t necessarily share the obsession, but somewhere between ballet dance and a beauty ideal of having a childs body with incredibly huge eyes and lips, something went really wrong.

But to externalize blame on a photoshop action, instead of having a real cultural discussion about health and self esteemed, that a girls or womans value is not based on her outer shape alone.

So many cultures like healthy women, with volume coming out at the right places. Why not share the fun. It´s not like they don´t know how to party.

At least embrace some diversity, in the way you dress and in body shapes. people come in all forms and sizes, they are still human.

Banning photoshop is simply a way to avoid responsibilty and really tackle the issue of the French infatuation with a body type that simply looks underage and very vulnerable to me.

France didn't ban the photoshop action. Getty did.

Oh well... you persist in blaming the effect, instead the cause.

As per your logic, it's not the government of Venezuela starving its citizens with their failed laws and crumbling economic system, it's the greed of rich people, the evil foreign investors, etc.
Laws are good, people are bad!

Remove your horse blinders and look around. Getty would have never reacted like this in the absence of this stupid law.

Another clear example of an obtuse government hindering creativity.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on October 01, 2017, 17:53
The topic of Getty banning the liquify action from their stock is certainly being widely discussed in many places on the net.

What I really don´t understand is, why nobody is talking about the main problem. The French cultural obsession with the "silhouette".

I don´t know that many countries, but in a different life in my early twenties I did go to France quite a bit to see friends. I weighed 66-68 kg, perfectly normal at 1.72m. But all the time I would be teased, in a very friendly and very loving way, about me being such a chubby girl and how I would be so much better looking if I lost at least 10 kg.

"Think of your silhouette", they would chime.

Some girls even suggested I should take up smoking, seemed to help many of them. It was weird, nobody ever suggested I should lose that much weight here. German students aren´t that focussed on elegance, at least my crowd wasn´t. Old T-shirts, jeans and the inevitable Birkenstock and a handknit pullover made from organic wool from a farm you had visited and maybe you even knew the sheeps name the wool came from...


I´ve been told the rest of France doesn´t necessarily share the obsession, but somewhere between ballet dance and a beauty ideal of having a childs body with incredibly huge eyes and lips, something went really wrong.

But to externalize blame on a photoshop action, instead of having a real cultural discussion about health and self esteemed, that a girls or womans value is not based on her outer shape alone.

So many cultures like healthy women, with volume coming out at the right places. Why not share the fun. It´s not like they don´t know how to party.

At least embrace some diversity, in the way you dress and in body shapes. people come in all forms and sizes, they are still human.

Banning photoshop is simply a way to avoid responsibilty and really tackle the issue of the French infatuation with a body type that simply looks underage and very vulnerable to me.

France didn't ban the photoshop action. Getty did.

Oh well... you persist in blaming the effect, instead the cause.

As per your logic, it's not the government of Venezuela starving its citizens with their failed laws and crumbling economic system, it's the greed of rich people, the evil foreign investors, etc.
Laws are good, people are bad!

Remove your horse blinders and look around. Getty would have never reacted like this in the absence of this stupid law.

Another clear example of an obtuse government hindering creativity.

As others have pointed out, Getty could have just added a line and a check mark to the model release.

Please don't drive dunk tonight, Mr. all laws are bad.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on October 01, 2017, 19:58
The topic of Getty banning the liquify action from their stock is certainly being widely discussed in many places on the net.

What I really don´t understand is, why nobody is talking about the main problem. The French cultural obsession with the "silhouette".

I don´t know that many countries, but in a different life in my early twenties I did go to France quite a bit to see friends. I weighed 66-68 kg, perfectly normal at 1.72m. But all the time I would be teased, in a very friendly and very loving way, about me being such a chubby girl and how I would be so much better looking if I lost at least 10 kg.

"Think of your silhouette", they would chime.

Some girls even suggested I should take up smoking, seemed to help many of them. It was weird, nobody ever suggested I should lose that much weight here. German students aren´t that focussed on elegance, at least my crowd wasn´t. Old T-shirts, jeans and the inevitable Birkenstock and a handknit pullover made from organic wool from a farm you had visited and maybe you even knew the sheeps name the wool came from...


I´ve been told the rest of France doesn´t necessarily share the obsession, but somewhere between ballet dance and a beauty ideal of having a childs body with incredibly huge eyes and lips, something went really wrong.

But to externalize blame on a photoshop action, instead of having a real cultural discussion about health and self esteemed, that a girls or womans value is not based on her outer shape alone.

So many cultures like healthy women, with volume coming out at the right places. Why not share the fun. It´s not like they don´t know how to party.

At least embrace some diversity, in the way you dress and in body shapes. people come in all forms and sizes, they are still human.

Banning photoshop is simply a way to avoid responsibilty and really tackle the issue of the French infatuation with a body type that simply looks underage and very vulnerable to me.

France didn't ban the photoshop action. Getty did.

Oh well... you persist in blaming the effect, instead the cause.

As per your logic, it's not the government of Venezuela starving its citizens with their failed laws and crumbling economic system, it's the greed of rich people, the evil foreign investors, etc.
Laws are good, people are bad!

Remove your horse blinders and look around. Getty would have never reacted like this in the absence of this stupid law.

Another clear example of an obtuse government hindering creativity.

As others have pointed out, Getty could have just added a line and a check mark to the model release.

Please don't drive dunk tonight, Mr. all laws are bad.

I never said all laws are bad, as I stated on at least 3 occassion, so far.

This is you, being wrong again, because you make assumptions.

Your assumptions about who I am (when you didn't even read my statements, let alone be bothered to understand how I think), are as wrong your assumptions about the effects of this law.

If I'm not wrong, you live in the NY area.
If so, you must have been really pissed when that NY Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule was considered an excess of authority by the NY Court of Appeals.
Luckily for us, the American courts have a decent record in blocking such moronic laws.

So, please, don't drink too much coke, tonight! It is bad for your health, it drives obesity up, and there is no "nanny state" law to take care of you!  :P
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: cobalt on October 01, 2017, 22:07
I am from Italy, which on this topic is much, much stricter than France (I have lived in France for about 12 years, so I know).
While leaving in Italy I always had a perfect silhouette, it is simply unthinkable there to be overweight: your friends would avoid you and your girl friends would laugh at you. Don't even think about it.
Now I have been leaving in England for about 16 years and I have put up a few kilos too many: who cares anyway, they are all obese here, I am still much thinner than most...
Recently I went on holiday in Italy and France and realised than I am not that popular anymore with my former friends, some of the good ones took me apart and told me: what is the matter with you? Why did you let yourself go, you used to be a legend around here.
Coming back to England I started going to the gym everyday and control again what I eat and drink and I keep losing weight.
Thank you Italy for once

Yes, I remember my italian friends, I mean some of those girls they would literally live on 4 grapes, a bit of cheese, tons of coffee and lots of cigarettes. Didn´t realise it was even worse than France, though.

I don´t mind being nagged to a healthy weight, but to do it with cigarettes, coffee and genuine starvation, fainting often, looking weak and ill, i am sorry that is just not an alternative for me.

It is fascinating what you report how people start to avoid you, like you are constantly and loudly drunk, or have a terrible disease they might catch.

But it is mostly women on women, right?

How can they be happy and have self esteem if everything is judged only on their weight and their looks?

Being healthy, eating well, going to the gym and relaxing often is one thing.

But the people I met were unbelievably nervous, often seriously depressed and very insecure. And yet always asking their female friends to critize them. A bit like ballet, the "favorite" girl was always the one most heavily scolded by the teacher. If they critique you, they care, if they don´t snipe at you, you are not worth their effort.

I really like France and French people, but I am glad I live in Germany, especially as a women it seems to be so much easier. Society expects you to work hard in your job but otherwise you can meet your friends in your pyjamas, enjoy eating large meals and relaxing in your hammock. At home you don´t pretend. And you would never abandon your friends over their looks. If you do, it would be more than weird. Obviously friendships have their ups and downs, but I don´t see weight issues being a problem. It would be like leaving someone because they changed their hair color, or preferred to wear jeans instead of skirts. Why would you do that?

French women seem to handle everything - their looks, the kids, the job, their family and their 5-7 affairs while looking perfectly slim, elegant and effortlessly floating on air. Literally super human. But home life was much stricter and more formal than what I am used to.

It´s their country, but overall I am really not surprised that girls have low self esteem and serious body image issues.



Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Brasilnut on October 02, 2017, 02:53
Quote
Yes, I remember my italian friends, I mean some of those girls they would literally live on 4 grapes, a bit of cheese, tons of coffee and lots of cigarettes. Didn´t realise it was even worse than France, though.

I've lived in Italy for 3 years and have also spent a lot of time in France and can confirm that there's an irrational pressure on everybody to be slim, although it affects young girls (negatively) much more. In Milan, in particular, because it's a fashion centre, there's a lot of judging about the way you look/how you dress. I don't care much for all this and prefer to be a fly on the wall.

The good news is that the food in both these countries is generally balanced, inexpensive & fresh (more so in Italy imo), combined with a nice climate (compared to northern Europe), making it easier to be healthier. The climate is a huge factor since you spend more time of the year dressed in lighter clothes and your body is more exposed, in contrast with colder places.

This is interesting from an academic point of view. How beauty is viewed in different countries and why. Also, how standards of beauty change with time. I'm from Brazil and the women on there are generally curvy with big bums and muscular legs from doing squats. It's how that society views beauty and it's probably a healthier model to live by but like everything it's constantly changing. In Italy it's all about being super thin with long legs and no bum...not that attractive imo. 

I'll end this by stating the two following points:

1. Regulation is generally ineffective short-term solution to change society's views as it takes at least a generation. Although intentions by policymakers are noble, the cost / benefit ratio is skewed to too much cost and too little benefit in this case. The role of good parenting and well-rounded education system is paramount.

2. The obesity crisis is a considerably more harmful to public health than the anorexia / thin young women crisis and little has been said about this on here, which is unfortunate. In many western countries, the number of obese teenagers (or soon to be obese adults) far outweighs the number of underweight teenagers. This is a fact.

I would go longer and further with sources and evidence to fill some gaps, but would be far too long.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on October 02, 2017, 05:40
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).

It's possible to tackle both simultaneously. Saying one is worse so we should ignore the other is a false dichotomy. If you're concerned about obesity then do something about it, but don't tell others not to tackle the problem of models and young girls and women starving themselves.

It's much more important to save some people's lives and health than it is for a relatively small number of photographers to have to label some of their photos.

If you're angry with Getty for their reaction, I wonder why this, which will probably affect a small percentage of the photos taken by a very small percentage of their contributors, has you so much more upset than the million other nasty things they've done to screw us over.

After all, photographers can still shoot skinny people. They just can't "liquefy" them and submit to Getty.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Brightontl on October 02, 2017, 06:34
As a friend of mine would say: "much ado about nothing"
:-)
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on October 02, 2017, 09:59
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 (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318619.php)

I'm fully aware this might be an extreme example but it highlights a principle.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on October 02, 2017, 10:38
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 (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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on October 02, 2017, 10:45
As a friend of mine would say: "much ado about nothing"
:-)

Oh, you know Bill too? What a guy!
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Brightontl on October 02, 2017, 10:56
As a friend of mine would say: "much ado about nothing"
:-)

Oh, you know Bill too? What a guy!
Good old Billy...
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: YadaYadaYada on October 02, 2017, 11:50
As a friend of mine would say: "much ado about nothing"
:-)

Oh, you know Bill too? What a guy!
Good old Billy...

Beware of skinny people.

"Yond' Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous."
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on October 02, 2017, 13:16
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 (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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on October 02, 2017, 13:51
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 (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.  ::)
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on October 02, 2017, 13:53
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.

You're not very good at these analogies are you?!

1. While the opposite of alcohol may be water (even though it isn't... see point 2), your analogy was on alcoholism. The opposite of alcoholism isn't water.

2. The opposite of 100% alcohol within a liquid, isn't necessarily water. It's just a liquid that doesn't contain any alcohol. Doesn't have to be water... could be lava. Obviously.   
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on October 02, 2017, 14:08
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 (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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Pauws99 on October 02, 2017, 14:48
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 (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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on October 02, 2017, 15:07
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 (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.

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

Yeah, too much "looking", might lead to death. We definitely have to regulate "looking".  :o

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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Pauws99 on October 02, 2017, 15:16
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 (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?
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on October 02, 2017, 17:49
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?
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on October 03, 2017, 03:23
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: mynameis on October 06, 2017, 13:46
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on October 08, 2017, 16:35
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
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on October 08, 2017, 18:52
Yeah, saving babies' lives is soooo not worth it.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on October 08, 2017, 19:26
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!
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on October 08, 2017, 20:16
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!
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on October 08, 2017, 21:07
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!

Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on October 09, 2017, 07:35
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on October 09, 2017, 10:26
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on October 09, 2017, 11:37
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.
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on October 09, 2017, 12:00
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
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Shelma1 on October 09, 2017, 14:30
"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
Title: Re: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes
Post by: Zero Talent on October 09, 2017, 15:38
"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?