pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stock image legs amputated for diabetes ad...NYT now looking for Getty model  (Read 12660 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RT


« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2012, 12:29 »
0
I'm used to a system where adverts must be 'legal, decent, honest and truthful' (though I don't actually know the difference between 'honest' and 'truthful'!) even by implication.

What 'system' is that?

I was wondering the same thing. @ShadySue - I thought you lived in the UK. The basic principle here is that the ad must not 'mislead consumers' and taking the ad in the OP's original post there's nothing there that I can see would breach any UK regs, assuming of course that the information about the diabetes is correct.

To be honest you'd have a better chance of suing the burger chain in gostwycks example.


ShadySue

« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2012, 12:47 »
0
I'm used to a system where adverts must be 'legal, decent, honest and truthful' (though I don't actually know the difference between 'honest' and 'truthful'!) even by implication.


What 'system' is that?


I was wondering the same thing. @ShadySue - I thought you lived in the UK. The basic principle here is that the ad must not 'mislead consumers' and taking the ad in the OP's original post there's nothing there that I can see would breach any UK regs, assuming of course that the information about the diabetes is correct.

To be honest you'd have a better chance of suing the burger chain in gostwycks example.


Advertising Standards Authrority (UK)
http://www.asa.org.uk

« Reply #27 on: January 26, 2012, 12:55 »
0
I'm used to a system where adverts must be 'legal, decent, honest and truthful' (though I don't actually know the difference between 'honest' and 'truthful'!) even by implication.

What 'system' is that? It might be good theory but it doesn't work in practice and never will. If you go to MacDonalds does the burger you are served look anything like the picture on the menu? Same with any processed food you buy from the supermarket. Isn't photoshopping of any models 'false advertising'? What about them being plastered with make-up to hide blemishes?

Photoshop exists to make things look different to how they really are.

Year ago I read somewhere that restaurants like McDonald's and food manufacturers are required by law to use only the exact products in their food imagery.  The examples were McDonald's must use the exact bun from the exact bun bakery that they use for their hamburgers, and ice cream manufacturers must use their product and not some adulterated glob of stuff created to hold up under the lights.  Wish I could remember where I read that, so I could share it.

ShadySue

« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2012, 13:05 »
0
I'm used to a system where adverts must be 'legal, decent, honest and truthful' (though I don't actually know the difference between 'honest' and 'truthful'!) even by implication.

What 'system' is that? It might be good theory but it doesn't work in practice and never will. If you go to MacDonalds does the burger you are served look anything like the picture on the menu? Same with any processed food you buy from the supermarket. Isn't photoshopping of any models 'false advertising'? What about them being plastered with make-up to hide blemishes?

Photoshop exists to make things look different to how they really are.

Year ago I read somewhere that restaurants like McDonald's and food manufacturers are required by law to use only the exact products in their food imagery.  The examples were McDonald's must use the exact bun from the exact bun bakery that they use for their hamburgers, and ice cream manufacturers must use their product and not some adulterated glob of stuff created to hold up under the lights.  Wish I could remember where I read that, so I could share it.

I had an old Amphoto book on food photography (at least 20 years old) which said that you can't use wax peas or larger fishfingers or suchlike in adverts, I think that was in the US (most likely for Amphoto, but maybe it was UK?) - other examples were perspex ice cubes, cigarette smoke instead of steam ...

RT


« Reply #29 on: January 26, 2012, 13:07 »
0
I'm used to a system where adverts must be 'legal, decent, honest and truthful' (though I don't actually know the difference between 'honest' and 'truthful'!) even by implication.


What 'system' is that?


I was wondering the same thing. @ShadySue - I thought you lived in the UK. The basic principle here is that the ad must not 'mislead consumers' and taking the ad in the OP's original post there's nothing there that I can see would breach any UK regs, assuming of course that the information about the diabetes is correct.

To be honest you'd have a better chance of suing the burger chain in gostwycks example.


Advertising Standards Authrority (UK)
http://www.asa.org.uk


Exactly, nothing in the CAP codes of practise say anything where the way the ad is made graphically has to be "legal, decent, honest and truthful" in a way that the OP's example would be an infringement over here, as I said earlier those rules are to stop the ad 'misleading consumers' by way of the message/information it's portraying.
The guy in the photo may have a case for defamation of character but that's another issue.

ShadySue

« Reply #30 on: January 26, 2012, 13:15 »
0
I don't think it could be defamation of character.
But anyway, what good does this sort of usage do the cause? There must have been a good chance they could get a real example of a person who had had an amputation due to diabetes who was willing to be photographed as a warning to others?
People who see this sort of fakery just use it as an excuse to put the message out of their mind, and it damages future campaigns, as people just think photos used are fakes. Yes, they want to believe that, but it just feeds into that want if a precedent can be established.
It's a serious message, and deserves not to be hijacked like this.

RT


« Reply #31 on: January 26, 2012, 13:22 »
0
There must have been a good chance they could get a real example of a person who had had an amputation due to diabetes who was willing to be photographed as a warning to others?

From the link: But they said that doing so was not always feasible. Sometimes we use individuals who are suffering from the particular disease; other times we have to use actors

Sometimes when I'm doing an outdoor shoot I want the sun to shine, it doesn't always happen so I use a big light  ;)
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 13:25 by RT »

« Reply #32 on: January 26, 2012, 13:24 »
0
Year ago I read somewhere that restaurants like McDonald's and food manufacturers are required by law to use only the exact products in their food imagery.  The examples were McDonald's must use the exact bun from the exact bun bakery that they use for their hamburgers, and ice cream manufacturers must use their product and not some adulterated glob of stuff created to hold up under the lights. 


Someone has actually been to the trouble of buying fast food products, photographing them and then comparing them to the product advertisement. Hilarity ensues ...

http://thewvsr.com/adsvsreality.htm

ShadySue

« Reply #33 on: January 26, 2012, 13:34 »
0
There must have been a good chance they could get a real example of a person who had had an amputation due to diabetes who was willing to be photographed as a warning to others?

From the link: But they said that doing so was not always feasible. Sometimes we use individuals who are suffering from the particular disease; other times we have to use actors
So put "posed by actor"

But the question is has the cause received more widespread publicity through this and is any publicity good publicity, or does it turn people against the important message?
That I can't answer.

« Reply #34 on: January 26, 2012, 15:29 »
0
Year ago I read somewhere that restaurants like McDonald's and food manufacturers are required by law to use only the exact products in their food imagery.  The examples were McDonald's must use the exact bun from the exact bun bakery that they use for their hamburgers, and ice cream manufacturers must use their product and not some adulterated glob of stuff created to hold up under the lights. 


Someone has actually been to the trouble of buying fast food products, photographing them and then comparing them to the product advertisement. Hilarity ensues ...

http://thewvsr.com/adsvsreality.htm


That is pretty funny.

I looked at both images and it seems that the ingredients are identical, but the person taking the pics on the right is a. no food stylist  b. not a pro photographer because the lighting sucks. Of course when we buy the product it isn't going to look as good as the pro shot, but then I imagine the pros have the benefit of getting "perfect" food ingredients to photograph.

I'll bet one of us could make the same purchases and get those images to look a heck of a lot better, even if the sandwich has been mashed down.

Just a funny regional story...for some reason, some people in South Carolina think all sandwiches should be "mashed". You watch them build the sandwich and it looks decent, then when they wrap it, they mash it before giving it to you. Very annoying.

« Reply #35 on: January 26, 2012, 15:40 »
0
Year ago I read somewhere that restaurants like McDonald's and food manufacturers are required by law to use only the exact products in their food imagery.  The examples were McDonald's must use the exact bun from the exact bun bakery that they use for their hamburgers, and ice cream manufacturers must use their product and not some adulterated glob of stuff created to hold up under the lights. 


Someone has actually been to the trouble of buying fast food products, photographing them and then comparing them to the product advertisement. Hilarity ensues ...

http://thewvsr.com/adsvsreality.htm


That is pretty funny.

I looked at both images and it seems that the ingredients are identical, but the person taking the pics on the right is a. no food stylist  b. not a pro photographer because the lighting sucks. Of course when we buy the product it isn't going to look as good as the pro shot, but then I imagine the pros have the benefit of getting "perfect" food ingredients to photograph.

I'll bet one of us could make the same purchases and get those images to look a heck of a lot better, even if the sandwich has been mashed down.

Just a funny regional story...for some reason, some people in South Carolina think all sandwiches should be "mashed". You watch them build the sandwich and it looks decent, then when they wrap it, they mash it before giving it to you. Very annoying.


South Carolina is weird anyway.   If Newt Gingrinch becomes the Republican nominee, it's all South Carolina's fault.   ;)

« Reply #36 on: January 26, 2012, 15:49 »
0
^^^ True! Of course the 'advert products', the burgers in particular, will be wonders of modern engineering and held in place with a variety of cocktail sticks, glue, vaseline, all just out of shot. They're certainly not for eating.

One thing I like about food photography is that you never stop learning little techniques to make food look absolutely mouth-watering __ although the food is often inedible.

« Reply #37 on: January 26, 2012, 15:50 »
0
South Carolina is weird anyway.   If Newt Gingrinch becomes the Republican nominee, it's all South Carolina's fault.   ;)

Mashing sandwiches is weird, but I wouldn't go so far to say South Carolina is weird. Or maybe I'm weird...I like it here. But I do agree with you about Newt...could NOT believe that happened.

« Reply #38 on: January 26, 2012, 15:51 »
0
^^^ True! Of course the 'advert products', the burgers in particular, will be wonders of modern engineering and held in place with a variety of cocktail sticks, glue, vaseline, all just out of shot. They're certainly not for eating.

One thing I like about food photography is that you never stop learning little techniques to make food look absolutely mouth-watering __ although the food is often inedible.

I love food photography.

« Reply #39 on: January 26, 2012, 16:23 »
0
South Carolina is weird anyway.   If Newt Gingrinch becomes the Republican nominee, it's all South Carolina's fault.   ;)

Mashing sandwiches is weird, but I wouldn't go so far to say South Carolina is weird. Or maybe I'm weird...I like it here. But I do agree with you about Newt...could NOT believe that happened.

Yeh...you're right!  I live in California and our weirdness beats the entire nation!   :D

« Reply #40 on: January 26, 2012, 16:37 »
0
If the model doesn't have a problem with it, there's no problem...

« Reply #41 on: January 26, 2012, 17:25 »
0
If the model doesn't have a problem with it, there's no problem...

If there's a proper model release, there's no problem.


« Reply #42 on: January 26, 2012, 20:59 »
0
How come the photographer says he never knew the man's name and yet, according to Getty, it has a signed model release?
Privacy? I would say exactly the same.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #43 on: January 26, 2012, 21:21 »
0
I wonder why the photographer lied? That is probably the part in this that is most creepy. He shot the guy in a studio, so he probably spent a few hours with the guy, certainly had a signed release, and should be able to find it fairly easily. Perhaps he panicked and instead of saying "no comment" the lie came out first.

« Reply #44 on: January 30, 2012, 16:13 »
0

« Reply #45 on: January 30, 2012, 18:13 »
0
Waaah...

« Reply #46 on: January 30, 2012, 19:05 »
0
Model not happy but admits to signing release.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/actor-beyond-shocked-ad-altered-leg-appear-amputated-173035069.html


He signed it __ therefore he didn't have a leg to stand on.

« Reply #47 on: January 30, 2012, 19:24 »
0
He's definitely trying to put his best foot forward by promoting himself with the publicity.

« Reply #48 on: January 30, 2012, 19:31 »
0
True. Any decent lawyer would tell him to hop it.

RacePhoto

« Reply #49 on: January 31, 2012, 00:03 »
0
Waaah...

Yes, anything to get into the news. Society of victims.

And anyone who thinks advertisements are the truth, needs some serious reality education. It's selling something, I assume they aren't telling the whole truth, or are embellishing the facts.

As many people have pointed out, every photo we take, unless we get real people from that profession, are subject to the same complaint about truthful advertising. Every woman shown with children must be the real parent? Anyone photographed with an item, must actually own that item...

Yes, food photos on packages must be the same as the contents. Look closely at the packages, it often says, image enlarged to show detail.  :)

It's an illustration on a public service informational poster. Must be a shortage of real news?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4894 Views
Last post December 16, 2008, 19:30
by grp_photo
38 Replies
16111 Views
Last post March 02, 2010, 19:08
by RT
1 Replies
1288 Views
Last post February 16, 2012, 14:16
by ann
3 Replies
2566 Views
Last post January 27, 2018, 12:32
by stockastic
1 Replies
1788 Views
Last post October 10, 2018, 11:32
by fotoVoyager

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results