E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA picture of a wrinkle-free woman with a perfect body advertising skin cream and suggesting you could look the same may be too good to be true. Such ads have led Arizona lawmakers to consider a bill requiring disclaimers to alert consumers that such pictures are in fact manipulated.
The bill, its sponsor concedes, has little chance to pass, but the hope is to raise awareness of body issues that women and girls face as the result of such advertising.
“We just wanted to bring it to the table and start the discussion,” Rep. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat from Phoenix, told the Arizona Republic. “We need to bring attention to these body-image issues, especially with young girls. Girls need to know that they don’t have to look perfect.”
If enacted into law, a disclaimer would have to appear on the ad that “postproduction techniques were made to alter the appearance in this advertisement. When using this product, similar results may not be achieved.”
The idea for the legislation came from the local YWCA, Hobbs told the Republic, which was inspired by an effort in Britain to label manipulated photographs. The effort in the UK failed when the advertising industry fought the changes.
In the U.S., the Arizona bill is the first known attempt to require labeling of manipulated images, said Clark Rector, vice president for public affairs of the American Advertising Federation.
“If a photograph is manipulated to the point that it becomes deceptive or seems to be offering something that is untruthful, there are already laws to take care of that,” Rector told msnbc.com. “To disallow any kind of Photoshopping or manipulation would go a long way toward doing away with all sorts of special effects that have nothing to do with enhancements.”
The bill, House Bill 2793, was expected to be debated in the House Commerce Committee on Wednesday.
Hobbs was not immediately available for comment.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
Leave a Comment:
I think that's a reasonable idea. Plus there's plenty of precedent for mandated disclaimers on advertising.
My favorite is the "57-Year-Old Woman Looks 27" ad. The woman on the left looks like King Tut's grandmother, while the girl on the right isn't more than 20. If people buy into such obvious fabrications then they deserve to get scammed. Nobody really deserves to be scammed, but the reason why this is still a problem is that people continue to want something for nothing. without actually using their brains.
Perhaps it's too much to ask, but why can't people just use common sense. If it sounds too good to be real, then it isn't.
lol - this is so funny. I cannot believe society is lacking so much common sense that they have to be actually told that not everything they get from the media is what is appears. lol How insanely naive are we honestly? I act surprised but really I am not. Sadly the advances in medicine and science have done more to propagate idiocracy and prevent the lowest common element from removing themselves from the equation than actually advance as a species. lol. Oh my. ohhhhh myyyyyy.
I thought the article was talking about children??? Not morons....
Anyone who is so gullible that they don't realize that those "before" and "after" pictures aren't real deserves to get scammed.
Hopefully all adults know that every non-news picture they see is altered in some way. If this could help middle school girls understand that normal people don't really look like the pictures in the magazine, maybe we can save a few from anorexia or other problems.
What ever happened to truth in advertising laws and deceptive trade laws?
I always thought a "mandate" was what Richard Simmons was looking for on Saturday nights.
Sadly, Chris, you are a good example of one who should remove oneself from the equation and not propagate. There is no such word as "idiocracy". It was the fabricated name of a movie, but it isn't in the dictionary. The word you intended to use is probably "idiocy".
As for those of you who are complaining about people not having the common sense to know that images have been altered, the primary target of the legislation is young girls who are too naive to realize that women who are 50 can't possibly look like a 20-year-old merely because they supposedly use the products in the ads.
Is this really the most important issue the Arizona Legislature has to deal with????
Is it ironic that the pictures this news article is talking about are the exact ads pasted all over it to offer revenue??
Maybe that isnt irony... just sad...
No, they've also got things like passing laws that allow concealed guns onto college campuses to keep them busy.
Oh and I forgot, Arizona is also working on another law which will make it illegal for schoolteachers to 'curse', not only at schools but ANYWHERE and ANYTIME.
Come to Arizona, we is all idiots out here!
I see nothing wrong with requiring photos in ads that have been digitally manipulated to carry disclaimers saying so. I am not sure that the long winded statement the AZ legislature is looking at is needed. A simple statement "image has been retouched/manipulated" would be sufficient to get the point across.
The bill would only apply to the people coming across the border. How would they possibly know this stuff is false????????????????
The Arizona state legislature sure is doubling down on their "make our state look really stupid" plan...
It's a silly idea. Why is it only aimed at women? It sounds like Congresswoman Hobbs is suggesting women are stupid and gullible, but men are too smart to be duped. It also smacks of the "self esteem" hype. Instead of a disclaimer, just compel them to use un-retouched photos and say so somewhere on the ad. Making the advertiser admit the photo is airbrushed or shopped, doesn't present what the person in the ad would really look like.
I suspect this is a not-so-cleverly disguised poke at advertisers unduly influencing young girls. If so, wouldn't it be better to show them the truth with a genuine picture instead of a disclaimer some young teen girl probably won't read?
Firstly, bmc_saxman, you said what I was going to. You have to admit, that is just too damn funny right there. And Secondly, Stonecold, that was more than funny, that was friggin' HILARIOUS dude..... I am still lmao....Haha.... Thirdly, that little baby is creeping me out man......
What a waste of time. Are we to believe advertising is 100% realistic? Aren't advertising executives paid to create hype and silly jingles from glass enclosed skyskrapers? I think most advertising portrays society as forever 25 years old. Its not simply with skin creams. People have more intelligence than needing to be told whats real and whats not. We all know advertising is promotion and people make all kinds of claims about a myriad of products, travel etc on the market. We don't need to be told "dont believe everything you see" I think we sort of already know that. If not then the purchasers are pretty gullible. If we get fed up with advertising and buying what we know is realistic instead, perhaps the advertising industry will shift then on its own based on our own brainwork as consumers. I don't see why intervention is necessary. Theres more important stuff going on Arizona.
What about those ads that promised I could increase my penis?
I feel shorted!
Oh no, my wife has a bump on her forhead which is actually the unborn fetus of her twin sister, and I always airbrush it out of our family photos. I hope this law doesn't apply to me.
Stone Cold...careful, freedom of speach doesn't bend over that far.
"What about those ads that promised I could increase my penis?
I feel shorted!"
You think you got troubles? Last time I took my clothes off in front of a woman, she accused me of being a lesbian.
My drivers license pic is so bad they had to airbrush that
Toasty McGrath...(#1.15)..."The Arizona state legislature sure is doubling down on their "make our state look really stupid" plan..."
And she's Democrat too....so it crosses the aisle...
By the way, if you take a look at her photo on her Official Website....looks like its been touched up a bit, compared to other photos of her on her site.....Funny, I didn't see any disclaimer that the photo is an enhanced version of the lawmaker.
http://www.katiehobbs.org/photos.htm
I'm sure glad they are devoting their time and taxpayers money to such a good cause. We'd all be in some deep doo-doo without our trusty lawmakers looking out for us. I'll sleep better tonight.
Looks like Katie Hobbs doesn't bring much to the political arena...feeling a bit left out Katie?
She'll never get elected in Scottsdale - land of the plastic Cougar (in their dreams).
We do have some serious fatties in Arizona - those re-fried beans must not pass like you would think they should.
I hear her next proposal will be to re-name the politically incorrect road in her District 15; Indian School Road, to Native American School Road.
NO!!!! If people who actually believe that those are real people are brought into the know then people who retouch the photos won't be needed to make these people in the article flawless. I'LL BE JOBLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Consider understanding a cliche before using it.
-------------
mc_saxman
My favorite is the "57-Year-Old Woman Looks 27" ad. The woman on the left looks like King Tut's grandmother, while the girl on the right isn't more than 20. If people buy into such obvious fabrications then they deserve to get scammed. Nobody really deserves to be scammed, but the reason why this is still a problem is that people continue to want something for nothing. without actually using their brains.
Perhaps it's too much to ask, but why can't people just use common sense. If it sounds too good to be real, then it isn't.
#1.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:31 PM EST
I would much rather see these disclaimers on the fast food ads that never look anything at all like they show off in their advertisements. As for the cosmetic advertisements go, they should just run a disclaimer saying that with the use of their products and a little professional photoshopping, you indeed can look as perfect as their models do.
Try reading the 1st sentence in the article. "A picture of a wrinkle-free woman with a perfect body advertising skin cream and suggesting you could look the same may be too good to be true. Such ads have led Arizona lawmakers to consider a bill requiring disclaimers to alert consumers that such pictures are in fact manipulated." They are not talking about the side by side comparison of the 57 & the 27 yr olds seen in the ad on this page. They are talking about ALL air brushed and photoshopped ads. I say it's about time. I hope the legislature enacts this law. I do not buy or subscribe to any magazines. The photos are deceptive (since they're usually photoshopped) and most of the articles are shallow, full of propaganda (be it right wing or left wing), promoting lifestyles beyond the reach of most peoples incomes or repeats of information I already know. National Geographic is about the only publication left worth reading.
BTW it doesn't matter that you know that the photo is touched up or not. The suggestion or expectation is already implanted. My 14 yr old knows that these photos are touched up, I even showed her the touch up process demonstrated by Dove. But the constant bombardment of picture perfect women is overwhelming and damaging. The ad agencies should be required to print the disclaimer in bold type.
It is not reasonable. The government should have better things to do especially a place with the issues they have in Arizona. Get busy on something more important.
What is next. a disclaimer that says, yes she is wearing makup. Or maybe if you take a picture in favorable lighting, you should have a lawyer write some small print to accompany that.
When the model is actually way better looking than the reader of an article and doesn't need airbrushing, what then? Maybe a neatly crafted legal apology?
Thank GOD.......MORE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!.......More government to Save the day.......
Yess.... FINALLY the Government is addressing something of REAL substance........ THANK YOU, Almighty Government!!!!!!!! Give us MORE!!!!
(I thought this would never happen! :) )
the crook Ooo I mean "lawmaker" is just vying for lobbyist money. they are all such a-holes. I'm sure he will get everyone all up in a hissy.
Oh, heavens! How dumb are we that we believe ads aren't 'touched up'? Are we really such a nation of morons?
LOL that was my first thought as well!!
Personally, I think they should do the alert on ads if the women are not airbrushed. I always assume they are, if this might make it a nice surprise.
"Are we really such a nation of morons?"
You really have to ask? Is there a doubt in your mind?
Seriously? You can watch our election process and wonder if we're a nation of morons?
I just saw a commercial on TV about a new makeup that touts itself as the "Airbrushed Look." Personally, I find that funny. You go home with a "10" and you wake up with a "3" because she had that fresh airbrushed look..... Yikes....
I believe they are concerned more with what teenagers are perceiving from these ads. THEY wouldn't necessarily know about the photos being touched up. Yes, an educated adult should know better but come on, people still believe in strange phenomenons like the WWE, the Kardashians and congress!
Morons
You see the number of people who waste time every week watching American Idol every week and you wonder if we are a country of morons?
What ever happened to a girls mother saying,"Dear, those pictures aren't real, but retouched. You're pretty the way you are." Some parental guidance is what is needed, not another law. The dems think that they can deem ANYTHING by passing useless laws. You can't legislate perception, when will they learn that!!!!
The legislator presumes young girls are generally naive or idiotic.
"I know what's best for you" is certainly responsible for a lot of government overreach.
I would have thought people know pictures are enhanced, but then I remembered my brother at age 14 was shocked and astounded when told Playboy pictures were retouched. Maybe that indicates quite a few Americans are about as mature as a teenager - in a state of arrested development. Would explain a lot.
It doesn't matter that you know that the photo is touched up or not. The suggestion or expectation is already implanted. My 14 yr old knows that these photos are touched up, I even showed her the touch up process demonstrated by Dove. But the constant bombardment of picture perfect women is overwhelming and damaging. The ad agencies should be required to print the disclaimer in bold type.
you mean this crap isn't going to work? I already opened it!
there are plenty of disclaimers for new drugs ..you know the ones, and those stupid freaking cigarettes. but dummies still get the pills and smokes. You really just can't do anything with dumb.Do we really think these people will understand or believe the disclaimer?
This says it all:
We just wanted to bring it to the table and start the discussion," Rep. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat
Hey Ignorant left if you look at a picture and cant tell its airbrushed then your ignorant. How many stupid warning/disclaimers do we need in this world. Let the Stupid idiots kill themselves for Using some thing the wrong way or thinking that there 200+ Pound *** would ever look that good in the first place.
O I forgot the people so stupid to need warning labels and Disclaimers are the same people stupid enough to vote for idiots like you. Sorry I forgot.
The only law on the books we need is YOU OR YOUR FAMILY CANT SUE a company or business for you doing something Stupid.
Like trying to hair-dry your hair while standing in the bathtub full of water. WE DON'T NEED STUPID WARNING STICKERS LIKE THIS. That is a NO **** one by its self.
Take this ****ing BS and do some thing that is worth the TIME AND MONEY. Do to only an idiotwould not understand the picture of that woman on the front page of that Magazine is airbrushed. If you don't know that then go home and while standing in the bathtub full of water hair-dry your hair.
Do the ****ing world a favor....
I am imagining this lady Rep. Katie Hobbs, is quite a looker. NOT. Come on - only insecure ugly women care about this crud. Anyone with an ounce of confidence doesn't care. I know men prefer it!!! lol
Here are some actual warning labels from actual products.
1. Child-size Superman and Batman costumes come with this warning label: "Wearing of this garment does not enable you to fly."
2. A clothes iron comes with this caution: "Warning: Never iron clothes on the body." Ouch!
3. The instructions for a medical thermometer advise: "Do not use orally after using rectally."
4. The side of a Slush Puppy cup warns: "This ice may be cold." The only thing dumber than this would be a disclaimer stating: "No puppies were harmed in the making of this product."
5. The box of a 500-piece puzzle reads: "Some assembly required."
6. A Power Puff Girls costume discourages: "You cannot save the world!"
7. A box of PMS relief tablets has this advice: "Warning: Do not use if you have prostate problems."
8. Cans of Easy Cheese contain this instruction: "For best results, remove cap."
9. A warning label on a nighttime sleep-aid reads: "Warning: May cause drowsiness."
10. Cans of self-defense pepper spray caution: "May irritate eyes."
11. Both boys and girls should read the label on the Harry Potter toy broom: "This broom does not actually fly."
Jockstrap packaging: May Contain Nuts
Oh my, somebody is in some serious, and I mean SERIOUS need of Anger Management, Pronto.
"Clark Rector, vice president for public affairs of the American Advertising Foundation" aka a paid professional LIAR is telling people it's ok to lie to sell stuff...lie lie lie lie lie lie and profit....that's his business, and he will lie about anything that threatens his business profit.
So, whom to believe, those that want to stop the lies in advertising, or the paid professional liar in the business of telling lies in advertising...hmmm...
Wait, which one's the liar? The advertising guy or the politician? Neither have much credibility...
Such legislation is inconsistent with our status in the world. We produce more lies per second than any civilization in history: We ARE NUMBER ONE! And the ad industry is a principal contributor!
jeeper32, now how can you sit there and type out such big bold statements such as politicians are liars. I am certain that neither Newty or Romney have ever lied more than once...... in every 5 minutes of speech they give, let's vote fer 'em, YEAH!!!!
WStevens, Are you sure? I think you may be lying. LOL
Oh geewizz, I always thought those wrinkle-free women were for real.....how disappointing.
As always, stupid ass politicians must get their noses in places they do not belong. Airbrushing has been employed by professional photographers for many years before digital was even part of the vocabulary. It is there to fix or hide flaws and the like. Yes it can be taken a bit too far, but again, that is artistic license and nobody has the right to stop someone from 'airbrushing' an image and not telling you what or how. Did anyone ask Picasso to explain is cubist pictures or scold him for showing things that are not real? You can blame Al Gore, he probably said he invented the air brush. It was the morning he developed that Internet concept.
"stupid ass politicians"
As if there was any other kind.
Matt, your confusing apples with oranges here. This supposed bill isn't to outlaw airbrushing, just a disclaimer that if you use the skin cream, you wont necessarily look like the airbrushed bimbo in the ad. And the Picasso analogy has absolutely zero to do with this article, He was not painting to advertise some cheesy product, he was a painter, not an advertiser. And Al Gore, well.......
What good will disclaiming that it's airbrushed do? They'll just use a computer to make their models look just as flawless.
I believe most or all airbrushing is done via computer now. The disclaimer will say that it's been altered on any altered picture, not just those altered using a certain method.
The worst one is that Paula Deen woman. No picture on any cover looks real of that woman. It's freakish. I think she really died several years ago and they are just photoshopping her image.
I simply cannot stand to hear her talk Y'all..... she drives me to drink.... oh wait, that was my ex that did that....
"she drives me to drink.... oh wait, that was my ex that did that...."
Mine too, and I never thanked her properly.
Those phony photos of Paula Deen on magazines are soooooo scary! They should come with shields like some stores place over "Cosmo", so the covers don't scare small children. The real person, when she appears on the Today show, does not look as bad as the photos.
My wife always drove me to drink but she would never pick me back up. Sucks walking home when you're drunk!
Better than a DUI though. My husband drives, I do the drinking.
I got rid of my wife and life is sooooooooooooooooo much better. A malignant czarbuncle on society. That should be the name of a drink for your ex.
Good to see at least one state in this country has solved all their important problems and now has enough time and money on their hands to waste their energy on important issues such as this.
Ain't it the truth!
This is just a way for them to avoid doing anything about the real issues!
Much as I love Arizona, I got to agree with you.
Instead of selling the product maybe they should just sell the airbrushes.
Arizona governor Brewer should be fighting this purposed law not endorsing it. If anyone is in need of airbrushing its her. She has more wrinkles than a pack of Shar-pei's.
You are hitting below the belt. Just wait when you get to her age, your wrinkles will be much worst, unless you are born with skin colors.
I think this is a perfectly reasonable law and believe it should in fact pass.
You know when you see an ad for a tv set and the TV is on with a bright picture of a hot air balloon... they must say in the ad that the TV is displaying a SIMULATED PICTURE. This is really no different.
Wait til the lawyers hear this. You'll have ads on TV like the mesothelioma ads and the "bad drug" ads wanting all the poor mislead women who have suffered trauma because they didn't look like the bimbos in the ads after using these miracle makeups to file suit. Wait and see!
Hello people, it's called "advertising" for a reason.
Ah yes, your correct. There should not have to be any "truth" in advertising. But, as many others have stated already, are people really that effing stupid to believe that some wrinkle cream will make you look like whats her name Upton? I guess so.
There is a difference between stupid and innocent. Young girls (and boys) are simply innocent, and if they are raised by honest people, in an honest enviroment, they tend to be more credulous than the average kid. It's not sad that they are this way, rather it's sad that we view such a belief in people and life as stupid.
That said, adults SHOULD be able to discern the difference, especially when the claim "57 year old puts on cream and drops 35 years" lol...
Sad that it has little chance of passing, but thats not surprising in AZ.
Lying to people is lying to people, there is no way to justify it. Doing it in business IS FRAUD.
Coincidence this pops up right after the terrible, in my opinion, SI swimsuit issue comes out. That photo was obviously manipulated in many different ways. I think this bill this is more geared towards young girls who believe anything they see....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzAv7K8BtN0&ob=av2e
Here are some actual warning labels from actual products.
1. Child-size Superman and Batman costumes come with this warning label: "Wearing of this garment does not enable you to fly."
2. A clothes iron comes with this caution: "Warning: Never iron clothes on the body." Ouch!
3. The instructions for a medical thermometer advise: "Do not use orally after using rectally."
4. The side of a Slush Puppy cup warns: "This ice may be cold." The only thing dumber than this would be a disclaimer stating: "No puppies were harmed in the making of this product."
5. The box of a 500-piece puzzle reads: "Some assembly required."
6. A Power Puff Girls costume discourages: "You cannot save the world!"
7. A box of PMS relief tablets has this advice: "Warning: Do not use if you have prostate problems."
8. Cans of Easy Cheese contain this instruction: "For best results, remove cap."
9. A warning label on a nighttime sleep-aid reads: "Warning: May cause drowsiness."
10. Cans of self-defense pepper spray caution: "May irritate eyes."
11. Both boys and girls should read the label on the Harry Potter toy broom: "This broom does not actually fly."
Inside a tosater over was a piece of cardboard to hold the shelf in place. t had a warning to "Remove before use".
I think a better wording would be:
"Only a total dumbass would use the oven without removing cardboard first."
I am seriously curious as to just what exactly, is a tosater over? I tried to google it and the only thing that kept coming up was a toaster oven, how weird is that? LOL!!!!
Warning labels are bad enough but ever notice soda cans that say open here. How about sliced cheese like kraft singles with arrows pointing to the part of the plastic you have to grab and it says open here. That isn't nearly as sad as the people who actually need the label there so they know where to open the can or the cheese.
Then there was the hardwood floor cleaner that says, "safe for wood floors"
Or ice cream.....Keep frozen.............lol
The way they airbrush already pretty people to make them look too perfect is causing eating disorders and the drive for all the plastic surgery. No one looks as good as a magazine cover, not even the models!
Yup - plastic surgery sure makes everybody look better. Why, just look at Kenny Rogers and Joan Riv - oh, wait. Never mind. My goof.
Joan rivers is a Hottie.... oh wait, Never mind, beer goggles I 'spose....
I suppose the next thing they're going to tell us is that we DON'T get beautiful women if we drink a certain brand of beer.
"I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I usually wet myself."
I should have posted my post above on this post, way too funny..... And that last fact, just so know, a wee (pun intended) bit TMI.
Wouldn't the apparent victims be better off being taught to judge the varacity of claims so they can use that skill in all experiences in life? I mean, otherwise the disclaimers that are needed to protect the victims from misperceptions could be endless. Think of all the exercise products and supplements; and make up products, and car commercials, and clothing ads, and, and.... and what of classic art that idealizes the human form. We need a disclaimer on all of that too. My gosh they might think they need to look like the people in Rubens' or Picasso's works. Then where would they be???
As you all spew bile, please note that the congresswoman and supporters were referring to trying to help young girls with body image issues, and no, I am sure a lot of 10 year olds don't realize these perfect people are airbrushed. It;s why so many young women are getting breast implants-they have seen so many large globe shaped breasts in the media that they think that is the way they are supposed to look. Women in the media are held to a much higher standard of perfection than the men they are often portrayed with.
Well said, and sadly, true.
Do we really need to be told when airbrushing has been done? OK, men may not know (or care about) the difference but surely women can tell.
Better that mothers (and dads) use these "faked up" adverts as a teaching moment to remind their children that:
A)What you see is not always what you get
B) If it looks too good to be true...it probably is.
C) Being the best YOU you can be is all the beauty/handsomeness any person needs. Having confidence in yourself is far more important than perfect skin or hair.
You can't regulate good parenting.
And how about admitting to using false eyelashes on the models in the mascara ads?