In Norway it is required by law to apply a standardized label to all advertising in which body shape, size, or skin is altered through retouching or other manipulation.
In Norway it is required by law to apply a standardized label to all advertising in which body shape, size, or skin is altered through retouching or other manipulation.
They made her head look massive lmao
She might just actually have a massive head. I once worked with a woman whose head was WAY out of proportion with the rest of her body. Whenever she got up from her desk, I would watch because I was convinced one day she was just gonna teeter over due to her massively oversized head compared to her body. I used to think she was pretty until I noticed that disparity and from then on, I was just creeped out. I've never met anyone since who had such a mismatch in head vs body size before or since and it's really stuck with me over the years.
Interesting!
For N Portman, her ratio looks nromal: https://akns-images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2016715/rs_634x1024-160815175423-634.Natalie-Portman-Red-Carpet.ms.081516.jpg
Tiny people appear to have massive heads, because of their small bodies.
It's giving Detective Conan
Well done, Norway!
You are in the future . Amazing
Without any stats, I suspect retouching is so prevalent, that basically Norway mandated every ad put a sticker on the copy, and consumers will just learn to ignore it. Hopefully that doesn't end up the case, because this is a great first step.
It also doesn't seem like there's any way for the consumer to find out the extent of the retouching. Like, let's say I'm interested in a product but the picture is retouched, can I find the original image anywhere to see a more realistic depiction of that product?
One of the complaints I have with Prop65 labels ('this product is known to the state of California to cause cancer' labels) is that its significant extra work for me, as the casual consumer, to figure out what and how much is in the product. So by default I would want to avoid it in general, but if there's only 3 options and they all have the warning, I can't tell if one is straight cancer another just has a little cancer dusted on and the third uses a much less cancerous alternative chemical that still falls afoul of the marking laws, but is barely harmful if used as directed.
It’s even worse than this. The law is apparently worded in such a way that doing anything to an image counts as retouching. So unless basically publish straight from the camera they have to put that mark on
Reminds me of the showoff neighbors
Lassie's got a FUCKIN GIGANTIC HEAD
Maybe it's her...
Maybe it's generative~
