Makeup Companies Run Into Legal Trouble For Too Much Photoshopping... And Not Enough Photoshopping

from the damned-if-you-do,-damned-if-you-don't dept

There's a story making the rounds about how the UK Advertising Standards Authority is banning certain cosmetics advertisements including Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington, because the images are way too Photoshopped.
The ASA says that ads can't mislead, and the makeup company (in this case L'Oreal) did not provide enough evidence that the digital alterations did not, in fact, mislead.

Now, this story was interesting on its own, but what made it even more interesting is that another makeup firm, Estee Lauder, seems to be in a legal dispute, for the exact opposite reason. Ima Fish recently alerted us to the news that model Caroline Louise Forsling had sued the company for the following advertisement:
She claims that the photo was just a "test shot" before any makeup was applied, and was for a different product. She claims that the showing of her untouched-up face on the left has 'irreparably' damaged her career. Of course, in suing over this, she effectively admits that the image on the left is the untouched-up image. She could have just as easily told people that the right-hand side was the "real" image, and the left-hand one was digitally altered, and gotten on with her life.

Either way, it should be noted that in both of these stories, they're about supposed "anti-aging" products, and I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that digitally altering images is how such products are advertised, rather than showing any actual before and after shots, because I imagine "real results" are likely to vary from what's seen in any of these ads.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 1:31pm

    *runs off to patent/trademark/copyright "photoshop anti aging cream"*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 1:50pm

    Really, Caroline Louise Forsling? The difference between the two face halves is so slight that it's hard to see how one could "irreparably damage" a career but the other one couldn't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 1:55pm

    Photoshop

    I always thought those pictures were just one picture with both sides photoshopped. I now know better.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 1:56pm

    Re:

    You know, along those same lines, here's another question:

    Why can't women just accept that they're still hot as hell without the makeup?

    Sincerely,

    All non-retarded men everywhere....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Todd S. (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 2:08pm

    Just confirms my thoughts...

    that Julia Roberts requires photoshop to appear as a pretty woman. I think it's the lack of a philtrum.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    TheStupidOne, Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Re:

    Correction ... they CAN be hot as hell. Some women really need that makeup ...

    Google image results for "with and without makeup"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 2:26pm

    "She could have just as easily told people..."

    Assuming TRUTH is of no consequence. -- YES, I do consider it significant that MIke writes that casually.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    drewmo (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 2:33pm

    In the second case, you didn't link to a story, but googling I find this: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/swimsuit_beauty_it_ad_nau_ea_dmi_3FAVKsgVT7MrN4spjXmu8M#i xzz1OD46GExu

    And from that, it doesn't seem that she's saying that the left-side of the photo is untouched. In fact, she's stating that the photo is digitally manipulated (obviously), but makes no claim about what specifically (or, which side) is manipulated.

    "the so-called 'dramatization' of the product did not result from the use of the product by Forsling, but rather reflected [their] manipulation of a photograph." So all they're saying there is that the photo is touched-up. Where do they say that the left-half is untouched?

    She's saying she didn't consent to that use of that photo, and that's where she notes that it was just based on a test photo. So that just sounds like a disagreement about who owns what rights to the photo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 2:36pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    A lot of those pictures have more to do with lighting, pose, clothing, etc than they have to do with make up.

    Some of those pictures are obviously comparing without to touched up/photoshopped images.

    Some of those pictures I have a hard time believing that the "without makeup" picture is even the same person as the "with", for example, Angelina Jolie. If the "without" is really Angelina, it's her from a long time ago, before any plastic surgery she's done. So again, make up isn't the factor.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    wnyght (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 2:38pm

    Re: Re:

    "along those same lines".... perfect unintended pun

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 2:42pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    God I wish it had been intended....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    eclecticdave (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 2:42pm

    Well, of course it's perfectly valid to use photoshopped images - these are intended to represent the reflections vain women see in the mirror after applying moisturiser with 1000% markup. Such delusions cannot be captured with a camera lens ;-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 3:00pm

    Re: Re:

    Amen. My wife pretty much never wore makeup (and as far as I know, still does not), and I was always happy with things that way.

    The Ms. Forsling on the left looks quite attractive to me. Of course, I'm not trying to hire her as a model.

    I guess the real issue is what sells, and real people don't sell. Glitz and plastic sells. Unrealistic and distorted body images sell. Removing all signs of physical maturity sells. But real faces, real bodies? Disgusting.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 3:03pm

    She could have just as easily told people that the right-hand side was the "real" image, and the left-hand one was digitally altered, and gotten on with her life

    Or...

    She could have just as easily told people that the left-hand side was the real image and that she looked great for her age and was proud, and happy, of the way she looked.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    thedigitari, Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 3:12pm

    my wife asked me........

    what the hell is make up? she always thought that was something you did after a fight

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 3:52pm

    Hrm.

    I think the real lesson here is that Adobe has a huge untapped market.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 3:54pm

    Re: "She could have just as easily told people..."

    Umm, her complaint is about the fact that a photo does not misrepresent her looks enough to make her as falsely-perfect as she wants people to believe. She has already established that "truth" is not an issue for her.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 4:10pm

    Re:

    you didn't link to a story,

    Oops! Added back the link that must have been cut out in the editing...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 4:13pm

    Re: Re:

    If it were about impressing guys, 1 trip to the gym > all makeup and clothes in the world.
    But makeup and fashion isn't about impressing guys in the least.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 2nd, 2011 @ 7:02pm

    darned if you do, darned if you don't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    mike allen (profile), Aug 3rd, 2011 @ 12:59am

    Has anyone thought that the only way they would sell these things to women is to photo-shop if they saw the real results they would know they were a waist of money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Aug 3rd, 2011 @ 10:35am

    Re: Re: Re:

    That. Makeup is ok but a fresh natural girl/woman is also wonderful. Women in advertisements and magazines are virtual today. Most of them.

    Reminds me of a collection of Playboy front pages I've seen recently. The older ones didn't have photoshop and.. wow, they are the hottest.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    chris, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 5:40am

    Re: Re:

    Here, here.

    Also, what's with the anti-aging crap? Why is it considered bad to look old when you are old? In other cultures it's something that commands respect. But not us, noooooo. Even if I could look 20 years younger, I wouldn't want to. It would be totally awkward and it usually looks that way.

    Let's suppose that a women wears makeup to make herself look attractive. However what she really cares about is looking attractive in a relative sense, compared to those around her. However, now all the women around her begin to do the same thing. What has been gained? Nothing. Between makeup and clothes, it just becomes a race to the bottom and that is exactly what is happening.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 5:43am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Maybe not for all, but I'm sure for many, it is about that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This