Photoshopped Images Get a French Diss

The French Parliament wants you to know what you are looking at when you see images of hot models in ads.

According to an article in Britain’s Telegraph newspaper, about 50 French politicians are concerned that airbrushed images are causing image problems and health issues for females. They want disclaimers on any airbrushed photo stating that it was touched up, although the debate on the exact wording continues. This would include images in newspapers and magazines, as well as any billboard advertising campaigns and product packaging.

Valerie Boyer, of France’s UMP party, said:

"These photos can lead people to believe in a reality that does not actually exist, and have a detrimental effect on adolescents. "Many young people, particularly girls, do not know the difference between the virtual and reality, and can develop complexes from a very young age. In some cases this leads to anorexia or bulimia and very serious health problems. It’s not just a question of public health, but also a way of protecting the consumer."

Boyer is advocating that violators get hit with a financial penalty of about 50 percent of the cost of the ad campaign. The proposed law was unveiled in Parliament last week.

In the video game industry, the issue of photoshopping screen shots has surfaced before. If a law covers ads, should it be extended to ANY type of media designed to influence the consumer? It would be interesting to see if game publishers would ascribe to any type of disclaimer.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Kojiro says:

    This is a great idea.  But we also need disclaimers on any image of a female that is wearing makeup or wearing a push-up bra, which are just analog touch-ups after all.  Heck, if the lighting of the set was manipulated to make her look better, then that also needs a disclaimer.  Or if they chose to shoot the model from a particular angle because it is more flattering.  And we can’t stop there, if the dressing rooms in clothing stores have lighting designed to flatter you, then it needs a disclaimer on the door.  Something like "you’re actually fatter than you look here.  Our lights, mirrors, and clever clothing designers are making you look better than you really do. – Management"


  2. 0
    sparkylarone says:

     yes becuase all kids are obisouly just mindless zombies that have no ability to think or  have common sense. honestly i hate it when people act as if kids will believe anything they see or dont magicly gain the ability to think for themselves at the age we consider them adults.

  3. 0
    Flamespeak says:

    And unless they are blatantly lying to people, then they are fine.

    If the people making these ads staight say, ‘Use this blush and you suddenly be as skinny as a rake and have no chest and the boys will flock to you.’ then they aren’t really lying.

  4. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    Not true. Here in the UK we have "Truth in advertising" laws.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  5. 0
    Hackangel says:

    Well I don’t know if posting a statement saying "this speech is not based on reality" while not forbidding said speech is a violation of free speech.

    They will still be able to advertise their pictures/products, it’s just that if their ad is not a completely real picture, they’ll to  have a disclaimer.

  6. 0
    Brokenscope says:

    Except it is not a violation of free speech because the actions of the major tobacco companies were a clear and present danger to the general health of the public.

    Not to mention that big tobacco agreed to most of the restrictions because they would have gotten reamed in court if they had fought them.

  7. 0
    Vake Xeacons says:

    Finally, someone who talks sense! I like a little meat on the bone too.

    First off, let me just say, no law needs to be passed against advertising! I know French dont have freedom of speech, but I still defend it! Its up to the consumer to decide whats right and true.

    Now, as for the "airbrushing," its not just advertising and Hollywood. Doctors and health physicians are in on this too. Have you noticed how the "healthy" weight for a woman has dropped in the last 20 years? Doctors are encouraging women into these eating habits because Hollywood says so.

  8. 0
    Speeder says:

    Mind you, the problem is not make-up or perfect skin, that is possible too in real life.

    The wrong that they want put a disclaimer is stuff like people artifically distorted to have impossible propertions, if you look at youtube and search for people photoshop or something like that, you will see that is common to stretch the neck, thin the waist, enlarge breasts, and all sorts of stuff that make the model look in the final result as a person that does not exist, they edit a person in photoshop to make the person look like a perfect statue with more than ideal proportions, men get their muscles bulged to a point reachable only with steroids (and steroids are usually bad idea, specially in teenagers that may not see clearly tha the overly muscled person does not exist, and try to reach it with steroids), and females are given perfect hourglass proportions that make girls take unhealthy life-styles in a futile attempt to reach them, some photos are even totally anatomycally wrong, some photos have so much distortion that a person to look like that would need some serious bone distortions too.


    Plastic surgeons all the time get clients that show them a picture and ask to look equal to the picture, and this are asked from mature adults, imagine what teenagers and children envyous of that images would not do?

    Not all surgeons are ethical enough to say that reaching the picture state is impossible.


  9. 0

    What’s next? A disclaimer playing through a movie or TV program when someone good looking is on screen stating that the actor/actress is wearing a lot of make up? This is one of those things that lead to the question of "where will it stop?"


    There’s a lot more misleading tactics than someone being made to look better than what they really do. Besides that, EVERYONE at this point should know that nine out of ten times those people look no where as good in person as they do in photos or film. This sort of thing has been around now for nearly 80 years.

  10. 0
    Kris says:

    Uh, while it might be false advertising, doctoring up an image to promote a video game is TOTALLY different than doctoring up an image of a model.  Photoshopping some promo screen isn’t going to have any ill affects on someone’s health.  But this thing with airbrushing models and stuff, that’s a serious problem. 

    And guys…ADULTS know this.  Kids don’t.  Teens don’t think "Oh, wow, that’s some great airbrushing on this model!"  They just think "This woman is flawless, why can’t I be that way?" 

  11. 0
    Brokenscope says:

    They are advertising more than products.

    They are advertising an impossible standard that all must meet to have any sort of worth. There are entire industries built around peoples attempts to reach that ideal.

  12. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Women or men wearing make-up is just as fake but just as legal and allowed and perfectly fine in my eyes. Also, certain poses and clothing can make women(/men) appear fake, so let’s ban those too. But then, what’s the point of advertising at all?

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  13. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    in zippy land morning can last 5 hours after you wake up, and soemtiems…they don’t……

     gaaaa headaches suck….


    Anything advertised needs one disclaimer for if the advertisment is partly fake or not. And needs one more for if they are lieing through thier teeth or not(over exsagerateing fact).

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!!

  14. 0
    Flamespeak says:

    *backhands Deuxhero*

    There is no fault here but people with self-esteem issues being easily manipulated by advertising agencies.  Parents are not at fault anywhere in this scenario. (unless the parent is promoting the idea and trying to convince their child to use such tactics you listed to lose weight).

    Sometimes the person doing the action is the one responsible for the action. It is a shocking concept, I know.

    Ad agencies have freedom of expression too, so they have every right to post their stuff, whether we like it or not. It is up to people to have the common sense to know that the ad agency is full of shit.

  15. 0
    deuxhero says:

    If you stick your hand down your throught because you don’t look like a porn star of the same gender (why are you looking like that?) I think there is an issue with the parents…


    I shouldn’t have to explain that this is from France, the land of entitlement.

  16. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Aside from the fact that 25% of thier body mass is silicone..

    Give me natural beauties with a little bit of fluff on the side.. Thats the way a real woman should look.

  17. 0
    Brokenscope says:

    Zippy the idea is that this advertising has an intense effect on how both men and women perceive themselves. That industry has been pushing impossible and down right unhealthy body and beauty standards, then lying to people about how to meet these standards so they can sell things that don’t help.

    They are telling people that THIS IS HOW YOU SHOULD LOOK, and the SUBJECTS don’t even look that way.

    It isn’t art, it’s advertising. If they want it to be art then they need to put it in a gallery, and not in fashion mags targeted to teen girls.

  18. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Ummm no…… shooping is a right you ninnys…I bet the frenbch allow you to paste kids heads on nude(of age) females….someone locally got hit with  child porn BS for doing it and not doign anyhtign esle(I think)….

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!!

  19. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    Well on the subject of video game companies, lies and disclaimers, when Ubisoft released GRAW they got fined here in the UK for their use of pre-rendered movies passed off as in-game graphics and were forced to put a "NOT ACTUAL GAMEPLAY FOOTAGE" disclaimer at the bottom.

    Mind you, since then adverts for next-gen games over here say "ACTUAL IN-GAME FOOTAGE".

    It is an interesting point though, because while we do have laws ensuring honesty in advertising, there is nothing about airbrushing and passing off faked-up women as real within the adverts themselves.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Leave a Reply