New Bill Aims to Curb Overzealous Photoshopping

[Jesus Malverde]

A new bill introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives aims at curbing overzealous photoshopping of models and celebrities in advertisements.

Called the “Truth in Advertising Act,” the bill was co-sponsored by Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida and Democratic Rep. Lois Capps of California.

Advocates for the bill want more regulation for photoshopped images that appear in advertisements and other media.

“An increasing amount of academic evidence links exposure to such altered images with emotional, mental, and physical health issues, including eating disorders, especially among children and teenagers,” reads an excerpt of the bill. “There is particular concern about the marketing of such images to children and teenagers.”

Members of the Eating Disorder Coalition (EDC) met with lawmakers last month to lobby for the bill.

Read More: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2014/04/18/new-bill-aims-to-curb-overzealous-photoshopping/

[msongs]

1. uh oh look out cher and oprah lol nt

[Jesus Malverde]

2. pretty sure this is covered by the first amendment....nt

[BainsBane]

3. Sounds tricky constitutionally

As much as I like the idea in theory, when you think about the legal implications, it could get tricky. For photoshopping to fall under truth in advertising, wouldn't it have to relate to a claim in the ad, such as a wrinkle cream? While I despise the trend of digitally altered images, I would think it would be tough to legally impose a total ban. They could probably get them to label the image as digitally altered, however.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. Read the bill-- it only...

calls for the FTC to study the problem and possibly come up with some regs. And it seems to be only for commercial advertising. I think things like erasing wrinkles digitally to make it look like the cream did it are already a no-no as deceptive advertising, but that whole area is a mess.

It's gotten a lot worse lately with better technology, but print ads have always had some airbrushing of zits and moles and things to make the models look perfect. It's easy to say do nothing at all, but if anything is allowed, where are the limits?

And girdles and Spanks, cosmetics, push-up bras... aren't the products themselves designed to make people look better than they really do? Again, where are the limits?

[ManiacJoe]

4. Link to the bill:

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4341/text

[BainsBane]

5. It's asking for a report, not a ban.

[ManiacJoe]

6. The title of the article is a little misleading.

The bill directs the FTC to create a report within 18 months.

Any actual actions by legislation would be years off.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. "Any actual actions by legislation would be years off."

But the wolf is always at the door.

[immoderate]

8. No chance. Photoshop is SPEECH!

--imm

[spanone]

9. no 'truth in politics' just advertising.....fuck the house

[Control-Z]

10. My first thought.

Most people know these models are Photoshopped. How about truth in politics where it would have a much greater impact? Seriously.

[cthulu2016]

11. What is proposed is...

Advocates for the bill are asking that over 18 months the Federal Trade Commission meet with health care officials and members of the advertising and marketing community to come up with a framework that would regulate how these images could be used in media.

[pipoman]

12. Wow, i can't think of a better use of

Tax dollars or federal employee labor. ..anything to avoid real problems and needs...

[seveneyes]

13. How about the FTC focus on the phone scams haunting our phones 24 x 7

Rather than this nanny nonsense.

[CBGLuthier]

15. I see they have the usual congressional understanding of the US Constitution

Which is to say, not a fucking bit. What part of the first amendment do these morons not understand? Stupid fucking feel-good bullshit legislation.