this post was submitted on 26 May 2024
281 points (99.3% liked)

YUROP

1086 readers
118 users here now

A laid back community for good news, pictures and general discussions among people living in Europe.

Other European communities

Other casual communities:

Language communities

Cities

Countries

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
281
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. (files.catbox.moe)
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: [email protected]

https://reddthat.com/post/19605248

https://www.forbrukertilsynet.no/english/guidelines/the-norwegian-consumer-authoritys-guideline-on-labelling-retouched-advertising

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 months ago (3 children)

They made her head look massive lmao

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

You know what, I didn't even recognize that the picture in the OP was of her. I just thought it was some random Norwegian model. I'm not sure how I missed that. 😅

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Tiny people appear to have massive heads, because of their small bodies.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

It's giving Detective Conan

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago

Well done, Norway!

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago

You are in the future . Amazing

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

Reminds me of the showoff neighbors

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Lassie's got a FUCKIN GIGANTIC HEAD

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Maybe it's her...

Maybe it's generative~