Norway passes a law that forces influencers to label their retouched photos

[TaylorSwift 162,337]

New regulations in Norway are pushing back against unrealistic beauty standards on social media platforms in an effort to curb body dysmorphia in the country.

Amendments to the 2009 Marketing Act make it illegal for influencers to share retouched photos of their body in promotional posts on social media, without acknowledging the image has been edited. 

The soon-to-be-introduced law will require that advertising and sponsored posts where “a body's shape, size or skin has been changed by retouching or other manipulation” be clearly marked to declare that it had been edited. Failure to comply will result in a fine.

Any influencer who is making money off their posts will be required by law to label retouched posts with a mark designed by the government. 

It passed with a clear majority vote of 72-15, but will only apply 'from the time the King decides'. 

The law will apply on all major social media platforms including Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok

source source source

[BloodyJudas 2,758]

I honestly don’t know what to think about this. On one hand, the administration wants to tackle the problem of impossible-to-achieve beauty promoted by all kinds of media platforms. The media promotes retouched photos of people’s body and thus some people may suffer from body dysmorphia because they know they will never keep up with those exaggerated standards set up by the beauty industry. On the other hand, some people will claim it curbs on their freedom and that the government wants to control their every step and action. Only time will tell if it was a good move or not. 

[harispilton 503]

Good to see this. People online are starting to look more and more like CGI effect artists or graphic designers.

[funkyhaus 7,697]

This is a great idea 

[VenusUrania 675]

I don't see a problem with this. It brings transparency on advertised content. It's fair to the consumer and it tackles the ongoing battle of mental health and online content.

[CautiousLurker 19,709]

I don't see a problem with this per se, I just don't think it will accomplish anything in the like of curbing body image issues - a talented make up artist, photographer and model can create a deceptively captivating image without retouching, and even without the first two, beautiful people exist, and plenty of em... They will always be popular because, surprise, people like looking at pretty people... 

Overcoming body image issues is a lot more complicated than just making sure you aren't bombarded with images of good-looking people - it's a lot of therapy and self-work... No amount of people in the media and entertainment, whose bodies look like mine, change the way I feel about my body, or the way I feel about someone like Zac Efron's body... It's just not how that works, at least in my experience... 



Alsooooo... Even in the article they're pretty vague about what kind of edits would be considered retouching... Liquifying the f*ck out of your body's proportions - obviously yes... But they mention alterations to the skin, and my mind immediately jumped to skin smoothing, which, ok, sure, if you're spot-healing the whole face... But you can create a skin smoothing effect using lenses, and you can further amplify it with smart sharpen tool in Ps - no effect is directly applied to the skin - does that still count as 'retouched'?

There are a lot of variables to account for, and... I just don't think this will have any kind of meaningful effect, even if they do account for them 

[TaylorSwift 162,337]

42 minutes ago, BloodyJudas said:

On the other hand, some people will claim it curbs on their freedom and that the government wants to control their every step and action.

this law is for influencers who earn money for posts. If they are paid for advertising, they have to pay taxes so government has to know about their actions anyway.

[RahrahWitch 6,985]

100% agree, Seeing obviously photoshopped pictures trying to sell off a skin care cream is just ridiculous. Same goes for big brands and their adverts.

[bionic 50,111]

1 hour ago, CautiousLurker said:

I don't see a problem with this per se, I just don't think it will accomplish anything in the like of curbing body image issues - a talented make up artist, photographer and model can create a deceptively captivating image without retouching, and even without the first two, beautiful people exist, and plenty of em... They will always be popular because, surprise, people like looking at pretty people... 

Overcoming body image issues is a lot more complicated than just making sure you aren't bombarded with images of good-looking people - it's a lot of therapy and self-work... No amount of people in the media and entertainment, whose bodies look like mine, change the way I feel about my body, or the way I feel about someone like Zac Efron's body... It's just not how that works, at least in my experience... 



Alsooooo... Even in the article they're pretty vague about what kind of edits would be considered retouching... Liquifying the f*ck out of your body's proportions - obviously yes... But they mention alterations to the skin, and my mind immediately jumped to skin smoothing, which, ok, sure, if you're spot-healing the whole face... But you can create a skin smoothing effect using lenses, and you can further amplify it with smart sharpen tool in Ps - no effect is directly applied to the skin - does that still count as 'retouched'?

There are a lot of variables to account for, and... I just don't think this will have any kind of meaningful effect, even if they do account for them 

I'm glad this is your experience. For a lot of people they see edited photos and do wonder "why don't I look like that?" and this does affects their self-image and esteem. 

I suppose you could argue re makeup, specific lighting tricks etc, that these 'body types' are imitable. If you have the right makeup skills or if you have the right lighting, you can imitate the standards these images show. The same can't be said for edited photos.

If every photo has to be labelled as 'edited' because they used a skin smooth option or red-eye corrector, so be it. Its not a big burden and can potentially protect a lot of people's mental health.

[holy scheisse 22,903]

Good idea. Especially when selling products 

[weed 78,890]

I love that, not like it applies to anything anyone posts it's specifically promotional/money making

[Mr Oak 7,761]

Influencers can still edit a photo convincingly, without a filter

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

Great idea.

The way social media and influences are creating whack and unrealistic beauty expectations that no one can conform to.

Just as bad as the photoshop and magazine covers that contribute to this.

[Economy 52,842]

6 hours ago, BloodyJudas said:

I honestly don’t know what to think about this. On one hand, the administration wants to tackle the problem of impossible-to-achieve beauty promoted by all kinds of media platforms. The media promotes retouched photos of people’s body and thus some people may suffer from body dysmorphia because they know they will never keep up with those exaggerated standards set up by the beauty industry. On the other hand, some people will claim it curbs on their freedom and that the government wants to control their every step and action. Only time will tell if it was a good move or not. 

What freedom tho? To mislead?

 

Cuz thats basically what it is if u think about it. Ur still allowed to post edited photos u just cant try to pass it off as real and raw and make ppl think thats actually u

 

Anyone thats mad about this is essentially mad they arent allowed to mislead ppl anymore cuz if they are mad ppl have to be told its because they wanted ppl not to know and believe it was real

 

So i dont feel sorry for anyone that thinks this is an intrusion on their freedom

 

Edit: plus as someone mentioned @Lady Ava Gaga Max this law is for influencers only who make money on posts. U could consider it a form of consumer protection against false advertizing via regulation

[CautiousLurker 19,709]

11 hours ago, bionic said:

I'm glad this is your experience. For a lot of people they see edited photos and do wonder "why don't I look like that?" and this does affects their self-image and esteem. 

You're glad... I struggle with body images issues? Ok 

Anyway, 'a lot of people' is generous - my experience is not the outlier here, people don't just see a body type similar to theirs in the media and suddenly don't have body image issues anymore... Similarly less images of people who look unrealistically beautiful doesn't mean there will be less people with body image issues - if those were the solutions, it would be very easy to overcome, yet people spend years in therapy and from what I can gather from people who speak about the topic extensively, it never really goes away...

I also see comments constantly, 'blaming' models for somehow cheating the way they look, so I don't think there's a shortage of awareness that photo editing, in beauty photography especially, exists... 

All that said, by all means, have the law, I just don't see how it will make any meaningful difference - exposure to people who look a certain way is not the root of this and making sure there is less of it is not the solution... More than that, I'm skeptical that this will lead to anything else - they say this is the first step, but I think this is going to be the only one, again, because the solution is a lot more complex...