Photoshop Law
Kirunchyk Ava
WRIT150
Professor Dochterman
April 20, 2022
Across the globe, the use of photoshop has been on the rise. Within the last 10 years, the use of this technology has caused many women in particular to gain mental disorders due to the unrealistic body standards it presents. Some of these disorders include body dysmorphia, anorexia, bulimia and depression. According to the University of Notre Dame’s Australia Law Review, they note that, “Children and teenagers ‘are particularly vulnerable to messages and images conveyed through the mass media because many of them ‘cannot discriminate between what they see and what is real.” ( — -) What this means is that photoshop causes serious problems for young adults because they will assume the image where someone’s body is altered is realistic, when it is nearly unattainable. Some may say models should start being honest on their posts about what is photoshopped in order to campaign for mental health on their platforms, I believe that the United States needs to implement the “Photoshop Law” because it will legally mandate photographers to label when one’s body has been altered.
In March 2014, Congress introduced the “Truth in Advertising Act” to the House of Representatives. According to Melanie Nevamanikkam, an associate member of the University of Cincinnati Law Review, “The original goal was for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to regulate to what extent advertisers could digitally alter images used in advertisements through a systematic framework.” ( — -) The Federal Trade Commission is a federal agency that works to protect consumers from deceptive and unfair business practices through law enforcement and education. Although the goal had good intentions and was presented to the right organization, the issue with it was based on how broad the Act was.
The Act seeked to control regulation on all digitally altered advertisements. With the topic being so broad it presents the issue of what is necessarily misleading and what is not. Since not every digitally manipulated photos are necessarily contributing to negative body image, the decision depended on what the consumer felt rather than concrete statements. Furthermore, another big problem caused by this Act was due to the fact that it could infiltrate an individuals privacy right. Melanie Nevamanikkam explains what this means by stating, “A social influencer who posts sponsored content for makeup would either be restricted in their own private choice to edit their photographs, or be forced to disclose any editing.” ( — -) This is an important aspect of why the original Act failed because targeting bigger companies is easier than trying to control what every single person is doing. Trying to restrict all digital altercations produces too many drawbacks and is why we need to find a new way to combat this problem.
Changes are already being made between individuals and some companies. For example brands such as Aerie, Dove and ASOS have started to use a more body positive perspective by reducing retouching of their models’ photos and using more realistic images. Individually, some celebrities have started to even push back against having their body’s retouched. ( — -) Beyonce and Bradd Pitt are just two examples of those who are tired of having their body digitally manipulated. Kate Winslet, an English actress, has a “no photoshop” clause in her contract with L’Oréal to bring even more legal insight to this issue. ( — -) Having celebrities have a realistic body positive platform would help those young adults who aspire to be like them and could potentially steer future generations away from the thin ideal. An example of why we need bigger change is because the body positive clothing brand, Skims, just recently faced negative attention due to the editing of Tyra Banks body. Kim Kardashian received various comments on the hypocrisy of still photoshopping someone’s body even though she had a beautiful body without the image being manipulated.. This shows that even brands who claim they want to move towards the body positive movement are still stuck in their old ideals to satisfy what they believe is the “standard”. The good news is that more consumers are starting to go against these brands and outwardly criticize them for the unobtainable bodies they are portraying. Although these are positive steps in the right direction, I still believe that we need to implement the “Photoshop Law ‘’ in the United States to see real changes.
The “Photoshop Law” exists in multiple countries including Australia, France and Israel. On October 1, 2017, France passed a law that states “any models appearing in commercial photography whose bodies have been made thinner or thicker by image processing software must be accompanied by the notice of “photographie retouchée,” or retouched photograph.” (Held –) Along with not only stating the photo has been manipulated, there is also a fine of 75,000 euros plus six months in prison.The significance of France implementing this law is because Paris is one of the fashion capitals of the world and has a high reputation. Israel’s Photoshop Law consists of the same ideology, except it does not have specific criminal sanctions for breaching it. Although the laws are similar in both countries I feel that there needs to be legal punishment like there is in France in order to show companies how serious this matter is. These are important aspects that need to be talked about in the law so that it is clear what the United States is going to do.
One might ask how I would communicate to Congress my idea of implementing Frances Law into the United States. Since I am located in Los Angeles, I would write to my district’s representatives, Jimmy Gomez and Karen Bass. Along with this I would use my social media platforms to further express my ideas and concerns publicly to put more pressure on them to respond. With the use of social media, it puts negative connotations on the government and these brands which can lead to more people following the trends of going against body manipulation. I would also consider using the Communicating with Congress (CWC) which is specifically designed to provide advocacy vendors with an efficient means to deliver mass communications to Members of the House of Representatives. ( — -)
What I would include in my letter to Los Angeles district representatives would be the major health concerns America is facing due to not having this law in place. For example some statistics I would include is that in France nearly 600,000 citizens are suffering from eating disorders and is one of the reasons why they felt the need to change. In the United States however, almost thirty million Americans have suffered from an eating disorder at some point in their lives. That is 50x more cases than in France proving that the United States is facing a huge problem that needs to be addressed seriously. I would also add that the National Eating Disorders Association, or NEDA, says numerous “studies have linked exposure to the thin ideal in mass media to body dissatisfaction, internalization of the thin ideal, and disordered eating among women.” I would also include some personal experiences of what my friends and I have faced when it comes to dissatisfaction with what our appearances are vs what is shown in magazines and more. The irony of the new thin ideal is that in Western society the body mass index (BMI) of women has actually increased. At this same time the number of eating disorders is also increasing because publishers are showing only the top 5% of perfect bodies rather than the majority.
In the letter I would also emphasize the point that multiple countries have already implemented this law and that it is possible to achieve. I am going to reach out to the regulators in Australia, France and Israel to support the push for the United States to take action whether that is through social media or having them give a response in my letter. Specifically I want to write to France’s former health minister, Marisol Touraine, because he originally initiated the idea in France and did it for the promotion of body positivity and health. To build on this he stated in an article, “It is necessary to act on body image in society to avoid the promotion of inaccessible beauty ideals and prevent anorexia among young people.”( — -)
It is also important to point out the differences between the Truth in Advertising Act vs Photoshop Law. When writing to the representatives I would acknowledge that they have tried to fix the problem but failed due to lack of detail, and that this new law is only a step in the right direction to fixing the problem. With other countries already putting it in place, it would be hard for the representatives to say that it would not be obtainable. The Truth in Advertising act was seeking to combat all digital altercations, meaning photoshopping someone out of the photo or changing the filter etc. Photoshop Law would only seek to expose companies that alter bodies in order to make their models look more appealing. With a large fine and potential time in prison for not outwardly telling the community they photoshopped a model’s body, it would put a lot of pressure on these big companies. Not to mention that if exposed for lying many body positivity enthusiasts would go against the brand and post about it in order to uncover what they really stand for.
In conclusion, the growing number of eating disorders in America need to be recognized and dealt with. With other countries already recognizing the problem and providing solutions in order to promote better health in women, it puts pressure on the United States to start making a change as well. The thirty million Americans that have suffered with an eating disorder at some point in their life could potentially deal with the after effects of it including osteoporosis, hypertension, gastrointestinal conditions and more. In order to take a step in the right direction we need to introduce the Photoshop Law publicly and directly to representatives of our district to make a change. With a law set in place we could see a large reduction in body dysmorphia and comparisons between what is published and what is real.
