When DO the Government Regulations Become Ridiculous Beyond Belief?

The FTC wants to regulate the use of Photoshop...

http://www.ktrh.com/articles/nationa...uld-let-ftc-re
gulate-12485185/

On 6/20/2014 5:34 PM, George Kerby wrote:
The FTC wants to regulate the use of Photoshop...

http://www.ktrh.com/articles/nationa...uld-let-ftc-re
gulate-12485185/


I would think that in a non-commercial setting, any regulatory attempt
by the FTC would violate the First Amendment.

--
PeterN

In article ,
George Kerby wrote:
The FTC wants to regulate the use of Photoshop...

http://www.ktrh.com/articles/nationa...uld-let-ftc-re
gulate-12485185/

When it's someone else's boot on your neck rather than your boot
on theirs, of course.

On 2014-06-20 21:34:50 +0000, George Kerby said:

The FTC wants to regulate the use of Photoshop...

http://www.ktrh.com/articles/nationa...uld-let-ftc-re
gulate-12485185/

That headline is a tad misleading. It isn't photoshop they want to
regulate, but the use of adjusted images in advertising copy. So if
they use an app other than Photoshop to manipulate the image it's OK?

I think this is a case of *Photoshop* being used as a verb.
The next question which arises, is advertising copy an expression of
reality or is it the artistic expressing of the graphic artist creating
the copy? I have a feeling the advertising houses will be able to
challenge any such regulation on the basis that their product is
artwork and not a representation of reality, and that any
interpretation, or misinterpretation is in the eye of the beholder.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 6/20/2014 6:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-20 21:34:50 +0000, George Kerby said:

The FTC wants to regulate the use of Photoshop...

http://www.ktrh.com/articles/nationa...uld-let-ftc-re

gulate-12485185/

That headline is a tad misleading. It isn't photoshop they want to
regulate, but the use of adjusted images in advertising copy. So if they
use an app other than Photoshop to manipulate the image it's OK?

I think this is a case of *Photoshop* being used as a verb.
The next question which arises, is advertising copy an expression of
reality or is it the artistic expressing of the graphic artist creating
the copy? I have a feeling the advertising houses will be able to
challenge any such regulation on the basis that their product is artwork
and not a representation of reality, and that any interpretation, or
misinterpretation is in the eye of the beholder.


I think the FTC already has the authority to regulate false and
misleading advertising. If Starbucks claimed that if you drink a
frappachino with every meal, adding whipped cream, as a weight loss
product, the FTC would have no problem enforcing an injunction against
such a claim. If Starbucks used an image of an attractive model sipping
the same Frappachino, and the model had been Photoshopped to make the
image look like she was sipping the drink, when in fact she never was
within a mile of the drink, I doubt the FTC would be able to stop the
ad. Few would consider the image to be artwork. That image would
probably be considered puffery, which is legal and ethical in most US
jurisdictions.
--
PeterN

On 2014-06-20 23:29:10 +0000, PeterN said:

On 6/20/2014 6:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-20 21:34:50 +0000, George Kerby said:

The FTC wants to regulate the use of Photoshop...

http://www.ktrh.com/articles/nationa...uld-let-ftc-re

gulate-12485185/

That headline is a tad misleading. It isn't photoshop they want to
regulate, but the use of adjusted images in advertising copy. So if they
use an app other than Photoshop to manipulate the image it's OK?

I think this is a case of *Photoshop* being used as a verb.
The next question which arises, is advertising copy an expression of
reality or is it the artistic expressing of the graphic artist creating
the copy? I have a feeling the advertising houses will be able to
challenge any such regulation on the basis that their product is artwork
and not a representation of reality, and that any interpretation, or
misinterpretation is in the eye of the beholder.


I think the FTC already has the authority to regulate false and
misleading advertising. If Starbucks claimed that if you drink a
frappachino with every meal, adding whipped cream, as a weight loss
product, the FTC would have no problem enforcing an injunction against
such a claim.

Agreed.

If Starbucks used an image of an attractive model sipping the same
Frappachino, and the model had been Photoshopped to make the image look
like she was sipping the drink, when in fact she never was within a
mile of the drink, I doubt the FTC would be able to stop the ad.

Agreed.

Few would consider the image to be artwork.

Probably not, but sometimes ad copy can be pure art.

That image would probably be considered puffery, which is legal and
ethical in most US jurisdictions.

Agreed.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

PeterN wrote:
I think the FTC already has the authority to regulate
false and misleading advertising. If Starbucks claimed
that if you drink a frappachino with every meal, adding
whipped cream, as a weight loss product, the FTC would
have no problem enforcing an injunction against such a
claim. If Starbucks used an image of an attractive model
sipping the same Frappachino, and the model had been
Photoshopped to make the image look like she was sipping
the drink, when in fact she never was within a mile of
the drink, I doubt the FTC would be able to stop the
ad. Few would consider the image to be artwork. That
image would probably be considered puffery, which is
legal and ethical in most US jurisdictions.

Here's a thought that you might appreciate from a legal
sense (though others may not)...

I've seen a video of how McDonalds photographs a
hamburger for their advertizements. It takes hours to
prepare the item... and it has almost no relation to
the hamburgers they sell to customers!

Why isn't it false advertizing to advertize a high
quality product and then actually deliver a very low
quality reproduction?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 2014-06-21 03:38:42 +0000, RichA said:

On Friday, June 20, 2014 5:34:50 PM UTC-4, George Kerby wrote:
The FTC wants to regulate the use of Photoshop...



http://www.ktrh.com/articles/nationa...uld-let-ftc-re

gulate-12485185/

Liberals. Never met a law, restriction, ban, they didn't like, unless
it restricted the use of recreational drugs.

So, how is Mayor Ford doing lately?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:30:46 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

PeterN wrote:
I think the FTC already has the authority to regulate
false and misleading advertising. If Starbucks claimed
that if you drink a frappachino with every meal, adding
whipped cream, as a weight loss product, the FTC would
have no problem enforcing an injunction against such a
claim. If Starbucks used an image of an attractive model
sipping the same Frappachino, and the model had been
Photoshopped to make the image look like she was sipping
the drink, when in fact she never was within a mile of
the drink, I doubt the FTC would be able to stop the
ad. Few would consider the image to be artwork. That
image would probably be considered puffery, which is
legal and ethical in most US jurisdictions.

Here's a thought that you might appreciate from a legal
sense (though others may not)...

I've seen a video of how McDonalds photographs a
hamburger for their advertizements. It takes hours to
prepare the item... and it has almost no relation to
the hamburgers they sell to customers!

Food photographs almost never use real food.

Why isn't it false advertizing to advertize a high
quality product and then actually deliver a very low
quality reproduction?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:30:46 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

PeterN wrote:
I think the FTC already has the authority to regulate
false and misleading advertising. If Starbucks claimed
that if you drink a frappachino with every meal, adding
whipped cream, as a weight loss product, the FTC would
have no problem enforcing an injunction against such a
claim. If Starbucks used an image of an attractive model
sipping the same Frappachino, and the model had been
Photoshopped to make the image look like she was sipping
the drink, when in fact she never was within a mile of
the drink, I doubt the FTC would be able to stop the
ad. Few would consider the image to be artwork. That
image would probably be considered puffery, which is
legal and ethical in most US jurisdictions.

Here's a thought that you might appreciate from a legal
sense (though others may not)...

I've seen a video of how McDonalds photographs a
hamburger for their advertizements. It takes hours to
prepare the item... and it has almost no relation to
the hamburgers they sell to customers!

Food photographs almost never use real food.

That is not true.

McDonalds uses "real" food, it just isn't really the
food they sell to customers. In fact, they use the same
*ingredients* for the commercials, and what differs is
preparation.

I do the food photography for the highest volume local
restaurant. Personally I like to start with a dish the
cook prepares for a customer without knowing that it
will be photographed. The owner and I then tend to
"manipulate" what the cook hands us.

The reason is actually fairly simple! Customers see the
photographs and fully expect what they are fed to be
essentially the same. If it isn't, they feel they've
been "cheated" in some way. That greatly affects return
business. I manipulate it to get a better photograph,
but the owner tends to adjust things to make sure it
shows what they sell, no more and no less either.

http://samandlees.com/info_menu/hamburgers.html

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)