so photoshopped it’s illegal, part 2

By brendon December 20, 2011 @ 4:24 PM

taylor_swift_covergirl_photoshop

Back in July, Lancome had to pull some ads because their liberal use of photoshop crossed the line from “enhancement” to “fuck you”. But it sorta made sense because it was an ad with Julia Roberts, who looks like an old glove.

Now CoverGirl has to pull one of their ads too (pictured above), an ad featuring 22-year-old Taylor Swift. Business Insider says…

Procter & Gamble has agreed to never again run an ad for its CoverGirl mascara because it used “enhanced post-production” and “photoshopping” to make eyelashes look thicker than they were in real life. P&G agreed to the ban even though it disclosed in the ad that the image was enhanced.
The move is the latest in a series of baby steps that U.S. and international advertising regulators have taken to ban the use of Photoshop in advertising when it is misleading to consumers.

How are ads that blatantly lie allowed at all. Even a little. Is Porsche allowed to say, “you won’t believe the pussy you’ll get.” Because it’s been six months and so far nothin. I can barely make my payments. Can I sue them or what?

wwtdd

(4) Comments

  1. SomeoneluvsU 12/20/2011 16:28

    Don’t ban photo-chopping!!!!!!!!

    Can you image Lilo’s playboy spread without it?

  2. Cocktail 12/20/2011 16:33

    If they were selling Lindsay, then yes, they shouldn’t be allowed to photo-shop her image. But since they are only letting people leave deposits on Lindsay, it is perfectly acceptable.

  3. SomeoneluvsU 12/20/2011 17:10

    Silly Brend*n,
    A Porsche will get you blown….
    A Rolls-Royce Phantom Drophead Coupe will get you laid.

  4. harleydavidson 12/21/2011 12:24

    this wont apply to hustler will it? i really need them to use photoshop to take out the warts, scars and lesions

You must be logged in to post a comment.