ADVERTISEMENT

so photoshopped it’s illegal, part 2

December 21, 2011 | celebrity | editor | 0 Comments

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?

Tags: taylor swift



Disclaimer: All rights reserved for writing and editorial content. No rights or credit claimed for any images featured on wwtdd.com unless stated. If you own rights to any of the images because YOU ARE THE PHOTOGRAPHER and do not wish them to appear here, please contact us info(@)egotastic.com and they will be promptly removed. If you are a representative of the photographer, provide signed documentation in your query that you are acting on that individual's legal copyright holder status.

Advertisement


Related Post

Advertisement


Advertisement