"drastic" photoshopping of model in underwater shoot - "it is NOT OK to alter a woman's body"

[Liberal_in_LA]

'It is NOT OKAY to alter a woman's body': Australian model Meaghan Kausman shames swimwear label for 'drastically' photoshopping her features after underwater fashion shoot

Meaghan Kausman, 23, a fashion student from Melbourne posed in an underwater photo shoot

Fella Swim provided swimwear for the shoot, but did not pay either Ms Kausman or the photographer
They re-posted an image without permission from the photographer


The image was Photoshopped to make Ms Kausman appear much lighter

Ms Kausman objected to the changes saying they promoted unhealthy body image

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2734400/Australian-model-calls-swimwear-label-drastically-photoshopping-photos-underwater-shoot.html

[jberryhill]

1. Nude descending a staircase

[Rex]

5. Tee hee.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Would it promote an unhealthy body image if they were paid?

[geomon666]

3. Why on Earth would they alter the image like that?

There's nothing wrong with the original.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. Because the swimwear maker believes the upper photo will sell more product. n/t

[snooper2]

6. That isn't drastic, this is drastic

Last month, Xeni blogged about the photoshop disaster that is this Ralph Lauren advertisement, in which a model's proportions appear to have been altered to give her an impossibly skinny body ("Dude, her head's bigger than her pelvis&quot . Naturally, Xeni reproduced the ad in question. This is classic fair use: a reproduction "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting," etc.

However, Ralph Lauren's marketing arm and its law firm don't see it that way. According to them, this is an "infringing image," and they thoughtfully took the time to send a DMCA takedown notice to our awesome ISP, Canada's Priority Colo. One of the things that makes Priority Colo so awesome is that they don't automatically act on DMCA takedowns. Instead, they pass them on to us and we talk about whether they pass the giggle-test.

This one doesn't.

So, instead of responding to their legal threat by suppressing our criticism of their marketing images, we're gonna mock them. Hence this post.

As Wendy Seltzer from the Chilling Effects project said, "Sounds like a pretty solid fair use case to me. If criticism diminishes its effectiveness, that's different from the market substitution copyright protects against. And I've rarely seen a thinner DMCA form-letter."

http://boingboing.net/2009/10/06/the-criticism-that-r.html

[Liberal_in_LA]

7. that's ridiculous