Norway has introduced a new law aimed to tackle unrealistic and potentially dangerous beauty standards. From now on, any social media post made for promotional purposes has to clearly state if the photos or videos in it were altered. Those who don’t do it will be fined or even end up in jail.
I stumbled upon this information while browsing through Stories on Instagram. I saw it at Kritički, a brilliant profile dedicated to critical thinking, breaking taboos, and tackling various social issues. I immediately wanted to learn more since I always rooted for a law like this. So, after a bit of googling, I can tell you more about the new law in Norway.
First of all, it applies to all major social media platforms: Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, Facebook, and Snapchat. Second, it’s directed at posts made for “advertising or other promotional purposes,” as It’s Nice That notes. So, if you use filters on your photo and share it with your 312 followers, you’re good to go. It’s influencers and big companies that need to comply. They are now obliged to label their posts and make it clear that some modifications were made.
I find it particularly interesting (and pretty awesome, too) that the law doesn’t only apply to digitally manipulated photos and videos. If there were some physical alterations made before the shoot, it also has to be stated. Both kinds of alterations should be acknowledged with a label designed and provided by the Ministry.
The law passed earlier this month with a pretty impressive 72 to 15 votes in government. It’s an attempt to tackle unrealistic beauty standards and curb body dysmorphia in Norway. The overwhelming amount of “perfect” bodies, faces, skin, and hair creates a lot of pressure on social media users, especially teenagers and young adults. I’d also say that women of all ages are under huge pressure to look “perfect,” especially now when we all should have “summer bodies.” And no, on social media, that doesn’t mean just having a body and going to the beach.
Some may see a problem in the fact that the law is only applied to promotional content. Personally, I think that’s fairly reasonable. First, it’s not easy to control every single Instagram user and the content they share, especially if their accounts are private. And second, influencers, celebrities, and big companies have way more followers who see their content and are affected by it. So, I think that it makes sense to focus on their posts. It would be good to label all altered photos and videos, not only promotional ones, but maybe that’s the next step.
To conclude this article, I will remind you of a few other good examples and hope they will become more common. First, you may remember a law that became effective in 2017 in France. It requires clients who use commercial images to disclose whether a model’s body shape has been retouched to make them look thinner or larger. This caused Getty Images to change its regulations, too. Then, there’s the (in)famous Adidas campaign that showed hairy female legs. I know you’re shocked, but we women also have body hair! Speaking of which, this MAC campaign showed some of it, too.
All in all, I think that the new Norwegian law is the beginning of something great. I sincerely hope that something similar will become a trend in many other countries. This way, we will progress towards a healthier and happier society. And we will realize that, indeed, every body is a summer body.
Given that you can’t really view raw data, pretty much every photo in Norway needs this, because they’ve all been processed and edited to be able to turn ’em into a jpg.
So, the slow death of instagram influencers begins in Norway. ?
Martin Norén I hope it spreads as fast as the coronavirus :D
Martin Norén thank god
Every photo shared online is altered from the raw camera data.
Jolyon Ralph exactly lol
Jolyon Ralph I think you should read the article :D Not all information can fit in a title, but this refers to specific body/face alterations, and not just digital ones. :)
Dunja Đuđić but the picture you used is misleading. Both pictures should have ✅, no? I don’t see any alterations..
Ravi Gandh but how is it misleading, I edited the crap out of my face?! :D I admit I didn’t enlarge my lips or eyes because I don’t know how to do it in an app, and I didn’t have Photoshop available when editing that image. But the changes in the skin are visible (at least when viewing from a desktop). :) Either way, it’s just an illustration. If I ever learn to change my entire appearance in an app, I might change the heading image as well. :D
Is fixing a stain or loose fiber on a dress the same as smoothing face or altering model’s proportions?
Krzysztof Szyper Nope, but the law is about the latter. ;)
And then we have Sony that apply a Skin Smoothing Filter on the HDMI output on there Nex and A-series cameras and they refuse to update the firmware.
https://youtu.be/sadygI26S5A
Patrick Tollgren Lazarov they are releasing a7N XIV in a month or two. Only available in Scandinavian countries. Clean HDMI.
It’s two problem. The skin smoothing filter and the clean HDMI. All Sony cameras even the FX had the smoothing filter but Sony release firmware updates for them there is a firmware hack for their Asp-c cameras that tries to fix clean HDMI. It worked for A5000 that has been a new Webcam rocket. And there is a workaround for the filter but it’s so dumb. Sony can fix it in a blink…
It is o.k. for documentary, news, real life photo’s, but stay away from the fine art photography. Don’t kill the art.
Nobody’s killing anything
Don’t know much about photography but the un altered picture at the top of the article looks much better.
James Callanan Of course it does, natural is always better if you ask me. And thanks, that would be me in the photo! :D
Give the state an inch, they think they are a “Ruler” I believe in freedom of speech in all forms. Those who want to be ruled are simplyy lazy. They do not want to do the work to grow their discernment. They want to halt personal growth, such as not judging what they see rather being the obeserver. The state is the last ONE’s who should decide for you, The state is made up of the unwise and corrupt, and you beg for their rule. sad. Everything is an illusion anyway. The thought/image police are a part of that illusion, and by the way, so are all your photos and images.
Dunja Đuđić Nice one.
From first days od photography photos were retouched.. so.. well.. ekhem :P
Tomasz Staśko indeed they were but you couldn’t do the shape changing that is done today
Jenny not to the extend and easyness we do. The most famous one is the photo of Abraham Lincoln, where they put his head on a different body
Tomasz Staśko True, but they were not shared zillion times across the globe and seen by millions. And those were photos of real belles not plastic freaks.
Tomasz Staśko yeah, of course. photoshop has always been there. EVERYBODY could take a pic, retouche it and share it with the whole world back then. That´s how Frank Simonesiouss got famous.
Tomasz Staśko I agree and this is just a filter ??♂️. Every camera lens warps reality in someway; lighting, colours and perspective all change depends on the camera and lenses you use.
Humans in the same way, perceives reality differently. Who is to say what is the standerd for unedited photos? The government? Why would anyone agree to such level of totalitarianism and control???
Even film photos were… what are you talking here lol
We shoot raw…. ???
It’s going to be tough sharing RAW images.
On the plus side, people are going to have to learn to ‘get it in the camera’.
Peter Verdone nothing to do with editing.. read it again.
You can edit, grade, etc as much as you like if you don’t change the shape or other physical appearance (like widening the eyes distance, puffing the lips, retouching the eyebrows,…).
Saso Domijan DON’T EYEBROW SHAME ME, BRO.
Saso Domijan then why is the second picture on this post doesn’t have a ✅. Such an irony!
The camera is not the human eyes and needs post processing -unless you let the automatic ‘in-camera’ processing activated. Many photographers have neutral raws coming out of the camera to maximise pp possibilities or to approach reality as much as possible.
Norway likes it raw.
This law makes no sense. Even a RAW photo is merely a sensor’s interpretation of reality and lenses distort, too. Take a photo of a model with the Fuji X-T3 and a 100mm lens and a Canon R5 with a 15mm lens. The images will look vastly different, and the way you frame someone or use shadows, you can also make someone look much different than reality. It’s a stupid law that is trying to limit freedom of expression because they think they can protect the people from the dangers of the internet.
Nobody is trying to limit anybody’s freedom of anything.
You can edit all your photo’s all you like, but you have to tell that you did, if you use them commercial.
It is like the warning on cigarettes saying that it is dangerous to smoke.
Now you just have to put a disclaimer (in small print) I guess underneath your picture saying, this picture has been altered in x picture program.
But how does that make sense to write a disclaimer, since literally every photo is altered?
Exactly the problem. Since every picture is altered young people think that that’s natural, but our society shouldn’t be built on the consent of lying to our kids.
You are not understanding my point. Every digital photo is altering reality. Cameras use their own proprietary software and alter the reality in their own way, so if people don’t want that, go out and look at people in real life.
Well another fine print text to add on the bottom of pages and on pictures
I’m from Norway and the law states that pictures made for commercial purpouses has to be labeled if body shape, size or skin has been altered.. The intension is to give young people a better self image.
Vemund, thanks for clarifying things.
Not to be a smart one, but this law do not include someone who altered its body shape, size or skin in much more invasive way, with intention to use it for commercial purposes, which I personaly find more important to address.
Vemund Heidenberg thats a great law in this day and age
So that means that every Instagram/FB influencer has to label them now, because influencer get income from these sources? Or I’m wrong?
Rytis Pikelis as long as it is not an ad for something i don’t think the law applies.
Vemund Heidenberg that’s awesome and should be done globally. Hopefully one day
Ridiculous
Sooooooooooooo lie?
Ricardo Lara
Better
To Many tinder dates gone wrong?
We need this law in Lebanon, imagine some people’s reaction, I bet they’d deactivate their sm altogether
Hmmm than they should label the painting of the old master too. Do you really thing Vermeers women looked like that?
Nick Franken did he published them on major social media? ?
Saso Domijan …and claim that they really look like that “after just 14 days of a fitness challenge” or “they woke up like this” something like that? :)
Saso Domijan the point is, educate people!!!! So they know how to tho k properly. I don’t want to loose creative freedom because of some people that don’t k ow the difference between real and fake! I educate my kids with this.
Can others tell you what is your truth? With or without a label?
Nick Franken it’s not forbidden to do whatever you want. You just need to disclose it.
Nick Franken so “creative freedom” means to edit your body/face and not telling anybody?
Every era had its own promoted “role models”, “trend setters” and “bad guys” which shaped new generations in one way or another.
But those “eras” had guardians whose job was, among everything, to control this influence on youngsters – we call them PARENTS.
When parents outsource this job, they cannot expect that many things, including “self image”, will be created on very good, or any foundation. Sooooo…
You all know what to do.
Just do it! ?
Vladimir Jevric YES!! <3
Vladimir Jevric What about adults? This affects them too you know, not just kids.
Vladimir Jevric it´s surely an ez thing to check every image your kid sees on his smartphone. Just as in the old ol´times where u just told your son not to buy a playboy. And mummy could search his room for stuff like that. oh. wait. no. It´s f**n 2021. And most conversations teenagers have are online, so u can´t really react to anything that happens there. Of course you can just try to give your kid enough self esteem to just like itself-because that´s simply the way that kids work. If daddy says “you´re beautiful, no matter what anybody says” they get it. Sure. How old are your children?
edit: and of course there was no “editing” of pictures in those “eras” as there are today ;)
Hi Petra, you’re right. Every adult is someone’s kid, so this “story” goes on and on, as long as we may wish or not. I was just reffering to particular comment about influence on kids.
Hi Manfred, I can agree with what you said about self esteem – parents/guardians (as “first-liners”) should try to help kids to build it. From my limited experience ?, I found that almost any healthy discussion with kids, without rulling out their innocent but also refreshing point of view, can lead to building a honest trust between parent and his kid, but more important, they will feel trully appreciated. And then (this my personal and honost belief) they will also start appreciate and love themselves, just as they are.
With such freedom, you can enjoy in any other alteration you see, digital or physical, without need to follow it (lets call it like that) just to be appreciated or even loved – because you already are!
Probably I missed to cover my opinion from all sides, but I hope you catch my drift. ?
PS: some level of control is a must, as this is what parents do. ?
But I would really like to mix it with building a trust.
Petra Piber if they had had parents who did the necessary parenting, it wouldn’t affect them.
Gerd Van den Broeck Yes, blame it on the parents … no, everything is not up to the parents. Even the worst of parents sometimes have the best of children and vice versa.
At LAST, this is the best things and I hope all countries pick up on this wonderful law. As a portrait photographer I get sick of girls coming to me to have photos taken and then, need to have to double chin removed, bags under the eyes taken out, wrinkles removed etc etc. I always advice my clients is not you any more, be happy with the skin you are in. Editing images for colour correction, make them b&w and things like that I think is fine. I see no problem to put a small wording on the bottom that you have edited the photo, what I would do is state what I have edited. Well done Norway 10/10
considering that any smartphone out there apply somekind of filter you should consider everything you see online altered ….
Gilbert Carosin usually “in camera” processing does not include shape altering and this is the key subject in the new law.
Gilbert Carosin you mean plasticoated lol
Jenny Martin in case of many asian smartphones shape altering etc is in fact part of the default setting (xiaomi would be one)
I have no problem highlighting my artistic editing skills. Copyright artistic edit by Jenny works well for me. As an aside that edit is so awful.
Martin Sundseth u hear this? My discord photos. Pay me.
Martin Sundseth Wait. So am I not used for Promotional purposes? XD
Martin Sundseth you are fired
Martin Sundseth I am mcdonalds
I’d like to clarify one thing for all those claiming that every digital photo is processed (conversion from RAW to JPG alone is a kind of processing).
Technically, it makes sense and it is completely true, and you guys are right.
But linguistically speaking, it doesn’t make that much sense.
When we say “edited/manipulated/altered photos” or “altered appearance”, we normally don’t refer to photos that were converted from RAW to JPG. We refer to photos that went through some kind of manual post-processing, where WE gave them the final look. On social media, this “look” often includes overly-edited images, reshaped bodies and faces, overly smoothed skin, and so on.
Some things are implied and don’t need to be specifically stated in order for us to understand the message – especially not in the title which is very limited in terms of length (unlike my comment, lol). This is why we always give you more information in the article. That is, actually, the point of the article. :) This is where fewer things are implied and you can read exactly what kind of images and what kind of alterations fall under this new law.
You have unleashed a former language student/linguist in me, I hope you’re happy. :D
I’m confused as to how this works. Don’t people look around and see that the average person doesn’t look like the altered photos in magazines? Isn’t it more like that people know commercial photos are altered, but are influenced by them anyway?
Brent M. Parker because some of them are so isolated they see more magazine people than real people
Brent M. Parker I think it’s crazy because people don’t always look like they do in their pictures even if they aren’t altered.
We rule! ?
define retouched…. every digital photo has been altered. or it wouldnt be digital ffs.
Finn Jäger all my photography is Out of camera. I don’t edit. In the rare instances that I do I note that.
Finn Jäger
Matthew Peveley if its “out of camera” its still edited.
Finn Jäger no, edit is the process of changing a photo from its original source.
Altering the original image.
Matthew Peveley What is the original image then ? its all going through internal
processing in the camera. there is denoising and all other kinds of shenanigans, raw images are “untouched sensor data (to a extend) but thats just linear black and white data.. anytime you view a digitally captured image its been interpreted and processed.
Finn Jäger same could be true for film development. Differences in exposure time, chemicals used etc. Quit nitpicking to be difficult.
Matthew Peveley yea but where do you draw the line? thats the question – iPhones etc uses AI to enhance detail of images , is that still unedited? many chinese android phones have skin smoothening on by default – is that still unedited? so yea where does one draw the line between “original” and “edited” I am very aware that this is more a philosophical than technical question.
and regarding analog – yes absolutely! as soon as you do anything to a negative it is altered or edited – so not original anymore. You could however argue that using a perfect mix of chemicals from the films manufacturer what lead you to something you could call original, but then only the negative would be “unaltered” , is any photograph able to show unaltered truth? (Its not a measurement device so.. imho answere is nope)
Finn Jäger wouldn’t the perfect mix be subjective
Matthew Peveley jup it would be.. but only to a extend if its the same mix for everyone then you have a fair baseline ? C41 is pretty much a standard.
I mean its even hard to turn off beauty features in camera … so yes where is the line. https://www.google.de/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/Xiaomi/comments/994tid/how_do_you_really_turn_off_beautification_mode/
Matthew Peveley so inside the camera, anti-jitter and lightlevels modifies the raw images captured
Hans-Henrik Stærfeldt right and raw is an option.. also film development does the same thing
Matthew Peveley … so if you dont have 100% control and knowledge of all algorithms running in your camera, you get jail time. Nice.
Hans-Henrik Stærfeldt not what I’m suggesting
Hans-Henrik Stærfeldt I’m saying anything after camera is an edit
Matthew Peveley so the cameras that already has auto smooth-skin filter internally? They should be exempt?
Hans-Henrik Stærfeldt thats not a standard on professional cameras.
it is very standard on phone cameras. thats what influencers use ?
Matthew Peveley also what about if you have a really soft lens? is that “editing” this whole law will be very much likely non enforceable .
tbh I am sure that everyone will just put up the same lable that it has been edited so then all are “edited” and it doesnt mean anything anymore
Matthew Peveley for some arbitrary definition of “a professional camera” ?
Matthew Peveley Omg, here we go again with the people that think that there is something “real”/”authentic”/”unedited” about an in-camera prossed image ?
Finn Jäger I have to agree with you. Most cameras these days have options in the settings for levels of sharpening, contrast and saturation. It’s software doing alterations to the image in the camera.
Great decision. May be people now spend more time, taking care of themselves, like a good diet and exercise, instead of faking it in photos
Well, that’s just plain old silly for a very large number of reasons.
The law is more aimed at people making a living from their image…your average person doesnt need to state the image is altered.
Also it’s scary what can be done with photo/video editing these days….some looks so real it’s hard to tell what’s real and fake!
Well… Make-up is way bigger lie than most of the edits you can see on social media. ? Btw most of the phones in these days makes some kind of alteration to the photos taken.
Jiří Janovský if you think make-up is way bigger lie than editing photos you got no idea of editing photos. make-up just simply changes the colour, maybe it covers some shapes. But that´s it. Editing photos gives persons a whole new shape with any imaginable colour.
Manfred Stöckl Most of edits you can see on social media are just with a few basic tools or filters used (in this article is used warp or liquify on edited examples) not complete overhaul, let alone composition. Compared to that if you google something like “top make up transformation” for example, you will see the power of make up.
Show me make-up that changes the whole body-shape. photo-shop > make-up ^^
Manfred Stöckl I don’t agree. I sometimes work on movie/series sets and the make-up can make a huge difference. Sometimes, the actor is unrecognizable, can look far younger or older… So it can be as effective as the post-production of a photograph.
Max Tsc well, it´s still make-up. So it changes the face. Not the body-shape. And it takes time. And skill. It´s nothing every single influencer can do in a few seconds.
Manfred Stöckl That’s true, make-up don’t change the body shape.
Max Tsc but push up bras – strighteners, corsettes and other things can very much alter the visible shape of a person but just choosing a certain lens and angle can allready look way different
Then they should also ban makeup and anything else that makes things look better than they are.
The state of California passed a law that said businesses had to post a sign telling customers if there were carcinogenic substances on the premises. Sounds like good information to know. But EVERY business immediately posted such a sign so in practice the law had no value whatsoever. I think this “photo altered” law will have the exact same effect.
Guy Californian here.
If you look REALLY closely at those signs — with a magnifying glass, perhaps — you’ll see that they, too, have a little Prop 65 warning sign on them.
And if you look even closer at those, well…
I love this conceptually, but the very process of uploading an image alters it through compression.
Not to mention the camera app on all smart phones relies on layers and filters, it’s how brands compete among themselves.
Sean Simon I don’t know why you would love this conceptually or in execution. It’s a stupid idea and in practicality is more a bureaucratic trap then it is anything even resembling useful.
Jailed for Photo tampering…..that will be everyone as all photo are tamper with by the manufactures to start with……wake up the Governments are draining your souls not your images.
They should do the same with and without make-up :D
Crazy. Anyone who thinks a photograph is in any way ‘reality’ is deluded.
Lol Men: “you look so much better without makeup”
Also men: “creeps on every woman’s edited and dolled up photos on instagram.
Stupid law, legislated by idiots and enforced by morons. If you support this then you’re a useful tool to these people and need to revaluate your sensibilities.
This is good, but also all the responsibility shouldn’t just be on said marketers, parents should do their job as well in educating their children and helping them grow.
Even when they got a butterfly on the noze and rabbit ears?
And how exactly is this supposed to help? You’ll still have plastic surgery causing unrealustic expectations, and what if people on unedited photos still look better than you? If your self-image depends on other people or state law you better throw it away at once..
sounds legalistic; what would count as a nonedited photo; a camera edits a photo just by saving it
That’s ridiculous ???
Let’s get this straight. Edited or altered body shapes etc. EVERY photo ever taken is edited in one way or another. Digitally manipulated to be very different is much more than editing
by forcing people to do this, i.e. legislate morality, you’re only punishing the people who are responsible. you can’t legislate morality, you can only influence it by practicing it.
I don’t have a problem with this law. Next.