3 ms·

Good. I'd love if we could go further and make requirements to disclaim if a photo's structure has been digitally altered. Combining these two would be very eff

by jjcm 5y ago

Good. I'd love if we could go further and make requirements to disclaim if a photo's structure has been digitally altered. Combining these two would be very effective in increasing clarity of content online.

throwaway98797 5y ago
This is tough. Phones do a lot of magic already.
Veen 5y ago
Digitally altered from what? All digital cameras and image processing tools "digitally alter" images.
- jjcm 5y ago
  That's why I specifically mentioned the structure of the image. You'd still have to differentiate lens corrections, but structural changes could be counted differently from color / sharpening corrections / standard postprocessing.
- slapfrog 5y ago
  Lots of industries/companies are required law to maintain records of what they do. If such requirements were imposed on media companies, it could be done by archiving source material and using nondestructive editing software that saves edit decision lists. Laws requiring media production companies to keep these records seem implausible in America, but at least conceivable in some of countries.
kinkrtyavimoodh 5y ago
No thanks, we don't want another Prop 65 nuisance, this time for photos.
mLuby 5y ago
"Results not guaranteed" "Actor portrayal" "Real users compensated for appearing" If everything would have the warning label (like "Don't try this at home" or California's "known to cause cancer" signs or arguably GMO food labels) then people ignore it. It'd be better to know how different what's shown is from the median result, but that'd be hard to figure out, and if you could, why not just require the ads show that result instead?
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  Thing is tech is quick enough now we can have all this metadata and users could then filter according to their mores (ie personal preferences), it's not like it's more work for the photog to label it as edited/photoshopped they're already recording that info.
sofixa 5y ago
In France that's the law, you must add a label on photo / video ads that were digitally altered.

by jjcm 5y ago

throwaway98797 5y ago

This is tough. Phones do a lot of magic already.

Veen 5y ago

Digitally altered from what? All digital cameras and image processing tools "digitally alter" images.

jjcm 5y ago
That's why I specifically mentioned the structure of the image. You'd still have to differentiate lens corrections, but structural changes could be counted differently from color / sharpening corrections / standard postprocessing.
slapfrog 5y ago
Lots of industries/companies are required law to maintain records of what they do. If such requirements were imposed on media companies, it could be done by archiving source material and using nondestructive editing software that saves edit decision lists. Laws requiring media production companies to keep these records seem implausible in America, but at least conceivable in some of countries.

kinkrtyavimoodh 5y ago

No thanks, we don't want another Prop 65 nuisance, this time for photos.

mLuby 5y ago

"Results not guaranteed" "Actor portrayal" "Real users compensated for appearing" If everything would have the warning label (like "Don't try this at home" or California's "known to cause cancer" signs or arguably GMO food labels) then people ignore it. It'd be better to know how different what's shown is from the median result, but that'd be hard to figure out, and if you could, why not just require the ads show that result instead?

pbhjpbhj 5y ago
Thing is tech is quick enough now we can have all this metadata and users could then filter according to their mores (ie personal preferences), it's not like it's more work for the photog to label it as edited/photoshopped they're already recording that info.

sofixa 5y ago

In France that's the law, you must add a label on photo / video ads that were digitally altered.