6 ms·

From here (http://insite.artinstitutes.edu/food-stylists-blend-technical-skill-creativity-for-the-camera-14570.aspx http://insite.artinstitutes.edu/food-stylist

by gilrain 14y ago

From here (http://insite.artinstitutes.edu/food-stylists-blend-technical-skill-creativity-for-the-camera-14570.aspx http://insite.artinstitutes.edu/food-stylists-blend-technica...): "The food stylist’s magic tricks face regulation from the Federal Trade Commission and its truth in advertising laws. That Crisco-powdered sugar mix can substitute for ice cream if it’s representing a generic dessert on a menu, Allaben says, but not if it’s hawking a brand name like Ben & Jerry’s." And here (http://www.cskern.com/blog/entryid/11 http://www.cskern.com/blog/entryid/11): "The truth is most of what you see in food photographs is real. FTC laws state that whatever you’re selling with a photo must be real in the image. To use a familiar example, if you’re selling corn flakes the flakes must be real. But then it gets interesting. You can use white glue instead of milk in your bowl of flakes because you’re not selling the milk, only the corn flakes." So, the product being sold must be real as-it-is-sold (albeit much more carefully styled, generally). The incidentals can be embellished. A McD's quarter-pounder is a single product, and so presumably must be made with its actual ingredients in ads.

tptacek 14y ago
Not to be argumentative, let's stipulate that those two blog posts are true in spirit, but can anyone find the actual law or FTC policy statement that says "generic ice cream can be styled out of Crisco but Ben & Jerry's has to be real"? Also: McDonalds Canada specifically said, in this video, that they were not embellishing the incidentals; it was exactly the same buns, exactly the same pickles, just arranged differently.
- gilrain 14y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, or even an armchair lawyer, so I don't know where to look to find the applicable laws. However, there are plenty of cites from industry people saying the same thing. I assume they have to be familiar with the law that regulates what they do. And the bun, pickles etc would have to be real by law, is what I'm saying. They're part of a single McD's product being sold by the photo.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    The subtext I'm communicating is, "if I was in the food marketing industry, I sure would want to communicate to the world that I was legally obligated to adhere to some strict code of conduct". It's a credibility booster. So I'm going a step further and seeing if anyone can use an advanced legal tool like Google or Wikipedia to find the place that says McDonalds must-absolutely-must use real pickles or exactly the real McNugget coating, no spraypaint allowed, in its food shoots. I think we've already shot to shit the verity of these photos when we observe that they're browning the burgers on a panini press and then saying "this food is ugly because if it looked like the ad, it would taste like shit". Well, you can say the same thing about overcooked protein as you can about a can of shellac, can't you?
    - gilrain 14y ago
      "So I'm going a step further and seeing if anyone can use an advanced legal tool like Google or Wikipedia to find the place" I tried that, of course, and didn't find a proper law reference in the amount of time I dedicated to the task. I'll have leave it up to you to satisfy your curiosity from here. Please do post if/when you find it!
      - Retric 14y ago
        It get's back to case law. But false advertising is a 'means of advertisement other than labeling, which is misleading in a material respect; and in determining whether an advertisement is misleading, there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of the commodity to which the advertisement relates under the conditions prescribed in said advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or usual. The net result of this basically means if your selling a burger, you must show a picture of a burger using the materials you use to make a burger. But, you don't need to use the same methods.
    - rprasad 14y ago
- rprasad 14y ago
  See In re Campbell Soup Co., 77 F.T.C. 664 (1970), which sets forth the basic rules. There are print copies available, but the case generally precedes the digitized archives available with subscriptions to legal research archives (i.e., Lexis/Westlaw). You are free to pay for access to the appropriate database if you actually need to read the case digitally.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Neat! How'd you find it? Do you have any idea what it says? I'd love to know what the basic rules are.
    - rprasad 14y ago
      I typed in "food styling" and FTC into Google, and it was in every result on the first page. (I was not using personalized search but I do have cookies enabled, so your results may vary.) If you do not want to pay for the digital copy (I think it is $10 on Lexis for the case, not including search charges), you can go to your local bar association law library. Larger law libraries may have a copy of appropriate FTC rulings. Alternatively, a law school library will have a paperpound copy (but may charge non-students and non-alumni for entry). In a nutshell, in Campbell, the company used marbles to stand-in for peas and other various vegetable ingredients. Someone complained that the ads were deceptive. The FTC pursued an enforcement action against the company. In its ruling, the FTC noted that a food product (and any ingredients) advertised must actually be the food product sold. Otherwise, the ad is deceptive. The application to burger commercials: The advertised product must be an actual sample of the sold product. All of the ingredients in the sold product must be in the advertised product. The ruling is not explicitly limited to the food products being advertised and sold, however it does not address any other ingredients except for those advertised and sold. Consequently, if a foodstuff is not part of the final sold product, the advertisement can use a stand-in. Consequently, the milk in cereal commercials can be glue (or paint), while the cereal in milk commercials can be plastic.

by gilrain 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

Not to be argumentative, let's stipulate that those two blog posts are true in spirit, but can anyone find the actual law or FTC policy statement that says "generic ice cream can be styled out of Crisco but Ben & Jerry's has to be real"? Also: McDonalds Canada specifically said, in this video, that they were not embellishing the incidentals; it was exactly the same buns, exactly the same pickles, just arranged differently.

gilrain 14y ago
I'm not a lawyer, or even an armchair lawyer, so I don't know where to look to find the applicable laws. However, there are plenty of cites from industry people saying the same thing. I assume they have to be familiar with the law that regulates what they do. And the bun, pickles etc would have to be real by law, is what I'm saying. They're part of a single McD's product being sold by the photo.
- tptacek 14y ago
  The subtext I'm communicating is, "if I was in the food marketing industry, I sure would want to communicate to the world that I was legally obligated to adhere to some strict code of conduct". It's a credibility booster. So I'm going a step further and seeing if anyone can use an advanced legal tool like Google or Wikipedia to find the place that says McDonalds must-absolutely-must use real pickles or exactly the real McNugget coating, no spraypaint allowed, in its food shoots. I think we've already shot to shit the verity of these photos when we observe that they're browning the burgers on a panini press and then saying "this food is ugly because if it looked like the ad, it would taste like shit". Well, you can say the same thing about overcooked protein as you can about a can of shellac, can't you?
  - gilrain 14y ago
    "So I'm going a step further and seeing if anyone can use an advanced legal tool like Google or Wikipedia to find the place" I tried that, of course, and didn't find a proper law reference in the amount of time I dedicated to the task. I'll have leave it up to you to satisfy your curiosity from here. Please do post if/when you find it!
    - Retric 14y ago
      It get's back to case law. But false advertising is a 'means of advertisement other than labeling, which is misleading in a material respect; and in determining whether an advertisement is misleading, there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of the commodity to which the advertisement relates under the conditions prescribed in said advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or usual. The net result of this basically means if your selling a burger, you must show a picture of a burger using the materials you use to make a burger. But, you don't need to use the same methods.
  - rprasad 14y ago
rprasad 14y ago
See In re Campbell Soup Co., 77 F.T.C. 664 (1970), which sets forth the basic rules. There are print copies available, but the case generally precedes the digitized archives available with subscriptions to legal research archives (i.e., Lexis/Westlaw). You are free to pay for access to the appropriate database if you actually need to read the case digitally.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Neat! How'd you find it? Do you have any idea what it says? I'd love to know what the basic rules are.
  - rprasad 14y ago
    I typed in "food styling" and FTC into Google, and it was in every result on the first page. (I was not using personalized search but I do have cookies enabled, so your results may vary.) If you do not want to pay for the digital copy (I think it is $10 on Lexis for the case, not including search charges), you can go to your local bar association law library. Larger law libraries may have a copy of appropriate FTC rulings. Alternatively, a law school library will have a paperpound copy (but may charge non-students and non-alumni for entry). In a nutshell, in Campbell, the company used marbles to stand-in for peas and other various vegetable ingredients. Someone complained that the ads were deceptive. The FTC pursued an enforcement action against the company. In its ruling, the FTC noted that a food product (and any ingredients) advertised must actually be the food product sold. Otherwise, the ad is deceptive. The application to burger commercials: The advertised product must be an actual sample of the sold product. All of the ingredients in the sold product must be in the advertised product. The ruling is not explicitly limited to the food products being advertised and sold, however it does not address any other ingredients except for those advertised and sold. Consequently, if a foodstuff is not part of the final sold product, the advertisement can use a stand-in. Consequently, the milk in cereal commercials can be glue (or paint), while the cereal in milk commercials can be plastic.