Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends

Explore news, videos and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.

To get started, first

YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

    Image of ultra-thin Ralph Lauren model sparks outrage

    In recent years an ongoing debate has brewed over advertisers and fashion magazines using photographs, particularly photographs of women, that have seemingly been altered, or "retouched," by airbrushing and photo editing software such as Photoshop. The latest such image to cause an uproar is one featured in a new Ralph Lauren advertisement that shows a model, Filippa Hamilton, so emaciated that her waist actually appears to be smaller than her head.

    On September 29th, Boing Boing's Xeni Jardin posted the ad, which originally appeared on a blog dedicated to pointing out suspected retouched images called Photoshop Disasters, with the comment, "Dude, her head's bigger than her pelvis." Ralph Lauren responded by filing a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) complaint against Boing Boing and Photoshop Disasters, claiming that their use of the image was a copyright infringement that fell outside of the Fair Use laws which allow the media to reproduce creative content for the purposes of commentary and criticism.

    The Internet service provider hosting Photoshop Disasters (Google Blogspot) deleted the post containing the image, while Boing Boing's (Canada's Priority Colo.) did not. In response, Boing Boing editor Cory Doctorow issued a stern warning to Ralph Lauren yesterday on the website, saying that the company's attempt to silence their criticism has only inspired them to step up their efforts in the future:

    "Copyright law doesn't give you the right to threaten your critics for pointing out the problems with your offerings. You should know better. And every time you threaten to sue us over stuff like this, we will:

    a) Reproduce the original criticism, making damned sure that all our readers get a good, long look at it, and;

    b) Publish your spurious legal threat along with copious mockery, so that it becomes highly ranked in search engines where other people you threaten can find it and take heart; and

    c) Offer nourishing soup and sandwiches to your models."

    The U.S. isn't the only place where advertisers are feeling the public backlash over retouching claims. Overseas, a recent Olay ad featuring a virtually wrinkle-free 59-year-old Twiggy caused such an uproar in the UK that the British Parliament recently proposed outlawing retouching in advertisements aimed at teenagers. The movement was initiated by the nation's Liberal Democrats, whose leader on the issue, Jo Swinson, said:

    "Today's unrealistic idea of what is beautiful means that young girls are under more pressure now than they were even five years ago. Airbrushing means that adverts contain completely unattainable images that no one can live up to in real life. We need to help protect children from these pressures and we need to make a start by banning airbrushing in adverts aimed at them. The focus on women's appearance has got out of hand - no one really has perfect skin, perfect hair and a perfect figure, but women and young girls increasingly feel that nothing less than thin and perfect will do."

    In the U.S., many retouched images featuring celebrities have been the subject of recent scorn, including a L'Oreal ad that lightened Beyonce's skin, an image of Jessica Alba airbrushed to feature a slimmer waist in a Campari ad, and an ad for London Fog featuring Gisele Bunchen in which her "baby bump" was removed.

    In response to the growing concern over retouching, a website called About-Face, whose stated mission is to arm "women and girls with tools to understand and resist harmful media messages that affect their self-esteem and body image," has sprung up. The site features a "Gallery of Offenders" as well as a "Gallery of Winners" to highlight who the site's editors feel are the advertising industry's best and worst in regards to improving and harming the image of the modern woman. Site visitors can also contribute money to help offset its operating costs as well as expand programs designed to educate young women on beauty and self-image.

    Another website to garner attention for its dedication to exposing photo retouching offenses is Jezebel.com. Speaking on the subject of retouching, Jezebel editor-in-chief Anna Holmes told Yahoo!, "I don't see any point in retouching anymore ... The cat's out of the bag." She added, "I think Americans in particular are sick of having the wool pulled over their eyes ... even if it's regarding fashion models and actresses. The more they do this sort of retouching -- and then try to justify it, as the editor of SELF magazine recently did -- the less anyone believes anything else they have to say, or show. They are, in a sense, digging their own (shallow) graves."

    Whether or not Holmes is right about the digging of "shallow graves" remains to be seen, but companies like Ralph Lauren certainly don't appear to be helping their cause by attempting to silence their critics, as doing so has only increased the amount of negative attention to their already controversial ad.

    Loading...
     
    Top Locations Portland

    2,836 comments

    • Renee  •  1 month 9 days ago
      I just don't understand why people think this is attractive. I have no desire to buy clothes from this ad, it just frightens me.
    • David  •  Portland, Oregon  •  1 month 9 days ago
      Photoshopped? "Deathcamp cuisine"...Bette Midler/ 'Ruthless People' movie
    • Melody  •  3 months ago
      That super-anorexic photo was made by beauty bigots.
    • Kahlia Davis  •  3 months ago
      EITHER YOU'RE TOO SKINNY TOO FAT NOBODY IS JUST RIGHT...
    • E  •  4 months ago
      The poor girl looks like she has a terminal illness and wasting syndrome (which in real life are very unpleasant, and usually very sad. She also looks like she couldnt lift a 10lb weight, much less a child. If Ralph Lauren's add people think that we, Jane public think this is attractive, well they better get a reality check. This is plainly SICK, the girl looks unhealthy.
    • Amanda C  •  4 months ago
      Thumbs UP! / Hats Off to those commentators for standing up to those who happily sing the "I'll sue you!" tune. It's true enough is enough! I look at these females and think nobody can actually look that flawless or that skinny and then a "rare, one in a million" girl will walk by who meets some of the criteria that these media mongrels try and portray. Like I wrote "one in a mill" so the rest of us 999999 will just look and admire them.
    • ScottK  •  4 months ago
      A good example of the Streisand Effect. Trying to censor things only brings them more attention.
    • dave  •  4 months ago
      the only men attracted to that are closet pedophiles, satisfying their urges for preteen boys and girls without breaking the law.
    • Trish  •  4 months ago
      Ralph send her over to my house or sunday dinner she need to eat some real food as my ganny would say baby you look sick !
    • Starfish  •  4 months ago
      YUK Ugly
    • LaPortaMA  •  4 months ago
      Interesting -- recurrent -- questions
      but it misses entire dimensions.
    • Sharlene  •  4 months ago
      Those clothes are hicky - i though RL was preppy and classy not down on the farm and starving...this model truly looks like a creature...not very sexy, appealing or whatever the look they were aiming for - someone she get fired for this one!
    • bob dobolina  •  4 months ago
      NOT sexy! not sexy at all.
    • JACKI  •  4 months ago
      I find it sad and very disturbing that someone thinks this is attractive. The last time I saw a picture of a person this emaciated it was a piece on the famine in Somalia on the national news. No wonder young girls have distorted body images.
    • ANDREA  •  4 months ago
      The Kate look with lighter hair & no hand me down ring!
    • JustAnotherMarionette  •  4 months ago
      She looks like a bobble head
    • Lebanon resident  •  4 months ago
      Having been in the graphics field and a Photoshop user since it's inception in the last century, I have been aware of this practice, seems like forever, but it isn't any different than the lithographs of 2 centuries ago when Victorian women were shown in ads with pencil thin waists and perfectly coiffed hairdos. When photography became more prevalent retouching was born, They did it in the 40s until the 70s, perfectly pressed and pleated dresses, precisely lined lips ~ but it was done by a talenter airbrush artist. Now comes the INTERNET age along with sue happy people, where even Mildred in Middlebury can photo enhance to her hearts desire and post for all to see. BRAVO, all the ignorant people of the ages have finally become aware! Unfortuantely all of these ignorant people have been believing everything they have been looking at in the 2-D world all their lives? People the only reality that exists is right in front of you in the REAL world and that is the only place it has ever been real all of the time. Seriously.
    • Robert Steele  •  4 months ago
      Cheap date though since she doesn't eat anything.
    • don  •  4 months ago
      1. the photo was doctored to make her look thinner. (fact) 2. "sparkes outrage"? there are people dying all over the world needlessly and this crap sparkes outrage? Who gives a flyin?
    • CelestialSushi  •  4 months ago
      That picture looks so unnatural. And I like the comment about "offer[ing] nourishing soup and sandwiches to [their] models." Goodness knows that with what they've been putting up with, they need some hearty food.