Model sues for NOT being photoshopped in advertisement!
HA! This is a first. Daily Mail reports that Model Caroline Louise Forsling is suing Estee Lauder for $2 million claiming she was made to appear older in an advertisment because they DIDN’T PHOTOSHOP HER. She also claims she was unaware the photo could be used, and thought it was a test shot.
She claims her career was ‘irreparably’ damaged by the ad. The product says it was tested on women between the ages of 45-60. Funny, since she’s 35. HOMEGIRL, YOU NEED TO STAY OUT OF THE SUN! You got rankles like Iggy Pop.
Apparently before her makeup was done, they asked her to do a test shot without makeup, and the model ‘believed the test shot would not be used.’ She did not use the product for a before and after shot, which is the most ironic part to me. I didn’t realize they could photoshop before and after shots. That seems misleading, no? I hope it’s disclosed at the bottom, “WE PHOTOSHOPPED THE SHIT OUT OF THIS PICTURE.”
I personally don’t buy that her career has been damaged. That would be like a fat model suing a magazine because they didn’t make her look skinny. IT’S. HER. FACE. And saying she “believed the test shot would not be used” doesn’t mean Estee Lauder told her it wouldn’t be used. It would be reasonable to assume they didn’t tell her that since she would definitely mention that in the lawsuit if it were true. So basically what I’m saying is it’s her own fault for letting the picture be taken without something in writing saying test shots wouldn’t be used.
I mean, was it even a test shot? If I was a model at a photoshoot for a skin care product and they pulled my hair back and asked to do a picture without makeup, I’d assume that wasn’t a test shot. Why would they need a test shot without makeup? Aren’t test shots just for lighting? So you’d think most test shots would take place when makeup was already on their face. MAN. I know nothing about modeling. I knew I should’ve payed more attention during my glamour shot photoshoots as a child.
What do you think? Is that ad worth $2 million in damages?