It’s long been a pretty poorly kept secret in the fashion industry that many models are very thin–some dangerously so. For years, there’s been various debates in the industry over whether or not to make rules restricting the weight of models to ensure that the women (and men) showing off the latest high fashion designs are a healthy weight. Now France, one of the bastions of the fashion world, took a pretty strong step in that direction. A new French law prevents super-skinny models from being hired by designers and fashion houses. Industry members who do so may be subject to fines, or possibly even jail time.

The new law would essentially ban models who have a Body Mass Index (BMI) under 18. BMIs are calculated on a sort of sliding scale that takes into account an individual’s height and weight. The BMI then fits into one of a few different categories–including under healthy weight, healthy weight, overweight, and obese. However, doctors would also be consulted to ensure that the BMI test was being administered fairly, and to take into account the unique build and structure of the individual. Under a BMI of 18.5 is usually considered under healthy weight, and can be a marker to determine if someone has an eating disorder, such as anorexia or bulimia. There’s been an increased awareness brought to the problem of anorexia recently, particularly after the death of Isabelle Caro, a French fashion model who passed away most likely due to the disease in 2010.

An important aspect of the law to keep in mind is that it punishes the agencies or houses that hire the models, not the models themselves. This is to keep members of the industry from putting pressure on the models to lose weight, or stay at an unhealthy weight. As Dr. Oliver Véran, one of the legislators behind the bill put it, “a person should not be obliged to starve herself in order to work.”

France isn’t the first country to implement laws about the sizes of its fashion models. Other nations, such as Israel, Spain, and Italy have limited measures in place as well. However France’s seems to be the most sweeping. In France, punishments for employing a model who is below the healthy weight threshold could include a fine of up to 75,000 Euros ($82,000, under the current exchange rate), or up to six months of jail time.

Not everyone is on board with the new legislation however. Some think that the restrictions are too harsh, as well as too sweeping–they don’t allow as much ability to decide on an ad-hoc basis whether or not a model is healthy. That criticism includes the argument that just because a model has a BMI over the given level, does not mean that they are “healthy,” but could still be suffering from a debilitating eating disorder. Isabelle Saint-Felix, who heads up France’s National Union of Modeling Agencies stated:

When you look at the criteria behind anorexia, you can’t look only at the body mass index when other criteria are also involved: psychological, a history of hair loss, dental problems. It’s important that the models are healthy, but it’s a little simplistic to think there won’t be any more anorexics if we get rid of very thin models.

Overall, the recognition of possible dangerous attitudes in the modeling industry seems like a step in the right direction. That being said, there is clearly still more work to be done to ensure the fact that the models from the world’s top designers are healthy role models.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New French Law to Ban Models Below Healthy Weight appeared first on Law Street.

It always amazes me when extreme left-wing, second-wave feminists and extreme right-wing, stuck-in-the-1800s conservatives agree on something. Yet when it comes to tonight’s annual runway party we know and love as the Victoria’s Secret Fashion show, backlash comes from both sides. The left thinks the show objectifies and demoralizes women, whereas the right thinks the show is inappropriate and overly sexual.

Well, I am here to tell you they’re both wrong!

“But Morgan,” you may say. “Aren’t you a feminist? How can you disagree?” Notice that I referenced a very specific kind of feminism. A type that I like to call “faux-feminism” because it failed to move on from the extremist, misandrist views held by those women in the 1970s that people still like to associate with feminism today–incorrectly, of course.

The fashion industry has never been clear cut on the issue of women’s rights. On the one hand, you have a business that thrives on women starving themselves and that perpetuates the idea that only one body type is beautiful. On the other hand, you have models like Cara Delevingne who broadcast their feminism on a daily basis, and more and more fashion advertisements geared toward “normal” body types and positive body image.

Victoria’s Secret, as we all know, is an underwear company. Women around the globe, myself included, love to buy their five  for $25 panty specials and comfy campus sweatpants. They sell the idea that women–regardless of size–are the definition of sexy. Aside from some beauty products and an ever-shrinking clothing line, they make their money off of lingerie. It follows that their fashion show would feature just that. What’s more, instead of acknowledging the long-held stereotype of underwear models as “sluts” they make their models “angels.”

But not the cliché of pure, virtuous angels. Victoria’s Secret instead chooses to laugh in the face of the dichotomy of women being either angel or devil: their models are both. They walk the runway in what conservative society deems inappropriate or risqué, and they smile, laugh, and blow kisses at the audience while they’re at it. It’s thanks to feminism that they have the right to walk the runway in their corsets and bikini-cut panties. It’s thanks to feminism that they can enjoy it without judgement.

Oh but wait, we don’t live in a perfect society! These models, who walk the runway and model this lingerie willingly, are still judged for their choice to do so. I hate to repeat myself, but as I have said in several previous posts, feminism allows women to do and wear and be whatever they want. These women choose to be underwear models.

And they are damn good at it. Do I think the fashion show objectifies women? You could make the argument that it does. But from years of tuning into the fashion show, most of the time I just see a fun celebration for the models. Besides, recognized feminists like Rihanna, Taylor Swift, and even the models themselves, perform on that runway. Obviously they don’t take offense to the outfits. Do I think some of Victoria’s Secret’s advertisements objectify women and are geared toward men? Sometimes, but that is a topic for another post.

My point this time around is, if a woman wants to model underwear for Victoria’s Secret, more power to her. Who are we to judge?

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Victoria’s Secret Angels Model Lingerie and Feminism appeared first on Law Street.

Model Mayhem is an online modeling site used by aspiring models to network, find jobs, and share photographs. It was just ruled that a lawsuit against it and its parent company, Internet Brands, Inc, will be allowed to move forward, after a young woman, Jane Doe, sued the site for negligence.

Jane Doe had been using Model Mayhem for its intended purpose — networking — when she was contacted to travel to Florida for an “audition.” There she met Lavont Flanders Jr. and Emerson Callum who drugged her, raped her, filmed the attack, and put it online, marketing it as “pornography.” Their plan was intrinsically tied to the ability to be able to use Model Mayhem to contact the aspiring models.

Flanders and Callum have since been convicted for their horrendous crimes in Florida court. Both of Miami, they stood trial in 2012. They were each found guilty of a hefty 12 consecutive life sentences for sex trafficking. Five of the victims were involved in Flanders and Callums’ trials, but it’s not clear whether the Jane Doe from the current suit was one of them.

According to Jane Doe’s suit, the site knew about Flander and Callums’ actions since 2010, but failed to disclose or provide any kind of warning to its users. The parent company, Internet Brands Inc, had sued the developers of Model Mayhem for failing to disclose that Flanders and Callums’ actions may lead to civil suits, something Internet Brands, Inc. claims should have been told to them when they purchased Model Mayhem in 2008.

What’s disturbing about that first suit is that Jane Doe was apprehended, sexually assaulted, and filmed in 2011. Which means that the website where her assailants found her knew that there was potential for something like this to happen for months before she was ever contacted. That’s not just terrifying — it’s certainly grounds for Jane Doe to argue negligence. And in the civil suit she filed against Internet Brands, Inc., that’s exactly what she argued.

She filed the suit originally in California, and the suit was dismissed under the Communications Decency Act, which was passed in the late 90s in an attempt to regulate the spread of internet-based pornography. On the most basic level, it attempts to make sure that children don’t see explicit content on the internet by regulating the ways in which sites are allowed to disseminate that kind of content. More relevantly to this case though, is Section 230, which states,

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

In lay terms, what that essentially means is that you can’t be sued if someone uses your website to, for example, distribute pornography.

This was the law that the original court used to overturn Jane Doe’s case. However, in an appeals ruling released this week, the decision was overturned. Judge Richard Clifton, of the Ninth Circuit, decided that Section 230 did not apply. He was part of a three-judge appellate court that decided the case can proceed. Clifton wrote that Jane Doe’s case isn’t barred under the act because,

Jane Doe’s claim is different, however. She does not seek to hold Internet Brands liable as a ‘publisher or speaker’ of content posted on the Model Mayhem website, or for Internet Brands’ failure to remove content posted on the website. Flanders and Callum are not alleged to have posted anything themselves.

The case will move forward, and with good reason. What Internet Brands Inc, did was reprehensible, and Jane Doe paid the price for its mistake. The company deserves to be held accountable, and this case is certain to make waves as it is indeed allowed to move forward.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Chris Jagers via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Case Against Online Modeling Site Involved in Rape to Move Forward appeared first on Law Street.

As New York Fashion Week draws to a close and all of the celebrities, bloggers, and street style photographers clear from Lincoln Center, it appears that there is the same unsolved issue every season: where is the diversity on the runway?

Surely, we have seen quite a few additions of minority and even plus-size models since the earlier years of fashion week, but we still have a long way to go. And although the runways seem to be slowly but surely diversifying, there’s no excuse why particularly the one fashion week that takes place stateside is so slow to change. They may be able to get away with it in Europe, but there are plenty of African American girls for New York designers and agencies to chose from.

In the Fall/Winter ’14 shows last February, 78 percent of runway models were white, a slight decrease from the previous season’s 79 percent. Meanwhile, there are several famous supermodels who are minorities, like Brazilian Gisele Bundchen, Somali-born Iman, and Naomi Campbell who is black and British. So what gives? Why do designers insist on maintaining such whitewashed runways?

One possible reason is that, as with racism in most cases, it is simply easy for designers to fall into the same trap of maintaining the status quo of what ‘looks good.’ While the point of fashion shows is to display designs, that doesn’t necessarily mean that minority models can’t walk the runway without looking “too exotic” and detracting from the clothes they are wearing. Designers and casting directors need to start making a conscious effort to chose models of varying races. After all, if uniformity is still a concern, that is what hair and makeup are for. Remember last season when Kendall Jenner hid among the models at Marc Jacobs and no one even recognized her because her eyebrows were bleached?

Another reason for the lack of diversity on the runway could be that there are not a lot of minority models attending castings in the first place. If that is true, then the fault would lie with the modeling agencies as opposed to the designers. According to the Wilhelmina Models site, 13 out of 51 of the models signed with them appear to be women of color, about 25 percent. That’s an under-whelmingly low proportion of minority models. So why aren’t model scouts finding more women of color?

"Be happy, be yourself" love Diane #NYFW #DVFW pic.twitter.com/ua2PP5xIZc

— DVF (@DVF) September 7, 2014

The notion that only pale and blonde women can be beautiful is apparently still very ingrained in the fashion industry. Despite the fact that the number of white models is slowly decreasing each season, there is still a lot that needs to be done in order to erase this mentality. While I don’t think using affirmative action or establishing a certain quota for the number of white models allowed in one show would work, perhaps the CFDA could work to change this practice.

Several companies are already starting to promote the idea of using normal-sized girls as models, so why not start a campaign encouraging diversity? The president of the CFDA herself, Diane von Furstenberg, had about a third of her models as women of color in her show on Sunday, so I hardly think she would be opposed to promoting diversity in fashion. Von Furstenberg should use her power to eradicate the racist mindset in fashion and get more women of color on the runways.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Fashion Week Still Doesn’t Promote Diversity appeared first on Law Street.

When it comes to marketing, they say that sex sells. That may have been true ten years ago when retailers like Abercrombie & Fitch, Calvin Klein, and United States of Benetton ruled the fashion scene. But lately the industry seems to be erring on the safe side in advertising. Maybe this is why controversial photographers like Dov Charney and Terry Richardson have recently gotten the boot. Maybe it’s a movement in feminism. But maybe it’s just censorship.

The sexualized female figure has shocked the public since the Impressionist Era. The censorship of the female nipple is nothing new; however, as in art, it’s this same kind of scandal that often gives companies the most attention, which is basically the point of advertising. The more people are talking about a company, the more money they make. There is no such thing as bad press. So why are so many ads playing it safe these days?

One reason for this could be that companies just don’t want to bother with all the hassle. If an ad is too controversial, it risks getting banned in some countries. For example, back in 2011 the U. K.’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) seemed to read a little too much into Dakota Fanning’s ad for Marc Jacobs’ perfume Lola, resulting in a ban throughout Great Britain. The ad features Fanning with the perfume bottle, which includes a large rubber rose on the cap, between her legs. At the time the ad ran, Fanning was only 17 so it upset people to see a minor, whom the ASA claimed looked under the age of 16, staring in such a “provocative” ad.

Marc Jacobs, however, seems hardly controversial compared to other retailers such as Benetton and Italian label Sisley. These companies are notorious for making cheap shots when it comes to advertising. For these two, the more scandalous, the better: from a kissing nun and priest to a man dying of AIDS to “fashion junkies” snorting a dress. Despite their tendencies to upset the public, these ads have been successful in garnering attention. In such cases, these companies value shock factor over just putting out a pretty ad.

Benetton has become tamer since photographer Oliver Toscani stopped working with the company in 2000. Their recent Unhate campaign featuring feuding world leaders kissing, like President Obama, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, Pope Benedict XVI , and Egyptian leader Grand Sheikh Ahmed el Tayeb, led to the Vatican suing back in 2011.

Another reason ads may have tamed down is that companies now do most of their marketing through social media. Sites like Facebook and Instagram are heavily regulated when it comes to what they determine is appropriate for such a large and diverse audience. Most pictures featuring the female nipple are promptly removed from these sites within hours of posting. Therefore, if an ad is considered too inappropriate, the company risks losing a large amount of consumers.

Although sometimes they make more than one version of an ad through strategic cropping, companies, especially smaller ones that can’t afford it, may not want to bother paying for multiple versions of the same campaign. Social media also allows for free advertising for all kinds of companies and can be shared to reach consumers who may not normally pay attention to a specific brand. While Benetton’s ads certainly have a tendency to go viral, they risk running into potential legal troubles on the web. If an ad ends up on a site with certain regulations, the company could be held accountable.

Online advertising has presented endless opportunities for giving companies exposure but at the same time, advertising has also never been more censored. There are few laws to regulate what is appropriate and what is not online, so it is often up to the websites themselves to make the regulations. Many sites do not want to face the legal complications involved with featuring controversial images, which in turn has led advertisers to not even bother with anything controversial in the first place.

While Benetton may not offer anything groundbreaking or artistically ingenious in its ads, the company is known for opening up a conversation about greater issues such as HIV/AIDS, homophobia, and racism. Lately however, there is not much conversation going on regarding these kinds of ads, just a bunch of pretty models in pretty clothes. While the point of fashion advertising is to sell clothes, sometimes the less clothing a model wears, the more intrigued a consumer may be to find out what kind of product the ad is selling. The use of accessories in fashion ads also creates a more timeless image, which is bound to be remembered and used for decades.

Perhaps advertisers should start taking cues from the Impressionists again, instead of playing it safe. The Impressionists lucked out though, because there was no ASA or Facebook back then to stop them from creating anything interesting.

Of course full-on nudity isn’t the only way to intrigue an audience with sex appeal. Let us not forget the classic Brooke Shields for Calvin Klein ads, who was just 15 at the time.

Nothing, not even the ASA could get between her and her Calvins.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Buzzfeed]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Censorship in Fashion: Where Did All the Controversial Ads Go? appeared first on Law Street.