I was expecting to read some story about criminal exploitation, but this sounds like it's just... completely above-board? As a few other commenters stated, the model hasn't explicitly stated whether she supports the use of the photo or not. Even if she did explicitly come out and say she doesn't like people using it, she doesn't own the rights to it.
I'm fine with (and happy for) people going above and beyond to respect someone else's dignity, but this is less about ethics and more about one person's potential regret over a business transaction. Just because you regret doing a deal doesn't mean others are unethical for benefiting from it. When you're using your own body in a business transaction (of _any kind_) you should really think through the possible consequences. Whether it's getting a tattoo or putting your kids on TV or selling photos to Playboy, those all have ramifications you won't be able to control very well later on.
> When you're using your own body in a business transaction (of _any kind_) you should really think through the possible consequences.
Yeah, when she was modelling for playboy she should've thought "what if a nerd somewhere takes this photo of me and unknowingly turns it into a commonplace testing asset in an industry niche in 50 years that doesn't even exist in my current time?"
More seriously, the original copyright owner (the photographer? playboy?) probably didn't license it for use as a visual benchmarking asset for graphics algorithms.
>More seriously, the original copyright owner (the photographer? playboy?) probably didn't license it for use as a visual benchmarking asset for graphics algorithms.
The rights owner (Playboy, in this case) is on record saying they made a conscious choice not to enforce their rights to this image.
That class of thinking is exactly what she should have considered, though I'd have phrased it more generally: "These photos will not be under my control, therefore they could show up anywhere at anytime in the future, and there's potentially nothing I can do about it."
Why are you doubling down on your assumption that this is about Lena without you knowing what actually happened? What makes you assume she didn’t know full well the image was not under her control? What makes you assume control over the image is even a relevant issue here?
The issue and the debate surrounding this image has almost nothing to do with how Lena feels about the image, and was neither initiated nor pursued by her. She happens to support the movement now, which does strengthen it slightly, but that’s a minor footnote, and not the driving force here.
Furthermore, the movement is not a legal action. Arguing that someone can’t do something legally about it is irrelevant. It’s always legal to ask. It is time the image be retired, so what’s wrong with saying so?
> Why are you doubling down on your assumption that this is about Lena without you knowing what actually happened? What makes you assume she didn’t know full well the image was not under her control? What makes you assume control over the image is even a relevant issue here?
Three loaded questions in a row. I think you're reading more into my comments than I stated or intended. I'm not assuming anything, just answering a question and pointing out that regardless of whether she thought it through or not, the the photo was not produced or distributed unethically. The title is literally "Ethically Sourced Lena Picture," which implies the original was sourced unethically. That's all I'm arguing. The words we use matter, and I'd like to be able to point out when the words don't match reality without folks thinking they need to give me a lesson in empathy.
Hehe it’s funny to complain about perceived lessons right after saying “That class of thinking is exactly what she should have considered.”
What I think I hear you saying is you don’t like the article’s title (an article that wasn’t written or endorsed by Lena) perhaps because it implies (without stating explicitly) that the original picture was unethical. The new one can be ethically sourced without the old one being unethically sourced. It is an assumption on your part that anyone said anything about the original image being unethically “sourced”. If you want to say that words matter, it definitely makes sense to double-check if your interpretation of words is accurate, and whether you’re taking them literally or projecting assumptions, especially when you, as you’ve said, lack context.
The bigger picture here is that the “ethics” of the situation aren’t related to Lena’s choices, which you’ve assumed and claimed and stated explicitly multiple times now. The ethics in this debate are surrounding the ethical use of pinup images in educational and work settings, and is not related to the original sourcing of the image by Playboy specifically aside from it being published in a soft core magazine which makes it symbolic of the lack of tact when using it for scientific or educational purposes.
Her request is politely-phrased and reasonable. I don't think there's a legal or ethical issue, but respecting the wishes of others when it costs you nothing is just kindness.
However, the way that some have seized on it, and then interacted with others in their communities is ... neither polite nor reasonable.
> As a few other commenters stated, the model hasn't explicitly stated whether she supports the use of the photo or not.
Yes, she has. It's at the bottom of linked article:
Lena added: “I retired from modelling a long time ago. It’s time I retired from tech, too.
We can make a simple change today that creates a lasting change for tomorrow. Let’s commit
to losing me.”
She supports the movement (started by other people) to retire the image from tech, but she wasn’t particularly bothered by the use of the photo, she has said so in multiple interviews. “In 1988, she was interviewed by some Swedish computer related publication, and she was pleasantly amused by what had happened to her picture.” http://www.lenna.org/
Of course opinions can change. I’m not exactly sure what you’re reacting to, but are you saying that Lena’s opinion has in fact changed?
It can also be true that she is both proud of and unbothered by the image, and also supports the movement to retire it from tech because of the social implications. Both opinions can be true at the same time, right? It is not a requirement that she hold any regret for her to be in favor of scientists making more professional choices and setting a better example, right?
She wasn't upset at the photo being used, she was upset at the idea that it could discourage women from working for a tech company.
But that isn't universally true either. This is like a conditional hypothetical. If this hypothetically this is causing women to not work for tech companies, then in that case she could hypothetically not like that.
This is somebody (the OP) trying to use a drummed up controversy to promote themselves. It's gross.
I don't think Morten is trying to promote himself any more than any post on a personal blog is, humorous or otherwise. It's not like he is trying to springboard into a modelling career or anything.
To me it seems that he doesn't seriously believe his photo will become the new "Lena", but he is still making a very clear statement: "you can use any other image, in fact here is one that is a drop-in replacement, it has a similar aspect ratio, style and colour balance to the original. You have no excuses now, move on like Lena asked."
> you can use any other image, in fact here is one that is a drop-in replacement, it has a similar aspect ratio, style and colour balance to the original.
OK, so those similar things, can be helpful. Also it is available in sizes bigger than 512x512, which is also something that was criticized that Lena picture is not bigger than 512x512. However, looking at the pictures, the colours do not really look like similar to me. Also, in the suggested new picture, it look like someone else in the background of the picture too.
I don’t believe that Lena herself has expressed regret over the business transaction, nor was she even bothered much by the use of the image in tech. I believe I read that Playboy considered action on copyright grounds, but decided not to pursue them. You can verify these things via many sources, the link above contains several, as well as the Wikipedia article on this image. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna#Criticism
This is neither about Lena’s choices nor is it about protecting her dignity. It’s about our choices and protecting our dignity.
Evidence? Why would I need any? There is no unethical origin of that photo, as the article claims there is. The burden isn't on me to prove non-existence, that's silly.
But fair enough, I've clearly missed a bit of context. I think my overall point still stands, though. Though I personally think calling that cropped photo "pornographic" is a stretch, it's not an image I would have selected or personally find appropriate. Truthfully, I didn't even realize it was from Playboy until I clicked a link in the article. It's still not a question of ethical origins vs not.
In general, try and do some minimal research about the topic you are commenting on before coming in and speaking with authority about what is or isn't the case, especially about something somewhat sensitive and (unfortunately in this case) politically charged. It helps keep the quality of the conversations here somewhat acceptable, and promotes intellectual rigor and curiosity where its needed most. Its not a huge deal, but it can make a big difference.
I never spoke with any authority. I'm just another name on the Internet. In my originally comment I intentionally didn't speak in concrete terms about whether it's appropriate or not for that photo to be used (I actually personally believe it isn't appropriate). I simply stated based on my reading (which was enough to satisfy me that Lena Sodersburg wasn't exploited by Playboy) that the photo isn't unethically-sourced as the article title implies, and that that fact doesn't actually hinge on whether she changed her mind later or not or whether people have a problem with its use today or not. I'd suggest you read my actual words and not try to attach more meaning than there really is.
You assumed and claimed falsely that Lena regrets the “business transaction” with the photo. I asked for evidence of that. You claimed this wasn’t about ethics and framed it as only about Lena. I asked for evidence of that. You could maybe use some evidence on account of my belief that your claims above are not true.
That's not true. I qualified the statement with "potentially" because I don't know whether she regrets it or not. The article title implies the image was sourced unethically, and my whole point was whether she regrets the photo or not today has nothing to do with whether it was of ethical origins.
Your top comment is making assumptions with or without the qualification. Even the suggestion that there’s “potential” regret is an assumption. It’s fair for me to point this out since I already knew that wasn’t true, there was no such potential.
Edit to add the other massive assumption you keep making repeatedly is that the term “ethically sourced” says anything about the transaction between Lena and Playboy. It doesn’t. It would be fair to call an image from Penthouse put into a high school math book “unethically sourced”, where “sourced” is referring to the book author’s choice, not to either the model’s nor the magazine’s. The image can be ethically and legally acquired and still the use of it can be unethical.
Well, at least we are speaking the same language, finally. Only I think we just genuinely disagree on some definitions. To me, it could be written “unethical to use in a professional setting” and I’d agree wholeheartedly. To me, this is the crux of my comments—where they got the image has little to do with how and to whom it is displayed. I’ll clarify further by saying the only reason I mentioned regret vs not is in connection with that word “source” and had less to do with the specific situation.
The image is offensive because, as an photo sourced from a “men’s magazine”, it’s a reminder that mostly men worked on developing image compression and jpeg technology in the past, and this could make women feel left out or uncomfortable today. Seems motivated by political correctness, not any actual injustice, but perhaps it is time for a new image after this many years.
> The image is offensive because, as an photo sourced from a “men’s magazine”, it’s a reminder that mostly men worked on developing image compression and jpeg technology in the past, and this could make women feel left out or uncomfortable today.
Where did you get this idea? The continued use of the image in professional contexts discomforts people because the photo and the magazine were created for men's sexual interests. And there is little technical reason to use it now.
People who sell photos of their bodies should be allowed to make ethical arguments or have opinions outside the narrow confines of their contracts. Even if those pictures are naked pictures.
> Just because you regret doing a deal doesn't mean others are unethical for benefiting from it.
Everything else aside, this is simply inaccurate. Contractual deals can totally be unethical for all sorts of reasons. When there’s an extreme power imbalance, for example. As one might see between a very young woman and a large and powerful company.
I didn't say it _can't be_ unethical. I just said it isn't necessarily. Ethics is a fairly narrow definition, and I'm not sure you can apply it as broadly as, "Anytime one party has leverage over another, there's an ethics violation." I'd be willing to consider it, but in this case I don't see where anybody's wishes were explicitly violated or any contract was executed in bad faith...
It feels like you and many other commenters have missed the broad general point to focus on the proverbial trees. I am replying to this comment because it is at the top of the HN comments at the time of this reply.
It is a part of computing history that computer scientists at a respected educational institution chose to use a cropped version of a nude Playboy image as part of a test suite for the development of JPEG. Part of that history is that in the 1970s someone felt it was appropriate to openly bring a copy of Playboy into the office and the response to that was to use something from it for an image test suite [1]. You are personally welcome to feel about it however you will.
However, many women are stating that the continued inclusion of a Lena image in test suites and as an important part of computing history makes them feel unwelcomed in tech spaces. As a hypothetical, perhaps you are a straight male. Imagine for a moment that computer science was instead historically dominated by gay men, and that they had decided to use images from gay pornography as part of the JPEG test suite. Suppose that gay men continued to be highly represented within the computer science workforce, and that in order to learn about JPEG compression, you also had to be confronted by those images in a computer science lecture hall in 2023 while surrounded as a straight individual by a room full of gay men. Suppose you hear even one classmate who feels comfortable, in this professional setting, commenting that "they could use some company like that around here" and hearing a few classmates chuckle around that.
Computing and computing literacy are such useful skills today. There are a myriad of tasks where even basic programming literacy would allow you to automate things and make you more efficient in your endeavors. More broadly as a society, we are leveraging machine learning models in so many contexts, and these have been shown to encode the societal biases which were present in their training sets. Representation across all axes of identity allow everyone an equal footing to advance in this technical skillset and also increases the chances that we identify when computing technologies are encoding bias in harmful ways. These women are saying that there are many things which can be done to improve the representation of women within tech spaces, and that removing Lena from curriculums and test suites does zero technical harm while increasing inclusivity. That is the ethical judgement at stake - to what extent do our current practices harm inclusivity and affect the likelihood of encoding harmful biases in the technology we develop now and in the future?
[minor point - if you are a legal stickler, use of the Lena image was also done in infringement of copyright. This is such a non-point in the actual discussion of the campaign, but it seems like a lot of comments basically fall along the line of "this is legal so whatever" and if you want to argue on this perceived technicality, it isn't even correct.]
>Imagine for a moment that computer science was instead historically dominated by gay men, and that they had decided to use images from gay pornography as part of the JPEG test suite.
Mott and Bailey. This image is not pornography. It's a tasteful head shot. You're introducing any discussion of pornography.
>[minor point - if you are a legal stickler, use of the Lena image was also done in infringement of copyright.
If you are a legal stickler, or even just support basic rights, fair use is integral to the research process. [1]
> Mott and Bailey. This image is not pornography. It's a tasteful head shot. You're introducing any discussion of pornography.
Mott and Bailey. I can also name drop logical fallacies to no purpose. This image, though cropped, is from Playboy and the full image features a clearly nude women shot from the back and exposing her buttocks. Your quibble over a specific categorization again misses the forest for the trees. Women are saying that this image makes them feel uncomfortable due to its origins, and there is no technical reason that it needs to remain in the test set or the curricula. There are many suitable alternatives that would not have this problem.
>>[minor point - if you are a legal stickler, use of the Lena image was also done in infringement of copyright.
>
> If you are a legal stickler, or even just support basic rights, fair use is integral to the research process. [1]
Honestly the smart thing to do here is to not engage with your point, as again, it is minor and not actually relevant to the thrust of the conversation. If you want to treat my decision to not push further into this as a moral win, enjoy it.
You are obviously quite wrapped around the axle here. Though you may not like it, the logical fallacy applies here as you're the one introducing criteria that make people feel bad. The full image is not something here in the room with us. It's something in your mind that you're transmitting to everyone else to help you come with the world.
If you and everyone would else would stop running around traumatizing people, "HEY this picture makes me feel bad and it should make you feel bad, too," we'd all feel a lot better. But just a suggestion: perhaps you would feel a lot better if you examined why this picture triggers you so badly? What is it inside you that makes you react so strongly? Did your family have moral issues about women getting money from men for showing their bodies off?
> it is minor and not actually relevant to the thrust of the conversation.
You brought it up, "Doc"! Another perfect example of a Mott and Bailey. Again, look into your personal psychology and family system. Narcissistic projection like this is a typical symptom of a crummy upbringing. In short, learn what things you can change (yourself) and what things you can not change (A woman's decision 50 years ago to get money for images of her body). Taking care of your "stuff" will make you a lot less reactive and more persuasive.
> You are obviously quite wrapped around the axle here
I have a viewpoint and I am expressing it, in accordance with free speech. I'm sorry that my viewpoint make you "feel bad". I'm sorry that you had such a strong reaction to this image of the author, published in their own expression of free speech. Everyone could use a bit of self-examination, and I would suggest that some examination of why this article has led to such an emotional response in yourself is similarly worthwhile. Your personal attacks on my "narcissistic projection", "crummy upbringing" and being "wrapped around the axle" only serve to heighten the emotional stakes of the argument and are not a discussion of the relative merits of the issue.
I have no qualms about sex work and find stigmatization of such work distasteful. Nonetheless, a society in which women are being policed for their wardrobe in a professional settings and also confronted with images sourced from erotica in a professional setting is hypocritical. Many women are saying that this image is unwelcoming and that they feel it is exclusionary. Playboy is exclusionary and explicitly stated in its first issue that it was not for women, and it's very hard to argue that the Playboy centerfolds were not intended in large part to cater to a male fantasy. They are saying that an action can be taken which does no technical harm to the merits of JPEG compression technology and would have appreciable gains from an inclusionary standpoint.
Again, I'm sorry that them expressing their viewpoint is so distasteful to you and has evoked this response in you.
> I would suggest that some examination of why this article has led to such an emotional response in yourself is similarly worthwhile.
Honestly I care so little I literally passed out, but I did inquire into myself as to why I even bothered writing back to you. And you know what came up? I feel bad for the people in your life who have to put up with you. And then I realized you're not hiding behind your keyboard when you talk to them, using an obvious troll account on HN like you are, just look at your post history.
Time and time again, you resort to name-calling and insults rather than focus on issues. You call into question my character and integrity rather than grapple with the issue or argument. You use logical fallacy terminology with limited understanding of their actual structure and misapply them in argumentation.
You may be a kind and intellectually considered person in other aspects of your life, but this is not an example. May kindness find you, may people give you grace, and may you be a source of warmth to others.
Yeah, I challenge you to list my supposed name-calling... besides you "Doc," heh.
And I challenge you to list the insults... I'll wait! Anyway, you're presupposing I'm using those to win some kind of argument... which underscores you projecting your lack of comprehension surrounding logical fallacies onto me.
And obvious troll is obvious. A 9 year old account with 17 karma. You just dip into this account t o be nasty without anyone knowing who you are. Look at your history: no other comments, no submissions, just one favorite, this thread here, so you can spew vile without getting recognized by the rest of the world.
You asked me to look into what drove me to write what I did, and I did just that and you overlooked it, saying I'm calling into question your character and integrity. But that's outside the scope of any "issue" or argument. I'm done talking about that with you. I'm just following up on what you're requesting and you're trying to turn it back on me.
>logical fallacy terminology
sorry for the big words? maybe look them up?
> You may be a kind and intellectually considered person in other aspects of your life, but this is not an example.
I'm not required to be kind to everyone all the time and certainly not to an HN troll. Delete your account and get real.
Your response is utterly baffling and I feel as though I am in some sort of parody.
>sorry for the big words? maybe look them up?
It's not that I don't understand the motte and bailey fallacy, it's that you are misapplying when discussing my posts. In a motte and bailey, the person making an argument would like to advance controversial claim B, but when B is attacked, they will defend claim A while continuing to advance or believe claim B. A is generally a non-controversial and trivial statement. What do you believe is the motte, and what do you believe is the bailey in my argument?
I have chosen at times to focus on what I believe is the main issue, namely that there is an ethical question around inclusivity and the ways in which it shapes access to and development of future technology. This is the argument I am advancing, and one that is informed by a compassionate desire to believe people who say that something makes them feel excluded. If I choose not to be derailed by quibbles over technicalities of categorization that do not change the fundamental nature of my claim, that is not a motte and bailey.
A more correct use of motte and bailey could be easily applied to your own arguments. Your motte A is that a digital image is a collection of pixels, and that any context, history or provenance is something that people bring with them. Your bailey B is that context, history and and provenance should have no bearing on whether people feel excluded or on administrative decisions surrounding images. A does not imply B, yet you repeatedly use A to defend B.
> You just dip into this account t o be nasty without anyone knowing who you are
Can you give an example of where I have been nasty? I literally wished good things for you in the last post and have done my best at every point in this conversation to turn the other cheek. In contrast, you have
- insulted my "crummy upbringing"
- called into question the "moral issues" of my family
- have argued I am "running around traumatizing people"
- characterized my statements as "narcissistic projection" repeatedly
>You asked me to look into what drove me to write what I did, and I did just that and you overlooked it
>Honestly I care so little I literally passed out, but I did inquire into myself as to why I even bothered writing back to you. And you know what came up? I feel bad for the people in your life who have to put up with you. And then I realized you're not hiding behind your keyboard when you talk to them, using an obvious troll account on HN like you are, just look at your post history.
Your conclusion is that what drove you to write these posts is that you feel bad for people who have to put up with me. I can only comment that there is a failure of self-reflection occurring.
>And obvious troll is obvious. A 9 year old account with 17 karma
This is my main, I'm just not very active on HN. People do have a range of behaviors, and even though you appear very active on this alt account of yours, I am not similarly active or engaged with this site despite this being my main. Very often, I am happy to learn from the interesting conversations without feeling a need to comment on my own. Your assumption that the account on which I am posting is an alt is a projection of your own desire to separate your views on the "chillingeffect"[1] from your main. In general, it feels as though you have trouble acknowledging that people have habits and views which diverge from your own, and in this case have reacted with anger rather than intellectual curiosity.
>I'm not required to be kind to everyone all the time and certainly not to an HN troll. Delete your account and get real.
I really truly believe that you would benefit from discussing this thread with someone you trust in a safe space. That could be a domestic partner, a family member, a councilor, a priest, or a co-worker. Just someone whose judgement and morals you admire. Someone who will understand that one interaction does not define the entirety of your identity and who believes in your innate goodness. Give it some time to cool off and come down from the feelings of anger that you are expressing here, and be the person you want to see in the world.
It may be helpful for you to consider this excerpt from Psychology Today:
|The precursor of anger in mammals is a perception of vulnerability plus threat. The more vulnerable people and animals feel, the more threat is perceived. The function of anger is to protect vulnerability and neutralize threat.
|In humans, the threat is almost always to the ego (how we want to think of ourselves and have others think of us). Anger neutralizes ego-threat by devaluing, demeaning, or undermining the confidence of the person perceived to be threatening.
> As a hypothetical, perhaps you are a straight male. Imagine for a moment that computer science was instead historically dominated by gay men, and that they had decided to use images from gay pornography as part of the JPEG test suite.
If a straight man was to complain about too much gayness in the work place it would be a hate crime.
In this hypothetical situation where straight men had historically struggled to break into the ranks of successful computer scientists, it's likely that gay men would similarly feel that if they were to complain about too much straightness in the work place it would be a hate crime.
you're confused between what's legally permitted vs what's ethical. something being legal doesn't prevent anyone from protesting or doing something about it, even if they had accepted a legal risk.
you're also just wrong about the legal aspect of it and seem unfamiliar with licensing
I don't agree, since she was paid (and presumably she could attempt to buy the rights back if she felt really passionate about this). An example of an actual ethics issue would be e.g. the NCAA barring athletes from profiting from their name, image and likeness for so long.
Whose consent? The model's, who never owned the rights to the photograph, or Playboy who does? Both parties gave consent to a million readers across the world to see the full picture.
This is not how photo licensing works. Photos don't magically become public domain because they've been published. There was never any license for it to be re-published and re-distributed in the context of test imagery.
The "turmoil" around the use of this image was never about legality, licensing or royalties. By agreeing to the contract, and by publishing the picture, the publisher and the model gave their "social consent" for everyone to see it. In a fit of moralism the model had a change of mind about the picture; but likely not about her economic gain.
Privacy? I don’t know, I’m not a legal scholar, but it seems clear to me that if someone wants old pictures of themselves removed from circulation, it is ethical to consider it.
Our legal and ethical systems both try to avoid permanently chaining you to decisions you regret.
I haven't read about the background story and the new website but I hadn't thought that she thinks so especially I have read [1] some years ago.
But as said I don't know the new developments regarding the famous photo.
Hi, I saw your other post about the co op programming collective . I'm having some of the same feelings and i was hoping you would want to tell me about that . If you do , hit me up on discord at metalforever#4052
Aren't most of "ethics" just concepts created by existing power structures to justify and maintain their legitimacy? Does loading your opinion with "ethics" make it any more valid?
I wouldn't be surprised if in certain social groups or contexts there are people who choose to toss the word "ethics" around very loosely and completely incorrectly. However, there is an entire serious study of ethics and ethical frameworks that is not simply about reinforcement of existing power structures and I would encourage you to broaden your education.
it's more about whether you respect someone's ability to have their own ethics, not which one is more correct. OP says the person's thoughts should be dismissed as irrelevant because of IP ownership law imposed by the state which yknow uses power to justify its legitimacy.
She's been a model for much of her life, presumably making a good living from being the face of Kodak ads. It's doubtful that she doesn't believe in IP ownership law, given that she's actively used it to make money.
Additionally, she seems to have changed her mind in 2019. At the beginning of the year, she was "really proud of that picture", at the end of the year she asked for it to be retired. I guess some activists talked her into being a victim all those years.
May I suggest more empathy for your fellow humans?
We aren't good at weighing long-term consequences, especially when we're young (as in the model's case) or in financial need (IDK if that was a factor here; it wouldn't surprise me).
Contracts between parties of such unequal bargaining power can't be ethically valid IMO, whatever legally validity they may claim.
Likewise, 20y+ contracts involving individuals aren't wise. (Fine for organizations like businesses and governments though.)
May I instead suggest avoiding asking loaded questions? Nothing I said precludes me from having compassion for this person. My point is that it's just not an ethical concern.
Anyone getting married, buying a house or having children enters into a long contract, often at a relatively young age. Are those unwise? (It's arguably the case today, I suppose)
You need to consider the possibility that this isn't actually the predominant mores of our society - which sticks closer to "you should stand by your agreements" than "agreements between parties of unequal bargaining power are invalid".
To bring your two examples together: I don't think it's a commonly shared opinion that 30 year mortgages are unethical.
>> Fine for organizations like businesses and governments though.
Curious, would it be possible for you to expand on this?
To me, if anything, one generation committing to a future that another will be responsible for is just as ethically problematic, if not more, given the overall impact.
That article doesn't support the headline. The closest it gets is saying nobody asked her beforehand, but she doesn't say after the fact that she wants people to stop.
Meanwhile, from the people who actually bothered to talk to her[1]:
> In her view, the photograph is an immense accomplishment that just happened to take on a life of its own. “I’m really proud of that picture,” she said.
This whole situation reminds me of GitHub, Fuck Your Name Change[2]. People want to drum up outrage and don't care one bit about the people involved.
Is it really worth erasing a piece of computing history because of some kids virtue signaling about a picture that was taken before they were born?
Why is it that in the former, everyone says you're a horrible person who deserves to be cancelled if you ignore the subject's wishes to not use the picture, but in the latter, everyone says it's a great thing if you ignore the subject's wishes to not use the picture?
I love how mostly liberal(and good) viewpoints about the badness of body shaming go out the window when it comes to their enemies. Whether it was about his weight, or penis or hand size. Heck, there was even a popular statue made of a nude trump with a micropenis which people were lining up to have their picture taken with.
This is a false equivalence. The reason people make fun of Trump for being ugly is because he himself mocks others based on their appearance -- particularly women. This is akin to queer activists in the 80s outing closeted gay Republicans who were advocating for anti-gay laws.
Turnabout is fair play. If Trump doesn't want people to make fun of him for his physical qualities, he shouldn't do the same for others.
If you think that decency is a human right and not a privilege to be given out only the the worthy then you're a hypocrite for treating people the way they treat others.
If on the other hand you think that special grounds deserve special rights then go ahead. I have an apartheid to sell you though.
I've never heard "body shaming is bad unless you're body shaming a body shamer".
It misses the point in that there is collateral damage for body shaming as well - if you mock trump's weight because he is a bad person, you're still implying "fat=bad" to every good fat person out there too.
So am I allowed to mock those liberals physical qualities now, since they mocked trump for mocking someone's physical qualities? If they don't want to be mocked they shouldn't do the same to others.
Exceeding scope; I took your picture and used it in an ad campaign, I exceeded scope. I took your picture as president of a country and used it in a blog, I didn't.
This is a trivial discussion, but that's your answer
Because ridiculing world leaders is essential to liberty and free exercise of democracy? Especially POTUS, which is arguably the top of the heap. You don't need to agree, believe it has any merit, or anything like that. It's more important that the right exists than how it's used.
It actually is not great that people decided to go after Trump’s various sensitive physical traits. He’s an awful person and there are many far more substantial things to criticize him on. Making fun of his weight, even though it feels good to say negative things about a bad person, reinforces the idea that this is somehow a valid criticism.
I can see why people do it. He’s the worst, it feels good to say negative things about him. And he also has a tendency to go for shallow physical descriptions of people as criticism. So it has the feeling of “turnabout is fair play.” But it is a failure to restrain lesser instincts.
I think you got downvoted because on face value that looks like a cheap shot. But in truth it does play well with Trump's fanbase when he takes aim at an opponent and starts talking smack about them publicly. Those opposed to Trump, it seems to me, tire easily of that and prefer a bit of civility, or at least the pretence of it.
So what you're saying is roughly "when you engage in petty slap-fights with Trump you kinda are playing to his strengths" - which is true.
Lena has been used for years and this use doesn't necessarily result in you being "cancelled", it might make your colleagues say "hey, can you use something other than lena?" though. The model is a pretty private figure (as she said, she’s not a model anymore) and has not given us any reason not to respect her wishes, so if she has asked the community not to then it's only decent to refrain from using her picture.
Trump is an extremely controversial person who has stirred up no end of trouble and in addition he has directed more than his own fair share of bodyshaming towards others. It does not surprise me in the slightest that people are not willing to extend him the courtesy of not sharing a picture of him that he doesn't like.
I'm not in the business of using or distributing these pictures, so I am quite happy not using either. I'm just attempting to explain why people feel this way. I personally quite like the Ethically Sourced Lena, it made me smile :)
She was championed up until a few years ago as the "Queen of JPEG", and was fairly active in that community.
Rightly so too, it's an image of her, but, more importantly, that image is very difficult to compress efficiently and maintain acceptable quality. There are other images that could have been used, but, an image of her was used, and she enjoyed the celebrity from that until recently.
She is allowed, of course, to change her mind, much as the rest of the world is allowed to consider her past behavior when deciding how they respond to her changing her mind.
> The model in question posed for nude pictures in Playboy...
This is the problem. You're implying it's okay because she asked for it, when the unlicensed reproduction of Disney IP would be treated very differently.
Well the copyright holder may indeed have something to say about it.
But I have a hard time believing that there is anything morally wrong with using a cropped version of such picture for technical and scientific research... that's just looking for controversy where there is none.
Lenna is so widely accepted in the image processing community that Forsén was a guest at the 50th annual Conference of the Society for Imaging Science and Technology (IS&T) in 1997.[18] In 2015, Lena Forsén was also guest of honor at the banquet of IEEE ICIP 2015.[19] After delivering a speech, she chaired the best paper award ceremony.
It's not so clear that she doesn't want people to use that image. She has assisted several times at image processing conferences, and has stated recently that she was proud of the fact that so many people used that photo. The documentary linked above shows footage of herself talking about the photo, but she never really says people should not use it. The website hosting the documentary has several heavily editorialized quotations that suggest that.
That said, this new "lennart" is hilarious and I would like to use it instead of the original one.
“I retired from modelling a long time ago. It’s time I retired from tech, too. We can make a simple change today that creates a lasting change for tomorrow. Let’s commit to losing me.”
She can be proud of her work and not want it used where it makes other people uncomfortable.
It's not really up to models to decide what their pictures gets used for though. Why should this be different?
From what I gather it's not because she's uncomfortable with it being used, it's because of controversy other people have drummed up:
> When I asked her if she had heard anything about the recent controversy around her image, she seemed alarmed at the thought that she could have a part in hurting or discouraging young women. I sent her some articles about the Lenna and later gave her a call to see what she made of them. The photo, she said, doesn’t show very much—just down to her shoulders—so it was hard for her to see what the big deal was.
Her opinion doesn't seem to match the articles claim:
> Lena doesn’t harbor any resentment toward Sawchuk and his imitators for how they appropriated her image; the only note of regret she expressed was that she wasn’t better compensated. In her view, the photograph is an immense accomplishment that just happened to take on a life of its own. “I’m really proud of that picture,” she said.
“I retired from modelling a long time ago. It’s time I retired from tech, too. We can make a simple change today that creates a lasting change for tomorrow. Let’s commit to losing me.”[1]
Being proud of her work doesn't mean she thinks people should have to see it in their work.
It is completely reasonable for a model to be told their work and their likeness will be used for one purpose and for them to not be OK if it is used for another, I don't see how being a model excludes you from the right to have an agreement about releasing your creative input.
So there's contracts and there's intent and morality.
The argument you have presented is analogous (like, right next door; they share a side-yard, their kids go to the same school, and they co-organize the neighborhood potluck) to the argument that you and I have no right to our data not being thrown in a big hopper to generate an AI that is designed to operate directly counter to our personal interests.
After all, if you didn't want thousands of websites hoovering up your information, transferring it to a central clearinghouse, and that clearinghouse building an AI to put you out of a job... You should never have logged onto those websites, right? Those TOS clearly said they could use your data for any purpose. The contract was quite clear (had we bothered to read it).
So your argument is that stock photography of humans are unethical unless every model signs a new model release for every use? Is it immoral to use András István Aratós image in memes too?
I have no issue with user data being used to build ML models, although I don't agree with you about the close proximity between a model's photo being used for photo research and anyone's data being used for everything.
“Because of controversy” seems like an unnecessarily dismissive way of putting it. It is entirely possible that she didn’t mind having her image used in and of itself. It sounds like she didn’t mind the use of the photo, but changed her mind when she found out that it was making other people uncomfortable, which seems… totally reasonable, right?
To me, that's the real kicker; there's absolutely no cost whatsoever to respecting the wishes.
If anything, it's not a great image; the standard scan is a bit washed out and doesn't have a full color range. (I can't speak to whether this is a characteristic of the scan, which is now from a very old scanner, or the original image, having never seen the original in print.) No one test image can capture everything an image algorithm might want to test, but more full use of available colors would probably still be advantageous.
Do you not see the difference between the issue of whether it can legally be used, and the issue of whether or not it's nice to keep using it when the person involved would prefer it not be?
She, like Trump, is entitled to her opinion. And sometimes people want to respect people's opinions, sometimes not.
... And here I had tracked down her address and was about to mail her a print-out, with a request to ask her to sign it.
I had been planning to display it in a glass cabinet next to my Melitta teapot and Luxo jr lamp and ball.
(and if anyone has a lead on a terracotta rabbit, please let me know ;)
> People change their minds and we should respect their wishes.
When you sign a contract that says "in return for a bunch of money, you agree that other people can use this picture of you", you shouldn't get to keep the money but change your mind about the picture.
Can we please just have some things with some soul? This is a cute photo, the model in the photo has said she thinks is cool and kindof funny that it has been used for image research, the story is kindof cute and funny, and it's just...all around wholesome.
The people who want to get rid of this stuff are sad. The world does not need to be a soulless, beige, featureless, boring slurry of boring featureless HR spoken nonsense. The Lena picture and the entire story around it is about the most harmless thing imaginable.
This new picture is in conversation with the older one, acknowledging its legacy while also making a statement. Is there anything about the new picture that is souless, beige, featureless or boring?
She said: “I retired from modelling a long time ago. It’s time I retired from tech, too. We can make a simple change today that creates a lasting change for tomorrow. Let’s commit to losing me.”
Yes, after like 50 years of saying the opposite, including a few months before that statement was given. It looks like a SJW campaign approached her about it to make some noise but didn't really bother enough to keep their website secured with a valid SSL certificate.
This comment is so gross. Consent can be revoked at any time. Bringing up 'SWJ campaign' as if it's some sort of bogeyman that immediately delegitimizes her wishes is a red flag.
Consent to a contract cannot be revoked at any time, no. And it's obvious that something happened in those 6 months between "yay" and "wow, it's horrible", and that's where the campaign happens to be in. You may find it gross to speak of the truth, but that doesn't change it.
yeah but think it through - what kind of 'soul' is there in this story, when you really dig down to the bottom of it, eh?
Cropped nude pinups aren't really what I'd call 'wholesome' - and the prospect of being in a room full of people working off that reference image doesn't really sound too comfortable to me.
Additionally: we all know there's a reason it's a naked white cis girl's butt. Change any of those attributes and it immediately becomes less sexually arousing to most straight men. Is that really the kind of 'soul' you're looking for? it's trite at best.
If someone can't look at a very cropped picture of a woman without sexualizing her, they need to evaluate how they think about women. That, and that alone, is the problem here.
This is like GitHub renaming master branch to main branch in an effort to attract more Black Americans to tech. AKA a virtue signaling side show that accomplishes absolutely nothing. No one even knew it came from a Playboy magasine until this whole "retire Lena" movement.
> This is like GitHub renaming master branch to main branch in an effort to attract more Black Americans to tech. AKA a virtue signaling side show that accomplishes absolutely nothing.
While I think this "virtue signaling" is misguided, that does not necessarily mean that the branch renaming accomplishes nothing. For one thing, "main" is two letters shorter than "master" and starts with the same two letters, but that is a rather minor thing. More important, I think, that they ensured that branch renaming is implemented, since that is a helpful feature.
I had previously (not being familiar with git) been concerned that it might cause problems, using the different default name in git and GitHub, but as it turns out this is not a problem at all. I have uploaded a git repository that uses "trunk" as the default branch name to GitHub, and there are no problems at all; it just works.
Also, they did not automatically change existing repositorites. If they did that, that would be a problem too, but fortunately they did not do that.
> No one even knew it came from a Playboy magasine until this whole "retire Lena" movement.
This is nothing like master vs. main debate. The photo was unmistakenly cropped from a nude photo and used in research. Do you think Github really was thinking about race when they used master? The link is factual vs. coincidental. I'm personally appalled that an entire industry has never seriously questioned where the photo came from (or questioned it and then shrugged it off).
People involved in professional imaging tend to know it's from a playboy magazine.
Nobody cared, and Lena was generally celebrated in that community, still is in fact. No amount of temporary blogger complaining is going to change that because they completely forget the reason that image is used. It is very difficult to reproduce/compress/etc and while it's certainly possible to use alternative images (though the image provided by the original post is a very poor substitute), it's simply easier to use Lena because people know where the problem areas are going to be if something is awry.
Funny concept, but the premise that the origin of the image is unethically sourced is suspect in and of itself. Can we stop with these signal-y type posts?
Ignoring the question of the ethics of the original place the image was published, which is a long and many sided discussion that no one is going to “win” any time soon, there is a second issue: the ethics of using an unlicensed image. This may also be a grey area (some arguing “information wants to be free” overrides such matters), but legally the “ethics” are far more black and white.
Though I think these comments are getting far too bogged down on the ethics and legality of using the Lena image, and ignoring the fact that Morten's new image & related post is (at least mainly) intended as a bit of fun, poking at just these sorts of discussions.
It's astonishing how a supposedly liberal and tolerant society is so much hateful towards eroticism it considers the Lena pic originating from a PlayBoy magazine to have a "troubled" origin.
that said, its considered problematic, or troubled, not because its erotica, but because a group of men used a photo of that nature as the test image. some could, and some probably do, consider that to be objectifying women, particularly when the field is so dominated by men that women may feel that it signals that their worth is judged by their sexual appeal more than their technical skills. and, i could well imagine how I might feel in that situation.
however, there is also something to this that feels overwrought, or perhaps even like a little old-fashioned prudishness.
This.
Funny how this seemingly clear point doesn’t get across to the other side of the debate (this discussion, more then others, seem to divide the group into two sides: one that sees why using Lena can be considered troubled, and one that does not). I find this difficult to understand.
So imagine sitting around with your coworkers, and one of your teammates raises his hand and says, "I think we should use this naked picture of a hot white chick as reference imagery."
How does that make you feel? It would sketch me the fuck out.
In all fairness, would I react differently if it was a cute asian dude with a big dick? No, honestly, I would still be sketched out by it, and I like cute asian dudes with big dicks. I just don't feel comfortable indulging my sexual interests in the workplace, and I don't think that's a particularly controversial position. It has nothing to do with 'liberal' or 'tolerant society.'
> How does that make you feel? It would sketch me the fuck out.
I would also not like it right away, but I would be willing to listen to their reasons for it.
I don't like pornography (whether it is a "naked picture of a hot white chick" or a "cute asian dude with a big dick"), and also don't intend to indulge sexual interests in the workplace, but what is need in this case is to know which collections of pictures are more helpful for testing digital image processing. And, anyways the picture is cropped.
(However, I think that for test images, it is better to have a variety of pictures to use for testing instead of only one. They should not all be photographs of people, either, although it is helpful if some of them are.)
"I think we should use this naked picture of a hot white chick as reference imagery"
Lena is not visibly naked in the reference imagery, so, your point is moot. It was always a cropped image, and it was cropped for exactly the reasons you outlined. If you, or others, cannot look at Lena without sexualizing her, that isn't the fault of the image, that's the fault of the viewer.
Lena was used because that image is very difficult to reproduce/compress/etc, and that has not changed.
don't you think it's a little odd to use a porno crop in a professional environment? i would rightfully be fired immediately if i demoed something to client using a belle delphine crop. Lena is only given a pass due to tradition
One of the advantages of everyone using the same picture is that it's quite easy to compare different algorithms.
There are obviously better pictures that could be used - ones that would have characteristics that let you test and compare different aspects of whatever algorithms you are using.
Not sure the picture in the OP is particularly useful if I'm honest.
It used to make no sense to me how people would put so much effort into things like this that don’t matter. Yes, the photo is originally from Playboy, but most people don’t even know that because it’s cropped. It’s just a picture of a woman’s face.
This and things like renaming master to main I now see as examples of the foot-in-the-door strategy[1]. Get people and teams to agree to a small request like changing their test image, and then they will be more likely to go along with big changes later, because they have publicly expressed support for diversity goals and they have a psychological need to remain consistent in their actions (avoid cognitive dissonance)
My point is that these "foot in the door" changes are reasonable on their own merits without it being some ulterior motive to ask for more later. And making the assumption that there is indeed this motivation to ask for more later, and so we should disallow these requests today, is the slippery slope "what will they ask for next?!" fallacy
I agree that human psychology likely works that way, though.
1) Female student says high school students made jokes about the photo and made her feel that women were made to be a joke
2) Female researcher says when the photo goes up on a screen "everyone laughs.... well not everyone"
3) Female math professor says the photo symbolizes the role women played in technology: "beautiful young woman in the photograph not the one doing the coding"
Yeah, all three points are basically the same thing - exclusion / lack of inclusion. They could have chosen any photo, and they picked one that specifically depicted a naked white woman, primarily aimed at sexual gratification for straight men.
I think in order to be used in image tech, it shouldn't be shipped as PNG, even with lossless compression. It should be BMP, ideally with the PBM, PGM and PPM formats too.
5 years later women will be penning blog posts about "retaking Lena" - reclaiming women's place and free expression by re-appropriating an image maligned by a virtual signalling patriarchy (or misguided but mostly well-intentioned women misled by the same), and inferring that Jpeg's original female patron--and her empowering yet threatening-to-male sexuality--were unjustly silenced and written out of the history of the epochal format, in a sad yet common motif aligned with the history of sciences worldwide.
Lena's reappropriative reestablishment will be a clarion call for progress of women in computer science. After they light the fire, clean-looking male CS professors and open-sorcerer's with cute beards (who by then will have traded in the preferred pronouns blazon of woke supremacy with something even 'cooler') will join the call and show their women-saving prowess (because they definitely need their saving)--by replacing their profile pictures with those of Lena, or photoshopping themselves in miniature aside Lena in ancient-Egyptian-worshipper-to-divine-goddess style. And so the perverted cycle, of ethically priapismic virtue signaling, continues. I guess sexual selection in information society is destined to lead to ever more tumescently elaborate yet essentially idempotent/useless displays of...whatever this is.
But, nice pic. I particularly like how he's captured the smile, given it his own twist, and the dash of magnetic charm leaping out of his eyes is set off by his moustache. He he haw. ;p ;) xx;p
So if the "troubled origin" of the Lena picture is the fact that she was nude (yet the picture used for computer science was cropped and did not use any of the nude parts) then why should the replacement be another photo that suggests it is a cropped nude?
Is it the fact that the original Lena picture was pretty and alluring and this one is gross, that makes it "ethically sourced"? Or is that a bad joke? I hope the author realizes that using men in drag as a punchline is also not considered to be socially acceptable nowadays.
The criticism of using the Lena picture for computer science is fair. Pictures for image compression science should be based on more ordinary non-sexual images. Multiple images of people of different color skins, and clothing styles should be used because nowadays it is very easy to over-tune your compression algorithm to a specific type of image or skin tone.
But let us be clear about what exactly is wrong with the Lena picture. It is the fact that a sexual image is being pushed to people that do not want to see a sexual image but merely want to study computer science. This is not going to get fixed by pushing another sexual image to people that do not want to see it.
Feminists say that it is problematic to flood society with sexualized images of women to the point where it is suggested that women are good for sex only. I agree. But there is nothing inherently wrong with taking pictures of women or taking sexy pictures of nude women. Some women like having their pictures taken. Lena Forsen was perfectly willing to get her nude picture taken by playboy.
In perfectly consensual setting taking sexy photos is perfectly fine. Many people enjoy taking them, many people enjoy being in them, many people enjoy looking at them. And it is not some kind of sign of male chauvinism either. I know that because many men like to have sexualized nude pictures taken of them, and they also like to trick me into looking at them even though I do not want to.
And that is the problem, with sexual pictures. When they are forced on to people that they do not want to look at them. So sorry for whoever took this picture, I do not want to look at it. It grosses me out. And I do not appreciate you trying to trick me into looking at it. Your reasoning about providing an ethical alternative to the Lena picture is paper thin and false. If you wanted to provide an ethical alternative, you would be fully clothed.
You are just another exhibitionist that gets a thrill of having many strangers look at sexually suggestive pictures of themselves. Good for you. But try to push your pictures at people that may enjoy looking at them. I don't.
> Multiple images of people of different color skins, and clothing styles should be used because nowadays it is very easy to over-tune your compression algorithm to a specific type of image or skin tone.
This is true. I have mentioned using different pictures to ensure not over-tuned for only one picture (I did not use those words, but thank you for mentioning, a better way to mention it). Different colours of skins and different clothing styles is one thing, but furthermore, you should not be limited to pictures of people, either (although some of them should be pictures of people, but not all of them); there are other living and non-living things to take pictures of, too.
I'm just imagining someone in 50 years time trying to figure out why we are using picture of naked man posing with a hat complete with purple plume as reference for image processing.
That being said, is the Lena picture still being frequently used? Because I don't recall seeing it that often lately anymore
> That being said, is the Lena picture still being frequently used? Because I don't recall seeing it that often lately anymore
It's not part of the SIPI image db since 2017/2018; hence it is getting less frequently used. Probably only by researchers, who didn't update their copy in the last 5-6 years.
>Please note that we no longer distribute the following images that were previously available in our database: 4.2.04 (lena), 4.2.02 (tiffany), elaine.512, numbers.512 and testpat.1k. Although these images have played a significant role in the history of image processing, they no longer represent the best examples for future research.
What are the reasons for not distributing anymore the other ones?
Took a look at them in Wayback, and the images of other women look similarly styled (could be other models?), and the numbers and testpat images use the Lena image as part of them.
Yep, thanks, still we don't know if it was because they are (now) considered somehow offensive of women or if it was because (even if protection was not enforced) they are copyrighted.
Or simply because they were sourced from Playboy magazine (which in itself is now deemed ethically questionable).
The statement on the page seems to me meaningless:
> they no longer represent the best examples for future research.
without the actual reason why they "no longer represent", which BTW implies that for some time (30 or 40 years + ) they actually were "the best examples".
Lena has said, in the linked video, that she would prefer her picture stop being used in this way. That ought be a sufficient condition for us, as developers, to stop using it. I'm distressed to find comment threads here are talking about copyright or complaining about "virtue signalling." You don't have to agree with her to respect her wishes.
You're also under no obligation to respect her wishes. Not that long ago she was happy that her likeness had gained celebrity status, and has recently changed her mind (a little).
If you wish to be subject to the whims of someone that you don't know, and likely never will know, feel free. Sounds exhausting.
We're rarely under any obligation whatsoever to be kind, or empathetic, or caring, or socially conscious. Nonetheless, I aspire to be those things. So if I were writing a JPEG encoder, and I'm picking a test image, I could:
1. Use the Lenna, which originates from Playboy, which Wikipedia describes as controversial "on both technical and social grounds, and many journals have discouraged or banned its use", and where the subject in question has recently requested to cease its use, or
I think that, when working with digital image processing, it is helpful to have a variety of pictures (photographs of different things (some of which are pictures of people, and some of which aren't), both landscape and portrait orientation (some algorithms might work better one way or other), art, line drawings, pictures drawn by computer, colours, monochrome, etc) to test with.
Wikipedia says about the Lena picture: "David C. Munson, editor-in-chief of IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, stated that it was a good test image because of its detail, flat regions, shading, and texture." Wikipedia also mentions: "In today’s age of high-resolution digital image technology, it seems difficult to argue that a 512 × 512 image produced with a 1970s-era analog scanner is the best we have to offer as an image quality test standard." So, there are valid arguments both ways, relating to the use of the picture.
I find it funny how people aren't even sure what is wrong with the original image. There seem to be at least three reasons:
(1) The image itself is somehow unethically sourced, as seems to be implied here,
(2) The subject in the image doesn't wish for it to be used in such a way,
(3) The image excludes women from computer science.
I don't see any evidence for any of them. It seems to me this image just makes some people uncomfortable but they are not sure why so they just make up pseudo-logical reasons for it. It's OK to say that something just doesn't feel right. I wish people would just do that. Things don't always have to be logical. If we all agree we don't like it then we shouldn't do it.
I do wonder why people feel bad about this all of a sudden, though.
About 10-12 years ago a (female) friend of mine went to a "slutwalk". Slutwaks were a precursor to the "#MeToo movement". She carried a sign with a short slogan and got captured by a press fotographer. The photo went into the press foto agencys and for a time almost every article in germany about sexism used it for illustration. Even some international publication picked the foto up.
After a while she tried to contact them and tell them, that she wants her face back. But it was always difficult to get them to drop the foto.
I google it from time to time and even in 2020 the foto still got used.
I hadn't realized the original Lenna didn't want her photo used any longer. While she cannot technically force the issue as she doesn't own the photograph, the community should respect her wishes.
By the way, given that porn industry was and still partially is a serious driver of Internet development, using original female nude as a benchmark for compression quality was more than justified.
Change the photo. In a few months, you'll have another campaign by the same group saying how "they are erasing women from computer history and replacing them with men. They are literally annihilating us."
Low-effort FUD. This is an image of the author, who is a tenure track assistant professor in Denmark. Your comment is not constructive, is not based on any evidence, and can be addressed through simply clinking through 1 link in the OP.
Sure, referential things are confusing to you if you don't know the reference.
Nevertheless, HN has clear guidelines about comments. Of particular relevance is
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
More generally, HN can be a great place when people take the time to consider their response and do a little digging. Discussions are more meaningful and fruitful if the the participates are minimally knowledgeable on the topic being discussed. This goes for any topic. Imagine if the reply to a machine learning post was asking "what if this picture-sorting AI became sentient and starting destroying the world? How can we know the scientists working on this can outsmart the AI? How can we be sure that they are being kind to our future overlords?"? They may feel that their view is completely valid, reasonable and informed because of the wealth of Sci-Fi literature that they have read, despite never having attempted to grapple with the actual material being submitted to HN.
This is from a shoot in literally the most well known and influential pornographic magazine of all time. Y'all don't even know what the word means if you don't think Playboy centerfold shoot qualifies.
Are you from a rural community in the US by any chance? I don't think I know anyone who would classify the Playboy as porn. There's a difference between erotic photography and pornography.
You are going to far, i don't think Lenard has anything todo with porn...well maybe the feather is a bit inappropriate for the normal US-Citizen but if you look at your Music-videos i don't think it's too much.
We have this already actually. Not quite up-to-date on the current hotness, but, we've used a set of images called "the roman 16" which accomplishes exactly that and more.
They're not really used for compression testing inasmuch as they're used to evaluate output quality of various imaging devices/workflows/etc
"However, 46 years on, Lena is still being used as a test image. According to Creatable and Code Like Girl, this is symbolic of how women were left out and pushed out of the industry."
I think the point is it's hypocritical to say "this photo of a woman has been in use for 40 years, it's an example or how women are left out of the industry". It makes some unsubstantiated assumptions, chiefly: "men are more likely to want to look at a woman's photo than a woman is".
Take a look at any popular female "influencer" Instagram account's follower list and let me know if thats backed up by the facts (hint: it isn't. Not by a long shot.)
(Some) women want to look at (some) women. (Some) men want to look at (some) women. (Some) women want to look at (some) men. (Some) men want to look at (some) men.
The answer is clearly to have both men and women in the sample data. Not exclude people based on their gender.
If there was a direct quote from the model themself calling for the end of the use of the photo that'd be one thing, but based on what I've seen here it doesn't exist.
The photographers were under contract by Playboy inc, who has publicly stated that they will not seek litigation to prevent the use of the image.
So that more or less makes it public domain, and, it would be a very, very difficult court case if Playboy wanted to suddenly prevent use of the image, given that they have never tried to defend their ownership of it.
Meh I don't find the man unattractive personally. But I also wouldn't say he's attractive. Different strokes, may a hundred flowers blossom, etc. I certainly don't think it's ethically wrong to show this to people, or at least not for this reason. I do question if it's appropriate for the workplace though. I guess it depends?
But I think it's fairly clear that the point wasn't to be attractive.
In a way, it's actually more offensive. I get that this is a joke. I don't think the author expects anybody to actually use this image, but the call is to retire the lena image not to continue it in a different fashion. I can see someone interpreting this as another man making a joke of women being offended so they step in themselves, "because men are tougher and don't get offended as easily."
Aesthetically problematic has an ethical component (and you all know it) but it’s a distortion of a familiar work (meant to cause a response) and ethical questions of Rick Rolling or whatever you call it are less important ethically but not immaterial.
Edit: the image also steals from Mona Lisa’s mustache and DaVinci is under copyright for seven additional years.
Although the are issues about this in a professional setting.
If you display this to a prospective client in place of Lena, they think it's unprofessional and don't employ your services, your company goes under and you lose your job, is there not an ethical component to that?
It isn't. Just like the original and the cropped version aren't ethically problematic. It was a commercial photo shoot performed under paid contract with a public magazine.
I'm fine with (and happy for) people going above and beyond to respect someone else's dignity, but this is less about ethics and more about one person's potential regret over a business transaction. Just because you regret doing a deal doesn't mean others are unethical for benefiting from it. When you're using your own body in a business transaction (of _any kind_) you should really think through the possible consequences. Whether it's getting a tattoo or putting your kids on TV or selling photos to Playboy, those all have ramifications you won't be able to control very well later on.