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.