6 ms·
I sort of agree with you, but this particular case is much trickier. She agreed to the photos in an era when the magazine would be printed once, and reproducti
by pdpi 5y ago
I sort of agree with you, but this particular case is much trickier.
She agreed to the photos in an era when the magazine would be printed once, and reproduction of those pictures was pretty limited. There’s something of an expiry date attached with the whole process.
Instead, she got caught up in the whole computer graphics revolution. She’s the subject of one of the very first widely distributed digitised photos, published in decades of academic journals, and so on. It’s a pretty big difference from what she thought she was consenting to.
- mcphage 5y agoShe was unaware of the spread for decades (obviously), and then later was fine with it. Since she has apparently changed her mind about that, I'm certainly fine with no longer using it as a sample, but that's a more recent phenomenon.
- bawolff 5y agoThis is a good point. Its easy to forget how much more ephemeral the pre-internet world was. However, at the time, playboy had a circulation of over 7 million, was known for publishing literature of note, etc. Maybe the computer graphics aspect was out of left field, but the magazine itself was notable enough that being an object of academic study wasn't exactly that surprising, and similarly reproducing it in the form of an anthology was probably likely.