7 ms·

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

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.

wahnfrieden 4y ago
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
- metalforever 4y ago
  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
- twodave 4y ago
  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.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  What's the moral principle at stake here that drives this into the ethical domain?
  - thfuran 4y ago
    There doesn't have to be one in this specific case for their claim to be true.
  - abofh 4y ago
    Consent
    - daneel_w 4y ago
      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.
      - CharlesW 4y ago
        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.
        throw009 4y ago
        So you're saying that we must ethically source images because it hurts playboys bottom line.
        daneel_w 4y ago
        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.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  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?
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    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.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      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.
  - drabbiticus 4y ago
    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.
    - nemo44x 4y ago
      Of course. But self apparent ethics are used a lot to justify arbitrary things.
thepasswordis 4y ago
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.
- smcl 4y ago
  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."
  - zzo38computer 4y ago
    > 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.
mLuby 4y ago
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.)
- O__________O 4y ago
  >> 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.
- twodave 4y ago
  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.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  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.
- HPsquared 4y ago
  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)
gbanfalvi 4y ago
> 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.
- HPsquared 4y ago
  Does that make it the first instance of Swedish computer piracy?
- twodave 4y ago
  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."
  - dahart 4y ago
    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?
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      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. e.g. https://github.com/phoboslab/qoi/issues/35 https://github.com/phoboslab/qoi/issues/35
runjake 4y ago
> 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.”
- dahart 4y ago
  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/ http://www.lenna.org/
  - TheCleric 4y ago
    Because we all know that opinions are static and can't possibly have changed over the span pf 35 years.
    - dahart 4y ago
      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?
dahart 4y ago
> this is less about ethics and more about one person’s potential regret over a business transaction. Why do you believe this, and do you have any evidence to support this claim? Are you not aware of the history of this image? “Retiring Lena as an image used in coding goes beyond copyright, consent or ethics. It is a required step to help women feel more welcome in tech.” https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/it-s-time-to-retire-lena-from-computer-science https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/it-s-time-to-retire-... 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 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.
- twodave 4y ago
  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.
  - dahart 4y ago
    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.
    - twodave 4y ago
chasing 4y ago
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.
- twodave 4y ago
  They can. It still doesn't make the use or origin of those photos unethical.
- jtriangle 4y ago
  The picture is not a naked picture, it is a crop of a photo in which the subject is naked, but cropped in such a way that does not portray any nudity.
chasing 4y ago
> 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.
- twodave 4y ago
  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...
iaseiadit 4y ago
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.
- junofan 4y ago
  It’s pretty misinformed to suggest mostly men worked on JPEG technology.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    Could you inform us? This seems interesting!
- alar44 4y ago
  [dead]
- pseudalopex 4y ago
  > 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.
drabbiticus 4y ago
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.] [1] http://www.lenna.org/pcs_mirror/may_june01.pdf http://www.lenna.org/pcs_mirror/may_june01.pdf

wahnfrieden 4y ago

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

metalforever 4y ago
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
twodave 4y ago
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.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
What's the moral principle at stake here that drives this into the ethical domain?
- thfuran 4y ago
  There doesn't have to be one in this specific case for their claim to be true.
- abofh 4y ago
  Consent
  - daneel_w 4y ago
    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.
    - CharlesW 4y ago
      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.
      - throw009 4y ago
        So you're saying that we must ethically source images because it hurts playboys bottom line.
      - daneel_w 4y ago
        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.
nemo44x 4y ago
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?
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  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.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    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.
- drabbiticus 4y ago
  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.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    Of course. But self apparent ethics are used a lot to justify arbitrary things.

thepasswordis 4y ago

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.

smcl 4y ago
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."
- zzo38computer 4y ago
  > 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.

mLuby 4y ago

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.)

O__________O 4y ago
>> 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.
twodave 4y ago
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.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
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.
HPsquared 4y ago
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)

gbanfalvi 4y ago

> 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.

HPsquared 4y ago
Does that make it the first instance of Swedish computer piracy?
twodave 4y ago
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."
- dahart 4y ago
  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?
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    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. e.g. https://github.com/phoboslab/qoi/issues/35 https://github.com/phoboslab/qoi/issues/35

runjake 4y ago

> 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.”

dahart 4y ago
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/ http://www.lenna.org/
- TheCleric 4y ago
  Because we all know that opinions are static and can't possibly have changed over the span pf 35 years.
  - dahart 4y ago
    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?

dahart 4y ago

> this is less about ethics and more about one person’s potential regret over a business transaction. Why do you believe this, and do you have any evidence to support this claim? Are you not aware of the history of this image? “Retiring Lena as an image used in coding goes beyond copyright, consent or ethics. It is a required step to help women feel more welcome in tech.” https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/it-s-time-to-retire-lena-from-computer-science https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/it-s-time-to-retire-... 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 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.

twodave 4y ago
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.
- dahart 4y ago
  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.
  - twodave 4y ago

chasing 4y ago

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.

twodave 4y ago
They can. It still doesn't make the use or origin of those photos unethical.
jtriangle 4y ago
The picture is not a naked picture, it is a crop of a photo in which the subject is naked, but cropped in such a way that does not portray any nudity.

chasing 4y ago

> 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.

twodave 4y ago
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...

iaseiadit 4y ago

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.

junofan 4y ago
It’s pretty misinformed to suggest mostly men worked on JPEG technology.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  Could you inform us? This seems interesting!
alar44 4y ago
[dead]
pseudalopex 4y ago
> 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.

drabbiticus 4y ago

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.] [1] http://www.lenna.org/pcs_mirror/may_june01.pdf http://www.lenna.org/pcs_mirror/may_june01.pdf