4 ms·

> 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 model

> 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
  - twodave 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? 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.
    - dahart 4y ago
      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.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
>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.
- danuker 4y ago
  Indeed, the first thing I did when I found the image as a teen was look for the rest of it. It acts like free advertising. Sadly it is against the model's wishes, so I'd feel bad. I will use the ethical replacement from now on.

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
- twodave 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? 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.
  - dahart 4y ago
    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.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

>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.

danuker 4y ago
Indeed, the first thing I did when I found the image as a teen was look for the rest of it. It acts like free advertising. Sadly it is against the model's wishes, so I'd feel bad. I will use the ethical replacement from now on.