The first justification in the article is silly and detracts from Nature's position: "we all need to know the sources of data and images, so that these can be v

The first justification in the article is silly and detracts from Nature's position: "we all need to know the sources of data and images, so that these can be verified as accurate and true" How do you verify whether this cartoon illustration of of stacks of money against a red background is "accurate and true"? https://media.nature.com/lw767/magazine-assets/d41586-023-01729-z/d41586-023-01729-z_25408252.jpg https://media.nature.com/lw767/magazine-assets/d41586-023-01... Would it have made a difference if that image were generated by Midjourney? The actual reasons, given later in the article, are that Nature is taking a political/legal position on copyright and privacy. That's fine by me, but it's disappointing that they give a misleading and nonsensical justification before the actual justification, as if to make their stance sound less political.