7 ms·
IEEE no longer accepts Lena image containing submissions from 4/1 onward
- araes 3y agoGuardian article on the subject is linked. Official IEEE webpage source is here: https://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/create-your-ieee-journal-article/create-graphics-for-your-article/ https://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/create-your-ieee-...
- gnabgib 3y agoPrevious discussions: [0](20 points, 2 days ago, 22 comments) [1](75 points, 1 day ago, 128 comments) [edited - thanks @amarshall] [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39869439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39869439 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39872242 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39872242
- gumby 3y agoMuch as I believe consistent collection of longitudinal data is important, I think this is great news.
- glitchc 3y agoWhile this is a good thing, the timing is a little odd. April 1st makes it sound like this is an April Fool's joke.
- bawolff 3y agoI'm not sure i understand the ethical argument. The subject of the photo consented to it. As far as i know she was not mislead or coerced. Like if this was a normal modelling shot, that got sold to an advertizing company to sell some product the model didn't personally approve of, i doubt anyone would consider that unethical. Generally the assumption is that if you sell your likness (assuming no coercion or other factors that would invalidate a contract), you don't get to control the image after that. That is kind of the whole principle the modelling industry is built around. The reason why i think this point is important, is that our entire industry is built on the notion that licenses are forever and there are no take backs. Like Linus can't go, oh i changed my mind, this GPL thing is overrated, i revoke the license so i can become filthy rich. I do not think we should normalize the notion that renegging on intellectual property licenses just because you changed your mind is ethical.
- jvanderbot 3y agoIt seems to match her wishes. You don't need an ethical argument to make a kind gesture to an icon, just make a statement and let everyone move on. There's effectively zero cost.
- bawolff 3y agoTheir statement is that it is required by their code of ethics. So they made an ethical statement whether they needed to or not.
- jvanderbot 3y agoIt feels like a flimsy justification but I'm not sure what kind of person would push back and insist on using that image against both her wishes and the wishes of the leadership of IEEE.
- bawolff 3y agoFlimsy justifications become precedent and eventually become norms. I don't have any actual objection to no longer using it. I just don't like the justification.
- decremental 3y ago[dead]
- neilv 3y agoShould've been done decades ago, but the second best time to plant a tree is now. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706788
- stefantalpalaru 3y ago[dead]
- isopede 3y agoI don't understand the backlash outside some sort of weird "anti-woke" attitude. Even ignoring all the problematic history, the Lena image hasn't been a good test image for years. It's a 512x512 scan of printed CMYK dots and not particularly representative of the types of files and images we share today. This was true even twenty years ago when I myself was using this test image to do wavelet transforms. It's time we moved on.
- _3u10 3y agoThen they should refuse it on technical grounds not ethical grounds, and provide a technical criteria for admission of images. The argument they’ve made is that the image is unethical.
- beej71 3y agoLena doesn't appreciate it and wants people to stop using it. Is it ethical to ignore her wishes when there's no reason to keep using the image?
- _3u10 3y agoYes, she sold the rights to the image, and it’s fair use, so it’s ethical as far as I know. I believe this also does not abridge her moral rights. If there’s something I’ve overlooked I’m all ears.
- ChrisArchitect 3y ago[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39872242 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39872242