Ethically Sourced Lena Picture
mortenhannemose.github.io
mortenhannemose.github.io
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.
you're also just wrong about the legal aspect of it and seem unfamiliar with licensing
Our legal and ethical systems both try to avoid permanently chaining you to decisions you regret.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/finding-lena-the-patron-saint-of...
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.)
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.
To bring your two examples together: I don't think it's a commonly shared opinion that 30 year mortgages are unethical.
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.
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?
However, the way that some have seized on it, and then interacted with others in their communities is ... neither polite nor reasonable.
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.
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.
The rights owner (Playboy, in this case) is on record saying they made a conscious choice not to enforce their rights to this image.
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.
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.”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?
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-...
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
This is neither about Lena’s choices nor is it about protecting her dignity. It’s about our choices and protecting our dignity.
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.
Edit to add the other massive assumption you keep making repeatedly is that the term “ethically sourced” says anything about the transaction between Lena and Playboy. It doesn’t. It would be fair to call an image from Penthouse put into a high school math book “unethically sourced”, where “sourced” is referring to the book author’s choice, not to either the model’s nor the magazine’s. The image can be ethically and legally acquired and still the use of it can be unethical.
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.
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.
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.]
Mott and Bailey. This image is not pornography. It's a tasteful head shot. You're introducing any discussion of pornography.
>[minor point - if you are a legal stickler, use of the Lena image was also done in infringement of copyright.
If you are a legal stickler, or even just support basic rights, fair use is integral to the research process. [1]
[1] https://lib.asu.edu/news/research/why-does-fair-use-matter-r...
Mott and Bailey. I can also name drop logical fallacies to no purpose. This image, though cropped, is from Playboy and the full image features a clearly nude women shot from the back and exposing her buttocks. Your quibble over a specific categorization again misses the forest for the trees. Women are saying that this image makes them feel uncomfortable due to its origins, and there is no technical reason that it needs to remain in the test set or the curricula. There are many suitable alternatives that would not have this problem.
>>[minor point - if you are a legal stickler, use of the Lena image was also done in infringement of copyright. > > If you are a legal stickler, or even just support basic rights, fair use is integral to the research process. [1]
Honestly the smart thing to do here is to not engage with your point, as again, it is minor and not actually relevant to the thrust of the conversation. If you want to treat my decision to not push further into this as a moral win, enjoy it.
If you and everyone would else would stop running around traumatizing people, "HEY this picture makes me feel bad and it should make you feel bad, too," we'd all feel a lot better. But just a suggestion: perhaps you would feel a lot better if you examined why this picture triggers you so badly? What is it inside you that makes you react so strongly? Did your family have moral issues about women getting money from men for showing their bodies off?
> it is minor and not actually relevant to the thrust of the conversation.
You brought it up, "Doc"! Another perfect example of a Mott and Bailey. Again, look into your personal psychology and family system. Narcissistic projection like this is a typical symptom of a crummy upbringing. In short, learn what things you can change (yourself) and what things you can not change (A woman's decision 50 years ago to get money for images of her body). Taking care of your "stuff" will make you a lot less reactive and more persuasive.
I have a viewpoint and I am expressing it, in accordance with free speech. I'm sorry that my viewpoint make you "feel bad". I'm sorry that you had such a strong reaction to this image of the author, published in their own expression of free speech. Everyone could use a bit of self-examination, and I would suggest that some examination of why this article has led to such an emotional response in yourself is similarly worthwhile. Your personal attacks on my "narcissistic projection", "crummy upbringing" and being "wrapped around the axle" only serve to heighten the emotional stakes of the argument and are not a discussion of the relative merits of the issue.
I have no qualms about sex work and find stigmatization of such work distasteful. Nonetheless, a society in which women are being policed for their wardrobe in a professional settings and also confronted with images sourced from erotica in a professional setting is hypocritical. Many women are saying that this image is unwelcoming and that they feel it is exclusionary. Playboy is exclusionary and explicitly stated in its first issue that it was not for women, and it's very hard to argue that the Playboy centerfolds were not intended in large part to cater to a male fantasy. They are saying that an action can be taken which does no technical harm to the merits of JPEG compression technology and would have appreciable gains from an inclusionary standpoint.
Again, I'm sorry that them expressing their viewpoint is so distasteful to you and has evoked this response in you.
> I would suggest that some examination of why this article has led to such an emotional response in yourself is similarly worthwhile.
Honestly I care so little I literally passed out, but I did inquire into myself as to why I even bothered writing back to you. And you know what came up? I feel bad for the people in your life who have to put up with you. And then I realized you're not hiding behind your keyboard when you talk to them, using an obvious troll account on HN like you are, just look at your post history.
You may be a kind and intellectually considered person in other aspects of your life, but this is not an example. May kindness find you, may people give you grace, and may you be a source of warmth to others.
And I challenge you to list the insults... I'll wait! Anyway, you're presupposing I'm using those to win some kind of argument... which underscores you projecting your lack of comprehension surrounding logical fallacies onto me.
And obvious troll is obvious. A 9 year old account with 17 karma. You just dip into this account t o be nasty without anyone knowing who you are. Look at your history: no other comments, no submissions, just one favorite, this thread here, so you can spew vile without getting recognized by the rest of the world.
You asked me to look into what drove me to write what I did, and I did just that and you overlooked it, saying I'm calling into question your character and integrity. But that's outside the scope of any "issue" or argument. I'm done talking about that with you. I'm just following up on what you're requesting and you're trying to turn it back on me.
>logical fallacy terminology
sorry for the big words? maybe look them up?
> You may be a kind and intellectually considered person in other aspects of your life, but this is not an example.
I'm not required to be kind to everyone all the time and certainly not to an HN troll. Delete your account and get real.
>sorry for the big words? maybe look them up?
It's not that I don't understand the motte and bailey fallacy, it's that you are misapplying when discussing my posts. In a motte and bailey, the person making an argument would like to advance controversial claim B, but when B is attacked, they will defend claim A while continuing to advance or believe claim B. A is generally a non-controversial and trivial statement. What do you believe is the motte, and what do you believe is the bailey in my argument?
I have chosen at times to focus on what I believe is the main issue, namely that there is an ethical question around inclusivity and the ways in which it shapes access to and development of future technology. This is the argument I am advancing, and one that is informed by a compassionate desire to believe people who say that something makes them feel excluded. If I choose not to be derailed by quibbles over technicalities of categorization that do not change the fundamental nature of my claim, that is not a motte and bailey.
A more correct use of motte and bailey could be easily applied to your own arguments. Your motte A is that a digital image is a collection of pixels, and that any context, history or provenance is something that people bring with them. Your bailey B is that context, history and and provenance should have no bearing on whether people feel excluded or on administrative decisions surrounding images. A does not imply B, yet you repeatedly use A to defend B.
> You just dip into this account t o be nasty without anyone knowing who you are
Can you give an example of where I have been nasty? I literally wished good things for you in the last post and have done my best at every point in this conversation to turn the other cheek. In contrast, you have - insulted my "crummy upbringing" - called into question the "moral issues" of my family - have argued I am "running around traumatizing people" - characterized my statements as "narcissistic projection" repeatedly
>You asked me to look into what drove me to write what I did, and I did just that and you overlooked it >Honestly I care so little I literally passed out, but I did inquire into myself as to why I even bothered writing back to you. And you know what came up? I feel bad for the people in your life who have to put up with you. And then I realized you're not hiding behind your keyboard when you talk to them, using an obvious troll account on HN like you are, just look at your post history.
Your conclusion is that what drove you to write these posts is that you feel bad for people who have to put up with me. I can only comment that there is a failure of self-reflection occurring.
>And obvious troll is obvious. A 9 year old account with 17 karma
This is my main, I'm just not very active on HN. People do have a range of behaviors, and even though you appear very active on this alt account of yours, I am not similarly active or engaged with this site despite this being my main. Very often, I am happy to learn from the interesting conversations without feeling a need to comment on my own. Your assumption that the account on which I am posting is an alt is a projection of your own desire to separate your views on the "chillingeffect"[1] from your main. In general, it feels as though you have trouble acknowledging that people have habits and views which diverge from your own, and in this case have reacted with anger rather than intellectual curiosity.
>I'm not required to be kind to everyone all the time and certainly not to an HN troll. Delete your account and get real.
I really truly believe that you would benefit from discussing this thread with someone you trust in a safe space. That could be a domestic partner, a family member, a councilor, a priest, or a co-worker. Just someone whose judgement and morals you admire. Someone who will understand that one interaction does not define the entirety of your identity and who believes in your innate goodness. Give it some time to cool off and come down from the feelings of anger that you are expressing here, and be the person you want to see in the world.
It may be helpful for you to consider this excerpt from Psychology Today:
|The precursor of anger in mammals is a perception of vulnerability plus threat. The more vulnerable people and animals feel, the more threat is perceived. The function of anger is to protect vulnerability and neutralize threat.
|In humans, the threat is almost always to the ego (how we want to think of ourselves and have others think of us). Anger neutralizes ego-threat by devaluing, demeaning, or undermining the confidence of the person perceived to be threatening.
[1] https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/897/chilling-ef...
If a straight man was to complain about too much gayness in the work place it would be a hate crime.
In this hypothetical situation where straight men had historically struggled to break into the ranks of successful computer scientists, it's likely that gay men would similarly feel that if they were to complain about too much straightness in the work place it would be a hate crime.
https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/it-s-time-to-retire-...
People change their minds and we should respect their wishes.
When you sign a contract that says "in return for a bunch of money, you agree that other people can use this picture of you", you shouldn't get to keep the money but change your mind about the picture.
None of the researchers using the image had permission to use it nor did the journals that published the papers.
Playboy did decide in the end to look the other way as it was good publicity.
I don't know what the copyright situation is, but assuming she doesn't hold that I don't know what the issue is.
Isn't it like trump objecting to images of his in court accompanying a news item?
She, like Trump, is entitled to her opinion. And sometimes people want to respect people's opinions, sometimes not.
It's not like this specific image has an inherent property that somehow makes it the superior test image.
If anything, it's not a great image; the standard scan is a bit washed out and doesn't have a full color range. (I can't speak to whether this is a characteristic of the scan, which is now from a very old scanner, or the original image, having never seen the original in print.) No one test image can capture everything an image algorithm might want to test, but more full use of available colors would probably still be advantageous.
Surely that fact that it is the standard test image makes it a superior image.
If there's a format that I can't reproduce, there's a good chance there's an image of Lena to compare against.
That said, this new "lennart" is hilarious and I would like to use it instead of the original one.
EDIT: here's a 2019 interview where she appears to pose with the same hat again : https://www.wired.com/story/finding-lena-the-patron-saint-of...
She can be proud of her work and not want it used where it makes other people uncomfortable.
From what I gather it's not because she's uncomfortable with it being used, it's because of controversy other people have drummed up:
> When I asked her if she had heard anything about the recent controversy around her image, she seemed alarmed at the thought that she could have a part in hurting or discouraging young women. I sent her some articles about the Lenna and later gave her a call to see what she made of them. The photo, she said, doesn’t show very much—just down to her shoulders—so it was hard for her to see what the big deal was.
https://www.wired.com/story/finding-lena-the-patron-saint-of...
Not that it really matters that much, it's a historical curiosity by now.
> Lena doesn’t harbor any resentment toward Sawchuk and his imitators for how they appropriated her image; the only note of regret she expressed was that she wasn’t better compensated. In her view, the photograph is an immense accomplishment that just happened to take on a life of its own. “I’m really proud of that picture,” she said.
Being proud of her work doesn't mean she thinks people should have to see it in their work.
[1] https://www.thedrum.com/news/2019/11/19/gender-equality-ad-c...
The argument you have presented is analogous (like, right next door; they share a side-yard, their kids go to the same school, and they co-organize the neighborhood potluck) to the argument that you and I have no right to our data not being thrown in a big hopper to generate an AI that is designed to operate directly counter to our personal interests.
After all, if you didn't want thousands of websites hoovering up your information, transferring it to a central clearinghouse, and that clearinghouse building an AI to put you out of a job... You should never have logged onto those websites, right? Those TOS clearly said they could use your data for any purpose. The contract was quite clear (had we bothered to read it).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hide_the_Pain_Harold
I have no issue with user data being used to build ML models, although I don't agree with you about the close proximity between a model's photo being used for photo research and anyone's data being used for everything.
I had been planning to display it in a glass cabinet next to my Melitta teapot and Luxo jr lamp and ball. (and if anyone has a lead on a terracotta rabbit, please let me know ;)
edit: apparently she changed her mind later
Rightly so too, it's an image of her, but, more importantly, that image is very difficult to compress efficiently and maintain acceptable quality. There are other images that could have been used, but, an image of her was used, and she enjoyed the celebrity from that until recently.
She is allowed, of course, to change her mind, much as the rest of the world is allowed to consider her past behavior when deciding how they respond to her changing her mind.
From the picture's Wikipedia:
Lenna is so widely accepted in the image processing community that Forsén was a guest at the 50th annual Conference of the Society for Imaging Science and Technology (IS&T) in 1997.[18] In 2015, Lena Forsén was also guest of honor at the banquet of IEEE ICIP 2015.[19] After delivering a speech, she chaired the best paper award ceremony.
https://qntm.org/mmacevedo is a much more in-depth examination...
The whole 'controversy' is pure spin in an age when everything has to be controversial.
This is the problem. You're implying it's okay because she asked for it, when the unlicensed reproduction of Disney IP would be treated very differently.
But I have a hard time believing that there is anything morally wrong with using a cropped version of such picture for technical and scientific research... that's just looking for controversy where there is none.
Why is it that in the former, everyone says you're a horrible person who deserves to be cancelled if you ignore the subject's wishes to not use the picture, but in the latter, everyone says it's a great thing if you ignore the subject's wishes to not use the picture?
Real answer: because people have double, triple, multiple standards.
This is a trivial discussion, but that's your answer
Trump is an extremely controversial person who has stirred up no end of trouble and in addition he has directed more than his own fair share of bodyshaming towards others. It does not surprise me in the slightest that people are not willing to extend him the courtesy of not sharing a picture of him that he doesn't like.
I'm not in the business of using or distributing these pictures, so I am quite happy not using either. I'm just attempting to explain why people feel this way. I personally quite like the Ethically Sourced Lena, it made me smile :)
I can see why people do it. He’s the worst, it feels good to say negative things about him. And he also has a tendency to go for shallow physical descriptions of people as criticism. So it has the feeling of “turnabout is fair play.” But it is a failure to restrain lesser instincts.
So what you're saying is roughly "when you engage in petty slap-fights with Trump you kinda are playing to his strengths" - which is true.
Turnabout is fair play. If Trump doesn't want people to make fun of him for his physical qualities, he shouldn't do the same for others.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/us/politics/trump-women-i...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/donald-trump-protest...
If on the other hand you think that special grounds deserve special rights then go ahead. I have an apartheid to sell you though.
It misses the point in that there is collateral damage for body shaming as well - if you mock trump's weight because he is a bad person, you're still implying "fat=bad" to every good fat person out there too.
So am I allowed to mock those liberals physical qualities now, since they mocked trump for mocking someone's physical qualities? If they don't want to be mocked they shouldn't do the same to others.
Meanwhile, from the people who actually bothered to talk to her[1]:
> In her view, the photograph is an immense accomplishment that just happened to take on a life of its own. “I’m really proud of that picture,” she said.
This whole situation reminds me of GitHub, Fuck Your Name Change[2]. People want to drum up outrage and don't care one bit about the people involved.
Is it really worth erasing a piece of computing history because of some kids virtue signaling about a picture that was taken before they were born?
[1]: https://www.wired.com/story/finding-lena-the-patron-saint-of...
[2]: https://mooseyanon.medium.com/github-f-ck-your-name-change-d...
The people who want to get rid of this stuff are sad. The world does not need to be a soulless, beige, featureless, boring slurry of boring featureless HR spoken nonsense. The Lena picture and the entire story around it is about the most harmless thing imaginable.
https://www.thedrum.com/news/2019/11/19/gender-equality-ad-c...
Cropped nude pinups aren't really what I'd call 'wholesome' - and the prospect of being in a room full of people working off that reference image doesn't really sound too comfortable to me.
Additionally: we all know there's a reason it's a naked white cis girl's butt. Change any of those attributes and it immediately becomes less sexually arousing to most straight men. Is that really the kind of 'soul' you're looking for? it's trite at best.
Nobody cared, and Lena was generally celebrated in that community, still is in fact. No amount of temporary blogger complaining is going to change that because they completely forget the reason that image is used. It is very difficult to reproduce/compress/etc and while it's certainly possible to use alternative images (though the image provided by the original post is a very poor substitute), it's simply easier to use Lena because people know where the problem areas are going to be if something is awry.
While I think this "virtue signaling" is misguided, that does not necessarily mean that the branch renaming accomplishes nothing. For one thing, "main" is two letters shorter than "master" and starts with the same two letters, but that is a rather minor thing. More important, I think, that they ensured that branch renaming is implemented, since that is a helpful feature.
I had previously (not being familiar with git) been concerned that it might cause problems, using the different default name in git and GitHub, but as it turns out this is not a problem at all. I have uploaded a git repository that uses "trunk" as the default branch name to GitHub, and there are no problems at all; it just works.
Also, they did not automatically change existing repositorites. If they did that, that would be a problem too, but fortunately they did not do that.
> No one even knew it came from a Playboy magasine until this whole "retire Lena" movement.
Actually, I think it was well known enough.
Though I think these comments are getting far too bogged down on the ethics and legality of using the Lena image, and ignoring the fact that Morten's new image & related post is (at least mainly) intended as a bit of fun, poking at just these sorts of discussions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_sexuality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_prostitution
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-sex-markets/
that said, its considered problematic, or troubled, not because its erotica, but because a group of men used a photo of that nature as the test image. some could, and some probably do, consider that to be objectifying women, particularly when the field is so dominated by men that women may feel that it signals that their worth is judged by their sexual appeal more than their technical skills. and, i could well imagine how I might feel in that situation.
however, there is also something to this that feels overwrought, or perhaps even like a little old-fashioned prudishness.
How does that make you feel? It would sketch me the fuck out.
In all fairness, would I react differently if it was a cute asian dude with a big dick? No, honestly, I would still be sketched out by it, and I like cute asian dudes with big dicks. I just don't feel comfortable indulging my sexual interests in the workplace, and I don't think that's a particularly controversial position. It has nothing to do with 'liberal' or 'tolerant society.'
Lena is not visibly naked in the reference imagery, so, your point is moot. It was always a cropped image, and it was cropped for exactly the reasons you outlined. If you, or others, cannot look at Lena without sexualizing her, that isn't the fault of the image, that's the fault of the viewer.
Lena was used because that image is very difficult to reproduce/compress/etc, and that has not changed.
I would also not like it right away, but I would be willing to listen to their reasons for it.
I don't like pornography (whether it is a "naked picture of a hot white chick" or a "cute asian dude with a big dick"), and also don't intend to indulge sexual interests in the workplace, but what is need in this case is to know which collections of pictures are more helpful for testing digital image processing. And, anyways the picture is cropped.
(However, I think that for test images, it is better to have a variety of pictures to use for testing instead of only one. They should not all be photographs of people, either, although it is helpful if some of them are.)
There are obviously better pictures that could be used - ones that would have characteristics that let you test and compare different aspects of whatever algorithms you are using.
Not sure the picture in the OP is particularly useful if I'm honest.
It's not clear that continuing to use the Lena image is particularly useful. It's more of a tradition than anything else.
Who is we? And who made them the arbiter of biases, unintended and intended?
I want to see this take off for the humor value alone. His expression, his mustache... this is gold!
This and things like renaming master to main I now see as examples of the foot-in-the-door strategy[1]. Get people and teams to agree to a small request like changing their test image, and then they will be more likely to go along with big changes later, because they have publicly expressed support for diversity goals and they have a psychological need to remain consistent in their actions (avoid cognitive dissonance)
[1] https://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/...
I agree that human psychology likely works that way, though.
I watched the documentary produced by the campaign Losing Lena (https://www.facebook.com/codelikeagirlau/videos/985614161797...) here are the complaints:
1) Female student says high school students made jokes about the photo and made her feel that women were made to be a joke
2) Female researcher says when the photo goes up on a screen "everyone laughs.... well not everyone"
3) Female math professor says the photo symbolizes the role women played in technology: "beautiful young woman in the photograph not the one doing the coding"
Not sure how serious this is, though. :/
That's the whole point.
Lena's reappropriative reestablishment will be a clarion call for progress of women in computer science. After they light the fire, clean-looking male CS professors and open-sorcerer's with cute beards (who by then will have traded in the preferred pronouns blazon of woke supremacy with something even 'cooler') will join the call and show their women-saving prowess (because they definitely need their saving)--by replacing their profile pictures with those of Lena, or photoshopping themselves in miniature aside Lena in ancient-Egyptian-worshipper-to-divine-goddess style. And so the perverted cycle, of ethically priapismic virtue signaling, continues. I guess sexual selection in information society is destined to lead to ever more tumescently elaborate yet essentially idempotent/useless displays of...whatever this is.
But, nice pic. I particularly like how he's captured the smile, given it his own twist, and the dash of magnetic charm leaping out of his eyes is set off by his moustache. He he haw. ;p ;) xx;p
Is it the fact that the original Lena picture was pretty and alluring and this one is gross, that makes it "ethically sourced"? Or is that a bad joke? I hope the author realizes that using men in drag as a punchline is also not considered to be socially acceptable nowadays.
The criticism of using the Lena picture for computer science is fair. Pictures for image compression science should be based on more ordinary non-sexual images. Multiple images of people of different color skins, and clothing styles should be used because nowadays it is very easy to over-tune your compression algorithm to a specific type of image or skin tone.
But let us be clear about what exactly is wrong with the Lena picture. It is the fact that a sexual image is being pushed to people that do not want to see a sexual image but merely want to study computer science. This is not going to get fixed by pushing another sexual image to people that do not want to see it.
Feminists say that it is problematic to flood society with sexualized images of women to the point where it is suggested that women are good for sex only. I agree. But there is nothing inherently wrong with taking pictures of women or taking sexy pictures of nude women. Some women like having their pictures taken. Lena Forsen was perfectly willing to get her nude picture taken by playboy.
In perfectly consensual setting taking sexy photos is perfectly fine. Many people enjoy taking them, many people enjoy being in them, many people enjoy looking at them. And it is not some kind of sign of male chauvinism either. I know that because many men like to have sexualized nude pictures taken of them, and they also like to trick me into looking at them even though I do not want to.
And that is the problem, with sexual pictures. When they are forced on to people that they do not want to look at them. So sorry for whoever took this picture, I do not want to look at it. It grosses me out. And I do not appreciate you trying to trick me into looking at it. Your reasoning about providing an ethical alternative to the Lena picture is paper thin and false. If you wanted to provide an ethical alternative, you would be fully clothed.
You are just another exhibitionist that gets a thrill of having many strangers look at sexually suggestive pictures of themselves. Good for you. But try to push your pictures at people that may enjoy looking at them. I don't.
This is true. I have mentioned using different pictures to ensure not over-tuned for only one picture (I did not use those words, but thank you for mentioning, a better way to mention it). Different colours of skins and different clothing styles is one thing, but furthermore, you should not be limited to pictures of people, either (although some of them should be pictures of people, but not all of them); there are other living and non-living things to take pictures of, too.
That being said, is the Lena picture still being frequently used? Because I don't recall seeing it that often lately anymore
It's not part of the SIPI image db since 2017/2018; hence it is getting less frequently used. Probably only by researchers, who didn't update their copy in the last 5-6 years.
>Please note that we no longer distribute the following images that were previously available in our database: 4.2.04 (lena), 4.2.02 (tiffany), elaine.512, numbers.512 and testpat.1k. Although these images have played a significant role in the history of image processing, they no longer represent the best examples for future research.
What are the reasons for not distributing anymore the other ones?
Or simply because they were sourced from Playboy magazine (which in itself is now deemed ethically questionable).
The statement on the page seems to me meaningless:
> they no longer represent the best examples for future research.
without the actual reason why they "no longer represent", which BTW implies that for some time (30 or 40 years + ) they actually were "the best examples".
If you wish to be subject to the whims of someone that you don't know, and likely never will know, feel free. Sounds exhausting.
1. Use the Lenna, which originates from Playboy, which Wikipedia describes as controversial "on both technical and social grounds, and many journals have discouraged or banned its use", and where the subject in question has recently requested to cease its use, or
2. Use anything else.
I'd choose 2. Seems like an easy decision.
Wikipedia says about the Lena picture: "David C. Munson, editor-in-chief of IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, stated that it was a good test image because of its detail, flat regions, shading, and texture." Wikipedia also mentions: "In today’s age of high-resolution digital image technology, it seems difficult to argue that a 512 × 512 image produced with a 1970s-era analog scanner is the best we have to offer as an image quality test standard." So, there are valid arguments both ways, relating to the use of the picture.
(1) The image itself is somehow unethically sourced, as seems to be implied here,
(2) The subject in the image doesn't wish for it to be used in such a way,
(3) The image excludes women from computer science.
I don't see any evidence for any of them. It seems to me this image just makes some people uncomfortable but they are not sure why so they just make up pseudo-logical reasons for it. It's OK to say that something just doesn't feel right. I wish people would just do that. Things don't always have to be logical. If we all agree we don't like it then we shouldn't do it.
I do wonder why people feel bad about this all of a sudden, though.
After a while she tried to contact them and tell them, that she wants her face back. But it was always difficult to get them to drop the foto.
I google it from time to time and even in 2020 the foto still got used.
(EDIT: I was gonna leave it up there as with my other dry humor but here, for all you Americans: https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/shakespeare-and-gende...)
I hadn't realized the original Lenna didn't want her photo used any longer. While she cannot technically force the issue as she doesn't own the photograph, the community should respect her wishes.
It is confusing. They called the picture file "Lena" even though the author's name is not Lena.
Nevertheless, HN has clear guidelines about comments. Of particular relevance is
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
More generally, HN can be a great place when people take the time to consider their response and do a little digging. Discussions are more meaningful and fruitful if the the participates are minimally knowledgeable on the topic being discussed. This goes for any topic. Imagine if the reply to a machine learning post was asking "what if this picture-sorting AI became sentient and starting destroying the world? How can we know the scientists working on this can outsmart the AI? How can we be sure that they are being kind to our future overlords?"? They may feel that their view is completely valid, reasonable and informed because of the wealth of Sci-Fi literature that they have read, despite never having attempted to grapple with the actual material being submitted to HN.
if the participants are (at least) minimally knowledgeable
And Third but minor complaint, if we look at the "Full" picture i at least "want" to see his butt.
You are going to far, i don't think Lenard has anything todo with porn...well maybe the feather is a bit inappropriate for the normal US-Citizen but if you look at your Music-videos i don't think it's too much.
Right back at you.
They're not really used for compression testing inasmuch as they're used to evaluate output quality of various imaging devices/workflows/etc
No comment necessary.
Models give up the rights to their image to be paid for the shoot.
Why is it that a century of legal and moral president needs to be thrown out because someone says they don't like it?
The only person with a leg to stand on here is the photographers whose copyright is being infringed and even that is debatable.
Take a look at any popular female "influencer" Instagram account's follower list and let me know if thats backed up by the facts (hint: it isn't. Not by a long shot.)
(Some) women want to look at (some) women. (Some) men want to look at (some) women. (Some) women want to look at (some) men. (Some) men want to look at (some) men.
The answer is clearly to have both men and women in the sample data. Not exclude people based on their gender.
If there was a direct quote from the model themself calling for the end of the use of the photo that'd be one thing, but based on what I've seen here it doesn't exist.
So that more or less makes it public domain, and, it would be a very, very difficult court case if Playboy wanted to suddenly prevent use of the image, given that they have never tried to defend their ownership of it.
So, not even they have a leg to stand on.
I mean is it normal to find that mustache and hat combo this attractive, (as a hetero male)???
Edit: the image also steals from Mona Lisa’s mustache and DaVinci is under copyright for seven additional years.
Although the are issues about this in a professional setting.
If you display this to a prospective client in place of Lena, they think it's unprofessional and don't employ your services, your company goes under and you lose your job, is there not an ethical component to that?
But I think it's fairly clear that the point wasn't to be attractive.