Hacker News Reader

Comment by wahnfrieden | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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.

What's the moral principle at stake here that drives this into the ethical domain?

There doesn't have to be one in this specific case for their claim to be true.

Consent

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.

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.

So you're saying that we must ethically source images because it hurts playboys bottom line.

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.

What does consent have to do with a commercial photo shoot in a public magazine?

Privacy? I don’t know, I’m not a legal scholar, but it seems clear to me that if someone wants old pictures of themselves removed from circulation, it is ethical to consider it.

Our legal and ethical systems both try to avoid permanently chaining you to decisions you regret.

I haven't read about the background story and the new website but I hadn't thought that she thinks so especially I have read [1] some years ago. But as said I don't know the new developments regarding the famous photo.

[1] https://www.wired.com/story/finding-lena-the-patron-saint-of...

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

Of course. But self apparent ethics are used a lot to justify arbitrary things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com