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