Hacker News Reader

Comment by eigenket | Hacker News Reader

Theres pretty much exactly as much that is sexual about the Lenna image. Its still not appropriate in the workplace or in research. For a start using images like this has obvious and widely negative impacts on women entering your field

https://www.cmc.edu/news/every-picture-tells-a-story

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-playboy-centerfold...

View on HN

Yeah except the Lenna image is from a porno magazine, a photograph of a model styled and posed specifically to create an erotic image. How can you not see a difference here?

I don't find the Lenna image particularly erotic? I guess shes showing her shoulder which might be particularly risqué where you're from? Certainly for me the Jennifer image is at least comparable.

yes, someone smiling over their shoulder front and centre is more erotic to me than someone sitting on the beach with their back to me positioned smaller in the frame.

nudity != pornography. Regardless of your personal opinion of it I don't think Playboy print magazine has ever been considered a porn media, at least not in the society it comes from.

The main issue with Lena photo is that it:

- it is still used everywhere without the consent of the rights owner

- it is still used everywhere without the consent AND MORE IMPORTANTLY regardless of the wishes of the ex model Lena Forsén. She has said several times that she wishes she would have been better compensated for the usage it has had.

I guess that makes a huge difference with that picture used to promote photoshop once. While the video and picture aren't lost, and are occasionally mentioned against as part of computer history, they aren't widely in use as of today against the wishes of the photographer and the subject.

The feelings & wishes of the model are the most important, but also important is the impact on people (especially women) in the field, as the links I posted earlier point out, this impact is generally quite negative.

I think your definition of pornography is more narrow than what I understand it to be. Regardless of whether playboy is specially pornography or not, the image was intended to be arousing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography

Regardless, the Lenna picture used in the imaging industry doesn't include anything remotely pornographic because it only includes the top part of the original playboy picture. Tops not covering shoulders have been so common in the last 50 years it didn't occur to me it came from a nude photo until I read about its origin.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com