upvote

points

by lsb17 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby skrebbel16 hours ago|
next
[-]
Just sharing that I bought Valuable Humans in Transit some years ago and I concur that it's very nice. It's a tiny booklet full of short stories like Lena that are way out there. Maximum cool per gram of paper.
reply
upvoteby xyzsparetimexyz17 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
[flagged]
reply
upvoteby pyrale16 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
If you read the original text, what happens in that story is also grossly inappropriate. Maybe that's the parallel.
reply
upvoteby arrow700013 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
that's kind of the point
reply
upvoteby nice_byte17 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
could you be more specific?
reply
upvoteby direwolf2016 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
[flagged]
reply
upvoteby toxik16 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The woman herself says she never had a problem with it being famous. The actual test image is obviously not porn, either. But anything to look progressive, I guess.
reply
upvoteby wahnfrieden15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
From the link above

> Forsén stated in the 2019 documentary film Losing Lena, "I retired from modeling a long time ago. It's time I retired from tech, too... Let's commit to losing me."

reply
upvoteby killerstorm12 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's a ridiculous idea that once you retire all depictions must be destroyed.

Should we destroy all movies with retired actors? All the old portraits, etc.

It's such a deep disrespect to human culture.

reply
upvoteby wahnfrieden8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That's of course not the meaning of that message. No one is suggesting that.
reply
upvoteby nice_byte15 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Everybody knows that. The GP's reaction is what perplexes me. Are they saying the name of the story is inappropriate? I think it's very appropriate.
reply
upvoteby simoncion16 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Lena is no longer used as a test image because it's porn.

The Lenna test image can be seen over the text "Click above for the original as a TIFF image." at [0]. If you consider that to be porn, then I find your opinion on what is and is not porn to be worthless.

The test image is a cropped portion of porn, but if a safe-for-work image would be porn but for what you can't see in the image, then any picture of any human ever is porn as we're all nude under our clothes.

For additional commentary (published in 1996) on the history and controversy about the image, see [1].

[0] <http://www.lenna.org/>

[1] <https://web.archive.org/web/20010414202400/http://www.nofile...>

reply
upvoteby saagarjha15 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Nudity is not pornography. Intent matters.
reply
upvoteby Calavar11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I agree that not all nudity is porn - nudity is porn if the primary intent of that nudity is sexual gratification. When the nudity in question was a Playboy magazine centerfold, the primary intent is fairly obvious.
reply
upvoteby riffraff11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I can't see how that would it be porn either, it's nudity. There's nudity in the Sixtine chapel and I would find it hilarious if it was considered porn.
reply
upvoteby nice_byte15 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
the "porn" angle is very funny to me, since there is nothing pornographic or inapropriate about the image. when I was young, I used to think it was some researcher's wife whom he loved so much he decide to use her picture absolutely everywhere.

it's sufficient to say that the person depicted has withdrawn their consent for that image to be used, and that should put an end to the conversation.

reply
upvoteby killerstorm12 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That's nonsense. If Carrie Fisher "withdrawn consent" of her depiction in Star Wars, should we destroy the movies, all Princess Leia fan art, etc?
reply
upvoteby wizzwizz410 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
No, because the replacement value of those things to others is very high, and generally outweighs Carrie Fisher's objection. But we should take her objection into consideration going forwards. The Lena test image is very easy to replace, and it's not all that culturally significant: there's no reason to keep using it, unless we need to replicate historical benchmarks.
reply
upvoteby exe3413 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
is that how consent works? I would have expected licenses would override that. although it's possible that the original use as a test image may have violated whatever contract she had with her producer in the first place.
reply
upvoteby nice_byte4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
tl;dr yes it is

she did not explicitly consent for that photo to be used in computer graphics research or millions of sample projects. moreover, the whole legality of using that image for those purposes is murky because I doubt anyone ever received proper license from the actual rights-holder (playboy magazine). so the best way to go about this is just common-sense good-faith approach: if the person depicted asks you to please knock it off, you just do it, unless you actively want to be a giant a-hole to them.

reply