71–80 of 228 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
What's the moral principle at stake here that drives this into the ethical domain?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
What's the moral principle at stake here that drives this into the ethical domain?
So we're swapping the possibly problematic ethics of a original with the possibly problematic ethics of showing this to people? I mean is it normal to find that mustache and hat combo this attractive, (as a hetero male)???
How is this image ethically problematic?
I was expecting to read some story about criminal exploitation, but this sounds like it's just... completely above-board? As a few other commenters stated, the model hasn't explicitly stated whether she supports the use of the photo or not. Even if she did explicitly come out and say she doesn't like people using it, she doesn't own the rights to it. I'm fine with (and happy for) people going above and beyond to resp…
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.
Side note: https://sipi.usc.edu/database/database.php?volume=misc&image... >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 Although these images have played a significant role in the history of image processing, they no longer represent the best examples for future research.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…
I was expecting to read some story about criminal exploitation, but this sounds like it's just... completely above-board? As a few other commenters stated, the model hasn't explicitly stated whether she supports the use of the photo or not. Even if she did explicitly come out and say she doesn't like people using it, she doesn't own the rights to it. I'm fine with (and happy for) people going above and beyond to resp…
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
I was expecting to read some story about criminal exploitation, but this sounds like it's just... completely above-board? As a few other commenters stated, the model hasn't explicitly stated whether she supports the use of the photo or not. Even if she did explicitly come out and say she doesn't like people using it, she doesn't own the rights to it. I'm fine with (and happy for) people going above and beyond to resp…
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.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the moral principle at stake here that drives this into the ethical domain?
Consent
I was expecting to read some story about criminal exploitation, but this sounds like it's just... completely above-board? As a few other commenters stated, the model hasn't explicitly stated whether she supports the use of the photo or not. Even if she did explicitly come out and say she doesn't like people using it, she doesn't own the rights to it. I'm fine with (and happy for) people going above and beyond to resp…
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.