It's not so clear that she doesn't want people to use that image. She has assisted several times at image processing conferences, and has stated recently that she was proud of the fact that so many people used that photo. The documentary linked above shows footage of herself talking about the photo, but she never really says people should not use it. The website hosting the documentary has several heavily editorialized quotations that suggest that.
That said, this new "lennart" is hilarious and I would like to use it instead of the original one.
“I retired from modelling a long time ago. It’s time I retired from tech, too. We can make a simple change today that creates a lasting change for tomorrow. Let’s commit to losing me.”
She can be proud of her work and not want it used where it makes other people uncomfortable.
It's not really up to models to decide what their pictures gets used for though. Why should this be different?
From what I gather it's not because she's uncomfortable with it being used, it's because of controversy other people have drummed up:
> When I asked her if she had heard anything about the recent controversy around her image, she seemed alarmed at the thought that she could have a part in hurting or discouraging young women. I sent her some articles about the Lenna and later gave her a call to see what she made of them. The photo, she said, doesn’t show very much—just down to her shoulders—so it was hard for her to see what the big deal was.
Her opinion doesn't seem to match the articles claim:
> Lena doesn’t harbor any resentment toward Sawchuk and his imitators for how they appropriated her image; the only note of regret she expressed was that she wasn’t better compensated. In her view, the photograph is an immense accomplishment that just happened to take on a life of its own. “I’m really proud of that picture,” she said.
“I retired from modelling a long time ago. It’s time I retired from tech, too. We can make a simple change today that creates a lasting change for tomorrow. Let’s commit to losing me.”[1]
Being proud of her work doesn't mean she thinks people should have to see it in their work.
It is completely reasonable for a model to be told their work and their likeness will be used for one purpose and for them to not be OK if it is used for another, I don't see how being a model excludes you from the right to have an agreement about releasing your creative input.
So there's contracts and there's intent and morality.
The argument you have presented is analogous (like, right next door; they share a side-yard, their kids go to the same school, and they co-organize the neighborhood potluck) to the argument that you and I have no right to our data not being thrown in a big hopper to generate an AI that is designed to operate directly counter to our personal interests.
After all, if you didn't want thousands of websites hoovering up your information, transferring it to a central clearinghouse, and that clearinghouse building an AI to put you out of a job... You should never have logged onto those websites, right? Those TOS clearly said they could use your data for any purpose. The contract was quite clear (had we bothered to read it).
So your argument is that stock photography of humans are unethical unless every model signs a new model release for every use? Is it immoral to use András István Aratós image in memes too?
I have no issue with user data being used to build ML models, although I don't agree with you about the close proximity between a model's photo being used for photo research and anyone's data being used for everything.
“Because of controversy” seems like an unnecessarily dismissive way of putting it. It is entirely possible that she didn’t mind having her image used in and of itself. It sounds like she didn’t mind the use of the photo, but changed her mind when she found out that it was making other people uncomfortable, which seems… totally reasonable, right?
To me, that's the real kicker; there's absolutely no cost whatsoever to respecting the wishes.
If anything, it's not a great image; the standard scan is a bit washed out and doesn't have a full color range. (I can't speak to whether this is a characteristic of the scan, which is now from a very old scanner, or the original image, having never seen the original in print.) No one test image can capture everything an image algorithm might want to test, but more full use of available colors would probably still be advantageous.
Do you not see the difference between the issue of whether it can legally be used, and the issue of whether or not it's nice to keep using it when the person involved would prefer it not be?
She, like Trump, is entitled to her opinion. And sometimes people want to respect people's opinions, sometimes not.
... And here I had tracked down her address and was about to mail her a print-out, with a request to ask her to sign it.
I had been planning to display it in a glass cabinet next to my Melitta teapot and Luxo jr lamp and ball.
(and if anyone has a lead on a terracotta rabbit, please let me know ;)
> People change their minds and we should respect their wishes.
When you sign a contract that says "in return for a bunch of money, you agree that other people can use this picture of you", you shouldn't get to keep the money but change your mind about the picture.
