This is not a hill I'd want to die on, but I do understand thinking this photo is fine. If I hadn't been told it was from Playboy, I wouldn't give it a second thought. It's a conventionally-attractive woman in a hat showing a little shoulder. I wouldn't be upset over Michaelangelo's David either. It is less sexual than like 90% of modern TV or mass-market advertising. I suspect a similar image of "cleaner" provenance would not garner much attention at all, honestly.
But it is weird that an image from such a source was chosen in the first place. It is understandable that it makes people uncomfortable, and it seems like there should be no shortage of suitable imagery that wouldn't, so...easy sell, I'd think.
On a related note, boy oh boy am I tired of every imagegen AI paper and project using the same type of vaguely fetishized portraits as examples.
Apparently the team making the first scanner needed a good test photo and that was the best they had on hand at that moment in terms of color variation and intensity.
Which is still weird.
Alexander Sawchuk, then an assistant professor of electrical engineering at the University of Southern California ... along with a graduate student and the SIPI lab manager, was hurriedly searching the lab for a good image to scan for a colleague's conference paper. ... Just then, somebody happened to walk in with a recent issue of Playboy. The engineers tore away the top third of the centerfold so they could wrap it around the drum of their Muirhead wirephoto scanner...
Everything about the story sounds like it was a rush job, a decision made on a whim, after exhausting their existing catalog of test images. And who bring a Playboy mag to their university's computer lab, and advertises their possession? They don't even say who it was, probably to protect them from any embarrassing professional consequences. To me, that's probably the strongest reason to retire it: it's unprofessional.
And who bring a Playboy mag to their university's computer lab, and advertises their possession?
Probably a random grad student. They were just coming out of the "sexual revolution" of the 60s at that point. It'd be a lot weirder ten years earlier or ten years later.
That a similar thing did happen ten years earlier is the weird part, I think.
Keep in mind that Playboy had a reputation as more than just porn. A lot of really respected authors had work published in Playboy.
I not sure of its culture status when the event in question happened, but it would have been different then say, Penthouse.
There's a bit more to the scan. You usually see the cropped version, but the full version has naughty bits. Not sure if it's ever been published that way in journals.
No there's not, the scan thats been used has cropped out the nudity, it's in like the second paragraph,
Usage of the Lenna image in image processing began in June or July 1973 when an assistant professor named Alexander Sawchuck and a graduate student at the University of Southern California Signal and Image Processing Institute scanned a square portion of the centerfold image with a primitive drum scanner, omitting nudity present in the original image. They scanned it for a colleague's conference paper, and after that, others began to use the image as well.
I really don't think the image itself is the issue. It's the culture that would lead to brazenly sharing a porn magazine aroundnthe office, and subsequently using the image for a test photo. Then that same culture decided it should be standard because they liked looking at it. It indicates a culture of objectification of women. If an industry feels like sharing porn around is perfectly acceptable, you have to consider what else they think is acceptable. That's what makes people uncomfortable (I assume, though I'm a straight man so not personal experience, just empathy).
What's wrong with sharing porn around?
Absolutely nothing. But imagine you're working with some people and everyone's constantly posting porn in the group chat. You're just trying to kind of exist and get your work done. You might start to feel pretty uncomfortable with that culture.
There's definitely a line between sex positivity, and including other people without their clear consent.
Considering this it's more understandable that it's controversial.
Some people are triggered by nudity. On another timeline the conclusion of this "scandal" would be to include a retro photo of a naked dude in the test image data set (and maybe also switch Lena's photo if she doesn't want it in there anymore).
I don't think the reason this is an issue is because it's pornographic. It's because it indicates a certain opinion that some people in the field had/have. Even in professional academic papers they were using a pornographic image of a woman, which shows their opinion of women is just as object to lust after.
Yes and I'm saying in a more sexually open society we'd just admit that people lust after people of all genders, and include some others in the data set.
I disagree. I think in a more sexually open society people wouldn't be treated like pieces of meat. They'd be treated like people. Their opinions about sexual content would be considered.
I think in a more sexually open society ...their opinions about sexual content would be considered.
Like how I said in my original comment "switch Lena's photo if she doesn't want it in there anymore"...
So as you can see, I was already saying a sexually open world would be considerate, even though you're phrasing it as if we're disagreeing. Perhaps this is because you wish the conversation to go to an oppositional and hence repressive/aggressive place.
I think that would be a reasonable response if one felt subjugated and traumatized, injured and trapped by the current patriarchal systems of sex and power imbalance, and it might be difficult to see how sexuality, nudity, and pornography could be sociologically dealt with, understood, or theorised about outside of that framework.
Thus a dream of a better world can be stolen and held back be the pre-existing and persisting traumas of how we treat sex, bodies, nudity, and self-image in this one.
But there can be sex positive and body positive form of sex, sexuality and pornography that include being comfortable with nudity, and even taboo. I was proposing such a parallel world...
But you continue to cast it as the same as this world. That is your choice, but to continue to make that same choice is an act of killing communication and hence progress on the issues of this world.
The nature of fiction even in a passing comment, like the one I made, is to explore the possible and impossible. So beware what you make impossible.
It's not just her opinion on the picture that matters though. Other women (and probably other people) don't want it to be used as a standard test image.
I like that you're making it out like I'm saying anything is impossible. I'm not. I'm stating that if people say they're uncomfortable with something then they're uncomfortable with it. It doesn't matter how sexually open anything it. People's opinions and consent are important, both that of the subject of the photo as well as other people in the field using this photo.
Yes, I'm saying in a more sexually liberated society, one that's more comfortable with nudity and the human body, people might go: "Oh of course we can include nudes in the data set, here's a bunch more!".
You're saying in a sexually liberated society one more comfortable with nudity, people would still be viewing this in a state of discomfort.
You came here to say this, regardless of anything I said, and so are yourself not interested in the consent of all parties in this very conversation (which is with a person by the way).
I am just a prop, and you simply don't need to listen to me. Because you will say what you have to say and will mutilate whatever was being said in order to return to the status quo regardless of the comment you were replying to.
This isn't about me, it's about what you have to say. So I hope you feel better about having a one sided and belittling conversation.
I find you inadequate as an intelligent chat partner, so will block you now. I suspect that you will gain satisfaction from this, as a repressive. So enjoy.
I have thoroughly read every comment you posted. You're just ignoring the main thing I'm saying. You're essentially saying there will be one opinion in a society. I'm saying that, no matter what, people will have differing views of different things. We just need to listen to people, no matter what our society is or becomes. None of that matters. If people are uncomfortable with it in a sexually liberated society, then they're uncomfortable with it.
I find you inadequate as an intelligent chat partner, so will block you now. I suspect that you will gain satisfaction from this, as a repressive. So enjoy.
I guess you'll never see this, but your incesent insults say more about you than anything.
I wouldn't say that it necessarily expresses a certain opinion towards women. I think a lot of people used it just because that's how it's done. It's a piece history, a "fun" tradition.
A lot of people didn't even knew that this was taken from a pornographic magazine.
However, thinking critically about it and considering a lot of good points, it's surely not "fun" anymore and I also think it's better to stop this.
Streisand effect in motion. Me and a million other people get to see this for the first time today.
But the idea isn't to keep anyone from seeing it. The idea is simply for a lusty image not to be used in academic papers (probably also better that it's not used in college classes too).
I love pictures of scantily clad women more than almost anyone. But even I can agree that the Lena image sends the wrong message to women joining the field.
That's fair and you are right, but I'm also pointing out a side effect this is causing. I find it interesting is all.
It's not a lusty image if nobody knows what the full picture looks like. Hence the reference to the Streisand effect.
What I'm not seeing in this thread is the reason why this picture is so over used.
One reason is that it's the perfect image to test graphics manipulation algorithms like compression for example. It has all the characteristics you want to check for: various textures, gradients, lightening... It's like the benchy (3d printing) of image compression.
The other reason is that once it established itself as the reference image, it was easier for researchers to compare algorithms and make sure the author doesn't cheat by cherry picking a picture where his algorithm is clearly better.
Researchers were used to see the common pitfalls of compressions algorithms on this image (the fur for example).
A lot of people in this thread have a lot of really strong opinions without actually reading the article. The model was cool with it, but she herself also thinks it’s time to retire the photo from how it’s being used in image processing, where it likely isn’t even necessary in the first place. Respect her on that. I seriously doubt she cares if it remains accessible on the web for the pervs worrying about censorship. It’ll still be there if you desperately don’t want to lose your opportunity to take a gander.
There’s a value to having a standard image or images that are used to assess compression algorithms’ performance. It could just as easily be a picture of a bouquet of flowers, or a bunch of puppies.
There’s also value in not basing your image compression algorithm on a low resolution scan of a magazine from the 1970s.
Seems like this is a much more important than any of the other discussions going on. How many results were tainted by the fact that they were compressing a dithered print image.
Considering it was defined as the benchmark, none.
Yeah, there is, so do not do that and let others do that if they want.
Everybody can use whichever pictures they like as far as I am concerned.
FFS, it's as if there could be only one way for everyone
Everybody can use whichever pictures they like as far as I am concerned.
Not really, it's a shared data set to make sure colours appear at uniform levels across different media and types of software in order to maintain stable image formats that can be sent over internet protocols...
...the whole point is to have a catalogue of standard test images to compare transfer and compression results to globally.
Yeah. I was originally thinking this is just more of typical American prudishness, but if the impetus came from her, that's a good enough reason to retire the pic.
Forsén is quoted as saying, "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."
Since Lena herself decided she wanted to retire the image, I don't have any qualms with them not accepting new papers using it. It's really weird that her "big break" came from scientific papers, of all things.
I do wonder, however, if more recent papers (2010 and forward) using that image were doing so as reference to older papers, or entirely contained to their own research.
I do wonder, however, if more recent papers (2010 and forward) using that image were doing so as reference to older papers, or entirely contained to their own research.
I hadn't heard of this before this post, the pic is innocuous enough, i wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people don't even know that's a crop of an old magazine photo.
This is kinda interesting. I work in this field and have seen that image show up all the time in papers but never knew the origins.
I think it's the right move to ban it and I'm surprised there's so many people defending it. This isn't about censorship or being a prude or anything like that. It's just a bit weird that it's from a playboy and if you can't understand how that would make some people uncomfortable then you might be a bit lacking in empathy.
The 3d world has Utah teapots and Stanford bunnies and dragons which are all very neutral and don't hurt anyone. Perhaps we can move on and use some less alienating pictures for image processing papers, too.
I think it's nice to have traditions inside areas of research, and if somebody said "let's retire the Utah teapot. It's too simple a construct and has no bearing anymore" I'd be opposed.
Similar with "Lenna". Is it a good test image? Not anymore, but if somebody wants to include it as tradition then let them. It hurts no one. Nobody is making money off it. Most people just know it as an image that's been in many seminal graphics papers they want to emulate, but even if they do know it as being from an issue of Playboy, why is that a problem?
I'm not angry about it. I'm not going to die on any hill about it. I just see it as pointless and infantile for the IEEE to refuse papers over something so trivial.
I'm wary of the argument for any practice continuing being just because it's always happened and is "tradition". Similarly though I'm wary of the argument that a valid practice should cease just because it makes a few people uncomfortable. If the only thing going for the Lena image is "tradition" then there really is no argument for keeping it.
Just about anything can make a few people uncomfortable
The issue was that it did make some people uncomfortable, so it was harmful. You can't just ignore the reasons stated and then say it's pointless. The ban didn't come out of nowhere.
That logic makes me uncomfortable, let's ban you
Well said. I feel like so many people here are missing one of the biggest issues with the photo as far as I understand it, which is encouraging women into STEM. For many women I think this photo felt a bit like walking into a professor's office to see they have bikini photos on their walls. It just cements the feeling that these sciences are boys' clubs.
Banning something harmless is censorship. It's a test image of a beautiful woman, not glorifying violence or terrorism.
It's not censorship. They can choose to publish or not publish anything they want. Anyone is still free to publish the image in other journals that don't ban it.
Utah teapots
Offensive to people who react bad to caffeine or whose relatives had been killed by a falling teapot.
Stanford bunnies
Offensive to people who think there's a furry connection.
and if you can’t understand how that would make some people uncomfortable then you might be a bit lacking in empathy.
I can understand that and those people can use another image when making their own examples.
It's not a bad thing to have more empathy, but there's common sense.
Down the bottom there are some statistics about how many women experience sexual harassment and gender based discrimination in STEM positions. They also tend to have worse outcomes in general and fewer will go on to work in their field.
While this might seem like a small thing, ignoring these kinds of outdated and unnecessary boys club attitudes is exactly the kind of thing perpetuating these sorts of outcomes.
If you can't see how using a cropped image from a playboy for no reason in an image processing paper is different from your made up examples and could make some people feel uncomfortable then maybe you're lacking common sense and empathy.
It wasn't chosen for no reason. It was chosen because it presents good test cases for image processing. Not great ones, just the best they had at that particular moment.
You're right, I wasn't particularly clear. That was certainly the case originally, I just don't think there is a good reason for it going forward.
Historical reasons. I personally used it in a project around 2015 because of its history. And you'd need to use it if you're comparing against anything else that used it, though given its age, that seems unlikely.
But like I said elsewhere, I'm ambivalent about its future use.
The thing is that those reasons are made up just like my examples.
While this might seem like a small thing, ignoring these kinds of outdated and unnecessary boys club attitudes is exactly the kind of thing perpetuating these sorts of outcomes.
I don't think this is correct.
then maybe you’re lacking common sense and empathy.
Maybe I just don't confuse empathy with doing what idiots want me to do.
People were surveyed about the image, there are articles about it, an entire documentary has been made about it with the support of Lenna. How you can just come along and say that's all made up is honestly beyond me. And I'm pretty sure that the collective IEEE and the ethics researchers who have written about this aren't idiots. I really think you are confused about what empathy is, but I don't see myself convincing you of that. So uh, have a nice day.
Yeah, there's a reason experiments are not being replaced by voting.
You may consider this comment of yours valuable if you want.
I would be very surprised if the population of "people upset by the use of a teapot/bunny as a test render" was even within a couple orders of magnitude of "people upset by the use of a porn photo as a test image"
Saying the crop is a porn photo is like saying homeopathy has an active ingredient because "the water remembers".
Except that people do, in fact, remember. Sure, if society gets destroyed and future archeologists find the cropped photo and that's all that remains of it, it's not a porn photo any more. But for now, people know where it came from. That matters.
Edit: typos, clarity
... By that logic, you are now touching a porn device, since these pixels below are clearly pornography.
I mean obviously this is a porn device, it has access to the Internet. How is that relevant? One's personal devices are exactly where one's porn should be, not in an academic paper about image processing.
Is a little shoulder porn now?
No. But the fact that it isn't obviously from a porn shoot doesn't change that it's from a porn shoot. The model has indicated she doesn't want it used for this, and other women have indicated they are bothered by this.
Are you really insinuating that there isn't any other possible standard besides this exact photo to demonstrate methods?
See? I can straw-man too.
doesn’t change that it’s from a porn shoot
Your point? (I'd call it more erotica than porn but that's irrelevant.) If your culture sexualizes nudity per se that's not my problem and if nudity offends you well that's your problem. She consented to this, was an adult at the time, got paid for it and moved on (and, for most of her life, couldn't care less).
The model has indicated she doesn’t want it used for this
It's a pretty valid reason to me and it would be nice if people respected that. Do note that Playboy has the rights of the photo though, not her, but chose to let it slide 'cos... free publicity.
there isn’t any other possible standard besides this exact photo
I never said that. It's an old photo, along with all the other photos of the time it should've been retired ages ago, on technical grounds.
But these are not the reasons the IEEE is banning the photo, now are they?
She consented to this, was an adult at the time, got paid for it and moved on
Sorry, consented to what? And what does that have to do with this? The existence of the photo or its continued use as a photo and as porn are not at issue.
Do note that Playboy has the rights of the photo though, not her
And again, this isn't a rights issue. Lena isn't upset because her rights are being violated, and neither is anyone else.
I never said that.
And I never said photos of shoulders are porn. You made a straw man or my argument, so I made a straw man or yours. Neither one was particularly useful to discuss.
Of course there were reasons the photo was chosen originally, convenience and the fact that it has just the right amount of complicated detail. But those don't really matter now because, as you said:
It's an old photo, along with all the other photos of the time it should've been retired ages ago, on technical grounds.
People are upset because the use of a photo from a porn shoot,especially one that has no other particular reason to use it besides "tradition," is emblematic of a culture that is exclusionary to women.
Any defense of the use of this photo which does not address those points isn't really a good faith argument.
Any defense of the use of this photo which does not address those points isn't really a good faith argument.
According to you.
Tradition is not really an excuse for anything really.
If you're making arguments on this issue with someone who feels the photo should not be used because using a cropped porn photo is offensive or derogatory, those are the points that should be addressed. Another approach might be to address why it should be used instead of some similar image, but it seems you agree with me that there is no good reason another image couldn't be used.
In this day and age, and considering the model expressed so, there's really no reason to continue to use the image, no.
if you can’t understand how that would make some people uncomfortable then you might be a bit lacking in empathy.
I'm lacking in empathy.
The 3d world has Utah teapots and Stanford bunnies and dragons which are all very neutral and don’t hurt anyone.
Ooooh i'm sure someone, somewhere, somehow will feel offended. Better ban those too.
Yes, the provenance is "questionable", but it's a pic of a human wearing a hat, ffs.
The model being tired of it would be enough reason for me to stop using it (as you mentioned, there are plenty of alternatives); but American prudeness? No.
This isn't about prudishness. No one's offended by the picture. It makes people uncomfortable because it's from a playboy. The problem is that it brings the objectification of women to the fore in a male dominated field where women often face sexual harassment and aren't taken seriously.
It's a cropped image of a naked woman looking over her shoulder out of a playboy magazine. I think it's reasonable to stop using it for academic papers. You can still look at it all you want though.
It's an unlicensed picture of a woman who was previously fine with it being used like this, but who recently changed her mind and thinks it's time to stop.
That isn't the issue
Issue is she's female
I remember seeing an interview with the model, who at the time of the interview was in her 70s or 80s, she apparently wasn't enthusiastic about having become a common test image. But since she had technically consented to be in Playboy (which was only a magazine at the time), there wasn't anything she could do to stop it. I think in this case it's probably best to stop using her image specifically, as it does kinda get into a weird messy situation of consent, and how her consent to be in a magazine morphed through technology into something more "permanent" than she originally realized. There are plenty of other models who would absolutely be down for that, and given enough time, knowing how nerds are, there will be other test images of women. But I think it's probably for the best that this one gets retired from this use.
And yes, there are people who have tried to use this instance as a "there shouldn't be images of attractive/implied nude women a standard test images, because it can cause body image issues for women who go into that field." Which on one hand, I can see where they're coming from, but also people take pictures of people, and some people do look better than most of us, having more diverse test images would be a good thing, because we don't all look like that. But some do, and they're probably going to get more pictures taken of them than the rest if us.
For those, interested in an overview about more criticism, just head to the according section on Wikipedia.
Huh, I am sorry, I feel too dumb but I don't want to live with the doubt, I read the article and the Wikipedia links and I still don't know how this is a thing, this is the first time I know about it.
What exactly was the meaning of this image in the tech fields? "What image processing tests"?
I understand the model is tired of it already, but this won't disappear from the Internet, how is this article gonna benefit her?
Computers are dumb and need to be told how to take the data of an image (stored as a long series of 1s and 0s in memory) and draw it on the screen so you can see it. The people writing the software to do that needed an image to test with, just to make sure everything was working right.
Either because they were a bunch of lonely geeks in the 70s or they didn't have any other good photos to scan in, they used a headshot of a PlayBoy model. They couldn't have known that it would effectively become one of the first digital memes, meaning it's still semi-frequently used by graphics programmers (professionals and enthusiasts).
I can't claim to speak on the model's motives, but it's not hard to imagine that having their headshot used in perpetuity without consent would make someone uncomfortable.
Just to add a bit of clarification, the image wasn't just a headshot, yes that's the part that was originally scanned and used, but it's a cropped in section of the centerfold, a 3-page fold-out image in the magazine. If I remember the story correctly, they needed a large image to scan, and several people brought in images to scan in, and one guy brought a Playboy.
Basically, people working on graphics-related algorithms needed to build a library of standard test images, so that when people published their work in an academic journal, they could easily demonstrate what that algorithm does, in a manner that is fairly obvious to anyone who is familiar with the image.
So someone, when they needed to pick an image that represents a person, scanned this photograph. And it could be argued that at the time, it was probably an interesting test image for a lot of reasons: person vs background, different textures, areas with soft and sharp focus, etc etc. If you developed, say, an image compression algorithm, those things are going to be headache in all photo portraits.
It's probably not the best image by modern standards (being a low resolution scan of a photograph off of a printed magazine - not a photo print scan, not a direct film scan, and not comparable to digital photography). Also, it's gotten overused to the point of absurdity. (Oh your hot new face detection algorithm works on this image? Well whoop-de-do.)
i think i've seen it used to demo different image compression algorithms, things like that. it was used as an easy example test image, but this journal has now banned papers from using it because it is weird and creepy to be using cropped porn for that. this won't benefit the model, but she was only pushing to ban it because she wants more women in IT fields.
If a sample image is "making some women feel unwelcome in the field" you may be too sensitive for life.
It's the sample image and dozens of other things. For example: people telling them they're too sensitive for life because they're feeling uncomfortable looking at softcore porn while doing their work or research.
The full picture is never used in academia, let me assure you of that. If it weren't for articles like these, most people would not know where it even came from or that the model was nude in the first place. Not defending the use of the picture, strange choice of a test picture for sure, if you know where it comes from but wanted to give you some context.
You wouldn't know unless someone told you though
If you thought that making this comment was a good idea, you may be too misogynistic for life.
If you thought making this comment was a good idea you might need to get a grip on life.
This is not porn; it's an art. There is nothing creepy about it. Moreover, if this picture is the reason why women aren't in this field, then there is definitely a more serious problem, but it's not where you are looking.
It's art, but it's also porn. Those aren't mutually exclusive. It's from Playboy, which is a porn magazine. Look at it all you want, but it isn't appropriate for research papers. There are plenty of alternatives.
Edit: Part of the reason more women aren't in the field is because they're often seen as pieces of meat. They're objectified. They don't use any cropped male nude photos for test images, because the men weren't lusting over them. It's used because it was a field ruled by men, and women were often treated as objects.
The thing is, there is no universal definition of pornography. It varies from country to country. In my country, it doesn't fulfill some of the criteria, in particular because:
It does not depict human genital organs in their sexual functions
It does not solely focus on the technical aspects of sexuality and sexual life, completely detached from the intellectual and personal layers
The more important thing is that the cropped version of the picture (which was used in the research papers) does not fulfill any criteria to be classified as pornography or even as nude art. Some don't even know that this is only part of a nude photo. I saw this cropped picture in the 90s and was surprised later in the early 2000s by the full version.
I would say more. This is an example where some random nude photo became something more because it became part of science. So it's rather an example of "deobjectification" because this picture is focused on her face in the hat, and not her reproductive organs.
Regarding objectification, the picture of any kind has nothing to do with women being objectified. Any person may be objectified only by being treated by another person or group of people as an object. For example, a cleaning lady may be objectified by one employer who does not treat her like a living, feeling person, but not by another employer. The same applies to sex workers and any other profession. It is our attitude that determines whether we objectify someone, not the picture of a woman in a hat.
Pretend for a moment that you're a woman. You go to the office and the men are openly sharing around a porn magazine with no concern. Does that seem like a safe professional workplace? That's essentially what this represents. It isn't what's happening anymore, but it is the origin.
People also used to smoke in offices. Safe and professional is a relatively new thing.
Decorum changes over time, but it isn't new. There's always a set of rules people follow no matter where or when you are.
It's both. It's artsy softcore pornography.
I certainly don't think the full version would be appropriate, but I'm ambivalent about the cropped version.
I don't think people should get their knickers in a twist about sex in the first place.
I'm pretty sure I compressed that image in our computer vision class with some alogrithm we implemented for exercise. I though that was just some artsy over the shoulder picture, but seeing the full version the shoulder does seems supicious in hindsight.
In art class it's not uncommon to hire nude models to pose like Lena. Nothing suspicious except fuckin Christians imposing their prudishm
This is the best summary I could come up with:
On Wednesday, the IEEE Computer Society announced to members that, after April 1, it would no longer accept papers that include a frequently used image of a 1972 Playboy model named Lena Forsén.
An uncropped version of the 512×512-pixel test image originally appeared as the centerfold picture for the December 1972 issue of Playboy Magazine.
In 1997, Playboy helped track down Forsén, who appeared at the 50th Annual Conference of the Society for Imaging Science in Technology, signing autographs for fans.
It is also a sexually suggestive photo of an attractive woman, and its use by men in the computer field has garnered criticism over the decades, especially from female scientists and engineers who felt that the image (especially related to its association with the Playboy brand) objectified women and created an academic climate where they did not feel entirely welcome.
The comp.compression Usenet newsgroup FAQ document claims that in 1988, a Swedish publication asked Forsén if she minded her image being used in computer science, and she was reportedly pleasantly amused.
In a 2019 Wired article, Linda Kinstler wrote that Forsén did not harbor resentment about the image, but she regretted that she wasn't paid better for it originally.
The original article contains 732 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Are they published by Elsevier? Just tell them it's AI-generated and they'll be happy to publish it.
I mean, since she wants the usage retired, I’m all for it. But even she is proud of the picture, and I’m definitely not sick of seeing it, few times though I have.
The Lena image is (was?) featured quite prominently in the OpenCV docs and tutorials. Kinda weird it only now goes noticed.
In a 1999 essay on reasons for the male predominance in computer science, applied mathematician Dianne P. O'Leary wrote:
.
Suggestive pictures used in lectures on image processing ... convey the message that the lecturer caters to the males only. For example, it is amazing that the "Lena" pin-up image is still used as an example in courses and published as a test image in journals today.
It's been noticed for ages. This is not the first time the issue has been discussed
It's been banned from Nature for a while now
Right... Let's eliminate every instance of nudity because religious zealots were offended by it in the past, and now leftist zealots are offended. Let's remove the statue of David and all other art depicting the naked human body. Later, let's remove anything from public view that could potentially offend anyone.
It does not seem like you heard the arguments presented in the article. It isn't about being offended by any left or right wing politics, but because women engineers and scientists were uncomfortable about it for a variety of reasons. In a field which struggles to attract and keep female talent, this is a pretty big thing. The model herself spoke out and asked to be "retired from tech".
So, I think the only somewhat valid argument is that Lena herself expressed the wish not to use her photo. The real issue is that 'scientists were uncomfortable.' Because if someone feels uncomfortable with the human body, it raises questions about their mental condition. Especially in this particular case, the picture is and has always been cropped, showing no nudity. The original source, 'Playboy,' has nothing to do with anything, and even if it did, this is still a very tasteful piece of art. Even if there was a man in this picture, I would say the same. This is just a picture showing a pleasing composition of the surroundings and a human female specimen. So, the question that remains is: Why would anybody feel uneasy seeing a woman in a hat? Those for whom this is a problem must imagine things (that make them uncomfortable) in their heads that are not in the picture. The problem is that our culture, including advertisements, fashion, and social media, distorts the perception of human bodies and how people, especially young ones, perceive their bodies. At the same time, young people often aren't properly socialized regarding their sexuality and aren't taught that the body is not subject to morality, and there are no 'good' and 'bad' body parts. They shouldn't be reinforced in their erroneous thinking by canceling and censoring parts of reality. I'm not saying that those people are the issue. I'm saying that their behavior is a symptom of the real problem with the society that needs to be addressed.
I have a friend who is a sex freelance journalist writing for everyone from the NYT to Playboy and she's been outspoken recently around a neo-puritan movement by younger generations.
People aren't having as much sex, have a lot more hangups about sex, are uncomfortable with sex depicted in media, etc.
This image didn't even contain nudity - it's a crop of the original that's in question.
There are broader social impacts for seemingly innocuous efforts like these, and I don't know it's all that healthy for us to be constantly self-thought policing when it comes to sex. Those attitudes seem to be moving beyond the immediate focus and into general attitudes and behaviors around sexual hangups.
We're seeing "purity culture"-like mentality infecting people who weren't even raised in oppressive religious contexts.
Oh I'd be interested in reading her work, there is absolutely some weird puritan thing in a section of those in their twenties but also an equal group that are kinda sexual obsessive.
I can see the same thing, and I couldn't agree more. Do you happen to have an article of hers to share?
Fucking jesus christ it only took 50 years for it to happen.
And people wonder why women don't feel welcome in these disciplines.
It's not like they were using the uncropped centerfold. There's nothing wrong with the headshot. It's a woman in a hat.
But the image is from a photoshoot for playboy so its inherently dirty and offensive, even if they only use the cropped version. /s
Well, according to the Wikipedia article that's exactly the criticism (but without sarcasm).
it seems difficult to argue that a 512 × 512 image produced with a 1970s-era analog scanner is the best we have to offer as an image quality test standard
This is the part I don't get. How has the picture not changed with the times due to camera advances.
Same reason the length of a meter hasn't changed despite measurement advances. It was used as a benchmark.
You were born out of a vagina. You are inherently dirty and offensive.
So does that mean my son is not? (He was a C-section)
He is pure and clean
Her hair is showing, this offends Muslim engineers.
To end this, I will subject myself to being the test image. We'll crop on my o-face while I'm doing your mom and your dad is a cuck in the corner.
What? Some people would call that art. And it will just be my face. We won't see your dad with anal beads and cock cage in the picture.
If we only see my face in the picture what is the problem? Only you will know that the only time your mom could orgasm was with me.
You are strong enough to handle using this new picture, right?
As long as the cropped picture contains the required colour variety, fine by me.
Now, the real remarkable thing is the fact that you think those two settings are comparable, or that it somehow makes a valid argument.
edit or that you posted this argument so many times. You might have some repressed issues. Honestly, as long as all parties involved are consenting adults, it's okay to like what you like.
I mean, the model in question was quoted as recently as 2019 as saying she had no problem with it, so hardly 50 years.
As recently as 2019, huh... How does she feel about it since then?
Exactly the same, I'd assume by your phrasing here?
While that should certainly be a bright line, it's more that from the very beginning of computer graphics, the "perfect" image for testing algorithms and showing off and laboring over and analyzing is a Playboy centerfold. I don't imagine most of those computer scientists would have been nearly as accepting of a photo with "high contrast and varied detail" if it had been a naked dude hanging dong [EDIT: or cropped from such a pic]. It was used specifically because they liked it and thought that anyone who didn't feel the same needed to stay in their lane and STFU because this is "normal" and fine but any other type of sexual material wouldn't be.
I don't imagine most of those computer scientists would have been nearly as accepting of a photo with "high contrast and varied detail" if it had been a naked dude hanging dongheadshot of a male model
FTFY. If you're going to make a comparison, don't be fucking dishonest about it.
Fine, a headshot of a male model cropped from a Playgirl centerfold and making bedroom eyes and visibly shirtless, because it was a shot from a spank mag, and then justified as an ongoing thing because it's such a "perfect" image.
It was obscure and tame enough to last for a long time, but it was always creepy and its continued use as a quasi-official test pattern said more about the tech community than people would like to admit.
Headshot of a male model selectively cropped so you don't see the hanging dong, you mean. I wonder if that context has any relevance. Hmmmmm. I wonder how many men might go "ick" if they knew the source?
As a dude, I certainly wouldn't care. As long as the content itself (the crop) isn't offensive, I don't really care where it was cropped from, provided they it satisfied fair use at least (or they had permission).
Yeah, I remember learning about it in a CS class and, specifically, the claim that it's an ideal standard candle kind of image. I always wondered if we couldn't have found a better reference shot of a smooth flower growing in front of a rough stone or something.
"The shadows and highlighting on the oiled ball hairs are immaculate on this shot..."
I don’t imagine most of those computer scientists would have been nearly as accepting of a photo with “high contrast and varied detail” if it had been a naked dude hanging dong.
No shit, but apparently all the fellas in this thread seem to think it would have totally been the same. Either that or they just continue to ignore that as an option.
Maybe the mousey girl in class might get uncomfortable knowing its from a porn mag when it's thrown up on the big screen for the class to see? Maybe it's about more than just Lena herself? Maybe women don't feel comfortable going in those spaces because they feel like they'll be sexualized or worse. Why wouldn't they expect that when the men involved think its totally appropriate to use the top-half of a nude photo of a woman?
Well if Mousey Mina feels squeamish seeing a bare shoulder then I think the problem is elsewhere.. literally feels like much ado for nothing.
To end this, I will subject myself to being the test image. We'll crop on my o-face while I'm doing your mom and your dad is a cuck in the corner.
What? Some people would call that art. And it will just be my face. We won't see your dad with anal beads and cock cage in the picture.
If we only see my face in the picture what is the problem? Only you will know that the only time your mom could orgasm was with me.
You are strong enough to handle using this new picture, right?
Okay, your comment is stupid just by itself, but the fact that you used it many times just to prove some point that's clear only to your little brain really speaks volume about you.
I love for you that what you just said is literally the definition of what I'm talking about. Attitudes like "well what's her problem" are why women don't want to be in STEM fields. You even immediately came up with a diminutive nickname for her, to make sure this woman would feel chided and demeaned. Stay classy.
Anyone that gets worked up at the sight of a human shoulder needs to reasses themselves, regardless of gender
If you think this is about an exposed shoulder, you missed the point.
The point is that the point is stupid. All there is to the image is a girl with a hat and an exposed shoulder. The image came from a porn magazine, so what? All the nudity is taken out. That image doesn't even impact. A child. It takes a very fragile snowflake to be hurt by a normal portrait that just so happens to be from a nude image.
The imaged is cropped, but cropping doesn't remove the context of the image, and it isn't worth the risk of making women feel less welcome in tech, which is a big problem already.
If I may, why is it so important to you that the image continues to be used over other images, against the wishes of Lena and IEEE?
It's not important to me at all. I've only seen the photo a couple times in some Wikipedia pages. I'm just saying that the reason to remove it is stupid. Idgaf if they remove it or not.
Okay, so we'll change that pic with one of a girl with an exposed shoulder, but that's cropped from a girl with a shirt on! That way the context isn't so horrible and you, and many other girls who would otherwise drop out of STEM fields, can rest easy.
To end this, I will subject myself to being the test image. We'll crop on my o-face while I'm doing your mom and your dad is a cuck in the corner.
What? Some people would call that art. And it will just be my face. We won't see your dad with anal beads and cock cage in the picture.
If we only see my face in the picture what is the problem? Only you will know that the only time your mom could orgasm was with me.
You are strong enough to handle using this new picture, right?
To end this, I will subject myself to being the test image. We'll crop on my o-face while I'm doing your mom and your dad is a cuck in the corner.
What? Some people would call that art. And it will just be my face. We won't see your dad with anal beads and cock cage in the picture.
If we only see my face in the picture what is the problem? Only you will know that the only time your mom could orgasm was with me.
You are strong enough to handle using this new picture, right?
free the nipple yo
won't somebody please think of the infantilised adults?
I don't think it would be in humanity's best interest for scientific journals to be in the habit of quickly banning research just because someone has uncomfortable associations with a safely cropped photo (or a drawing, or a quote). Perhaps it makes sense in this particular case, after careful consideration. I hope it's an exceptional case. Censorship is a slippery slope.
IEEE have the right to decide which papers to accept. They aren’t obliged to publish anything they aren’t comfortable with. There are much harder conditions to get your research published in IEEE than avoiding the use of a single image.
Lena herself has also the right to oppose the use of the image.
If you’re unhappy with their decision you can find some other publisher.
My comment was not about being unhappy with their decision. (I'm not.) Rather, I was offering perspective to someone who seems angry over IEEE not making that decision sooner.
Lena herself has the right
No she doesn't. Playboy owns the image and have the sole right to control how it is used
She has the right to have her own opinion. Others have the right to choose to respect her opinion.
To end this, I will subject myself to being the test image. We'll crop on my o-face while I'm doing your mom and your dad is a cuck in the corner.
What? Some people would call that art. And it will just be my face. We won't see your dad with anal beads and cock cage in the picture.
If we only see my face in the picture what is the problem? Only you will know that the only time your mom could orgasm was with me.
You are strong enough to handle using this new picture, right?
Censorship is a slippery slope.
So I take it you think the Washington Commanders should have stayed the Washington Redskins because not censoring is more important than it being disrespectful to a large group of people? My eyes would fall out if they rolled any harder.
No one's censoring the history or saying it never happened, we're just saying "Maybe there's a better, less controversial image to use for this purpose." Which really shouldn't be a very controversial take at all.
It's not like you can't see the old Redskins logo on Wikipedia, or that the Wikipedia entry for the Lenna image would disappear. That would be censorship, not this. This is just "don't use this controversial image in professional documents like science research." Literally, specifically, IEEE journals.
Uh, a consensual photograph of a naked woman, especially a cropped headshot of her, is not the same as a racial slur.
Since you obviously feel strongly about this issue, you might consider your bias as a reason to read more carefully. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Censorship is a slippery slope.
I read it very carefully. I'm sorry you aren't capable of backing up what you said in the face of someone pointing out that isn't actually censorship.
Further, as many have pointed out, there are plenty of similar reference images available. Not using this image will not impede scientific progress, as you have so implied. (Honestly after 50 years, it's arguable that we have much better reference images now.)
I’m sorry you aren’t capable of backing up what you said in the face of someone pointing out that isn’t actually censorship.
Meanwhile women nurses doctors and teachers sell themselves on Instagram and onlyfans
Yes, let's just shove everyone into one drawer and completely forget that some do it for fun, some out of financial necessity, and let's also forget all the problems it can cause when using such an image in lectures, research and similar professional settings. /s
So? They can do what they like, just like Lena could for the original image. Hell, I applaud them for it!
I also think Lena looks beautiful in the commonly used image, and it doesn’t bother ME one bit that the image shows up in research.
But all of that is completely separate from whether it is appropriate to use a cropped playboy image in professional settings (it should be UN-cropped, am I right fellas? /s). However, if it genuinely offends the people around me, or makes them feel marginalized or less valued, well then it DOES start to bother me a little bit.
It’s OK to change the world in a way that doesn’t affect you but improves the life of somebody else.
And? If they were paid adequately they wouldn't have too and even if they are paid adequately its their body and their decision.
And I don't think any of their nude photos are appropriate for academic papers (unrelated to nudity research) either?
This is not a hill I'd want to die on, but I do understand thinking this photo is fine. If I hadn't been told it was from Playboy, I wouldn't give it a second thought. It's a conventionally-attractive woman in a hat showing a little shoulder. I wouldn't be upset over Michaelangelo's David either. It is less sexual than like 90% of modern TV or mass-market advertising. I suspect a similar image of "cleaner" provenance would not garner much attention at all, honestly.
But it is weird that an image from such a source was chosen in the first place. It is understandable that it makes people uncomfortable, and it seems like there should be no shortage of suitable imagery that wouldn't, so...easy sell, I'd think.
On a related note, boy oh boy am I tired of every imagegen AI paper and project using the same type of vaguely fetishized portraits as examples.
Apparently the team making the first scanner needed a good test photo and that was the best they had on hand at that moment in terms of color variation and intensity.
Which is still weird.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna
Everything about the story sounds like it was a rush job, a decision made on a whim, after exhausting their existing catalog of test images. And who bring a Playboy mag to their university's computer lab, and advertises their possession? They don't even say who it was, probably to protect them from any embarrassing professional consequences. To me, that's probably the strongest reason to retire it: it's unprofessional.
Probably a random grad student. They were just coming out of the "sexual revolution" of the 60s at that point. It'd be a lot weirder ten years earlier or ten years later.
That a similar thing did happen ten years earlier is the weird part, I think.
Keep in mind that Playboy had a reputation as more than just porn. A lot of really respected authors had work published in Playboy.
I not sure of its culture status when the event in question happened, but it would have been different then say, Penthouse.
There's a bit more to the scan. You usually see the cropped version, but the full version has naughty bits. Not sure if it's ever been published that way in journals.
No there's not, the scan thats been used has cropped out the nudity, it's in like the second paragraph,
I really don't think the image itself is the issue. It's the culture that would lead to brazenly sharing a porn magazine aroundnthe office, and subsequently using the image for a test photo. Then that same culture decided it should be standard because they liked looking at it. It indicates a culture of objectification of women. If an industry feels like sharing porn around is perfectly acceptable, you have to consider what else they think is acceptable. That's what makes people uncomfortable (I assume, though I'm a straight man so not personal experience, just empathy).
What's wrong with sharing porn around?
Absolutely nothing. But imagine you're working with some people and everyone's constantly posting porn in the group chat. You're just trying to kind of exist and get your work done. You might start to feel pretty uncomfortable with that culture.
There's definitely a line between sex positivity, and including other people without their clear consent.
Here is an uncropped version of the image: [NSFW] https://mypmates.club/1972/Miss-November/Lena-Soderberg
Considering this it's more understandable that it's controversial.
Some people are triggered by nudity. On another timeline the conclusion of this "scandal" would be to include a retro photo of a naked dude in the test image data set (and maybe also switch Lena's photo if she doesn't want it in there anymore).
I don't think the reason this is an issue is because it's pornographic. It's because it indicates a certain opinion that some people in the field had/have. Even in professional academic papers they were using a pornographic image of a woman, which shows their opinion of women is just as object to lust after.
Yes and I'm saying in a more sexually open society we'd just admit that people lust after people of all genders, and include some others in the data set.
I disagree. I think in a more sexually open society people wouldn't be treated like pieces of meat. They'd be treated like people. Their opinions about sexual content would be considered.
Like how I said in my original comment "switch Lena's photo if she doesn't want it in there anymore"...
So as you can see, I was already saying a sexually open world would be considerate, even though you're phrasing it as if we're disagreeing. Perhaps this is because you wish the conversation to go to an oppositional and hence repressive/aggressive place.
I think that would be a reasonable response if one felt subjugated and traumatized, injured and trapped by the current patriarchal systems of sex and power imbalance, and it might be difficult to see how sexuality, nudity, and pornography could be sociologically dealt with, understood, or theorised about outside of that framework.
Thus a dream of a better world can be stolen and held back be the pre-existing and persisting traumas of how we treat sex, bodies, nudity, and self-image in this one.
But there can be sex positive and body positive form of sex, sexuality and pornography that include being comfortable with nudity, and even taboo. I was proposing such a parallel world...
But you continue to cast it as the same as this world. That is your choice, but to continue to make that same choice is an act of killing communication and hence progress on the issues of this world.
The nature of fiction even in a passing comment, like the one I made, is to explore the possible and impossible. So beware what you make impossible.
It's not just her opinion on the picture that matters though. Other women (and probably other people) don't want it to be used as a standard test image.
I like that you're making it out like I'm saying anything is impossible. I'm not. I'm stating that if people say they're uncomfortable with something then they're uncomfortable with it. It doesn't matter how sexually open anything it. People's opinions and consent are important, both that of the subject of the photo as well as other people in the field using this photo.
Yes, I'm saying in a more sexually liberated society, one that's more comfortable with nudity and the human body, people might go: "Oh of course we can include nudes in the data set, here's a bunch more!".
You're saying in a sexually liberated society one more comfortable with nudity, people would still be viewing this in a state of discomfort.
You came here to say this, regardless of anything I said, and so are yourself not interested in the consent of all parties in this very conversation (which is with a person by the way).
I am just a prop, and you simply don't need to listen to me. Because you will say what you have to say and will mutilate whatever was being said in order to return to the status quo regardless of the comment you were replying to.
This isn't about me, it's about what you have to say. So I hope you feel better about having a one sided and belittling conversation.
I find you inadequate as an intelligent chat partner, so will block you now. I suspect that you will gain satisfaction from this, as a repressive. So enjoy.
I have thoroughly read every comment you posted. You're just ignoring the main thing I'm saying. You're essentially saying there will be one opinion in a society. I'm saying that, no matter what, people will have differing views of different things. We just need to listen to people, no matter what our society is or becomes. None of that matters. If people are uncomfortable with it in a sexually liberated society, then they're uncomfortable with it.
I guess you'll never see this, but your incesent insults say more about you than anything.
I wouldn't say that it necessarily expresses a certain opinion towards women. I think a lot of people used it just because that's how it's done. It's a piece history, a "fun" tradition. A lot of people didn't even knew that this was taken from a pornographic magazine.
However, thinking critically about it and considering a lot of good points, it's surely not "fun" anymore and I also think it's better to stop this.
I don't see anything weird here...
The weird part is in the mirror.
Streisand effect in motion. Me and a million other people get to see this for the first time today.
But the idea isn't to keep anyone from seeing it. The idea is simply for a lusty image not to be used in academic papers (probably also better that it's not used in college classes too).
I love pictures of scantily clad women more than almost anyone. But even I can agree that the Lena image sends the wrong message to women joining the field.
That's fair and you are right, but I'm also pointing out a side effect this is causing. I find it interesting is all.
It's not a lusty image if nobody knows what the full picture looks like. Hence the reference to the Streisand effect.
What I'm not seeing in this thread is the reason why this picture is so over used.
One reason is that it's the perfect image to test graphics manipulation algorithms like compression for example. It has all the characteristics you want to check for: various textures, gradients, lightening... It's like the benchy (3d printing) of image compression.
The other reason is that once it established itself as the reference image, it was easier for researchers to compare algorithms and make sure the author doesn't cheat by cherry picking a picture where his algorithm is clearly better.
Researchers were used to see the common pitfalls of compressions algorithms on this image (the fur for example).
A lot of people in this thread have a lot of really strong opinions without actually reading the article. The model was cool with it, but she herself also thinks it’s time to retire the photo from how it’s being used in image processing, where it likely isn’t even necessary in the first place. Respect her on that. I seriously doubt she cares if it remains accessible on the web for the pervs worrying about censorship. It’ll still be there if you desperately don’t want to lose your opportunity to take a gander.
There’s a value to having a standard image or images that are used to assess compression algorithms’ performance. It could just as easily be a picture of a bouquet of flowers, or a bunch of puppies.
There’s also value in not basing your image compression algorithm on a low resolution scan of a magazine from the 1970s.
Seems like this is a much more important than any of the other discussions going on. How many results were tainted by the fact that they were compressing a dithered print image.
Considering it was defined as the benchmark, none.
Yeah, there is, so do not do that and let others do that if they want.
Everybody can use whichever pictures they like as far as I am concerned.
FFS, it's as if there could be only one way for everyone
Not really, it's a shared data set to make sure colours appear at uniform levels across different media and types of software in order to maintain stable image formats that can be sent over internet protocols...
...the whole point is to have a catalogue of standard test images to compare transfer and compression results to globally.
Yeah. I was originally thinking this is just more of typical American prudishness, but if the impetus came from her, that's a good enough reason to retire the pic.
Since Lena herself decided she wanted to retire the image, I don't have any qualms with them not accepting new papers using it. It's really weird that her "big break" came from scientific papers, of all things.
I do wonder, however, if more recent papers (2010 and forward) using that image were doing so as reference to older papers, or entirely contained to their own research.
I hadn't heard of this before this post, the pic is innocuous enough, i wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people don't even know that's a crop of an old magazine photo.
This is kinda interesting. I work in this field and have seen that image show up all the time in papers but never knew the origins.
I think it's the right move to ban it and I'm surprised there's so many people defending it. This isn't about censorship or being a prude or anything like that. It's just a bit weird that it's from a playboy and if you can't understand how that would make some people uncomfortable then you might be a bit lacking in empathy.
The 3d world has Utah teapots and Stanford bunnies and dragons which are all very neutral and don't hurt anyone. Perhaps we can move on and use some less alienating pictures for image processing papers, too.
I think it's nice to have traditions inside areas of research, and if somebody said "let's retire the Utah teapot. It's too simple a construct and has no bearing anymore" I'd be opposed.
Similar with "Lenna". Is it a good test image? Not anymore, but if somebody wants to include it as tradition then let them. It hurts no one. Nobody is making money off it. Most people just know it as an image that's been in many seminal graphics papers they want to emulate, but even if they do know it as being from an issue of Playboy, why is that a problem?
I'm not angry about it. I'm not going to die on any hill about it. I just see it as pointless and infantile for the IEEE to refuse papers over something so trivial.
I'm wary of the argument for any practice continuing being just because it's always happened and is "tradition". Similarly though I'm wary of the argument that a valid practice should cease just because it makes a few people uncomfortable. If the only thing going for the Lena image is "tradition" then there really is no argument for keeping it.
Just about anything can make a few people uncomfortable
The issue was that it did make some people uncomfortable, so it was harmful. You can't just ignore the reasons stated and then say it's pointless. The ban didn't come out of nowhere.
That logic makes me uncomfortable, let's ban you
Well said. I feel like so many people here are missing one of the biggest issues with the photo as far as I understand it, which is encouraging women into STEM. For many women I think this photo felt a bit like walking into a professor's office to see they have bikini photos on their walls. It just cements the feeling that these sciences are boys' clubs.
Banning something harmless is censorship. It's a test image of a beautiful woman, not glorifying violence or terrorism.
It's not censorship. They can choose to publish or not publish anything they want. Anyone is still free to publish the image in other journals that don't ban it.
Offensive to people who react bad to caffeine or whose relatives had been killed by a falling teapot.
Offensive to people who think there's a furry connection.
I can understand that and those people can use another image when making their own examples.
It's not a bad thing to have more empathy, but there's common sense.
https://www.yalescientific.org/2020/11/by-the-numbers-women-in-stem-what-do-the-statistics-reveal-about-ongoing-gender-disparities/
Down the bottom there are some statistics about how many women experience sexual harassment and gender based discrimination in STEM positions. They also tend to have worse outcomes in general and fewer will go on to work in their field.
While this might seem like a small thing, ignoring these kinds of outdated and unnecessary boys club attitudes is exactly the kind of thing perpetuating these sorts of outcomes.
If you can't see how using a cropped image from a playboy for no reason in an image processing paper is different from your made up examples and could make some people feel uncomfortable then maybe you're lacking common sense and empathy.
It wasn't chosen for no reason. It was chosen because it presents good test cases for image processing. Not great ones, just the best they had at that particular moment.
You're right, I wasn't particularly clear. That was certainly the case originally, I just don't think there is a good reason for it going forward.
Historical reasons. I personally used it in a project around 2015 because of its history. And you'd need to use it if you're comparing against anything else that used it, though given its age, that seems unlikely.
But like I said elsewhere, I'm ambivalent about its future use.
The thing is that those reasons are made up just like my examples.
I don't think this is correct.
Maybe I just don't confuse empathy with doing what idiots want me to do.
People were surveyed about the image, there are articles about it, an entire documentary has been made about it with the support of Lenna. How you can just come along and say that's all made up is honestly beyond me. And I'm pretty sure that the collective IEEE and the ethics researchers who have written about this aren't idiots. I really think you are confused about what empathy is, but I don't see myself convincing you of that. So uh, have a nice day.
Yeah, there's a reason experiments are not being replaced by voting.
You may consider this comment of yours valuable if you want.
I would be very surprised if the population of "people upset by the use of a teapot/bunny as a test render" was even within a couple orders of magnitude of "people upset by the use of a porn photo as a test image"
Saying the crop is a porn photo is like saying homeopathy has an active ingredient because "the water remembers".
Except that people do, in fact, remember. Sure, if society gets destroyed and future archeologists find the cropped photo and that's all that remains of it, it's not a porn photo any more. But for now, people know where it came from. That matters.
Edit: typos, clarity
... By that logic, you are now touching a porn device, since these pixels below are clearly pornography.
I mean obviously this is a porn device, it has access to the Internet. How is that relevant? One's personal devices are exactly where one's porn should be, not in an academic paper about image processing.
Is a little shoulder porn now?
No. But the fact that it isn't obviously from a porn shoot doesn't change that it's from a porn shoot. The model has indicated she doesn't want it used for this, and other women have indicated they are bothered by this.
Are you really insinuating that there isn't any other possible standard besides this exact photo to demonstrate methods?
See? I can straw-man too.
Your point? (I'd call it more erotica than porn but that's irrelevant.) If your culture sexualizes nudity per se that's not my problem and if nudity offends you well that's your problem. She consented to this, was an adult at the time, got paid for it and moved on (and, for most of her life, couldn't care less).
It's a pretty valid reason to me and it would be nice if people respected that. Do note that Playboy has the rights of the photo though, not her, but chose to let it slide 'cos... free publicity.
I never said that. It's an old photo, along with all the other photos of the time it should've been retired ages ago, on technical grounds.
But these are not the reasons the IEEE is banning the photo, now are they?
This is an interesting video on the matter.
Sorry, consented to what? And what does that have to do with this? The existence of the photo or its continued use as a photo and as porn are not at issue.
And again, this isn't a rights issue. Lena isn't upset because her rights are being violated, and neither is anyone else.
And I never said photos of shoulders are porn. You made a straw man or my argument, so I made a straw man or yours. Neither one was particularly useful to discuss.
Of course there were reasons the photo was chosen originally, convenience and the fact that it has just the right amount of complicated detail. But those don't really matter now because, as you said:
People are upset because the use of a photo from a porn shoot, especially one that has no other particular reason to use it besides "tradition," is emblematic of a culture that is exclusionary to women.
Any defense of the use of this photo which does not address those points isn't really a good faith argument.
According to you.
Tradition is not really an excuse for anything really.
If you're making arguments on this issue with someone who feels the photo should not be used because using a cropped porn photo is offensive or derogatory, those are the points that should be addressed. Another approach might be to address why it should be used instead of some similar image, but it seems you agree with me that there is no good reason another image couldn't be used.
In this day and age, and considering the model expressed so, there's really no reason to continue to use the image, no.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
This
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I'm lacking in empathy.
Ooooh i'm sure someone, somewhere, somehow will feel offended. Better ban those too.
Yes, the provenance is "questionable", but it's a pic of a human wearing a hat, ffs.
The model being tired of it would be enough reason for me to stop using it (as you mentioned, there are plenty of alternatives); but American prudeness? No.
This isn't about prudishness. No one's offended by the picture. It makes people uncomfortable because it's from a playboy. The problem is that it brings the objectification of women to the fore in a male dominated field where women often face sexual harassment and aren't taken seriously.
It's a woman looking over their shoulder
It's a cropped image of a naked woman looking over her shoulder out of a playboy magazine. I think it's reasonable to stop using it for academic papers. You can still look at it all you want though.
It's an unlicensed picture of a woman who was previously fine with it being used like this, but who recently changed her mind and thinks it's time to stop.
That isn't the issue
Issue is she's female
I remember seeing an interview with the model, who at the time of the interview was in her 70s or 80s, she apparently wasn't enthusiastic about having become a common test image. But since she had technically consented to be in Playboy (which was only a magazine at the time), there wasn't anything she could do to stop it. I think in this case it's probably best to stop using her image specifically, as it does kinda get into a weird messy situation of consent, and how her consent to be in a magazine morphed through technology into something more "permanent" than she originally realized. There are plenty of other models who would absolutely be down for that, and given enough time, knowing how nerds are, there will be other test images of women. But I think it's probably for the best that this one gets retired from this use.
And yes, there are people who have tried to use this instance as a "there shouldn't be images of attractive/implied nude women a standard test images, because it can cause body image issues for women who go into that field." Which on one hand, I can see where they're coming from, but also people take pictures of people, and some people do look better than most of us, having more diverse test images would be a good thing, because we don't all look like that. But some do, and they're probably going to get more pictures taken of them than the rest if us.
For those, interested in an overview about more criticism, just head to the according section on Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna
I would've thought a paper magazine is more permanent than digital media.
For the curious, you can find the uncropped photo by searching Lemmy posts for "Lenna". It was posted to !retro@lemmynsfw.com a few months ago.
Here's a comment on said NSFW post
I won't link the post directly as it's NSFW
https://lemmy.world/comment/6629261
Huh, I am sorry, I feel too dumb but I don't want to live with the doubt, I read the article and the Wikipedia links and I still don't know how this is a thing, this is the first time I know about it.
What exactly was the meaning of this image in the tech fields? "What image processing tests"?
I understand the model is tired of it already, but this won't disappear from the Internet, how is this article gonna benefit her?
Computers are dumb and need to be told how to take the data of an image (stored as a long series of 1s and 0s in memory) and draw it on the screen so you can see it. The people writing the software to do that needed an image to test with, just to make sure everything was working right.
Either because they were a bunch of lonely geeks in the 70s or they didn't have any other good photos to scan in, they used a headshot of a PlayBoy model. They couldn't have known that it would effectively become one of the first digital memes, meaning it's still semi-frequently used by graphics programmers (professionals and enthusiasts).
I can't claim to speak on the model's motives, but it's not hard to imagine that having their headshot used in perpetuity without consent would make someone uncomfortable.
Just to add a bit of clarification, the image wasn't just a headshot, yes that's the part that was originally scanned and used, but it's a cropped in section of the centerfold, a 3-page fold-out image in the magazine. If I remember the story correctly, they needed a large image to scan, and several people brought in images to scan in, and one guy brought a Playboy.
https://youtu.be/yCdwm2vo09I
Here you go. A full explanation of everything.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/yCdwm2vo09I
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Basically, people working on graphics-related algorithms needed to build a library of standard test images, so that when people published their work in an academic journal, they could easily demonstrate what that algorithm does, in a manner that is fairly obvious to anyone who is familiar with the image.
So someone, when they needed to pick an image that represents a person, scanned this photograph. And it could be argued that at the time, it was probably an interesting test image for a lot of reasons: person vs background, different textures, areas with soft and sharp focus, etc etc. If you developed, say, an image compression algorithm, those things are going to be headache in all photo portraits.
It's probably not the best image by modern standards (being a low resolution scan of a photograph off of a printed magazine - not a photo print scan, not a direct film scan, and not comparable to digital photography). Also, it's gotten overused to the point of absurdity. (Oh your hot new face detection algorithm works on this image? Well whoop-de-do.)
i think i've seen it used to demo different image compression algorithms, things like that. it was used as an easy example test image, but this journal has now banned papers from using it because it is weird and creepy to be using cropped porn for that. this won't benefit the model, but she was only pushing to ban it because she wants more women in IT fields.
If a sample image is "making some women feel unwelcome in the field" you may be too sensitive for life.
It's the sample image and dozens of other things. For example: people telling them they're too sensitive for life because they're feeling uncomfortable looking at softcore porn while doing their work or research.
The full picture is never used in academia, let me assure you of that. If it weren't for articles like these, most people would not know where it even came from or that the model was nude in the first place. Not defending the use of the picture, strange choice of a test picture for sure, if you know where it comes from but wanted to give you some context.
You wouldn't know unless someone told you though
If you thought that making this comment was a good idea, you may be too misogynistic for life.
If you thought making this comment was a good idea you might need to get a grip on life.
This is not porn; it's an art. There is nothing creepy about it. Moreover, if this picture is the reason why women aren't in this field, then there is definitely a more serious problem, but it's not where you are looking.
Full picture (NSFW) https://mypmates.club/1972/Miss-November/Lena-Soderberg
It's art, but it's also porn. Those aren't mutually exclusive. It's from Playboy, which is a porn magazine. Look at it all you want, but it isn't appropriate for research papers. There are plenty of alternatives.
Edit: Part of the reason more women aren't in the field is because they're often seen as pieces of meat. They're objectified. They don't use any cropped male nude photos for test images, because the men weren't lusting over them. It's used because it was a field ruled by men, and women were often treated as objects.
The thing is, there is no universal definition of pornography. It varies from country to country. In my country, it doesn't fulfill some of the criteria, in particular because:
The more important thing is that the cropped version of the picture (which was used in the research papers) does not fulfill any criteria to be classified as pornography or even as nude art. Some don't even know that this is only part of a nude photo. I saw this cropped picture in the 90s and was surprised later in the early 2000s by the full version.
I would say more. This is an example where some random nude photo became something more because it became part of science. So it's rather an example of "deobjectification" because this picture is focused on her face in the hat, and not her reproductive organs.
Regarding objectification, the picture of any kind has nothing to do with women being objectified. Any person may be objectified only by being treated by another person or group of people as an object. For example, a cleaning lady may be objectified by one employer who does not treat her like a living, feeling person, but not by another employer. The same applies to sex workers and any other profession. It is our attitude that determines whether we objectify someone, not the picture of a woman in a hat.
Pretend for a moment that you're a woman. You go to the office and the men are openly sharing around a porn magazine with no concern. Does that seem like a safe professional workplace? That's essentially what this represents. It isn't what's happening anymore, but it is the origin.
People also used to smoke in offices. Safe and professional is a relatively new thing.
Decorum changes over time, but it isn't new. There's always a set of rules people follow no matter where or when you are.
It's both. It's artsy softcore pornography.
I certainly don't think the full version would be appropriate, but I'm ambivalent about the cropped version.
I don't think people should get their knickers in a twist about sex in the first place.
Everything about Playboy is creepy
I've seen more skin in a Sears catalogue in the 90s. Yeah I was a teenager shut up. People need to get over themselves.
people who are offended by images of other people are narcissists
Huh I had no idea!
I'm pretty sure I compressed that image in our computer vision class with some alogrithm we implemented for exercise. I though that was just some artsy over the shoulder picture, but seeing the full version the shoulder does seems supicious in hindsight.
In art class it's not uncommon to hire nude models to pose like Lena. Nothing suspicious except fuckin Christians imposing their prudishm
This is the best summary I could come up with:
On Wednesday, the IEEE Computer Society announced to members that, after April 1, it would no longer accept papers that include a frequently used image of a 1972 Playboy model named Lena Forsén.
An uncropped version of the 512×512-pixel test image originally appeared as the centerfold picture for the December 1972 issue of Playboy Magazine.
In 1997, Playboy helped track down Forsén, who appeared at the 50th Annual Conference of the Society for Imaging Science in Technology, signing autographs for fans.
It is also a sexually suggestive photo of an attractive woman, and its use by men in the computer field has garnered criticism over the decades, especially from female scientists and engineers who felt that the image (especially related to its association with the Playboy brand) objectified women and created an academic climate where they did not feel entirely welcome.
The comp.compression Usenet newsgroup FAQ document claims that in 1988, a Swedish publication asked Forsén if she minded her image being used in computer science, and she was reportedly pleasantly amused.
In a 2019 Wired article, Linda Kinstler wrote that Forsén did not harbor resentment about the image, but she regretted that she wasn't paid better for it originally.
The original article contains 732 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Are they published by Elsevier? Just tell them it's AI-generated and they'll be happy to publish it.
First learned about that image on this video https://youtu.be/yCdwm2vo09I
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/yCdwm2vo09I
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Good. Sick and tired of seeing Lena.
I mean, since she wants the usage retired, I’m all for it. But even she is proud of the picture, and I’m definitely not sick of seeing it, few times though I have.
The Lena image is (was?) featured quite prominently in the OpenCV docs and tutorials. Kinda weird it only now goes noticed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna#Criticism
That's 25 years ago...
It's been noticed for ages. This is not the first time the issue has been discussed
It's been banned from Nature for a while now
Right... Let's eliminate every instance of nudity because religious zealots were offended by it in the past, and now leftist zealots are offended. Let's remove the statue of David and all other art depicting the naked human body. Later, let's remove anything from public view that could potentially offend anyone.
It does not seem like you heard the arguments presented in the article. It isn't about being offended by any left or right wing politics, but because women engineers and scientists were uncomfortable about it for a variety of reasons. In a field which struggles to attract and keep female talent, this is a pretty big thing. The model herself spoke out and asked to be "retired from tech".
So, I think the only somewhat valid argument is that Lena herself expressed the wish not to use her photo. The real issue is that 'scientists were uncomfortable.' Because if someone feels uncomfortable with the human body, it raises questions about their mental condition. Especially in this particular case, the picture is and has always been cropped, showing no nudity. The original source, 'Playboy,' has nothing to do with anything, and even if it did, this is still a very tasteful piece of art. Even if there was a man in this picture, I would say the same. This is just a picture showing a pleasing composition of the surroundings and a human female specimen. So, the question that remains is: Why would anybody feel uneasy seeing a woman in a hat? Those for whom this is a problem must imagine things (that make them uncomfortable) in their heads that are not in the picture. The problem is that our culture, including advertisements, fashion, and social media, distorts the perception of human bodies and how people, especially young ones, perceive their bodies. At the same time, young people often aren't properly socialized regarding their sexuality and aren't taught that the body is not subject to morality, and there are no 'good' and 'bad' body parts. They shouldn't be reinforced in their erroneous thinking by canceling and censoring parts of reality. I'm not saying that those people are the issue. I'm saying that their behavior is a symptom of the real problem with the society that needs to be addressed.
If we read articles, we'd have so little left to argue about...
I have a friend who is a sex freelance journalist writing for everyone from the NYT to Playboy and she's been outspoken recently around a neo-puritan movement by younger generations.
People aren't having as much sex, have a lot more hangups about sex, are uncomfortable with sex depicted in media, etc.
This image didn't even contain nudity - it's a crop of the original that's in question.
There are broader social impacts for seemingly innocuous efforts like these, and I don't know it's all that healthy for us to be constantly self-thought policing when it comes to sex. Those attitudes seem to be moving beyond the immediate focus and into general attitudes and behaviors around sexual hangups.
We're seeing "purity culture"-like mentality infecting people who weren't even raised in oppressive religious contexts.
Oh I'd be interested in reading her work, there is absolutely some weird puritan thing in a section of those in their twenties but also an equal group that are kinda sexual obsessive.
I can see the same thing, and I couldn't agree more. Do you happen to have an article of hers to share?
Fucking jesus christ it only took 50 years for it to happen.
And people wonder why women don't feel welcome in these disciplines.
It's not like they were using the uncropped centerfold. There's nothing wrong with the headshot. It's a woman in a hat.
But the image is from a photoshoot for playboy so its inherently dirty and offensive, even if they only use the cropped version. /s
Well, according to the Wikipedia article that's exactly the criticism (but without sarcasm).
This is the part I don't get. How has the picture not changed with the times due to camera advances.
Same reason the length of a meter hasn't changed despite measurement advances. It was used as a benchmark.
You were born out of a vagina. You are inherently dirty and offensive.
So does that mean my son is not? (He was a C-section)
He is pure and clean
Her hair is showing, this offends Muslim engineers.
To end this, I will subject myself to being the test image. We'll crop on my o-face while I'm doing your mom and your dad is a cuck in the corner.
What? Some people would call that art. And it will just be my face. We won't see your dad with anal beads and cock cage in the picture.
If we only see my face in the picture what is the problem? Only you will know that the only time your mom could orgasm was with me.
You are strong enough to handle using this new picture, right?
As long as the cropped picture contains the required colour variety, fine by me.
Now, the real remarkable thing is the fact that you think those two settings are comparable, or that it somehow makes a valid argument.
edit or that you posted this argument so many times. You might have some repressed issues. Honestly, as long as all parties involved are consenting adults, it's okay to like what you like.
I mean, the model in question was quoted as recently as 2019 as saying she had no problem with it, so hardly 50 years.
As recently as 2019, huh... How does she feel about it since then?
Exactly the same, I'd assume by your phrasing here?
While that should certainly be a bright line, it's more that from the very beginning of computer graphics, the "perfect" image for testing algorithms and showing off and laboring over and analyzing is a Playboy centerfold. I don't imagine most of those computer scientists would have been nearly as accepting of a photo with "high contrast and varied detail" if it had been a naked dude hanging dong [EDIT: or cropped from such a pic]. It was used specifically because they liked it and thought that anyone who didn't feel the same needed to stay in their lane and STFU because this is "normal" and fine but any other type of sexual material wouldn't be.
FTFY. If you're going to make a comparison, don't be fucking dishonest about it.
Fine, a headshot of a male model cropped from a Playgirl centerfold and making bedroom eyes and visibly shirtless, because it was a shot from a spank mag, and then justified as an ongoing thing because it's such a "perfect" image.
It was obscure and tame enough to last for a long time, but it was always creepy and its continued use as a quasi-official test pattern said more about the tech community than people would like to admit.
Headshot of a male model selectively cropped so you don't see the hanging dong, you mean. I wonder if that context has any relevance. Hmmmmm. I wonder how many men might go "ick" if they knew the source?
As a dude, I certainly wouldn't care. As long as the content itself (the crop) isn't offensive, I don't really care where it was cropped from, provided they it satisfied fair use at least (or they had permission).
Yeah, I remember learning about it in a CS class and, specifically, the claim that it's an ideal standard candle kind of image. I always wondered if we couldn't have found a better reference shot of a smooth flower growing in front of a rough stone or something.
"The shadows and highlighting on the oiled ball hairs are immaculate on this shot..."
No shit, but apparently all the fellas in this thread seem to think it would have totally been the same. Either that or they just continue to ignore that as an option.
Maybe the mousey girl in class might get uncomfortable knowing its from a porn mag when it's thrown up on the big screen for the class to see? Maybe it's about more than just Lena herself? Maybe women don't feel comfortable going in those spaces because they feel like they'll be sexualized or worse. Why wouldn't they expect that when the men involved think its totally appropriate to use the top-half of a nude photo of a woman?
Well if Mousey Mina feels squeamish seeing a bare shoulder then I think the problem is elsewhere.. literally feels like much ado for nothing.
To end this, I will subject myself to being the test image. We'll crop on my o-face while I'm doing your mom and your dad is a cuck in the corner.
What? Some people would call that art. And it will just be my face. We won't see your dad with anal beads and cock cage in the picture.
If we only see my face in the picture what is the problem? Only you will know that the only time your mom could orgasm was with me.
You are strong enough to handle using this new picture, right?
Okay, your comment is stupid just by itself, but the fact that you used it many times just to prove some point that's clear only to your little brain really speaks volume about you.
I love for you that what you just said is literally the definition of what I'm talking about. Attitudes like "well what's her problem" are why women don't want to be in STEM fields. You even immediately came up with a diminutive nickname for her, to make sure this woman would feel chided and demeaned. Stay classy.
Anyone that gets worked up at the sight of a human shoulder needs to reasses themselves, regardless of gender
If you think this is about an exposed shoulder, you missed the point.
The point is that the point is stupid. All there is to the image is a girl with a hat and an exposed shoulder. The image came from a porn magazine, so what? All the nudity is taken out. That image doesn't even impact. A child. It takes a very fragile snowflake to be hurt by a normal portrait that just so happens to be from a nude image.
The imaged is cropped, but cropping doesn't remove the context of the image, and it isn't worth the risk of making women feel less welcome in tech, which is a big problem already.
If I may, why is it so important to you that the image continues to be used over other images, against the wishes of Lena and IEEE?
It's not important to me at all. I've only seen the photo a couple times in some Wikipedia pages. I'm just saying that the reason to remove it is stupid. Idgaf if they remove it or not.
Okay, so we'll change that pic with one of a girl with an exposed shoulder, but that's cropped from a girl with a shirt on! That way the context isn't so horrible and you, and many other girls who would otherwise drop out of STEM fields, can rest easy.
To end this, I will subject myself to being the test image. We'll crop on my o-face while I'm doing your mom and your dad is a cuck in the corner.
What? Some people would call that art. And it will just be my face. We won't see your dad with anal beads and cock cage in the picture.
If we only see my face in the picture what is the problem? Only you will know that the only time your mom could orgasm was with me.
You are strong enough to handle using this new picture, right?
To end this, I will subject myself to being the test image. We'll crop on my o-face while I'm doing your mom and your dad is a cuck in the corner.
What? Some people would call that art. And it will just be my face. We won't see your dad with anal beads and cock cage in the picture.
If we only see my face in the picture what is the problem? Only you will know that the only time your mom could orgasm was with me.
You are strong enough to handle using this new picture, right?
free the nipple yo
won't somebody please think of the infantilised adults?
I don't think it would be in humanity's best interest for scientific journals to be in the habit of quickly banning research just because someone has uncomfortable associations with a safely cropped photo (or a drawing, or a quote). Perhaps it makes sense in this particular case, after careful consideration. I hope it's an exceptional case. Censorship is a slippery slope.
IEEE have the right to decide which papers to accept. They aren’t obliged to publish anything they aren’t comfortable with. There are much harder conditions to get your research published in IEEE than avoiding the use of a single image.
Lena herself has also the right to oppose the use of the image.
If you’re unhappy with their decision you can find some other publisher.
My comment was not about being unhappy with their decision. (I'm not.) Rather, I was offering perspective to someone who seems angry over IEEE not making that decision sooner.
No she doesn't. Playboy owns the image and have the sole right to control how it is used
She has the right to have her own opinion. Others have the right to choose to respect her opinion.
To end this, I will subject myself to being the test image. We'll crop on my o-face while I'm doing your mom and your dad is a cuck in the corner.
What? Some people would call that art. And it will just be my face. We won't see your dad with anal beads and cock cage in the picture.
If we only see my face in the picture what is the problem? Only you will know that the only time your mom could orgasm was with me.
You are strong enough to handle using this new picture, right?
So I take it you think the Washington Commanders should have stayed the Washington Redskins because not censoring is more important than it being disrespectful to a large group of people? My eyes would fall out if they rolled any harder.
No one's censoring the history or saying it never happened, we're just saying "Maybe there's a better, less controversial image to use for this purpose." Which really shouldn't be a very controversial take at all.
It's not like you can't see the old Redskins logo on Wikipedia, or that the Wikipedia entry for the Lenna image would disappear. That would be censorship, not this. This is just "don't use this controversial image in professional documents like science research." Literally, specifically, IEEE journals.
Uh, a consensual photograph of a naked woman, especially a cropped headshot of her, is not the same as a racial slur.
Since you obviously feel strongly about this issue, you might consider your bias as a reason to read more carefully. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I read it very carefully. I'm sorry you aren't capable of backing up what you said in the face of someone pointing out that isn't actually censorship.
Further, as many have pointed out, there are plenty of similar reference images available. Not using this image will not impede scientific progress, as you have so implied. (Honestly after 50 years, it's arguable that we have much better reference images now.)
censor
cen·sor ˈsen(t)-sər
2 of 2
verb
censored; censoring ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ
transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable
also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
[Edit: formatting]
Give it time.
TBH from article it seems that woman on photo (Forsén) decided that's enough of sharing her photo.
To me, that's a perfectly fine reason to stop accepting the image.
But that's not why they did it.
They did it because "eww female sexuality icky"
Yeah, you're right.
But I'm a little optimistic. The image being widely used for decades is a symptom, not the cause of women being unwelcome.
With it being finally banned, it seems like this is changing. Hopefully this means the root cause, misogyny in tech, is at an all time low.
Fully agreed, it was a symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself. I hope in professional circles this trend continues.
They shoud use the picture of some ugly-ass motherfucker now in the name of inclusivity
GOATSE
Meanwhile women nurses doctors and teachers sell themselves on Instagram and onlyfans
Yes, let's just shove everyone into one drawer and completely forget that some do it for fun, some out of financial necessity, and let's also forget all the problems it can cause when using such an image in lectures, research and similar professional settings. /s
So? They can do what they like, just like Lena could for the original image. Hell, I applaud them for it!
I also think Lena looks beautiful in the commonly used image, and it doesn’t bother ME one bit that the image shows up in research.
But all of that is completely separate from whether it is appropriate to use a cropped playboy image in professional settings (it should be UN-cropped, am I right fellas? /s). However, if it genuinely offends the people around me, or makes them feel marginalized or less valued, well then it DOES start to bother me a little bit.
It’s OK to change the world in a way that doesn’t affect you but improves the life of somebody else.
And? If they were paid adequately they wouldn't have too and even if they are paid adequately its their body and their decision.
And I don't think any of their nude photos are appropriate for academic papers (unrelated to nudity research) either?