Lenna's image is an historical artifact. It is an historical fact that it was used as one of the first test image and has the same historical importance as the Utah teapot for 3d and Tom's Dinner for mp3.
So at the risk of having an unpopular opinion, does it really make sense to censor ourselves by hiding that history? I would agree that we don't necessarily need to continue using it as a test image for further research and publication but when talking about the history of image research and processing I don't see why we should hide or censor it.
It would be one thing if the picture was taken against her will or she was coerced, or even if she didn't intend for the picture to be public. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
I sort of agree with you, but this particular case is much trickier.
She agreed to the photos in an era when the magazine would be printed once, and reproduction of those pictures was pretty limited. There’s something of an expiry date attached with the whole process.
Instead, she got caught up in the whole computer graphics revolution. She’s the subject of one of the very first widely distributed digitised photos, published in decades of academic journals, and so on. It’s a pretty big difference from what she thought she was consenting to.
> To make sure we weren’t contributing to the spread of the Lenna image, the large Lenna “image” you see on this page is actually a collection of colored pixels.
collection of colored pixels? This sounds exactly like they are spreading the image, but in low resolution and obfuscated form.
Proper form spreading image without actually spreading it (mostly because of copyright) is to hire a painter and let them create sketch of that image.
> Proper form spreading image without actually spreading it (mostly because of copyright) is to hire a painter and let them create sketch of that image.
Didn’t the model sign a release to the magazine? The magazine then owns the rights and chose not to attempt enforcement of copyright. If all the images to pick to illustrate personal rights over one’s image… this seems like a poor choice.
I realise this is mostly about the Lena image but to answer the question "Can data die?", I think the answer is Yes, but only if it is permanently erased or contained in a medium that is rendered verifiably and permanently inaccessible. For as long as it remains accessible, data remains 'alive'. There are technical measures that can ensure data is permanently erased or made permanently inaccessible, but both need the backing of good legislation, otherwise they will never happen. I agree with sersi that this image is a historical artefact and a case can be made that it should be treated differently but overall, legislation mandating time limits on data would be a good thing. The problem is how would you enforce such legislation? It's so easy to make copies of data and so easy to hide said copies. Perhaps the real issue is the public or commercial use of unconsented data. Putting an end to that would be a good thing. The conundrum about this particular case is that Lena, the data subject, does not consent to the use of her image but the owner of the image (presumably) does. Is this something a judge should resolve?
The real question is - HOW can we control data that can be screen-shotted like images? Is it really a "genie out of the bottle" or is there some technical way that we can evolve file formats to ensure the owners of an image retain control of the rights to use and reproduce that image?
Well she sold the rights to the image. Even if technical restrictions were possible, it wouldn't matter because she isn't the owner of the image.
As far as technically - given this was published in a paper magazine, it would be pretty impossible to prevent duplication - the so-called "analog hole"
[+] [-] sersi|4 years ago|reply
So at the risk of having an unpopular opinion, does it really make sense to censor ourselves by hiding that history? I would agree that we don't necessarily need to continue using it as a test image for further research and publication but when talking about the history of image research and processing I don't see why we should hide or censor it.
[+] [-] bawolff|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bawolff|4 years ago|reply
I think its pretty clear you're consenting to have your photo shared widely if you agree to model for a magazine.
[+] [-] pdpi|4 years ago|reply
She agreed to the photos in an era when the magazine would be printed once, and reproduction of those pictures was pretty limited. There’s something of an expiry date attached with the whole process.
Instead, she got caught up in the whole computer graphics revolution. She’s the subject of one of the very first widely distributed digitised photos, published in decades of academic journals, and so on. It’s a pretty big difference from what she thought she was consenting to.
[+] [-] severak_cz|4 years ago|reply
collection of colored pixels? This sounds exactly like they are spreading the image, but in low resolution and obfuscated form.
Proper form spreading image without actually spreading it (mostly because of copyright) is to hire a painter and let them create sketch of that image.
[+] [-] bawolff|4 years ago|reply
That doesn't neccesarily evade copyright.
[+] [-] omnicognate|4 years ago|reply
This "text" you see in this comment is actually a collection of rendered glyphs.
[+] [-] dariusj18|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickdothutton|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iso1210|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrischapman|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WalterGR|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zenmaster10665|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bawolff|4 years ago|reply
As far as technically - given this was published in a paper magazine, it would be pretty impossible to prevent duplication - the so-called "analog hole"
[+] [-] ClumsyPilot|4 years ago|reply
Just because you have copyright does not mean I cannot make a copy for purposes of journalism, critique, inveatigation, law enforcement, etc.
Thr idea that my liberty should be limited to help copyright holder make money is obscene.
[+] [-] donatj|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]