Playboy Image From 1972 Gets Ban From IEEE Computer Journals - Slashdot
source link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/03/29/2233208/playboy-image-from-1972-gets-ban-from-ieee-computer-journals
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Playboy Image From 1972 Gets Ban From IEEE Computer Journals
.png){kind=link}
We now engage in "morality theater".
Since we threw out, you know, actual morality, we now have to make up a bunch of new ad hoc rules, which we are as zealous about enforcing as anyone ever was. p.Prepare to get the scarlet "U" ("un-woke"?) if you use an image of a woman with a bare shoulder wearing a hat.
-
It's not a morality question, it's a legal one. She has withdrawn her consent on the publication of the image. Previously the laws were disparate, e.g. France and Germany had strong provisions on Personality Rights, but Spain did not; now it's clear in RGPD that you MUST STOP use and image is the main subject asks you to. And she did ask. She, or her heirs after she one day passes away, could sue the publishing house for the thousands of unauthorized publications in individual papers, with many thousand of views on each; that's potentially worth many millions in damages.
-
That about it, yes. The image was always legally tainted, some places could use it freely and others not. Either way, the owner and subject both have requested the community stop using it, so out of both legal and ethical reasons that request should be respected.
The image has value because it features strong colors and skin tones, it has angles, lines, curves, and more elements useful to see in image processing. It has been used in a reference image for many image processing algorithms that gives the bigge
-
That makes a bit more sense, but why is the IEEE then pontificating about is Code of Ethics?
-
She explicitly gave up her right to do that when she agreed to appear in playboy. That should only be the decision of whoever owns the copyright (if it's not still Playboy, or whoever now owns Playboy if it is.)
-
She explicitly gave up her right to do that when she agreed to appear in playboy. That should only be the decision of whoever owns the copyright
No, for the following reasons:
1. Copyright (rights to copy, a right of the publisher) is a US notion. Most EU countries are Moral Rights countries (the rights of the person), and they prevail over the publisher's rights.
2. Legal definitions in Moral Rights countries state that moral rights are attached to a person and cannot be given up.
3. She is a citizen and a resident of EU, and protected by laws of EU.
4. The publishers make available those images to EU subscribers, have plenty of business activities in EU, and some of them even have their main headquarters in EU (TFS cites Nature, a part of Springer headquartered in Germany, which banned the image the same year GDPR entered in force).
So the publishers have to either comply with GDPR or make decisions regarding their business structure and presence in EU.-
I reject the notion that an islamic country can ban the publishing of graven images, and force any company that has business activities in that country to comply.
The EU has no right to impose sharia law on companies that have EU subscribers.
-
-
-
-
It's not retroactive in the sense that it does not affect past contracts and past publications. The whole problem for IEEE is there never was a contract between them and Playboy, because the academics use the image informally. For every of such academic publication, or at least for the new ones, Lena might ask to see the contracts (say she might want to litigate about royalty payments like the baby on Nirvana's album did); in a way or another she will manage to find that there is no contract. If IEEE wants
-
-
-
-
-
-
No, it's a moral obligation. Legally it was settled more or less. Maybe not according to current laws in every jurisdiction but generally yes.
Playboy owned all rights and didn't object to _fair_use_ of the image. They didn't actively promote it but have been publically said to have silently allowed it; never objecting to it. Too many decades of that practice have gone by to change their mind.
She has also not had a problem with it for decades. But recently she has changed her mind and backed the ideas of t
-
I don't know that your read on this is true.
This is not a candid picture, nor a casual one. This is a paid commercial shot, for which she was (well) compensated.At that point SHE no longer owns that image and thus SHE NO LONGER HAS ANY SAY. I'd assume Playboy owns the license, they would have a reasonably credible claim to demand its cease and desist, or pursue legal recourse if ignored.
MAYBE she could give back the $ she got - with interest - and playboy would sell her back the license? Maybe? But until
-
Wrong, scientific papers are fair use.
-
-
In this particular case; I think it was a poor decision to use an image or even part of an image that was originally sourced from explicit content. As others have pointed out there were and unlimited sources of suitable content for the use case without the questions.
You are right though. This kind of nonsense where we have to rename birds because someone they are named for said something mean about some group 100 years ago or we all have to engage in various episodes of performative outrage because a politi
-
It struck me as a bit inappropriate when I took a scientific computing course circa 2013. You know how older people are considered more likely to have outdated or backwards views on certain topics like racial equality / civil rights, LGBTQ issues, etc.? I think this is another one of those things.
Although it is not the central issue here, using material from a copyrighted source in academic publications isn't a good idea either.
-
Note: Effectively ALL "material" is copyrighted by default. To do otherwise is to almost demand that you go back 95+ years.
The important bit is thus making sure that you either get permission to use the copyright - preferably in a permanent, non-revokable contract that allows reuse for things like replication studies where other scientists double check your work, using "public domain" images that people have voluntarily declined to enforce copyright for, or using of the exemptions - of which the EU has les
-
Good point. My wording was sloppy. I was thinking along the lines of something the author created themselves or something under a permissive license like creative commons. In my thesis work, I either made the images in plotting software or inkscape or found something on wikimedia commons with a suitable license.
-
-
Every generation thinks this way. Recall the Prohibition. Subsequent generations viewed Prohibition apologetics like stuck up moral police. The same will happen with current stuck-up moral police on trying to force their views on racial equality and LGBTQ issues. In other words, your kids will think that you were backwards no matter what you do. 100 years from now this IEEE decision will be viewed on the same level as Spanish Inquisition.
-
Actually reading the point of view of the people responsible for Prohibition, like the WCTU, will clue you in to why it was so popular *before* it happened. First, the very people involved were those involved in the abolition of slavery and the women's suffrage movement. True believers in moral causes. Second, the real flaw about alcohol was the impact of societal norms of use on families. In essence, their issue was alcoholism and how it impoverished families, caused infidelity (beer goggles...) and de
-
-
"using material from a copyrighted source in academic publications isn't a good idea either"
Pretty clear fair use exemption in this case, even if Playboy didn't provide tacit approval through non-enforcement. Copyright Act even explicitly mentions scholarly works as those that should be viewer favorably by the courts.
-
-
-
The neckbeard revolt.
-
We now engage in "morality theater".
Since we threw out, you know, actual morality, we now have to make up a bunch of new ad hoc rules, which we are as zealous about enforcing as anyone ever was. p.Prepare to get the scarlet "U" ("un-woke"?) if you use an image of a woman with a bare shoulder wearing a hat.
I'm going to go ahead and disagree, but not for the reasons you've assumed.
This isn't new, it isn't woke, and it isn't theater. For at least a half-century (my life so far), many women have objected to sexual imagery of other women. Being objectified has been something a significant portion of women are strongly against. Sure, this specific image doesn't have any nudity in it, but it was sourced from one that was. I can absolutely see the legitimacy of the question "you seriously couldn't find something that didn't originate from something objectionable?" That's a really valid question.
Anyway, the bottom line here is that your scoffing at the objectors' complaints is reductive and attaching it to anti-anti-woke sentiments is disingenuous. This isn't about modern sensitivity to identity and respect for things we don't ourselves experience. -
-
As much as I find the oversensitivity to the image amusing and absurd, I also feel the same way about your hyperbolic freakout in response.
Just put in a picture of some non-human object as the standard, and be done with it. Because no matter what image of a human is used, someone will find a reason to object. Problem solved.
All that said, the image in question is somehow offensive to women? That's pretty strange. Yes, she is quite pretty. But an offensive shoulder is a bridge too far, and does mental harm to all other women is suggestive of looking for non-problems to skewer.
Some have made claims regarding how men would feel if a similar image of say, one of the Chippendales or a bodybuilder were used. I'm pretty certain that there would be almost no complaints.
Anyhow, we can all sleep peacefully now, knowing that one of the more important wars against the patriarchy has been won. 8^/
-
Maybe we find an image of a donkey wearing a wig, which will of course be ok until somebody in Columbia complains. Then we can try a goat. Oops. Then a dog. Oops. Then a pig. Yeah, this whole thing is snowflakism at its finest. If you can't take an insult or a joke, you need to be put in a training camp until you can.
-
-
She probably meant conservative "women should be seen and not heard, barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" types constantly grabbing their butts. A lot of men treated flight attendants like mobile sex workers (and still do, thus the flight attendant moniker, to remind people).
-
She probably meant conservative "women should be seen and not heard, barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" types constantly grabbing their butts.
I'm sure you genuinely believe that's the meaning she's supposed to have, but I was there and I overheard the entire conversation. The group of them really didn't like the fact that they were being bossed around about how they dress, and they were definitely speaking against modesty rules. Feminists are the group pushing for modesty. But don't take my word for it, and think about what you're saying for a second here and why it doesn't make sense:
She actually tried to wear a shorter skirt, but was told by somebody else that she can't. If she was really concerned about somebody grabbing her butt, why on earth would she even try to begin with? If they're really concerned about men grabbing their butts, then why do they still serve alcohol? Guarantee you that's going to make it happen more than a short skirt would. This is just your fucked up ideology talking, and you know it.
A lot of men treated flight attendants like mobile sex workers (and still do, thus the flight attendant moniker, to remind people).
No, that's not why. Do you even know what a stewardess is? It's a female steward. Do you even know what a steward is? Go look the term up. They changed it because more men started doing that work and they needed a more gender neutral term. They are still, by definition, stewards and stewardesses. Only a vocal minority of people objected to the use of the term, and it wasn't actual stewardesses.
Anyways, look at the broader context here. Tell me, which sounds more likely:
A) The women in Star Trek were sick of conservatives grabbing their butts through the TV, so they asked for modesty.
B) Some feminists felt it objectifies women and demanded modesty, regardless of what the actresses felt about it.Or this:
A) Actors with dwarfism objected to the idea of being portrayed in fantasy movies, so they asked Disney to remove themselves
B) Peter Dinklage has (and always has had) issues with dwarf actors wearing "pointy hats" (his words) in fantasy movies, so he believes it's wrong for any of them to do it and asked Disney to remove all dwarves from them, disregarding how any of the rest of them felt about it.Obviously B in all cases. You know what all of these have in common? A small number of loudmouth assholes believe they have the authority to speak for everybody they consider a member of their own club, even if they never wanted to be in that club.
-
-
-
-
-
The thing is there is a moral panic
A perfect storm of toxic feminism and neurosis.
The copyright holder is okay with it, and they own the rights to the image. The researchers using it are okay with it. The only "offensive" thing [cough] about this image is that she is beautiful, and that is what is actually triggering these people.
-
-
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK