1. 40
  1. 10

    She’s not shown to be nude, it’s not even hinted at in the image, it wasn’t taken without consent, the model was paid for her time, and the actual owner of the photo agreed to this particular use decades ago. The model is in no way harmed by its continued use, and while the tradition of using the same image in research across time may not have much value to some, neither is the case against its use particularly compelling.

    1. 3

      I agree. I’ve seen this image over the years without even thinking of it. It’s an interesting backstory for sure.

      The original model is kinda preserved in a way she may have never intended. But the tone that this is some huge miscarriage to women in science is as ridiculous as the baby on the Nirvana album cover claiming damages.

      1. 4

        “I’m terribly upset people are using this image for science instead of fapping” is not a position I’m inclined to take seriously, let alone respect.

      2. 1

        My understanding was The Problem is that her image continues to be used without her consent. That is, she has since revoked the consent she had previously given.

        I don’t think a legal claim, certainly with regard to copyright or ownership, is being made? Maybe something resembling moral rights