The woman herself says she never had a problem with it being famous. The actual test image is obviously not porn, either. But anything to look progressive, I guess.
> Forsén stated in the 2019 documentary film Losing Lena, "I retired from modeling a long time ago. It's time I retired from tech, too... Let's commit to losing me."
> Lena is no longer used as a test image because it's porn.
The Lenna test image can be seen over the text "Click above for the original as a TIFF image." at [0]. If you consider that to be porn, then I find your opinion on what is and is not porn to be worthless.
The test image is a cropped portion of porn, but if a safe-for-work image would be porn but for what you can't see in the image, then any picture of any human ever is porn as we're all nude under our clothes.
For additional commentary (published in 1996) on the history and controversy about the image, see [1].
I agree that not all nudity is porn - nudity is porn if the primary intent of that nudity is sexual gratification. When the nudity in question was a Playboy magazine centerfold, the primary intent is fairly obvious.
I can't see how that would it be porn either, it's nudity.
There's nudity in the Sixtine chapel and I would find it hilarious if it was considered porn.
It's interesting because where I'm from, there was "erotica" and there was "porn". This image would at best be erotica. It would not be considered porn.
Like in US supreme Court "I know it when I see it", definition isn't straight forward but it has elements of "is it depiction of a sexual act or simply nudity ", as well as any artistic quality. Generally, erotica has high production values and porn less so.
Anyhoo! What a weird place for discussion to end up :-). The story is excellent and very hacker news appropriate, but his entire opus is pretty good. There's a bit of deus ex machine in some of qntm's work, but generally they have the right mix of surreal and puzzling and cryptic and interesting to engage a computer geek's mind :-).
the "porn" angle is very funny to me, since there is nothing pornographic or inapropriate about the image. when I was young, I used to think it was some researcher's wife whom he loved so much he decide to use her picture absolutely everywhere.
it's sufficient to say that the person depicted has withdrawn their consent for that image to be used, and that should put an end to the conversation.
is that how consent works? I would have expected licenses would override that. although it's possible that the original use as a test image may have violated whatever contract she had with her producer in the first place.
The woman herself says she never had a problem with it being famous. The actual test image is obviously not porn, either. But anything to look progressive, I guess.
From the link above
> Forsén stated in the 2019 documentary film Losing Lena, "I retired from modeling a long time ago. It's time I retired from tech, too... Let's commit to losing me."
It's a ridiculous idea that once you retire all depictions must be destroyed.
Should we destroy all movies with retired actors? All the old portraits, etc.
It's such a deep disrespect to human culture.
1 reply →
Everybody knows that. The GP's reaction is what perplexes me. Are they saying the name of the story is inappropriate? I think it's very appropriate.
> Lena is no longer used as a test image because it's porn.
The Lenna test image can be seen over the text "Click above for the original as a TIFF image." at [0]. If you consider that to be porn, then I find your opinion on what is and is not porn to be worthless.
The test image is a cropped portion of porn, but if a safe-for-work image would be porn but for what you can't see in the image, then any picture of any human ever is porn as we're all nude under our clothes.
For additional commentary (published in 1996) on the history and controversy about the image, see [1].
[0] <http://www.lenna.org/>
[1] <https://web.archive.org/web/20010414202400/http://www.nofile...>
Nudity is not pornography. Intent matters.
I agree that not all nudity is porn - nudity is porn if the primary intent of that nudity is sexual gratification. When the nudity in question was a Playboy magazine centerfold, the primary intent is fairly obvious.
I can't see how that would it be porn either, it's nudity. There's nudity in the Sixtine chapel and I would find it hilarious if it was considered porn.
It's interesting because where I'm from, there was "erotica" and there was "porn". This image would at best be erotica. It would not be considered porn.
Like in US supreme Court "I know it when I see it", definition isn't straight forward but it has elements of "is it depiction of a sexual act or simply nudity ", as well as any artistic quality. Generally, erotica has high production values and porn less so.
Anyhoo! What a weird place for discussion to end up :-). The story is excellent and very hacker news appropriate, but his entire opus is pretty good. There's a bit of deus ex machine in some of qntm's work, but generally they have the right mix of surreal and puzzling and cryptic and interesting to engage a computer geek's mind :-).
the "porn" angle is very funny to me, since there is nothing pornographic or inapropriate about the image. when I was young, I used to think it was some researcher's wife whom he loved so much he decide to use her picture absolutely everywhere.
it's sufficient to say that the person depicted has withdrawn their consent for that image to be used, and that should put an end to the conversation.
is that how consent works? I would have expected licenses would override that. although it's possible that the original use as a test image may have violated whatever contract she had with her producer in the first place.
1 reply →
That's nonsense. If Carrie Fisher "withdrawn consent" of her depiction in Star Wars, should we destroy the movies, all Princess Leia fan art, etc?
1 reply →