Playboy Image From 1972 Gets Ban From IEEE Computer Journals (arstechnica.com) 395
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: 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 Forsen. The so-called "Lenna image," (Forsen added an extra "n" to her name in her Playboy appearance to aid pronunciation) has been used in image processing research since 1973 and has attracted criticism for making some women feel unwelcome in the field. In an email from the IEEE Computer Society sent to members on Wednesday, Technical & Conference Activities Vice President Terry Benzel wrote, "IEEE's diversity statement and supporting policies such as the IEEE Code of Ethics speak to IEEE's commitment to promoting an including and equitable culture that welcomes all. In alignment with this culture and with respect to the wishes of the subject of the image, Lena Forsen, IEEE will no longer accept submitted papers which include the 'Lena image.'"
An uncropped version of the 512×512-pixel test image originally appeared as the centerfold picture for the December 1972 issue of Playboy Magazine. Usage of the Lenna image in image processing began in June or July 1973 (PDF) 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. The image's use spread in other papers throughout the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, and it caught Playboy's attention, but the company decided to overlook the copyright violations. 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. "They must be so tired of me ... looking at the same picture for all these years!" she said at the time. VP of new media at Playboy Eileen Kent told Wired, "We decided we should exploit this, because it is a phenomenon."
The image, which features Forsen's face and bare shoulder as she wears a hat with a purple feather, was reportedly ideal for testing image processing systems in the early years of digital image technology due to its high contrast and varied detail. 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. Due to some of this criticism, which dates back to at least 1996, the journal Nature banned the use of the Lena image in paper submissions in 2018.
An uncropped version of the 512×512-pixel test image originally appeared as the centerfold picture for the December 1972 issue of Playboy Magazine. Usage of the Lenna image in image processing began in June or July 1973 (PDF) 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. The image's use spread in other papers throughout the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, and it caught Playboy's attention, but the company decided to overlook the copyright violations. 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. "They must be so tired of me ... looking at the same picture for all these years!" she said at the time. VP of new media at Playboy Eileen Kent told Wired, "We decided we should exploit this, because it is a phenomenon."
The image, which features Forsen's face and bare shoulder as she wears a hat with a purple feather, was reportedly ideal for testing image processing systems in the early years of digital image technology due to its high contrast and varied detail. 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. Due to some of this criticism, which dates back to at least 1996, the journal Nature banned the use of the Lena image in paper submissions in 2018.
.png){kind=link}
First goatse (Score:5, Funny)
Kinda like "security theater" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Kinda like "security theater" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: Kinda like "security theater" (Score:2)
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
Re:Kinda like "security theater" (Score:5, Insightful)
That makes a bit more sense, but why is the IEEE then pontificating about is Code of Ethics?
Re:Kinda like "security theater" (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit.
Re: Kinda like "security theater" (Score:2)
It's not a morality question, it's a legal one. She has withdrawn her consent on the publication of the image.
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.)
Re: Kinda like "security theater" (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: Kinda like "security theater" (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Kinda like "security theater" (Score:3)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only thing I find really disturbing about all of this is how many people are triggered by the fact that they shouldn't be making others uncomfortable. I hope that's where your outdated view ends and that you're not one of those people who will still beat your wife if she dares leave the kitchen without a vacuum cleaner in hand.
There is no technical reason to use this image. Even the justification for it's use is utterly stupid given it lacks contrast (despite the claim), lacks colour range, and lacks co
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Kinda like "security theater" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: Kinda like "security theater" (Score:4, Insightful)
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^/
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Kinda like "security theater" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It also triggers my kapelaphobia (Score:5, Funny)
Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like they used the full body image - it was cropped at the shoulders. And I'd suggest the 'correction' should be for some (presumably hetero) women in the industry to start using a cropped image of some male nude as a test image.
An awful lot of people out there need a radical rectal stickectomy.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a shorter guy, I used to get teased about it a lot in middle and high school. I went through a period of wanting people to suffer because of my neuroticism surrounding it that developed. I wanted special treatment for being constantly objectified as a person because of this genetic trait. Then I finally finished growing up and learned to get over it. While I am still not happy about being short, I also don't care. I have enough things to do and other things to care about, that I don't spend much time thinking about it. If you give me crap about it, I'll be like "Meh, hahaha, whatever", and move on.
If we're going to be an equal society, then we need to actually, you know, treat each other equally. That means that we let one side do something, the other side gets to do it, too, even if we're not excited about it. Ironically, if a woman gives me shit about being short, that is going to sting more than another dude making the same comment, so maybe the issue is that negative comments/attitudes from the opposite sex tend to sting more, as they're not taken as jokes.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Your mistake was giving up on the urge to make people suffer. Change doesn't occur unless you make people uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
>I am a shorter guy, I used to get teased about it a lot in middle and high school ... While I am still not happy about being short, I also don't care.
I've seen a lot of guys overcompensate for their lack of height. It's sad that there is a legitimate reason for it - our stupid primate brains still associate size with power (and therefore status). Women are less likely to have interest in men who are shorter than they are, and there is a statistical correlation between salary and height. Also, height
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing stupid about it. The copyright holder didn't want her image used anymore. The fact that it made a few people uncomfortable and that a few arseholes continue to be arseholes rather than use any of the literal millions of other photos out there is somewhat irrelevant.
It costs you nothing not to be an arsehole. The image isn't even technically a good one for the purposes claimed.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like they used the full body image - it was cropped at the shoulders. And I'd suggest the 'correction' should be for some (presumably hetero) women in the industry to start using a cropped image of some male nude as a test image.
An awful lot of people out there need a radical rectal stickectomy.
It's a matter of listening to the perpetually offended and their tyranny of the weak.
Most women think about male butts and peens and rather enjoy looking at pictures of nekked men and women. Back in the day when my Hockey butt was in full fettle, My backside was groped by quite a few women. especially when I had my hands in a glove box, so I couldn't do anything. They were normal. It could get a little awkward, but I certainly wasn't emotionally damaged.
But we have listened to the perpetually offended f
Woke = Religion (Score:4, Insightful)
the IEEE Code of Ethics speak to IEEE's commitment to promoting an including and equitable culture that welcomes all
And the extreme left wraps all the way around to the extreme right. Same as for anti-Semitism.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You do realize that "woke" is becoming aware (awaking) to the suffering of others, right? You are effectively saying that you are against the concept of empathy.
Re: Woke = Religion (Score:2)
I didn't see any wokeism for all the genocidew going on around the world right at this moment? Only for the insulted quasi-feminists and trans-morons..and an occasional greenpeace sailor opening up her 250hp honda outboard.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't see any empathy for all the genocides going on around the world right at this moment?
Are you serious? There have protests about the Gaza-Israel conflict, genocides in China, Myanmar, Sudan, Iraq, Syria, and Central African nations. Your lack of awareness is likely due to where you get your information.
Re: (Score:2)
Suffering? Really?
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that "woke" is becoming aware (awaking) to the suffering of others, right?
Not any longer. It has been coopted by the political radicals/revolutionaries of the 1960s/70s. Today it is literally a vehicle for the ideologies developed by some of the more "intellectual" of these groups. As they lost support as the anti-war movement wound down they shifted into academia and created a safe haven for themselves, and began training the next generation of revolutionaries.
Re: (Score:3)
The deadliest shootings are done using semi-automatic rifles.
Nope, You are now regurgitating the false manufactured perception of the anti-gun side. Semi-automatic rifles are not the deadliest weapons available.
Perhaps you misunderstand. Mass shootings with the highest number of fatalities (ergo deadliest) are most likely to be perpetrated with a semi-automatic rifle. This is not a "manufactured perception" this is a fact. Handguns are the most common weapon of mass shooters but typically result in fewer fatalities.
Volumes of analysis on various quota based systems that were tried during the 1960s/70s.
Unfortunately, you have proved yourself to be an unreliable source of information so I can't take your word for it. Furthermore, the burden of proof is upon you to support your claim.
No. They don't want to throw good money after bad. [...] K-12 needs a structural reform, not more money.
Studies have shown
Re: (Score:3)
Woke is a state of moral panic over anything and everything which gives the person who is "woke" a sense of power, which is blessed by a large and growing set of demands upon society.
What it is and how you perceive it are two different things. It is the difference between an implication and an inference.
It won't stop until we start openly mocking these individuals. I'm all for empathy.
Sir, you contradict yourself. Mocking people for their values and beliefs seems devoid of empathy. Perhaps you mean that you are in favor of empathy for like-minded individuals. I say this because you appear to view people who do not share you point of view as enemies.
Easy solution (Score:3)
Use a picture of a man instead [wwd.com]. Show him from the shoulders up wearing a hat [wwd.com].
Turn about is fair play.
Hans Kristian Graebener = StoneToss
lmao (Score:5, Insightful)
yes, this is what is keeping women out of engineering... its not the gruelling courseload, its not the rigors of the mathematics, its not the fact that most of the guys are unattractive nerds, its not that the career generally means absolute commitment to excel... no, its the random image of a woman's face in a journal that 0.1% of actual working engineers will ever see, and that you'd have to go out of your way to even know that was ever in playboy. that's whats holding women back :/
Re: lmao (Score:5, Insightful)
the cognitive dissonance is comical. we have women lawyers, women politicians, women doctors... cant speak for the doctors, but having been around laywers and just like, having watched the news, i know the roughly the amount of sexism in those fields, but theres no shortage of women.
having also been around engineers, i can confidently assert that the latter group is far more respectful as a whole toward women than the former two. thinking that banning this image is going to have any measuable impact on the number of women in engineering is delusional on the level of trying to bail out the titanic with a thimble
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with her, her profession is lawyer (Anwalt)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? Seriously? Why?
Why aren't men and women allowed to like different things, and why aren't those things allowed to be different? Where did free will go? Why is there the assumption that equality means 50% female engineers? What if both women and men don't want that? Eventually you will have to force people into careers they don't want to reach a goal that never made sense to begin with.
Men and women are different. They want different things. Demanding 50/50 representation isn't equality, it's the
Re:lmao (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, none of what you said. Multiple [mit.edu] studies [science.org] show women leave engineering because of men. Specifically:
More specifically, the study finds, women often feel marginalized, especially during internships, other summer work opportunities, or team-based educational activities. In those situations, gender dynamics seem to generate more opportunities for men to work on the most challenging problems, while women tend to be assigned routine tasks or simple managerial duties.
. . .
As a result of their experiences at these moments, women who have developed high expectations for their profession — expecting to make a positive social impact as engineers — can become disillusioned with their career prospects.
As the second link points out:
Over the course of 3 years, psychologists Nadya Fouad and Romila Singh of the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, surveyed more than 5000 women with engineering degrees. About 11% of those women never took on an engineering job. Another 27% left the field after taking a job.
Women who left reported feeling belittled or undermined by their supervisors and co-workers, and they struggled to advance in a workplace.
In short, men belittle women who want to go into engineering or similar fields because they, men, believe it's not a role for women. Those women who do proceed into the field are then talked down to, belittled, underpaid, not promoted, and given the worst assignments while men are given a pass on all of the above.
The question becomes, would you work in an environment where you were essentially told you shouldn't be there while not being paid as much as the others around you? We have people on here who whine and bitch they'd quit a job if they had to go into the office, yet women are supposed to "suck it up" and be continually told they're not worth it? Get a grip.
Re:lmao (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:lmao (Score:5, Informative)
Numerous times there has been light shed on this. Typically, women are less likely to accept overwhelming amounts of work and castration of their private lives in the name of career, money, professional "success".
Note that I'm not criticizing them -- go them, actually.
The real story here isn't how "women aren't" and "men are", it's rather how "society demands". Honestly, every man would just as much like a shot at the next promotion, maybe a team lead role, senior, dev, top management, or whatever, with a 30 hour week. But society is wired the wrong way. We only get noticed if we dance the "sacrifice your life to the Corporate Gods" dance.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. What an amazing discovery. Women blame men for their life's choices. I'm stunned. What do I get if I blame you?
Re: lmao (Score:4, Insightful)
yes, this is about what you would expect from a survey of young adults who failed in any field. its not like you are looking at a psychology study, you are asking 20-somethings who probably had really big egos coming into college essentially to self-report why they failed at thier major.
how many of these people have the maturity to look at their situation objectively and admit the rather harsh reality that they just didnt have the chops for it. its much easier to point the finger at nebulous things that friends/parents/society kinda gives you a pass for: you didnt fail because of your own shortcomings, but because *random social thing* held you back
the reality, no, you just didnt have the chops for it.
you ever hung out with police? or just watch the freaking news lol? white male cops are among the most racist and sexist ppl in our country, and openly make racist and sexist jokes in front of colleagues. and yet there are plenty of black and female cops...
i can only imagine the mental gymnastics you're going to perform trying to explain this discrepancy, but i'll just tell you the nice simple non delusional answer: it's really fucking easy to be a cop, you need about a 90 iq tops.
Re:lmao (Score:4, Informative)
Nope, none of what you said. Multiple studies show women leave engineering because of men. Specifically:
First "study" I've ever seen that not only cherry picks a handful of one sided accounts from diaries and does does not even attempt to falsify their premise it goes that extra mile in dispensing with statistics altogether. You won't see a single P value or CI in the entire "study" or any information of any statistical relevance whatsoever.
Over the course of 3 years, psychologists Nadya Fouad and Romila Singh of the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, surveyed more than 5000 women with engineering degrees. About 11% of those women never took on an engineering job. Another 27% left the field after taking a job. ...
In short, men belittle women who want to go into engineering or similar fields because they, men, believe it's not a role for women. Those women who do proceed into the field are then talked down to, belittled, underpaid, not promoted, and given the worst assignments while men are given a pass on all of the above.
For a more realistic view of the situation:
https://journals.sagepub.com/d... [sagepub.com]
The question becomes, would you work in an environment where you were essentially told you shouldn't be there while not being paid as much as the others around you?
I've gone through life not even knowing let alone caring what other people are paid.
We have people on here who whine and bitch they'd quit a job if they had to go into the office, yet women are supposed to "suck it up" and be continually told they're not worth it? Get a grip.
One characteristic I find interesting about people is the uncanny ability to make associations to justify their assumptions without bothering to put at least equal effort into falsifying them. Who would have thought resistance to return to work would be used against men when more time with family is significantly more important to woman then men but here we are... and someone actually went there.
Re: (Score:3)
Alright, let's unpack this. Because this does not make a whole lot of sense. For reference, I teach CS at $LOCALUNIVERSITY
yes, this is what is keeping women out of engineering...
No one actually said that. Obviously the usage of the picture of Lena is not keeping women from engineering by itself. But the culture that lead to the usage of that picture might.
its not the gruelling courseload,
There are plenty of women in fields with a gruelling course load. Med school is not know to be a walk in the park. Yet more than 50% women in it.
its not the rigors of the mathematics,
Women can eb very good at mathematics. About 40% women in Math ma
I'm all for respecting women and men alike (Score:5, Funny)
But here it's a banal photo of a nice looking woman with a hat. There's no nudity, it's not gross. They could have used a man instead but they happened to use a woman. And even though the photo came from Playboy, they took care of cropping out what could be considered offensive.
So I don't know... All I see personally is a picture of a nice-looking, attractive human being that happens to be of the female persuasion - because at least biologically, last I checked, most humans fall in one of two categories, one of which being female.
Is it so wrong? What if they have used a man? Would men have had their pants in a knot since 1996 as women have over this photo?
But okay. I'll admit, maybe I'm too old to understand the butthurt here. There's a lot of other kinds of butthurt I don't really understand either lately, and I've just decided to shut the hell up and go with the flow personally, because there's no talking rationally to people about certain things anymore.
Therefore, in the interest of not offending anybody, I suggest using photos of alpacas and fire hydrants. I know some sexy-ass alpacas and some pretty hot fire hydrants!
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing - there is no end to what humans can sexually fetishize. Oh, you used a photo of a banana? Do you know what some people have done with bananas? Or a goat? Or a chicken? People have done all kinds of stupid things in the pursuit of getting off. So fruit baskets and photos of wildlife are out. How a bout a photo of a car? Got news for you, that's a fetish for someone too.
Copyright infringement (Score:5, Informative)
Ms'. Fosen latest stance of the matter is that she does not want the image used anymore. And the copyright holders (which is Playboy magazine, not Ms. Fosen) are siding with her.
So, the "morally correct" * thing to do is to stop using the images. Lest you as a researcher (and you employer) are ready to get a bunch of cease and desist letters and copyright infringement lawsuits. I do not know if the IEEE (and Nature before them) is doing it to be "morally correct" * or to cover their asses, but well done anyway!
May I sugest using relevant non-provocative pictures (high contrast, fluff, varied detail, colour, etc ) of REAL sicentists? Claude Shannon, Harry Niquist, Alan Turing, Hedi Lamarr (nee Hedwig Eva Maria Kiesler), grace hopper, steve sansonn, etc... I think the archives should have some relevant pictures, even negatives, to scan
Full disclosure: I am a memebrr of IEEE since 1994
* Not moraly correct in terms of "do not use adult magazine pictures for research papaers in unrelated fields" but rather morally correct in terms of "respect the wishes of the picture subject and the copyright holder"
Re: (Score:3)
What the copyright holder thinks about it is irrelevant to me, except in the legal sense where that matters. It should have long since passed into the public domain.
What the subject of the photo thinks, on the other hand, is important. There's no good reason to disrespect them when there are alternatives available.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What the copyright holder wants in this case is largely irrelevant. The image in question is fair use. Its usage is academic.
Legally you're correct. The OP didn't say "legally". He said "morally". Legally you can use the image. Morally with literally millions of alternatives available the only reason to use the image is to declare to the world you're a raging arsehole.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet that the society for the protection of penguins would have something to question about...
Pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Completely pathetic. This is Puritanism and body shaming all rolled into one. The cropped image is a head shot of a professional model that was taken with hat and an exposed shoulder. This shouldn't be able to offend anyone who isn't flagrantly ignoring that they need to seek help for their issues, because it's G-rated. Being offended on behalf of an imaginary person is not much more productive than getting into fistfights with imaginary people.
...and for those who have forgotten, the original uncropped image was from 1972 and would barely make for a PG-rating.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the hat is kind of stupid looking
New image will be of Ricardo Milos (Score:2)
The replacement image will instead be of the famous actor Ricardo Milos
latter day Puritans (Score:4, Insightful)
"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. "
When will someone rid us of these sanctimonious Puritans?
Ironically, the same political crowd that has the collywobbles over the image of a pretty woman, is the same group today who DOESN'T have an issue with a pedophilic man dressing up as a woman and doing an actual sexualized striptease in front of toddlers.
Re:latter day Puritans (Score:4, Interesting)
The real academic crime is the baseless assumption that 50/50 sex representation in STEM is fairness or some form of equality. Men and women can have radically different tastes and preferences, and this heavy handed forcing of "diversity" is an affront to the human right of freedom of choice.
IEEE will be replaced (Score:4, Interesting)
"A suspicion of mine is that there are too many preachy females" influencing the party's direction, Carville told Dowd.
"'Don't drink beer. Don't watch football. Don't eat hamburgers. Don't include the Lena image in your compression paper. This is not good for you,'" he said, describing a sort of condescension he believes has turned away some male voters from the Democratic Party.
"The message is too feminine: 'Everything you're doing is destroying the planet. You've got to eat your peas,'" he added.
Re:IEEE will be replaced (Score:4, Funny)
'Everything you're doing is destroying the planet. You've got to eat your peas,'
Well, naturally. How else are we going to achieve peas on earth?
We should make women feel welcome (Score:2)
Use a picture of Trump instead. I'm sure he won't mind. Of course this change throws comparability out the window, so at least for future comparability we need to agree on one specific Trump portrait and use that for eternity. For the sanity of women everywhere.
The old MITA copier repair test chart (Score:3)
Here is the weird part, I just went looking for an image of it to link to this, and there are none that I can find. Not only is the idea of an attractive woman so offensive that we can not use it for testing equipment, but it is so offensive that it seems to no longer be indexed by search engines.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does the reason for you not being able to find the picture on an internet search have to be it was deindexed because it was "offensive"? The internet is hardly a permanent repository of pictures a single copy machine company (now likely well passed its prime) used years ago for testing their product.
Some people are really mentally defective (Score:5, Insightful)
If they really think even one woman is prevented from going into image processing by this well-known and quite non-problematic sample picture, then they are insane. Destructive virtue-signalling at its best. I let my IEEE membership lapse a while ago because they were acting increasingly strange. Looks like the vibes I got were spot-on.
revoking a paper? (Score:2)
What bothers me a bit about this story is the idea "she didn't want her image to be used any more." So let's think through this idea a bit to other things. Should technical paper authors have the 'moral authority' to revoke their copyright assignments? Would this then require papers that cite the 'withdrawn' paper to then be withdrawn? We know there are many instances where authors have withdrawn papers (particularly including "This paper was flat out wrong."), but what should be the downstream impact
replace with sylvando cosplay (Score:2)
Seriously, pay a cosplayer to make a make a costume of the Great Sylvando. And snap a few pictures a comicon or at a LARP. You'll find cosplayers to do this. You'll find all kind of interesting background for the picture.
If you haven't played dq11, for reference: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/oASC-LF... [ytimg.com]
Challenge accepted! (Score:2)
I'm going to do a research project and get it published in Nature, and include a hash of the banned image in the metadata.
April fools! (Score:2)
Right? Please say I'm right.
Umm... ok? (Score:2)
I ... guess?
Can I see a show of hands of those that care whether it's this photo or another one?
Let's not forget Shirley (Score:3)
Decades ago, I worked in the photofinishing industry where you needed to keep your processors and auto-printers calibrated. One very common way to do that was to make test prints from a "Shirley". (We also used prints made from non-human negatives and read on densitometers)
Kodak had a staff person (the original one was Shirley Page, thus the name) who they photographed under ideal conditions, processed the negative under ideal conditions, then sold the negatives to photo labs to use for calibration.
https://www.npr.org/2014/11/13... [npr.org]
We would make test prints that looked (to our eyes) as having the perfect color and density balance and that became the 'null point' for the printer. It also allowed you (in a crude way) to quickly see if your chemistry was out of balance; if you couldn't make Shirley look good, then maybe you needed to replenish your developer/bleach/whatever/
So there is a long history of using humans as models, since most people knew what people were supposed to look like. But when these standards were established, most industries were run by men...
Here's a high quality scan of Lena Forsen. Enjoy. (Score:4, Informative)
I think that's your shortcoming. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet I still fail to see how it is sexually suggestive.
Well, everyone knows she's naked. Would you want to get on a video call with some dude who is fully naked, but strategically cropped? It would be weird and uncomfortable, even if you never saw his penis...especially if it's a call about serious engineering topics.
However, let's say you're right. The world votes that it's not suggestive. Is it mature? Is it professional? Will it help or hurt your chances of getting another round of funding? While I don't go around banning childish things in offices, I personally go to work dressed professionally. I want to be taken seriously. I would never wear a heavy metal T-shirt in the office. I went through a phase where I dressed too casually at work because a bunch of other coworkers were as well. It got old. I felt like a teenager. I'm a middle-aged man with a wife, kids, mortgage, career, and good job...time to act like it. That means dressing professionally at work. That means acting professionally at work. That means ensuring materials required for work are serious and show that we're doing serious work, not sanitized porn.
Porn is AWESOME and fun...but not meant for the office...having sanitized porn in the office is just weird...like those offices that have XBoxes in the break room...I don't want my boss seeing me play XBox. It makes the gaming less fun and him seeing me play video games at lunch is not a great look if my deadline slips the next week. Porn is more fun out of the office and the office is more professional without porn (or game consoles).
There is always someone fat who feels not welcome. (Score:3)
It's about time (Score:3)
Only one way to react (Score:3)
Because the model herself wanted this (Score:3)
This could be seen as them being prudes, but it is actually Lena Forsén herself wants to end this. Or more specifically:
Let's respect her wishes, and move on. There were even some technical reasons to choose a better image anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And of course none of these men would feel comfortable using a sexual image of a man every day.
Michelangelo's David is pretty common. Men generally don't care about this either way. I can't speak for other men, but if they started using the burt reynolds cosmo centerfold instead, I wouldn't care. In fact, I might even get a chuckle out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Double standard. I worked in a very 'blue collar' job once, the kind where you'd actually expect to find someone putting their favourite porn images up on their office wall.
One guy out in the plant had a calendar of nude women in glam shots, no explicitly sexual poses. It hung on the back of the door to his office so you had to know it was there since the door was always opened against the wall when anyone was in there with him.
One woman had, in the main offices, a calendar of nude men in her cubicle.
Now.
Re: (Score:2)
Double standard.... You get no points for answering, because we all already know the guy had to take down his hidden calendar just because someone knew it was there while the woman kept hers on full display for anyone entering her office space without any comment.
One of our machinists had a picture of a very pretty young lady in a cheerleader outfit in the top part of his tool chest. Completely innocuous One of the perpetually offended feminists complained to HR about it.
They tried to have him take it down. He noted that it was a picture of his daughter in the outfit she wore at games and even in school, that he didn't like other women sexualizing his daughter, and acting as if he was sexualizing her, and it was staying up, unless they wanted to take it to the un
Re: (Score:2)
And that's exactly how it should been. (If not both would have had to be taken down.)
Because men are not frequently and systematically exploited by the other sex as objects for the latter's sexual urges, whereas women are.
It's not 'double standards' to treat two groups that substantially differ like that differently, it is the only ethical way to treat them.
The difference needs to be made because there is no equality between sexes, far from it. If there ever should be real equality, and established for a lo
Re:In before (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't make things right by making them wrong in another way. That's an incredibly stupid, short-sighted position that only creates a new group with a legitimate grievance.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, use Sean Connery's Zardoz images...
Note: Connery sports a Reynolds style moustache in the movie, and that's why I thought of it.
Re: (Score:3)
>And of course none of these men would feel comfortable using a sexual image of a man every day.
It's all what you're used to - male nudes were all the rage in ancient Rome, and it wasn't because all the men were gay.
Human faces draw and keep your interest, it's why you're more likely to keep and look at vacation photos when you or one of your travelling companions are in them. We also like to look at people with smooth skin and nearly (but not completely) perfectly symmetric features. And the cropped v
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhh... I have some news for you....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
>I have some news for you
No, you don't. Romans didn't have a progressive and accepting culture.
It was about power, not sexual orientation - which is why gay sex was only OK if you were the one doing the penetration and the one receiving had no power in society to stop you. Actual homosexuality as we consider it today was unacceptable.
Re:In before (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is the thing. If you didn't know it was a crop of a picture from a Playboy magazine would you have an objection to the image? Frankly, it is pretty hard to object to the 512x512 Lenna image as presented without knowing what it is cropped from.
I would further point out that women fawn over pictures of good-looking men *ALL* the time without thinking twice about it. It is a *massive* double standard that women have.
As such making a fuss about the Lenna image is just virtue signalling. It is like objecting to the terms whitelist and blacklist because you are an ignoramus who doesn't know where the terms come from and assume it's got something to do with race.
Re: (Score:2)
there are a million images out there that would be as good or better
This is, of course, not the point. The Lenna image is used purely out of tradition. You could ask what the point is, in having traditions like this... obviously opinions are going to differ, but I think they make a discipline a little less cold. More human. In other words, I appreciate traditions like this for the same reason that some women are protesting this image.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it pretty obnoxious to claim any piece of female skin can be seen as 'sexual'.
The fact this picture became a standard had little to do with the subject, it just happened because it was the first to be recognised as a test picture.
And yes, in these days of HD we could/should settle on something different.
Re: (Score:2)
In before a bunch of men try to explain why using this image is really an honor to women and they shouldn't complain about it. Sorry, but there are a million images out there that would be as good or better and wouldn't be a based on a sexual image of a woman. And of course none of these men would feel comfortable using a sexual image of a man every day.
If you find that a sexual image, are you perhaps of a culture where women must dress head to toe to conceal themselves?
Because I see an attractive woman with a shoulder not covered by anything. You see more skin on the Great American Family Network (a conservative christian channel) So to ask if I were to feel comfortable if a photo of a man was shown in similar posing? I have to confess I wouldn't care at all.
Anyhow, I fully support scrubbing the photo, we don't want to send people into therapy
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for pointing out my point. This image also adds nothing to you. If the image is meaningless, as you say, then what is the issue with changing it? Why are you (and so many other men) fighting so hard to keep thing image that "just is"? IF the image is just an image, what is the issue with replacing it knowing that some people are offended by it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Invading then sanitizing men's spaces is a well documented female behaviour pattern that pre-dates modernity. It stems from the fear of what men are up to when not under the direct control and influence of their wives. No matter how tame, men interacting with men is seen as a dangerous threat. These days not even video games men enjoy are safe.
or...it's just childish (Score:3)
Things like this just shows how fubar our society is becoming. Nobody really is offended or feels uncomfortable by these images, except people who just want to butch about anything. Stop being so sensitive, the world is a hard place and people really shouldn't be brought up so overly protected, it just screws much more with their mind.
This is the hill you want to die on? Are you a teenager in the 70s? It's childish and unprofessional. I don't care if it's offensive or not, there are many images that are not offensive at all, but just make you not look like a serious organization. It's like wearing a stained T-shirt. Is it offensive?...no...but it is just amateurish and I would discourage my subordinates from wearing stained clothes in the office. When you're gunning for a promotion, most try harder than the bare minimum. So while t