Hi all, The Lena image that we ship is a standard image in the image processing literature, however it's also controversial (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna). That was the reason for: - adding 2 new images in scipy 0.12.0 ( https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/351) - recommending to not using Lena in the documentation in scipy 0.16.0 ( https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/4785) Now it looks like Debian was decided that the licensing of this image is NOK and that it needs to be removed from all of Debian. Which hasn't affected Scipy yet but has affected scikit-image (it's "marked for auto-removal"): https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scikit-image/q36bajdvWew https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scikit-image/8d15Egg7qAY I know opinions on the image itself and on Debian's action will vary, but I'd like to be pragmatic here and prevent issues with Scipy packaging in Debian. Therefore I propose to do the same as what scikit-image will do: remove Lena for the next release and raise an error from the scipy.misc.lena() function. Ralf
+1 The arguments against the image are compelling in their own right, but even if they weren't it doesn't matter -- we shouldn't be shipping an image that we don't have any legal right to ship! On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
The Lena image that we ship is a standard image in the image processing literature, however it's also controversial (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna). That was the reason for: - adding 2 new images in scipy 0.12.0 (https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/351) - recommending to not using Lena in the documentation in scipy 0.16.0 (https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/4785)
Now it looks like Debian was decided that the licensing of this image is NOK and that it needs to be removed from all of Debian. Which hasn't affected Scipy yet but has affected scikit-image (it's "marked for auto-removal"): https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scikit-image/q36bajdvWew https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scikit-image/8d15Egg7qAY
I know opinions on the image itself and on Debian's action will vary, but I'd like to be pragmatic here and prevent issues with Scipy packaging in Debian. Therefore I propose to do the same as what scikit-image will do: remove Lena for the next release and raise an error from the scipy.misc.lena() function.
Ralf
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
+1
The arguments against the image are compelling in their own right, but even if they weren't it doesn't matter -- we shouldn't be shipping an image that we don't have any legal right to ship!
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
The Lena image that we ship is a standard image in the image processing literature, however it's also controversial (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna). That was the reason for: - adding 2 new images in scipy 0.12.0 (https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/351) - recommending to not using Lena in the documentation in scipy 0.16.0 (https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/4785)
Now it looks like Debian was decided that the licensing of this image is NOK and that it needs to be removed from all of Debian. Which hasn't affected Scipy yet but has affected scikit-image (it's "marked for auto-removal"): https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scikit-image/q36bajdvWew https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scikit-image/8d15Egg7qAY
I know opinions on the image itself and on Debian's action will vary, but I'd like to be pragmatic here and prevent issues with Scipy packaging in Debian. Therefore I propose to do the same as what scikit-image will do: remove Lena for the next release and raise an error from the scipy.misc.lena() function.
I agree, I would be glad to see Lena fully retired. If anyone needs the image, it's easy for them to find it, and an error seems like the right outcome from `scipy.misc.lena`. Cheers, Matthew
Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
The Lena image that we ship is a standard image in the image processing literature, however it's also controversial
Even though Playboy is a source of adult material, the Lena image in itself is not sexist. We know who owns the copyright. Why not ask Playboy for permission? Sturla
15.08.2015, 15:25, Sturla Molden kirjoitti: [clip] Maybe you're not serious, but there's really nothing to be gained from the image.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> wrote:
Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
The Lena image that we ship is a standard image in the image processing literature, however it's also controversial
Even though Playboy is a source of adult material, the Lena image in itself is not sexist.
It's a detail from a pornographic image, and a throwback to a mysterious age when it was completely ordinary for this to happen in an image processing lab: """ They wanted something glossy to ensure good output dynamic range, and they wanted a human face. Just then, somebody happened to walk in with a recent issue of Playboy. """ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna Thank God, that isn't ordinary any more. As Pauli says - there's no need to keep Lena any more. Matthew
+1 for the removal. I think getting rid of it is long overdue. On Sat, Aug 15, 2015, 08:40 Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> wrote:
Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
The Lena image that we ship is a standard image in the image processing literature, however it's also controversial
Even though Playboy is a source of adult material, the Lena image in itself is not sexist.
It's a detail from a pornographic image, and a throwback to a mysterious age when it was completely ordinary for this to happen in an image processing lab:
""" They wanted something glossy to ensure good output dynamic range, and they wanted a human face. Just then, somebody happened to walk in with a recent issue of Playboy. """
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna
Thank God, that isn't ordinary any more.
As Pauli says - there's no need to keep Lena any more.
Matthew _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
On 8/15/2015 8:40 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
It's a detail from a pornographic image
One may oppose the image without exaggerating: the original photo was merely erotic, not pornographic. And as for the cropped image that has become a reference standard, it is unobjectionable if culturally archaic. An excess of political correctness is difficult to distinguish from censorship. Just to be clear, I am not trying to make a case for including the image. There may be some case for skimage.data.lena() to fetch the image from the USC-SIPI Image Database http://sipi.usc.edu/database/download.php?vol=misc&img=4.2.04 but I am not trying to make that case either. I am merely addressing an issue of the debasement of language. Cheers, Alan Isaac
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:12 PM Alan G Isaac <alan.isaac@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/15/2015 8:40 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
It's a detail from a pornographic image
One may oppose the image without exaggerating: the original photo was merely erotic, not pornographic. And as for the cropped image that has become a reference standard, it is unobjectionable if culturally archaic.
If we're being precise about language, this image is not unobjectionable: there are indeed people who have objections to it: http://www.cmc.edu/news/every-picture-tells-a-story https://www.cs.umd.edu/users/oleary/faculty/node8.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-playboy-centerfold-does-not-belong... An excess of political correctness is difficult
to distinguish from censorship.
We could have a discussion about culture, feminism, microaggressions, and the potential for widespread small choices to do harm. Such discussions are often ugly and divisive, perhaps because the harms under discussion are not apparent to some people. But this image is not being proposed for removal for feminist reasons. It is being proposed for removal because the license is a problem. For my part, I think the license problem is real and reason enough for removal. The feminist issues with the image are part of why I have no motivation to attempt to obtain permission. (Perhaps one could obtain permission to include the image but only with a Playboy-bunny watermark?) Just to be clear, I am not trying to make a case
for including the image. There may be some case for skimage.data.lena() to fetch the image from the USC-SIPI Image Database http://sipi.usc.edu/database/download.php?vol=misc&img=4.2.04 but I am not trying to make that case either. I am merely addressing an issue of the debasement of language.
Please don't play devil's advocate or language-lawyer with social-justice issues. It makes the discussions more stressful and unpleasant without actually raising substantive points. Thanks, Anne
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Anne Archibald <archibald@astron.nl> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:12 PM Alan G Isaac <alan.isaac@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/15/2015 8:40 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
It's a detail from a pornographic image
One may oppose the image without exaggerating: the original photo was merely erotic, not pornographic. And as for the cropped image that has become a reference standard, it is unobjectionable if culturally archaic.
If we're being precise about language, this image is not unobjectionable: there are indeed people who have objections to it: http://www.cmc.edu/news/every-picture-tells-a-story https://www.cs.umd.edu/users/oleary/faculty/node8.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-playboy-centerfold-does-not-belong...
An excess of political correctness is difficult
to distinguish from censorship.
We could have a discussion about culture, feminism, microaggressions, and the potential for widespread small choices to do harm. Such discussions are often ugly and divisive, perhaps because the harms under discussion are not apparent to some people. But this image is not being proposed for removal for feminist reasons. It is being proposed for removal because the license is a problem.
For my part, I think the license problem is real and reason enough for removal. The feminist issues with the image are part of why I have no motivation to attempt to obtain permission. (Perhaps one could obtain permission to include the image but only with a Playboy-bunny watermark?)
Just to be clear, I am not trying to make a case
for including the image. There may be some case for skimage.data.lena() to fetch the image from the USC-SIPI Image Database http://sipi.usc.edu/database/download.php?vol=misc&img=4.2.04 but I am not trying to make that case either. I am merely addressing an issue of the debasement of language.
Please don't play devil's advocate or language-lawyer with social-justice issues. It makes the discussions more stressful and unpleasant without actually raising substantive points.
+1 for removal. Josep Tarradellas, upon returning to Barcelona after 42 years of exile during Franco's dictatorship, is quoted as saying a local version of Ben Parker's power and responsibility phrase: "We can do anything, except embarrass ourselves." That an all-white-male committee were to determine that there is nothing objectionable with the Lena image, aside from the copyright, and thus send a representation to the Playboy mansion to discuss licensing, would certainly not pass the embarrassment test for me. Jaime -- (\__/) ( O.o) ( > <) Este es Conejo. Copia a Conejo en tu firma y ayúdale en sus planes de dominación mundial.
On 8/15/2015 12:10 PM, Anne Archibald wrote:
If we're being precise about language, this image is not unobjectionable: there are indeed people who have objections to it:
You misunderstand: I was *asserting* that it is unobjectionable. Merely noting that some people object is the wrong measure, and that is the path to censorship. For a recent discussion, I recommend http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-amer...
this image is not being proposed for removal for feminist reasons. It is being proposed for removal because the license is a problem.
As you know, I made no case against removing it. Someone else mentioned the possibility of code breaking. If code breaking is a concern, it would be possible for skimage.data.lena() to fetch the image from the USC-SIPI Image Database http://sipi.usc.edu/database/download.php?vol=misc&img=4.2.04
Please don't play devil's advocate or language-lawyer with social-justice issues.
I did neither. I do claim that there is no social justice issue involved beyond the risk that the vagaries of popular opinion can be advanced as justifications for censorship and cultural destruction. For a recent discussion, I recommend http://laurakipnis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/My-Title-IX-Inquisition-Th... Don't worry; I'll say nothing further about this. Cheers, Alan Isaac
Anne Archibald <archibald@astron.nl> wrote:
For my part, I think the license problem is real and reason enough for removal.
I think it is clear who owns the copyright. But legality is also a matter of what is fair use.
The feminist issues with the image are part of why I have no motivation to attempt to obtain permission. (Perhaps one could obtain permission to include the image but only with a Playboy-bunny watermark?)
Perhaps they would allow us to ship the uncropped original as well, with bunnies of course. Or we could add a "sponsored by Playboy Magazine" notice on the website. :D (I am just being silly.) Sturla
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> wrote:
Anne Archibald <archibald@astron.nl> wrote:
For my part, I think the license problem is real and reason enough for removal.
I think it is clear who owns the copyright.
Exactly: someone who has not given us permission to redistribute their copyrighted image. That is the license problem that Anne was referencing.
But legality is also a matter of what is fair use.
Our redistribution of that image is categorically not fair use in any jurisdiction I am familiar with, much less all jurisdictions. -- Robert Kern
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
The Lena image that we ship is a standard image in the image processing literature, however it's also controversial (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna). That was the reason for: - adding 2 new images in scipy 0.12.0 ( https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/351) - recommending to not using Lena in the documentation in scipy 0.16.0 ( https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/4785)
Now it looks like Debian was decided that the licensing of this image is NOK and that it needs to be removed from all of Debian. Which hasn't affected Scipy yet but has affected scikit-image (it's "marked for auto-removal"): https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scikit-image/q36bajdvWew https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scikit-image/8d15Egg7qAY
I know opinions on the image itself and on Debian's action will vary, but I'd like to be pragmatic here and prevent issues with Scipy packaging in Debian. Therefore I propose to do the same as what scikit-image will do: remove Lena for the next release and raise an error from the scipy.misc.lena() function.
I don't have a problem with removing the image for the reasons given, although I suspect the underlying motivation is not based on legality. The main danger I see is bringing politics into the project, and if this settles that issue, so much the better. Unfortunately compromise, rather than bringing peace in our time, often serves to encourage further incursions. Now may be a good time to think hard about how to keep numpy and scipy focused on technical issues and out of the political mud pits. Once upon a time Playboy was considered progressive by some, mostly on account of its attack on traditional sexual morality. It is funny how that has played out. Chuck
+1 for removal. It sounds to me like we've reached sufficient convergence on the issue of removing the image. I'm happy to open a PR with an error suggesting the existing `ascent` and `face` (https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/351/files) instead, unless someone else is already on it. Eric On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
The Lena image that we ship is a standard image in the image processing literature, however it's also controversial (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna). That was the reason for: - adding 2 new images in scipy 0.12.0 ( https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/351) - recommending to not using Lena in the documentation in scipy 0.16.0 ( https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/4785)
Now it looks like Debian was decided that the licensing of this image is NOK and that it needs to be removed from all of Debian. Which hasn't affected Scipy yet but has affected scikit-image (it's "marked for auto-removal"): https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scikit-image/q36bajdvWew https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scikit-image/8d15Egg7qAY
I know opinions on the image itself and on Debian's action will vary, but I'd like to be pragmatic here and prevent issues with Scipy packaging in Debian. Therefore I propose to do the same as what scikit-image will do: remove Lena for the next release and raise an error from the scipy.misc.lena() function.
Ralf
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Eric Larson <larson.eric.d@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 for removal.
It sounds to me like we've reached sufficient convergence on the issue of removing the image. I'm happy to open a PR with an error suggesting the existing `ascent` and `face` ( https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/351/files) instead, unless someone else is already on it.
Thanks Eric, a PR would be great. Ralf
Eric
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
The Lena image that we ship is a standard image in the image processing literature, however it's also controversial (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna). That was the reason for: - adding 2 new images in scipy 0.12.0 ( https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/351) - recommending to not using Lena in the documentation in scipy 0.16.0 ( https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/4785)
Now it looks like Debian was decided that the licensing of this image is NOK and that it needs to be removed from all of Debian. Which hasn't affected Scipy yet but has affected scikit-image (it's "marked for auto-removal"): https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scikit-image/q36bajdvWew https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scikit-image/8d15Egg7qAY
I know opinions on the image itself and on Debian's action will vary, but I'd like to be pragmatic here and prevent issues with Scipy packaging in Debian. Therefore I propose to do the same as what scikit-image will do: remove Lena for the next release and raise an error from the scipy.misc.lena() function.
Ralf
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
participants (12)
-
Alan G Isaac -
Anne Archibald -
Anthony Scopatz -
Charles R Harris -
Eric Larson -
Jaime Fernández del Río -
Matthew Brett -
Nathaniel Smith -
Pauli Virtanen -
Ralf Gommers -
Robert Kern -
Sturla Molden