[throw009]

Plenty of comment necessary.

Models give up the rights to their image to be paid for the shoot.

Why is it that a century of legal and moral president needs to be thrown out because someone says they don't like it?

The only person with a leg to stand on here is the photographers whose copyright is being infringed and even that is debatable.

[jakear]

I think the point is it's hypocritical to say "this photo of a woman has been in use for 40 years, it's an example or how women are left out of the industry". It makes some unsubstantiated assumptions, chiefly: "men are more likely to want to look at a woman's photo than a woman is".

Take a look at any popular female "influencer" Instagram account's follower list and let me know if thats backed up by the facts (hint: it isn't. Not by a long shot.)

(Some) women want to look at (some) women. (Some) men want to look at (some) women. (Some) women want to look at (some) men. (Some) men want to look at (some) men.

The answer is clearly to have both men and women in the sample data. Not exclude people based on their gender.

If there was a direct quote from the model themself calling for the end of the use of the photo that'd be one thing, but based on what I've seen here it doesn't exist.

[jtriangle]

The photographers were under contract by Playboy inc, who has publicly stated that they will not seek litigation to prevent the use of the image.

So that more or less makes it public domain, and, it would be a very, very difficult court case if Playboy wanted to suddenly prevent use of the image, given that they have never tried to defend their ownership of it.

So, not even they have a leg to stand on.