[groby_b]

I mean, the basic problem behind both is the same - taking without consent or compensation, and the entire field being OK with it. (And, in fact, happily leaning into it - even Playboy thought, hey, good for name recognition, we're not going to enforce our copyright)

[TeMPOraL]

Neither the test image nor the cell line are sentient, so they're nothing like MMAcedevo. Literally the one thing that's actually ethically significant about the latter does not exist in the former cases. Rights to information derived from someone is a boring first world problem of bickering about "lost revenue".

[bee_rider]

IIRC Lenna doesn’t want her picture used anymore because she was told it was making some young women in the field uncomfortable. I don’t think she’s complained about the revenue at all(?).

[throwanem]

But not because the image itself is made to suffer by reuse. That it can't is why the comparison misses the point.

[bee_rider]

Sure. It is a different case. But I wouldn’t call it boring.