It's not really up to models to decide what their pictures gets used for though. Why should this be different?
From what I gather it's not because she's uncomfortable with it being used, it's because of controversy other people have drummed up:
> When I asked her if she had heard anything about the recent controversy around her image, she seemed alarmed at the thought that she could have a part in hurting or discouraging young women. I sent her some articles about the Lenna and later gave her a call to see what she made of them. The photo, she said, doesn’t show very much—just down to her shoulders—so it was hard for her to see what the big deal was.
Her opinion doesn't seem to match the articles claim:
> Lena doesn’t harbor any resentment toward Sawchuk and his imitators for how they appropriated her image; the only note of regret she expressed was that she wasn’t better compensated. In her view, the photograph is an immense accomplishment that just happened to take on a life of its own. “I’m really proud of that picture,” she said.
“I retired from modelling a long time ago. It’s time I retired from tech, too. We can make a simple change today that creates a lasting change for tomorrow. Let’s commit to losing me.”[1]
Being proud of her work doesn't mean she thinks people should have to see it in their work.
It is completely reasonable for a model to be told their work and their likeness will be used for one purpose and for them to not be OK if it is used for another, I don't see how being a model excludes you from the right to have an agreement about releasing your creative input.
So there's contracts and there's intent and morality.
The argument you have presented is analogous (like, right next door; they share a side-yard, their kids go to the same school, and they co-organize the neighborhood potluck) to the argument that you and I have no right to our data not being thrown in a big hopper to generate an AI that is designed to operate directly counter to our personal interests.
After all, if you didn't want thousands of websites hoovering up your information, transferring it to a central clearinghouse, and that clearinghouse building an AI to put you out of a job... You should never have logged onto those websites, right? Those TOS clearly said they could use your data for any purpose. The contract was quite clear (had we bothered to read it).
So your argument is that stock photography of humans are unethical unless every model signs a new model release for every use? Is it immoral to use András István Aratós image in memes too?
I have no issue with user data being used to build ML models, although I don't agree with you about the close proximity between a model's photo being used for photo research and anyone's data being used for everything.
“Because of controversy” seems like an unnecessarily dismissive way of putting it. It is entirely possible that she didn’t mind having her image used in and of itself. It sounds like she didn’t mind the use of the photo, but changed her mind when she found out that it was making other people uncomfortable, which seems… totally reasonable, right?
From what I gather it's not because she's uncomfortable with it being used, it's because of controversy other people have drummed up:
> When I asked her if she had heard anything about the recent controversy around her image, she seemed alarmed at the thought that she could have a part in hurting or discouraging young women. I sent her some articles about the Lenna and later gave her a call to see what she made of them. The photo, she said, doesn’t show very much—just down to her shoulders—so it was hard for her to see what the big deal was.
https://www.wired.com/story/finding-lena-the-patron-saint-of...
Not that it really matters that much, it's a historical curiosity by now.