That's not true. I qualified the statement with "potentially" because I don't know whether she regrets it or not. The article title implies the image was sourced unethically, and my whole point was whether she regrets the photo or not today has nothing to do with whether it was of ethical origins.
Your top comment is making assumptions with or without the qualification. Even the suggestion that there’s “potential” regret is an assumption. It’s fair for me to point this out since I already knew that wasn’t true, there was no such potential.
Edit to add the other massive assumption you keep making repeatedly is that the term “ethically sourced” says anything about the transaction between Lena and Playboy. It doesn’t. It would be fair to call an image from Penthouse put into a high school math book “unethically sourced”, where “sourced” is referring to the book author’s choice, not to either the model’s nor the magazine’s. The image can be ethically and legally acquired and still the use of it can be unethical.
Well, at least we are speaking the same language, finally. Only I think we just genuinely disagree on some definitions. To me, it could be written “unethical to use in a professional setting” and I’d agree wholeheartedly. To me, this is the crux of my comments—where they got the image has little to do with how and to whom it is displayed. I’ll clarify further by saying the only reason I mentioned regret vs not is in connection with that word “source” and had less to do with the specific situation.
