I'm not sure i understand the ethical argument. The subject of the photo consented to it. As far as i know she was not mislead or coerced.
Like if this was a normal modelling shot, that got sold to an advertizing company to sell some product the model didn't personally approve of, i doubt anyone would consider that unethical. Generally the assumption is that if you sell your likness (assuming no coercion or other factors that would invalidate a contract), you don't get to control the image after that. That is kind of the whole principle the modelling industry is built around.
The reason why i think this point is important, is that our entire industry is built on the notion that licenses are forever and there are no take backs. Like Linus can't go, oh i changed my mind, this GPL thing is overrated, i revoke the license so i can become filthy rich. I do not think we should normalize the notion that renegging on intellectual property licenses just because you changed your mind is ethical.
Like if this was a normal modelling shot, that got sold to an advertizing company to sell some product the model didn't personally approve of, i doubt anyone would consider that unethical. Generally the assumption is that if you sell your likness (assuming no coercion or other factors that would invalidate a contract), you don't get to control the image after that. That is kind of the whole principle the modelling industry is built around.
The reason why i think this point is important, is that our entire industry is built on the notion that licenses are forever and there are no take backs. Like Linus can't go, oh i changed my mind, this GPL thing is overrated, i revoke the license so i can become filthy rich. I do not think we should normalize the notion that renegging on intellectual property licenses just because you changed your mind is ethical.