11
ventral shot of Micrathena sagittata
(lemmy.world)
A wonderful species, they have some awesome coloring and spines.
Unfortunately this isn't even the author's fault. The publisher determines the payment for the issue/article, the author doesn't get paid at all for this. In fact generally we have to PAY them to send in a manuscript, only for it to go through the painful review process before getting an answer to if thye even want to publish it or not. You'll see many labs present free preprints of manuscripts they plan to submit on things like Twitter to get the word out.
I think consent is the most important discussion here. The people that continue to profit (monetarily or otherwise) off dead creators are often looked down upon, eg. Brian Herbert's Dune continuation, Stephen Hillenberg's death and continuation of spongebob (and it's spin offs), etc. Terry Pratchett had in his will to use a steamroller to destroy all his unfinished works as he knew if not they would likely be used to profit after his death without him.
I'm a proponent of the recent advances in machine learning, I use machine learning in my field and I write and use models for hobby level things. I'm also fully a proponent of using these things ethically, and consent here is the most important thing.
If I created a doctored photograph of Robin Williams (even doing something innocuous) that was clearly not something he did and plastered it around the internet it would be in bad taste. If Robin Williams consented to people doing that then sure whatever its nbd. Photographs and recordings should be used with consent, and things like the paparazzi taking non consensual photos are not looked upon as particularly ethical endeavors.