Lacks' estate have obtained settlements (with undisclosed terms) from several companies which profit off HeLa. We could choose to imagine the terms were just enough to pay lawyer fees, but equally they could be substantial. So apparently the lawyers for major pharma firms either don't believe you that no moral rights were violated or they believe jurors wouldn't believe you on this.
Now, as I said, for Lenna she was compensated by Playboy, the rights rest with the magazine publisher, and they've apparently felt that suing scientists for popularizing an image of one of their models wasn't commercially sensible. But morally it does still seem like a problem, that's not what she was consenting to.
> that's not what she was consenting to
It's not clear that we're obliged to care - what if I don't consent to having this comment argued against, or read? What about Virgil's Aeneid? I think where consent is clearly applicable is in cases regarding body autonomy and personal property, and it gets murky with abstract concepts like "likeness".
Lena Forsén sold her image rights - she's a Playboy model, but not to be used in decades of image research - whereas Henrietta was never even told her cells were being collected for science experiments at all. This isn't Tuskegee - she was given reasonable medical care for her cancer given it was 1951, but she didn't sign a waiver saying "I'm fine with you using my cell line to do whatever you want" in perpetuity.
For "Bad Apple" it's just embarrassing for some people, which doesn't even seem like a big deal.
The other thing which distinguishes Lenna is that it's obsolete. It's a scan of a Playboy magazine, not even a scan of the photo itself, let alone a direct capture of the scene - and it is by modern standards low resolution. Even if you (like modern AI companies) don't care about rights or people the Lenna image is a poor choice on technical grounds.
Bad Apple isn't like that, a substitute would just be some other black-and-white video, probably similar length and resolution.