If you’re going to promote the dissemination and viewing of images almost certainly in violation of copyright law and possibly the exploitation of an actor/actress, then own that that’s what you’re doing and that you really have no concern for the will of the actor/actress. As a practical matter, when you deliberately send traffic to sites hosting unlawfully obtained or unlawfully published images, you are not just complicit, you are a co-conspirator.

“In this day and age,” people should realize that many actresses who appeared full or partially nude in film or on TV may have done so against their preference. Deciding to pursue a role or even deciding to accept a role that ultimately is conditioned on nudity is not the same as “deciding to show off her body on national television.” This isn’t a “Girls Gone Wild” video (not that those were exactly lawfully produced).

“Agreeing” to conditions presented as “take it or leave it” in a situation with such a stark inequality of bargaining power may have been the actress’s only option for obtaining work. The reality is that there are more men than women in decision-making roles about nudity, and that those decision-makers are more likely to demand full or partial nudity from women than from men. Roles for men are less likely to be conditioned upon nudity, such that a man is less likely to have to accept appearing nude as a condition for a role, and more likely to have other roles to pursue that don’t require nudity. The fact that an actor/actress appears nude in a role does not mean that it was their preference or that they were out to show off their body to the public.

Even if the actress enthusiastically appeared full or partially nude in a scene, that does not equate to agreement to or even an expectation that the result would be unlimited circulation of still shots from the film or TV role. Arguably, taking from a movie or TV show the type of image you describe and circulating it online is a type of film/tv piracy. So, no, she did not agree to pirated images circulating online as “everything that goes along with” a role.

To make it worse, your post solely is about peeping at her nude body, not about her work in the role. You argue that the peeping is okay because she agreed to the role and everything that goes with it. But, you are encouraging people to peep without the context of the role.

There is no indication that this is a person who entered an agreement to pose for nude or semi-nude photos for an enterprise whose purpose is publishing and circulating naked photos, like “Playboy,” “Penthouse,” or “Hustler.”