Gene, There are collections of images for which permission was not obtained because it has never been routine to do so. The medical publishing industry is comfortable using these images and I am wondering how they feel the right to do so.
I agree that what you say is intuitive but copyright as you have described has not been asserted in medical publishing like it is in other kinds of academic (or any kind) of publishing. Neither institutions nor patients are attributed routinely in academic publications - attribution for the images almost always goes only to the authors of the medical articles who seem to pay no attention at all to copyright of the images they use. It also is not certain that there is something creative in the act of making pictures which are supposed to be entirely technical. The precedent in medical publishing seems to indicate but not outright state that not all visualizations are copyrightable, and there is something about medical imaging that has made medical researchers feel comfortable reproducing them without copyright clearances noted. Being safe and getting permission really is not an option. We really would like to determine the minimal requirements, and we are looking for background before we start surveying publishers. Thanks, On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Gene Shackman <eval_g...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Any visualization is copyrightable, at least those created in the US, not > created by the US govt. > > The owners would be the organization which employed the people who made > the image, AND the person who was scanned. > > To be safe, permission should be obtained from both of the above. > > Gene > > > ------------------------------ > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 7:12 AM PDT Lane Rasberry wrote: > > > >What is the copyright status of technically created visualizations? I am > >asking this especially in the context of machine-generated medical data > >visualizations, which could include ECG lines or things like X-rays and CT > >scans. Some of us are having a conversation about this on Wikipedia now. > We > >do not know if these visualizations are copyrightable and if so, who would > >own the copyright. > >< > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Computed_tomography_of_human_brain_-_large.png > >> > > > >This conversation happens several times a year on Wikipedia and we have > not > >found conclusion after years of talking about this. As a health educator I > >feel that having clear guidelines for the circumstances under which > medical > >images can be shared is essential for publishing medical images and > >therefore to teaching health care providers. > > > >I have no proposal myself for how I wish things to be, but when there is a > >proposal, I would like to pass it around OKFN to see if anyone would like > >to join in making an assertion of best practices. We would like for the > >images to be freely shared somehow in a legal way. > > > >Anyone who has something to contribute to the Wikipedia discussion would > be > >welcome. About 15 people are participating now and many more are > following. > > > >Thanks, > > > > > >On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 7:07 > > > > > > > >-- > >Lane Rasberry > >206.801.0814 > >l...@bluerasberry.com > > > _______________________________________________ > okfn-discuss mailing list > okfn-discuss@lists.okfn.org > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss > Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss > -- Lane Rasberry 206.801.0814 l...@bluerasberry.com
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list okfn-discuss@lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
