A question about copyright, who owns the copyright on Xrays and are they
even copyrightable? I have uploaded a few of them and no one seems to know
the answer. I guess the options would be:
1) They are in the public domain
https://open.umich.edu/wiki/Casebook#Radiograph_.28X-Ray.29 and
http://en.w
@ Tomasz: Per "a) if the picture is taken automatically by machine in
routine way (in case of X-ray, NMR and some other techinques this is
usually atomatic
and routine) - they are not copyrightable, as this is not any creative
work." This is my understanding. X rays are taken in the exact same
way
According to German legal literature X-rays are copyrighted as simple
photographs with a 50 years post publication term (if published 50
years after making).
There is no creativity in making an X-ray. Therefore I would say that
there are serious doubts that in the European Union X-rays are
copyri
There are two things if the images are not copyrightable:
1) If users add images from lets say a textbook. Will someone on commons
simply delete them and thus it would be a waste of time.
2) Do we exposure either ourselves or the WMF to legal problems. And if so
is this important enough to warran
ays (Anthony)
>6. Re: Copyright on Xrays (Anthony)
>7. Re: Travel Guide RFC closing in 3,2,... (James Heilman)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:20:59 -0500
> From: birgitte...@yah
2) The X ray tech who took the image
> 3) The person / institution who paid to have the image taken
> a) The HMO or patient if in the USA
> b) The government if in many parts of the world
> 4) The doctor who ordered the image
> 5) The doctor who read the image
> 6) The hospital / shareholders
On 20 August 2012 12:08, James Heilman wrote:
> A question about copyright, who owns the copyright on Xrays and are they
> even copyrightable? I have uploaded a few of them and no one seems to know
> the answer. I guess the options would be:
Why is it any different to any other work created durin
2012/8/20 James Heilman :
> A question about copyright, who owns the copyright on Xrays and are they
> even copyrightable? I have uploaded a few of them and no one seems to know
> the answer. I guess the options would be:
>
> 1) They are in the public domain
> https://open.umich.edu/wiki/Casebook#R
On 20 August 2012 12:30, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> a) if the picture is taken automatically by machine in routine way (in
> case of X-ray, NMR and some other techinques this is usually atomatic
> and routine) - they are not copyrightable, as this is not any creative
> work.
I think you are underesti
Under US law (I know very little about the law of other countries):
Unless the patient somehow contributed creatively to the image (broke
his bones in a certain creative pattern), it's certainly not the HMO
or patient. If the X-ray tech is an employee, then it's certainly not
the X-ray tech.
The
I'm sure that collectively we can bloviate with the best of 'em on the
topic - but do we have any case law whatsoever anywhere on the topic
that might give real-world pointers?
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscri
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:47 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> I'm sure that collectively we can bloviate with the best of 'em on the
> topic - but do we have any case law whatsoever anywhere on the topic
> that might give real-world pointers?
It's a question of fact, not a question of law.
On 20 August 2012 12:50, Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:47 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> I'm sure that collectively we can bloviate with the best of 'em on the
>> topic - but do we have any case law whatsoever anywhere on the topic
>> that might give real-world pointers?
> It's a quest
2012/8/20 David Gerard :
> On 20 August 2012 12:50, Anthony wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:47 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>>> I'm sure that collectively we can bloviate with the best of 'em on the
>>> topic - but do we have any case law whatsoever anywhere on the topic
>>> that might give real
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I think you are underestimating the skill involved in medical imaging.
> For example, if you want to take an x-ray of a broken arm, you need to
> make sure the arm is oriented in the right way and the x-ray is at the
> right angle so that the
2012/8/20 Anthony :
> Under US law (I know very little about the law of other countries):
>
> Unless the patient somehow contributed creatively to the image (broke
> his bones in a certain creative pattern), it's certainly not the HMO
> or patient. If the X-ray tech is an employee, then it's certa
2012/8/20 Max Harmony :
> 2012/8/20 Anthony :
>> Under US law (I know very little about the law of other countries):
>>
>> Unless the patient somehow contributed creatively to the image (broke
>> his bones in a certain creative pattern), it's certainly not the HMO
>> or patient. If the X-ray tech
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Max Harmony wrote:
> 2012/8/20 Anthony :
>> Under US law (I know very little about the law of other countries):
>>
>> Unless the patient somehow contributed creatively to the image (broke
>> his bones in a certain creative pattern), it's certainly not the HMO
>> or
As I'm running out the door, two things to point out factually:
1) people who work in U.S. hospitals are very often independent
contractors, especially physicians.
2) much medical diagnostic imaging is done on an outpatient basis at an
independent imager. Even if the imager has copyright, there's
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:03 AM, James Heilman wrote:
> @ Tomasz: Per "a) if the picture is taken automatically by machine in
> routine way (in case of X-ray, NMR and some other techinques this is
> usually atomatic
> and routine) - they are not copyrightable, as this is not any creative
> work."
On 20 August 2012 14:25, Anthony wrote:
> If "X ray techs are specifically not to use creative license even
> though their job requires skill" then this would be evidence in
> support of one set of facts.
"Creative license" refers to the work containing something which isn't
strictly accurate be
In the US, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(HIPAA) governs release of medical information, which includes any medium,
including spoken, written, or electronically stored. This includes videos,
photographs, and x-rays. The only person legally entitled to release this
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson
wrote:
> In the US, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
> (HIPAA) governs release of medical information, which includes any medium,
> including spoken, written, or electronically stored. This includes videos,
> pho
On 20 August 2012 18:27, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson wrote:
> In the US, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
> (HIPAA) governs release of medical information, which includes any medium,
> including spoken, written, or electronically stored. This includes videos,
> photographs
On 20 August 2012 12:52, David Gerard wrote:
> On 20 August 2012 12:50, Anthony wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:47 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>>> I'm sure that collectively we can bloviate with the best of 'em on the
>>> topic - but do we have any case law whatsoever anywhere on the topic
>>>
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:17 PM, geni wrote:
> On 20 August 2012 12:52, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 20 August 2012 12:50, Anthony wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:47 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>>
I'm sure that collectively we can bloviate with the best of 'em on the
topic - but do we h
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Sage Ross wrote:
> I'd say, whatever the copyright status, she'd risk her job by
> distributing something like X-rays without going through the IRB
> system. And if she got IRB permission, asserting PD status or copyleft
> status or whatever wouldn't likely be a pr
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Nathan wrote:
> It's relevant for Wikipedia, at least. I don't think the projects take a
> view on whether someone is risking their job or following institutional
> policies.
Right. But it's worth mentioning... especially if the projects did
take the view that th
My opinion on X-rays. If done in private property, it is subject to
personality rights, and if in a public area, then it can be copyrighted by
the the person who took the X-ray. Ebe123
On 2012-08-20 5:17 PM, "Sage Ross" wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
>> It's relev
l forward your post to
> the list. Please be aware that all messages to this list are archived
> and viewable for the public. If you have a confidential communication
> to make, please rather email i...@wikimedia.org
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> From: Michael Peel
> Subject
The WMF legal team has said they would provide an opinion on this
question some time next week. The law is ambiguous and I guess the
real question is how much is the foundation willing to put their neck
out.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.ope
On 08/20/12 12:17 PM, geni wrote:
On 20 August 2012 12:52, David Gerard wrote:
On 20 August 2012 12:50, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:47 AM, David Gerard wrote:
I'm sure that collectively we can bloviate with the best of 'em on the
topic - but do we have any case law whatsoever
On 08/20/12 2:01 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
OK, so the moderation of this mailing list appears to be broken (surely such
emails should at least be held for approval by a moderator?). But please see my
previous email (which I sent after hitting the 'reply' button)…
Thanks,
Mike
It seems like a p
Was this long thread launched by an actual on-wiki (or off-wiki)
Wikipedia or other WMF project issue with medical imaging images?
...
Pardon if it would be obvious should I actually check AN or some such,
but I've been busy all weekend and today.
-george
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Ray S
On 08/20/12 10:27 AM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson wrote:
In the US, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(HIPAA) governs release of medical information, which includes any medium,
including spoken, written, or electronically stored. This includes videos,
photographs, and x-ra
Hi, all.
I believe Mike was commenting on the fact that his message was bounced back
(because of an email funky) and not the topic itself. In fact, I've been
caught by that exact same filter myself.
Sorry if I've read your message wrong.
Matthew Bowker
User:Matthewrbowker
On Aug 20, 2012, at
On Aug 20, 2012, at 6:08 AM, James Heilman wrote:
> A question about copyright, who owns the copyright on Xrays and are they
> even copyrightable? I have uploaded a few of them and no one seems to know
> the answer. I guess the options would be:
>
> 1) They are in the public domain
> https:/
On 21 August 2012 19:44, wrote:
> Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable
Only under a fairly limited number of legal systems.
--
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinf
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:19 PM, geni wrote:
> On 21 August 2012 19:44, wrote:
>
>> Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable
>
>
> Only under a fairly limited number of legal systems.
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikim
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:19 PM, geni wrote:
>> On 21 August 2012 19:44, wrote:
>>
>>> Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable
>>
>>
>> Only under a fairly limited number of legal systems.
>>
>> --
>> geni
>>
>> ___
On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:17 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:19 PM, geni wrote:
>> On 21 August 2012 19:44, wrote:
>>
>>> Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable
>>
>>
>> Only under a fairly limited number of legal systems.
>>
>>
[[ciatation needed]]
I really doubt non-arti
On Aug 22, 2012, at 8:02 AM, James Heilman wrote:
> There are two things if the images are not copyrightable:
>
> 1) If users add images from lets say a textbook. Will someone on commons
> simply delete them and thus it would be a waste of time.
>
> 2) Do we exposure either ourselves or the
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM, wrote:
> I really doubt non-artistic works are copyrighted as a general rule anywhere
I'm not sure what you mean by "non-artistic", but if you mean "purely
utilitarian", as that term is interpreted by the court, then this is a
good point.
I was going to suggest
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM, wrote:
>> Now clearly being able to judge that X is a utilitarian work is the more
>> normal problem with
>> this argument and why it is seldom used. Diagnostic images are one of the
>> few clear-cut
>> situati
On 22 August 2012 14:14, wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:17 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:19 PM, geni wrote:
>>> On 21 August 2012 19:44, wrote:
>>>
Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable
>>>
>>>
>>> Only under a fairly limited number of legal systems.
>>>
>>>
>
On 21 August 2012 19:44, wrote:
> In most cases ( Covering the significant majority of all x-rays existing, but
> not ruling out the possibility of rare uses of X-ray photography as an
> artistic medium) . . .
>
> 7 None of the above
>
> Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable
http://commons.wikim
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:37 PM, geni wrote:
> In the case of the US we can consider the constitutional basis of
> copyright "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
> securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
> Right to their respective Writings and Discover
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upperarm.jpg
>
> That photo, according to the licenses on that page, has copyright. Do
> you disagree?
It possibly has a very thin copyright. And even that very thin
copyright would be unlikely to hold
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upperarm.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arm.agr.jpg would probably be a
better example.
There's a good chance that wouldn't be considered copyrightable under US law.
__
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upperarm.jpg
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arm.agr.jpg would probably be a
> better example.
>
> There's a good chance that wouldn't be
On 22 August 2012 20:50, Anthony wrote:
> It possibly has a very thin copyright.
Copyright doesn't have thickness. Either it is copyrightable or it isn't.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton
>> wrote:
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upperarm.jpg
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arm.agr.jpg would probably be a
>
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> On 22 August 2012 20:50, Anthony wrote:
>>> It possibly has a very thin copyright.
>>
>> Copyright doesn't have thickness. Either it is copyrightable or it isn't.
>
> Incorrect. In some
On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM, wrote:
>>> Now clearly being able to judge that X is a utilitarian work is the more
>>> normal problem with
>>> this argument and why it is seldom used. Diagn
On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM, wrote:
>> I really doubt non-artistic works are copyrighted as a general rule anywhere
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "non-artistic", but if you mean "purely
> utilitarian", as that term is interpreted by the
On Aug 22, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton
>>> wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upperarm.jpg
>>>
>>> http://common
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, wrote:
> I believe artistic/non-artistic is accurate for images. Technically it is
> artistic, literary, dramatic,
> or musical works.
Well, I think that's an abuse of the term "artistic". The job of a
photojournalist, for instance, is to capture what is true,
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:34 AM, wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> I could be wrong, but I'm not sure there's a requirement for aesthetic
>> or artistic purpose. Non-fiction, software, legal contracts, etc.,
>> all have been held to be copyrightable.
>
> I think you are ov
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:49 PM, wrote:
> To reword what I said before the vast majority of X-ray images in existence
> are diagnostic
> images. There is no reason at all to purposefully search out X-rays that
> might land in some
> grey area.
One problem with that is that the X-ray images tha
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
> And many others were designed, like the X-ray image, to objectively
> depict reality.
In fact, in theory, almost all the images in an encyclopedia should be
of this type (I say "almost" because there will also be images which
are there for the pur
On Aug 23, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:49 PM, wrote:
>> To reword what I said before the vast majority of X-ray images in existence
>> are diagnostic
>> images. There is no reason at all to purposefully search out X-rays that
>> might land in some
>> grey
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:44 PM, wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> On the other hand, if "probably no one will sue" is good enough for
>> you, then you really don't need to ask the legal question in the first
>> place.
>
> That is not at all what I said, but you are quite g
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:44 PM, wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> And many others were designed, like the X-ray image, to objectively
>> depict reality.
>>
>> _
>
> Yes there are many such images.
>
> These types of images are called utilitarian images.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Anthony wrote:
> At this point I'm starting to doubt whether or not Meshwerks even applies.
Heh, I'm reading Meshwerks (which I believe can be easily
distinguished from X-ray images for many reasons, not the least of
which is that it wasn't about a photograph, but
64 matches
Mail list logo
