[Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

jmh649
@ 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 each time. X ray techs are specifically not to use creative
license even though their job requires skill.

@ David: Yes we do have US case law. It was in the previous link but
here is a direct link to it
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-4222.pdf

X rays once the persons name / identifiers are removed do not contain
identifiable information. Per the legal team here patient
confidentiality is thus not a concern at this point. It is like taking
pictures of someones cerebral spinal fluid as I have done here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CSF.JPG I did not get this person
permission.

--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

Anthony-73
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:03 AM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> 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." This is my understanding. X rays are taken in the exact same
> way each time. X ray techs are specifically not to use creative
> license even though their job requires skill.
>
> @ David: Yes we do have US case law. It was in the previous link but
> here is a direct link to it
> http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-4222.pdf

There are two distinguishing cases which cite that ruling, however.
In one of them it specifically points out that whether or not a work
is creative is a question of fact (I didn't bother to read the other).
 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.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

Thomas Dalton
On 20 August 2012 14:25, Anthony <[hidden email]> 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 because it improves the work artistically. Not using
creative license is not the same as not being creative. A technical
manual generally won't use any creative license - it needs to contain
the facts and only the facts - but it is still a creative work.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l