[Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
36 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

jmh649
My concern is that if we are going to be both super cautious and assume
that X-rays are copyrightable than we will need to get permission from all
9 potential copyright holders (ordering physician, patient, radiologist,
hospital, government, X-ray tech, machine manufacturer, software
programmer and the Queen of English in my jurisdiction, shareholders of
hospitals in other jurisdictions). This will eliminate all radiological
images from Wikipedia. Last time I wrote the Queen asking her to release
content under a CC BY SA license she didn't respond. If the Wikimedia
movement takes this stance I will go elsewhere.

--
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, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Tomasz Ganicz
Just joking: ask Jimbo to contact your Queen - I heard he has good
relationship with Her Majesty :-)



2013/9/17 James Heilman <[hidden email]>:

> My concern is that if we are going to be both super cautious and assume
> that X-rays are copyrightable than we will need to get permission from all
> 9 potential copyright holders (ordering physician, patient, radiologist,
> hospital, government, X-ray tech, machine manufacturer, software
> programmer and the Queen of English in my jurisdiction, shareholders of
> hospitals in other jurisdictions). This will eliminate all radiological
> images from Wikipedia. Last time I wrote the Queen asking her to release
> content under a CC BY SA license she didn't respond. If the Wikimedia
> movement takes this stance I will go elsewhere.
>
> --
> 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, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Mathias Schindler-2
In reply to this post by jmh649
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:06 PM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> My concern is that if we are going to be both super cautious and assume
> that X-rays are copyrightable than we will need to get permission from all
> 9 potential copyright holders (ordering physician, patient, radiologist,
> hospital, government, X-ray tech, machine manufacturer, software
> programmer and the Queen of English in my jurisdiction, shareholders of
> hospitals in other jurisdictions).

Out of the 9 categories of potential copyright holders, we should be
able to eliminate patients as they are not an active part of the
creation process and there is no transfer of copyright to them.

Mathias

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Nathan Awrich
Maybe they don't own the images outright from a legal perspective, but
certainly ethics (and particularly medical ethics) is moving in the
direction of securing permission from the subject of the images before
they are used for purposes other than treatment. Documenting this kind
of permission in a format like Commons is going to be tough, but that
could be resolved with a policy of only using images published by an
organization known to pursue permission where feasible.

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Mathias Schindler
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:06 PM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> My concern is that if we are going to be both super cautious and assume
>> that X-rays are copyrightable than we will need to get permission from all
>> 9 potential copyright holders (ordering physician, patient, radiologist,
>> hospital, government, X-ray tech, machine manufacturer, software
>> programmer and the Queen of English in my jurisdiction, shareholders of
>> hospitals in other jurisdictions).
>
> Out of the 9 categories of potential copyright holders, we should be
> able to eliminate patients as they are not an active part of the
> creation process and there is no transfer of copyright to them.
>
> Mathias
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Mathias Schindler-2
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Maybe they don't own the images outright from a legal perspective, but
> certainly ethics (and particularly medical ethics)

They do not own it from a copyright perspective. I did not speak about
other applicable laws protecting doctor-patient confidentiality or
privacy of patients.

Mathias

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Andrew Gray-3
In reply to this post by jmh649
The problem is that we are (in most cases) super cautious anyway - 99%
of the cases where we delete an old image it is functionally an orphan
work and we will never, ever, be challenged over using it or declaring
it PD. But we still delete it.

Likewise, we have lengthy debates about the validity of freedom of
panorama in countries where it is quite possible no lawyer has ever
considered the issue, much less a legislator or a court. The community
cares, a lot, about getting this right. It perhaps cares too much, but
that's another discussion!

I think if we're going to have a blanket declaration that x-rays are
exempt (probably in the US only) we'd need some solid, clear,
reasoning and a clear indication there's no previous legal activity
around this, or that previous legal activity is on our side - in other
words, something like our policy statement on reproductions of 2D
images. If we don't have this sort of foundation, it'll seem
capricious and opportunistic. The link Luis sent is a start, but it
does suggest a lot of work would be needed and we might not get a
clear answer in any case...

A.

On 17 September 2013 13:06, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> My concern is that if we are going to be both super cautious and assume
> that X-rays are copyrightable than we will need to get permission from all
> 9 potential copyright holders (ordering physician, patient, radiologist,
> hospital, government, X-ray tech, machine manufacturer, software
> programmer and the Queen of English in my jurisdiction, shareholders of
> hospitals in other jurisdictions). This will eliminate all radiological
> images from Wikipedia. Last time I wrote the Queen asking her to release
> content under a CC BY SA license she didn't respond. If the Wikimedia
> movement takes this stance I will go elsewhere.
>
> --
> 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, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Risker
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
In many jurisdictions, there are specific privacy laws that address the
rights of patients to control access to *any* information about them,
whether identifying or not, and requirements that any use of patient
information, whether anonymized or not, must be done with the consent of
the patient unless specifically legislated.  This has nothing at all to do
with copyright.  A surprisingly large number of studies, tissue samples,
and so on *are* actually pretty easily identifiable.  In many cases,
patient consent is required in order to use information for research or
educational purposes; those participating in research have to sign fairly
extensive consent agreements that often include a clause about how their
information will be shared.

I'd suggest practitioners themselves ought to be quite cautious before
uploading such images, and ensure that they have had a very specific
discussion with their institution, and received *in writing* authorization
for uploading.  It is spectacularly wonderful that the physicians amongst
us have such a strong desire to educate, and it would be horrible if
someone lost privileges at their institution (and possibly their
license) over such a benevolent gesture. Don't just call your professional
association - have the discussion with the institution, and get things in
writing and actively pursue an institutional policy on the educational use
of medical images.

Risker




On 17 September 2013 09:21, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Maybe they don't own the images outright from a legal perspective, but
> certainly ethics (and particularly medical ethics) is moving in the
> direction of securing permission from the subject of the images before
> they are used for purposes other than treatment. Documenting this kind
> of permission in a format like Commons is going to be tough, but that
> could be resolved with a policy of only using images published by an
> organization known to pursue permission where feasible.
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Mathias Schindler
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:06 PM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> My concern is that if we are going to be both super cautious and assume
> >> that X-rays are copyrightable than we will need to get permission from
> all
> >> 9 potential copyright holders (ordering physician, patient, radiologist,
> >> hospital, government, X-ray tech, machine manufacturer, software
> >> programmer and the Queen of English in my jurisdiction, shareholders of
> >> hospitals in other jurisdictions).
> >
> > Out of the 9 categories of potential copyright holders, we should be
> > able to eliminate patients as they are not an active part of the
> > creation process and there is no transfer of copyright to them.
> >
> > Mathias
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Erlend Bjørtvedt
I took CR scanning recently, and reflected on who would be the right
copyrightholder.

The manufacturer of the machine (Siemens) - certainly not, that would be
like Nikon and Canon holding rights to all photos on Commons...

The hospital - certainly not, since there ar eindividuals running the
machine who are closer to the rights.

The operators - well in the case of CR there are two, and they only push a
button (i.e., not artistic). They are Remote from the Object, do not see
it, and do not Direct the skanner ("camera") to adjust or improve the final
image.

The patient - the only real candidate in my view. While as a patient you
are alone With the machine, the only one present in the room, and you move
to get Your body in the right position (i.,e., you are the primary agent to
make the image successful).

Erlend, Oslo



2013/9/17 Risker <[hidden email]>

> In many jurisdictions, there are specific privacy laws that address the
> rights of patients to control access to *any* information about them,
> whether identifying or not, and requirements that any use of patient
> information, whether anonymized or not, must be done with the consent of
> the patient unless specifically legislated.  This has nothing at all to do
> with copyright.  A surprisingly large number of studies, tissue samples,
> and so on *are* actually pretty easily identifiable.  In many cases,
> patient consent is required in order to use information for research or
> educational purposes; those participating in research have to sign fairly
> extensive consent agreements that often include a clause about how their
> information will be shared.
>
> I'd suggest practitioners themselves ought to be quite cautious before
> uploading such images, and ensure that they have had a very specific
> discussion with their institution, and received *in writing* authorization
> for uploading.  It is spectacularly wonderful that the physicians amongst
> us have such a strong desire to educate, and it would be horrible if
> someone lost privileges at their institution (and possibly their
> license) over such a benevolent gesture. Don't just call your professional
> association - have the discussion with the institution, and get things in
> writing and actively pursue an institutional policy on the educational use
> of medical images.
>
> Risker
>
>
>
>
> On 17 September 2013 09:21, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Maybe they don't own the images outright from a legal perspective, but
> > certainly ethics (and particularly medical ethics) is moving in the
> > direction of securing permission from the subject of the images before
> > they are used for purposes other than treatment. Documenting this kind
> > of permission in a format like Commons is going to be tough, but that
> > could be resolved with a policy of only using images published by an
> > organization known to pursue permission where feasible.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Mathias Schindler
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:06 PM, James Heilman <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >> My concern is that if we are going to be both super cautious and
> assume
> > >> that X-rays are copyrightable than we will need to get permission from
> > all
> > >> 9 potential copyright holders (ordering physician, patient,
> radiologist,
> > >> hospital, government, X-ray tech, machine manufacturer, software
> > >> programmer and the Queen of English in my jurisdiction, shareholders
> of
> > >> hospitals in other jurisdictions).
> > >
> > > Out of the 9 categories of potential copyright holders, we should be
> > > able to eliminate patients as they are not an active part of the
> > > creation process and there is no transfer of copyright to them.
> > >
> > > Mathias
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
*Erlend Bjørtvedt*
Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge
Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway
Mob: +47 - 9225 9227
 http://no.wikimedia.org <http://no.wikimedia.org/wiki/About_us>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Katie Chan
On 17/09/2013 17:47, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:
> I took CR scanning recently, and reflected on who would be the right
> copyrightholder.
>
> The manufacturer of the machine (Siemens) - certainly not, that would be
> like Nikon and Canon holding rights to all photos on Commons...
>
> The hospital - certainly not, since there ar eindividuals running the
> machine who are closer to the rights.

Those individuals, in the case of the operators would probably / could
well come under work for hire.

> The operators - well in the case of CR there are two, and they only push a
> button (i.e., not artistic). They are Remote from the Object, do not see
> it, and do not Direct the skanner ("camera") to adjust or improve the final
> image.

Someone taking a photograph using a point and shoot compact camera also
only push a button, yet the law have no problem with assigning copyright
to the photographer.

> The patient - the only real candidate in my view. While as a patient you
> are alone With the machine, the only one present in the room, and you move
> to get Your body in the right position (i.,e., you are the primary agent to
> make the image successful).
>
> Erlend, Oslo

Katie

--
Katie Chan
Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by.


Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
      - Heinrich Heine


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Joseph Chirum
In my opinion, the patient is the copyright holder.  for these reasons mentioned by Erlend.  The hospital is an institution, and the photographer is an employee.  Therefore the patient is the consumer, and thus the patron, in turn forming an agreement as to the subject matter, and thus the content of the original work of technical craft, if not Art.  Artist's rights are thus rendered irrelevent if not Art, thus the traditional copyright structure of said work.

Joe Chirum



________________________________
 From: Katie Chan <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
 

On 17/09/2013 17:47, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:
> I took CR scanning recently, and reflected on who would be the right
> copyrightholder.
>
> The manufacturer of the machine (Siemens) - certainly not, that would be
> like Nikon and Canon holding rights to all photos on Commons...
>
> The hospital - certainly not, since there ar eindividuals running the
> machine who are closer to the rights.

Those individuals, in the case of the operators would probably / could
well come under work for hire.

> The operators - well in the case of CR there are two, and they only push a
> button (i.e., not artistic). They are Remote from the Object, do not see
> it, and do not Direct the skanner ("camera") to adjust or improve the final
> image.

Someone taking a photograph using a point and shoot compact camera also
only push a button, yet the law have no problem with assigning copyright
to the photographer.

> The patient - the only real candidate in my view. While as a patient you
> are alone With the machine, the only one present in the room, and you move
> to get Your body in the right position (i.,e., you are the primary agent to
> make the image successful).
>
> Erlend, Oslo

Katie

--
Katie Chan
Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by.


Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
      - Heinrich Heine


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Joseph Chirum
In reply to this post by Katie Chan
furthermore , when radiological images are concerned, they are protected from distribution by HIPPA privacy regulations and laws.  Also leaning in the favor of the patient as far as rights go concerning images.




________________________________
 From: Katie Chan <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
 

On 17/09/2013 17:47, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:
> I took CR scanning recently, and reflected on who would be the right
> copyrightholder.
>
> The manufacturer of the machine (Siemens) - certainly not, that would be
> like Nikon and Canon holding rights to all photos on Commons...
>
> The hospital - certainly not, since there ar eindividuals running the
> machine who are closer to the rights.

Those individuals, in the case of the operators would probably / could
well come under work for hire.

> The operators - well in the case of CR there are two, and they only push a
> button (i.e., not artistic). They are Remote from the Object, do not see
> it, and do not Direct the skanner ("camera") to adjust or improve the final
> image.

Someone taking a photograph using a point and shoot compact camera also
only push a button, yet the law have no problem with assigning copyright
to the photographer.

> The patient - the only real candidate in my view. While as a patient you
> are alone With the machine, the only one present in the room, and you move
> to get Your body in the right position (i.,e., you are the primary agent to
> make the image successful).
>
> Erlend, Oslo

Katie

--
Katie Chan
Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by.


Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
      - Heinrich Heine


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

JP Béland
In reply to this post by Katie Chan
And for the individual himself, does a model gets the copyright of the
pictures for the poses he takes?

JP
 On Sep 17, 2013 11:28 AM, "Katie Chan" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 17/09/2013 17:47, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:
>
>> I took CR scanning recently, and reflected on who would be the right
>> copyrightholder.
>>
>> The manufacturer of the machine (Siemens) - certainly not, that would be
>> like Nikon and Canon holding rights to all photos on Commons...
>>
>> The hospital - certainly not, since there ar eindividuals running the
>> machine who are closer to the rights.
>>
>
> Those individuals, in the case of the operators would probably / could
> well come under work for hire.
>
>  The operators - well in the case of CR there are two, and they only push a
>> button (i.e., not artistic). They are Remote from the Object, do not see
>> it, and do not Direct the skanner ("camera") to adjust or improve the
>> final
>> image.
>>
>
> Someone taking a photograph using a point and shoot compact camera also
> only push a button, yet the law have no problem with assigning copyright to
> the photographer.
>
>  The patient - the only real candidate in my view. While as a patient you
>> are alone With the machine, the only one present in the room, and you move
>> to get Your body in the right position (i.,e., you are the primary agent
>> to
>> make the image successful).
>>
>> Erlend, Oslo
>>
>
> Katie
>
> --
> Katie Chan
> Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the
> author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the
> author is associated with or employed by.
>
>
> Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
>      - Heinrich Heine
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<[hidden email]>
> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Erlend Bjørtvedt
In reply to this post by Joseph Chirum
When we speak of CT or MR, the machine is in both cases operated by (at
least) two persons. It seems that they perform different tasks (the
machines are big and complex). It also seems that the operation of both
persons is necessary for the images to be taken.

Quite apart from the question of who actually takes the image, the question
of creative / artistic work is interesting. Is an x-ray image artistic, or
is it part of a clinical process. The same really goes With the geologicing
surveying image of a sea bottom taken by a geo-service vessel, the
"machines" being operated by a number of crew. First question is who of
them took the image, the next question is whether or not the geological
mapping image is artistic at all. I think it's not.

Erlend


2013/9/17 Joseph Chirum <[hidden email]>

> In my opinion, the patient is the copyright holder.  for these reasons
> mentioned by Erlend.  The hospital is an institution, and the photographer
> is an employee.  Therefore the patient is the consumer, and thus the
> patron, in turn forming an agreement as to the subject matter, and thus the
> content of the original work of technical craft, if not Art.  Artist's
> rights are thus rendered irrelevent if not Art, thus the traditional
> copyright structure of said work.
>
> Joe Chirum
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Katie Chan <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
>
>
> On 17/09/2013 17:47, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:
> > I took CR scanning recently, and reflected on who would be the right
> > copyrightholder.
> >
> > The manufacturer of the machine (Siemens) - certainly not, that would be
> > like Nikon and Canon holding rights to all photos on Commons...
> >
> > The hospital - certainly not, since there ar eindividuals running the
> > machine who are closer to the rights.
>
> Those individuals, in the case of the operators would probably / could
> well come under work for hire.
>
> > The operators - well in the case of CR there are two, and they only push
> a
> > button (i.e., not artistic). They are Remote from the Object, do not see
> > it, and do not Direct the skanner ("camera") to adjust or improve the
> final
> > image.
>
> Someone taking a photograph using a point and shoot compact camera also
> only push a button, yet the law have no problem with assigning copyright
> to the photographer.
>
> > The patient - the only real candidate in my view. While as a patient you
> > are alone With the machine, the only one present in the room, and you
> move
> > to get Your body in the right position (i.,e., you are the primary agent
> to
> > make the image successful).
> >
> > Erlend, Oslo
>
> Katie
>
> --
> Katie Chan
> Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the
> author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the
> author is associated with or employed by.
>
>
> Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
>       - Heinrich Heine
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>




--
*Erlend Bjørtvedt*
Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge
Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway
Mob: +47 - 9225 9227
 http://no.wikimedia.org <http://no.wikimedia.org/wiki/About_us>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Joseph Chirum




credits on the work should also be added to the machine operator, as they would be akin to the photographer.  However they are simply contracted, and not the independent conceptualizer of the work, in its final output.  There may be observers present, and the observer always affects the result of  the observed, in the privacy realm of patient to doctor operations, there should theoretically be at least 2 people present, at the time of the creation of the radiological image.  Therefore some median agreement of rights at least , should go to the patient and the operator in a dual fashion primarily, with the hospital or medical center having no copyright priviliges, except those under patient/operator direction.




________________________________
 From: Erlend Bjørtvedt <[hidden email]>
To: Joseph Chirum <[hidden email]>; Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
 


When we speak of CT or MR, the machine is in both cases operated by (at least) two persons. It seems that they perform different tasks (the machines are big and complex). It also seems that the operation of both persons is necessary for the images to be taken.
 
Quite apart from the question of who actually takes the image, the question of creative / artistic work is interesting. Is an x-ray image artistic, or is it part of a clinical process. The same really goes With the geologicing surveying image of a sea bottom taken by a geo-service vessel, the "machines" being operated by a number of crew. First question is who of them took the image, the next question is whether or not the geological mapping image is artistic at all. I think it's not.
 
Erlend



2013/9/17 Joseph Chirum <[hidden email]>

In my opinion, the patient is the copyright holder.  for these reasons mentioned by Erlend.  The hospital is an institution, and the photographer is an employee.  Therefore the patient is the consumer, and thus the patron, in turn forming an agreement as to the subject matter, and thus the content of the original work of technical craft, if not Art.  Artist's rights are thus rendered irrelevent if not Art, thus the traditional copyright structure of said work.

>
>Joe Chirum
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Katie Chan <[hidden email]>
>To: [hidden email]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:28 AM
>Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
>
>
>On 17/09/2013 17:47, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:
>> I took CR scanning recently, and reflected on who would be the right
>> copyrightholder.
>>
>> The manufacturer of the machine (Siemens) - certainly not, that would be
>> like Nikon and Canon holding rights to all photos on Commons...
>>
>> The hospital - certainly not, since there ar eindividuals running the
>> machine who are closer to the rights.
>
>Those individuals, in the case of the operators would probably / could
>well come under work for hire.
>
>> The operators - well in the case of CR there are two, and they only push a
>> button (i.e., not artistic). They are Remote from the Object, do not see
>> it, and do not Direct the skanner ("camera") to adjust or improve the final
>> image.
>
>Someone taking a photograph using a point and shoot compact camera also
>only push a button, yet the law have no problem with assigning copyright
>to the photographer.
>
>> The patient - the only real candidate in my view. While as a patient you
>> are alone With the machine, the only one present in the room, and you move
>> to get Your body in the right position (i.,e., you are the primary agent to
>> make the image successful).
>>
>> Erlend, Oslo
>
>Katie
>
>--
>Katie Chan
>Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by.
>
>
>Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
>      - Heinrich Heine
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikimedia-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikimedia-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


--

Erlend Bjørtvedt
Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge
Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway
Mob: +47 - 9225 9227
http://no.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Erlend Bjørtvedt
I think the question of who owns the copyright is just plain unsettled
law. Debating it here isn't going to resolve an issue that is, in the
legal realm, unresolved. My own guess is that the organization
employing the people performing the imaging likely owns the copyright
barring agreements otherwise, but the circumstances vary so much that
only an image by image analysis of the legal conditions that apply
will resolve ownership for any particular image.

But quite apart from the legal issues, there are ethical
considerations that shouldn't be ignored for the sake of expediency.
While an x-ray or CT or other image may not fall under HIPAA (because
it isn't generally personally identifying), it is still an image of a
human being who ought to - and in some jurisdictions may by law - have
some control over its use.

What James Heilman appeared to be seeking was a quick response
affirming that x-rays can be used freely without encumbrance by
concerns over ownership or permission. Despite his ultimatum that he
would take his considerable energy and effort elsewhere, it doesn't
seem like he's going to get that from contributors to this thread.

That doesn't mean there is no possible solution. If we use images
garnered from journals, institutions and repositories with rigorous
patient consent rules, and treat those from other sources carefully, I
imagine that encyclopedia editors will find an adequate number of
images to properly illustrate articles. But that would have to take
place under an EDP, and I don't see Commons getting around the issue
of ownership until the legal landscape is more settled.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Joseph Chirum
In reply to this post by Erlend Bjørtvedt


The purpose of radiological images is not to make money in the market, nor to benefit in the arena of copyright holdings, but rather to provide knowledge which is of benefit to specialists and researchers in the field.


________________________________
 From: Erlend Bjørtvedt <[hidden email]>
To: Joseph Chirum <[hidden email]>; Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
 


When we speak of CT or MR, the machine is in both cases operated by (at least) two persons. It seems that they perform different tasks (the machines are big and complex). It also seems that the operation of both persons is necessary for the images to be taken.
 
Quite apart from the question of who actually takes the image, the question of creative / artistic work is interesting. Is an x-ray image artistic, or is it part of a clinical process. The same really goes With the geologicing surveying image of a sea bottom taken by a geo-service vessel, the "machines" being operated by a number of crew. First question is who of them took the image, the next question is whether or not the geological mapping image is artistic at all. I think it's not.
 
Erlend



2013/9/17 Joseph Chirum <[hidden email]>

In my opinion, the patient is the copyright holder.  for these reasons mentioned by Erlend.  The hospital is an institution, and the photographer is an employee.  Therefore the patient is the consumer, and thus the patron, in turn forming an agreement as to the subject matter, and thus the content of the original work of technical craft, if not Art.  Artist's rights are thus rendered irrelevent if not Art, thus the traditional copyright structure of said work.

>
>Joe Chirum
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Katie Chan <[hidden email]>
>To: [hidden email]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:28 AM
>Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
>
>
>On 17/09/2013 17:47, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:
>> I took CR scanning recently, and reflected on who would be the right
>> copyrightholder.
>>
>> The manufacturer of the machine (Siemens) - certainly not, that would be
>> like Nikon and Canon holding rights to all photos on Commons...
>>
>> The hospital - certainly not, since there ar eindividuals running the
>> machine who are closer to the rights.
>
>Those individuals, in the case of the operators would probably / could
>well come under work for hire.
>
>> The operators - well in the case of CR there are two, and they only push a
>> button (i.e., not artistic). They are Remote from the Object, do not see
>> it, and do not Direct the skanner ("camera") to adjust or improve the final
>> image.
>
>Someone taking a photograph using a point and shoot compact camera also
>only push a button, yet the law have no problem with assigning copyright
>to the photographer.
>
>> The patient - the only real candidate in my view. While as a patient you
>> are alone With the machine, the only one present in the room, and you move
>> to get Your body in the right position (i.,e., you are the primary agent to
>> make the image successful).
>>
>> Erlend, Oslo
>
>Katie
>
>--
>Katie Chan
>Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by.
>
>
>Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
>      - Heinrich Heine
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikimedia-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikimedia-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


--

Erlend Bjørtvedt
Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge
Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway
Mob: +47 - 9225 9227
http://no.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Joseph Chirum
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
If it were Art, the copyright would be clearly defined.  If it is technical craft in the medical field, such images fall unto another category all together.  Any display of such images would need the patient consent to be HIPPA compliant, or other agreement binding.



________________________________
 From: Nathan <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
 

I think the question of who owns the copyright is just plain unsettled
law. Debating it here isn't going to resolve an issue that is, in the
legal realm, unresolved. My own guess is that the organization
employing the people performing the imaging likely owns the copyright
barring agreements otherwise, but the circumstances vary so much that
only an image by image analysis of the legal conditions that apply
will resolve ownership for any particular image.

But quite apart from the legal issues, there are ethical
considerations that shouldn't be ignored for the sake of expediency.
While an x-ray or CT or other image may not fall under HIPAA (because
it isn't generally personally identifying), it is still an image of a
human being who ought to - and in some jurisdictions may by law - have
some control over its use.

What James Heilman appeared to be seeking was a quick response
affirming that x-rays can be used freely without encumbrance by
concerns over ownership or permission. Despite his ultimatum that he
would take his considerable energy and effort elsewhere, it doesn't
seem like he's going to get that from contributors to this thread.

That doesn't mean there is no possible solution. If we use images
garnered from journals, institutions and repositories with rigorous
patient consent rules, and treat those from other sources carefully, I
imagine that encyclopedia editors will find an adequate number of
images to properly illustrate articles. But that would have to take
place under an EDP, and I don't see Commons getting around the issue
of ownership until the legal landscape is more settled.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Nathan Awrich
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Joseph Chirum <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If it were Art, the copyright would be clearly defined.  If it is technical craft in the medical field, such images fall unto another category all together.  Any display of such images would need the patient consent to be HIPPA compliant, or other agreement binding.

It's just not that simple, unfortunately. HIPAA applies to personally
identifying information; I think it'd be easy to argue that the
presumption on imagery, devoid of identifying accompanying text, is
that it is de facto de-identified and thus exempt from HIPAA scrutiny.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Joseph Chirum


Perhaps if all parties are in agreement, the image can be entered into the Public Domain.  The goal of this would be to aid researchers and scientists.  The images cannot be stuck in limbo forever, so by setting them into the public domain, they become non-copyrightable if HIPPA is exempt, thus withholding personally identifying information of the images.


________________________________
 From: Nathan <[hidden email]>
To: Joseph Chirum <[hidden email]>; Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
 

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Joseph Chirum <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If it were Art, the copyright would be clearly defined.  If it is technical craft in the medical field, such images fall unto another category all together.  Any display of such images would need the patient consent to be HIPPA compliant, or other agreement binding.

It's just not that simple, unfortunately. HIPAA applies to personally
identifying information; I think it'd be easy to argue that the
presumption on imagery, devoid of identifying accompanying text, is
that it is de facto de-identified and thus exempt from HIPAA scrutiny.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Michael Snow-5
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
On 9/17/2013 2:02 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Joseph Chirum <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> If it were Art, the copyright would be clearly defined.  If it is technical craft in the medical field, such images fall unto another category all together.  Any display of such images would need the patient consent to be HIPPA compliant, or other agreement binding.
> It's just not that simple, unfortunately. HIPAA applies to personally
> identifying information; I think it'd be easy to argue that the
> presumption on imagery, devoid of identifying accompanying text, is
> that it is de facto de-identified and thus exempt from HIPAA scrutiny.
It would be easy to argue that, yes. It would also be easy to argue the
opposite, that in a variety of circumstances medical imagery might well
be individually identifying. For example, if an image shows any
distinguishing characteristics (and many times the reason we would be
interested in having the image is because of some distinguishing
characteristic), those could be used to identify the patient in
question. After all, that's pretty much what the use of fingerprints and
dental records in forensic investigations entails. It may be less
familiar in the context of modern medical imaging, either because the
images are targeting hopefully-temporary characteristics (injuries or
illnesses) or because forensics has focused most of the attention on DNA
as its strongest tool. But many medical images could be used for similar
purposes.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12