[Wikimedia-l] Even Google gets it wrong (filtering Bisexual from instant results and autocomplete)
Google accidentally blocks Bisexual from Instant Search and Autocomplete. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfbO4iFaJOw As you say, we're strong LGBT supporters. Sometimes perfectly good search terms can trip up our algorithms that decide whether to show instant results. This can happen when our automatic filters detect a strong correlation on the (unfiltered) Internet between those terms and pornography. The effect varies from term to term, and keep in mind we handle billions of queries each day, 16% of which are new to us each day, across 146 languages. But we appreciate your feedback -- it's this kind of case that motivates us to keep working on our algorithms so we can get people the information they need as quickly as possible.- Google Spokesperson, July 2nd 2012 sincerely, Kim Bruning ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Side discussion: Volunteer time is precious Re: Articles for Creation broken
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:48:29AM +0100, Andreas Kolbe wrote: On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote: On 19/08/2012 11:04, Andreas Kolbe wrote: I currently see 370 submissions pending. Does this mean that someone has processed 700 articles since the beginning of this thread, or am I looking at the wrong thing? More than one someone, but you're looking at the right thing. Sounds like the someones have done some hard volunteer work there ... and are probably due some thanks. Good plan. At the same time, here's a not-so common question: Is their level of effort sustainable? Just because we get it for free, doesn't mean volunteer time isn't precious. It'd be interesting to go through all our processes and see where we can make them more efficient, thus freeing up those same volunteer for other things. (in theory;-) Yes I know that volunteer time isn't 100% fungible, but saving volunteers time certainly won't hurt editor retention or process throughput. ;-) sincerely, Kim Bruning ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [WikiEN-l] Stocking personal details
charles andrès, 08/20/2012 12:27 PM: WTF? What the link between WMF finances and the topic? And by the way are you talking about the movement finances or the foundation finances, because it's not the same thing. Besides, we're supposed to have higher privacy standards than, say, Google and I'm not aware of Google having to shut down their European branches. If Wikimedia projects were breaching EU laws they would just be doing it wrong, not the opposite; I doubt they are though. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Works_eligible_for_protection 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 of the hospital who owns the equipment 7) All of the above / some of the above / none of the above Would be good to have a legal position on this. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Legality under French law of hosting personal details such as race and sexuality in Wikipedia
Well, it's good to see that France is safe from genocidal maniacs who can't speak a language other than French, then. On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: I've been told (and have verified) that the French Wikipedia indeed does without categories to mark people as Jewish, LGBT, etc. I actually quite like that approach. On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: The question at issue is whether French Wikimedians might be individually liable for violating French law if they add such categories in Wikipedia. Seems possible. Fortunately, Wikipedia offers both https and the ability to contribute anonymously, for those who are worried about this sort of thing. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
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 of the hospital who owns the equipment 7) All of the above / some of the above / none of the above I'd suggest; 7. The person who took the image, by the skilled use of X-Ray equipment probably holds copyright. But the image may be covered by data protection laws, and the employees contract may also deal with things such as these. And finally the individual being imaged as personality/privacy rights. So; copyright with the tech, but that is only the tip of the iceberg :) Tom ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On 20 August 2012 12:08, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com 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 during employment? The employer owns the copyright in almost all those cases. The client (patient, HMO, whatever) only owns it is there is a specific contractual agreement to that effect, and I can't see why there would be. It's the same as when pay a professional photographer to take nice photos of you - they own the copyright unless you explicitly buy it off them. In countries with public healthcase, the employer may be a public body and there may be different rules (are x-rays taken by NHS radiographers under Crown Copyright?). There may also be special rules in some countries regarding medical records, although I wouldn't expect them to remove the copyright (just give a statutory license for certain uses). ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
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 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:47 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On 20 August 2012 12:50, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:47 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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. Then any real-world examples of the question arising. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
2012/8/20 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: On 20 August 2012 12:50, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:47 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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. Then any real-world examples of the question arising. The case I was writting was a set of human tissue pictures taken by a members of research group working in university clinic in my city. This is just an example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adenocarcinoma_highly_differentiated_%28rectum%29_H%26E_magn_400x.jpg I had discussion about it with our (Wikimedia Polska) lawer and the legal department of the clinic. First of all the research group had agreement from all his patients to publish this pictures in anonymous way (i.e. not revealing to whom belongs the photographed tissues). Then - they claimed, that although their work might be copyrightable, they resigne from any copyright claims and finally their decission was approved by clinic authorities (i.e. clinic had also resign from any copyright claims no matter if they are applicable or not). -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29title=tomasz-ganicz ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
@ 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
2012/8/20 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: 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. But the copyright of a work for hire goes to the employer. The X-ray tech would get the copyright, but they're employed by the hospital. The hospital, in turn, is employed by the patient. As such, I would think the patient does own the copyright. Is a similar logic not applied to, say, wedding photos, in which an photographer is employed by a company which is in turn employed by the couple? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:03 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
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 information is the patient or individual holding medical power of attorney. You can find more information here: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/ On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote: 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 no way to know whether there is a standing assignment agreement or not. Additionally to confuse things, HIPAA mandates access to (but not necessarily copyright in, though I haven't really looked at it) medical records, as well as disclosure and protection requirements. Dan Rosenthal On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Max Harmony m...@sdf.lonestar.org wrote: 2012/8/20 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: 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. But the copyright of a work for hire goes to the employer. The X-ray tech would get the copyright, but they're employed by the hospital. The hospital, in turn, is employed by the patient. As such, I would think the patient does own the copyright. If the X-ray tech is an employee (and the work is created within the scope of his employment, which I am assuming), then, under US law, the tech never gets the copyright. The employer is the author. The tech is completely out of the loop. As for the hospital being employed by the patient, not in the sense of work for hire law. For the patient to get the copyright, they would need to enter into a work for hire agreement, the details of which are long and which you can easily find online. Is a similar logic not applied to, say, wedding photos, in which an photographer is employed by a company which is in turn employed by the couple? Wedding photos are more complicated. I could see an argument, under some factual circumstances, that the couple (and/or the decorator, etc) might own copyright as a joint author. Or they may have employed the photographer directly. Or they may have commissioned the work under a work for hire agreement. Or they might have purchased the copyright in a copyright transfer. Or they might just not own the copyright in the work at all. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Best regards, Cindy Ashley-Nelson Yes. *Her again.* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cindamuse ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson cindam...@gmail.comwrote: 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 information is the patient or individual holding medical power of attorney. You can find more information here: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/ In the interests of clarity, the above applies only to information which is individually identifying. If it has been de-identified, which is presumably not that difficult for x-ray images, then distribution is permitted for other purposes without the patients' authorization. ~Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On 20 August 2012 18:27, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson cindam...@gmail.com 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-rays. The only person legally entitled to release this information is the patient or individual holding medical power of attorney. You can find more information here: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/ Privacy law is generally separate from copyright law. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:17 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 August 2012 12:52, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 August 2012 12:50, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:47 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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. Then any real-world examples of the question arising. I doubt it. Most X-rays aren't worth enough to be worth suing over and the handful that are mostly derive for the scientific community who tend not to sue people over the issue of copyright. From what I've seen, copyright doesn't even enter into the institutional perspective here. The framework is all about controlling the flow of patient information. My partner (a doctor doing residency at the main hospital system in Pittsburgh) would have to go through the Institutional Review Board system to publish medical images, even ones nominally free of identifying information. She'd be able to have them published for certain purposes (case studies and other things that are about medical practice, but are not research per se) without patient permission. For research and other purposes, she would need permission of the patients even for nominally non-identifying medical info. But there aren't any additional hurdles regarding assignment of copyright to the publishers. On the other hand, medical technicians and doctors who create ultrasound images for pregnant women distribute them to the women (and even intentionally frame some as portraits, with at least a little bit of creativity involved) to do with as they please. 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 problem. -Sage ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: 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 problem. -Sage 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. It's also worth noting that your description is of the process for publishing medical data (as a general category) at an academic medical institution, the sort that has an IRB. A large proportion of imaging nation-wide is done at private, for profit imaging centers. Such centers may not often engage in research, but that wouldn't prevent them from using their images in other ways (say, uploading them to Commons or providing them to medical image repositories). Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
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 ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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 the images were public domain. It's also worth noting that your description is of the process for publishing medical data (as a general category) at an academic medical institution, the sort that has an IRB. Yep. But it might actually be relatively easy to get good sets of medical images by working through those kinds of systems, and that could work regardless of the copyright status of the images. -Sage ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
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.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On 08/20/12 12:17 PM, geni wrote: On 20 August 2012 12:52, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 August 2012 12:50, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:47 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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. Then any real-world examples of the question arising. I doubt it. Most X-rays aren't worth enough to be worth suing over and the handful that are mostly derive for the scientific community who tend not to sue people over the issue of copyright. This certainly sums it up. Personality rights are a separate issue, and in most cases it should be easy to separate them except maybe conjoined twins and people who have swallowed a charm bracelet with their name clearly exposed. Breach of contractual rights and employment contracts are also a separate matter. It's actually easier to deal with these because something is spelled out. Our concern is more with situations where nothing is expressed before the problem comes up. My basic view is that the X-ray is copyrightable with the ownership of the copyright vesting in the person who invested most of the originality. If that person is bold enough to be the *first* person to put that image in fixed form there will be a presumption that he has a right to do so. Who is going to challenge him? A DMCA takedown order won't work, because it must reference the work that was infringed as well as the infringement. To get any more than provable damages the copyright must also be registered. It may give comfort to owners to know that copyright in a work is automatic without registration, but the down side of this is a huge assortment of material is copyright where the true owner has neither the knowledge or desire for this kind of protection. Ray ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
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 Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: On 08/20/12 12:17 PM, geni wrote: On 20 August 2012 12:52, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 August 2012 12:50, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:47 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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. Then any real-world examples of the question arising. I doubt it. Most X-rays aren't worth enough to be worth suing over and the handful that are mostly derive for the scientific community who tend not to sue people over the issue of copyright. This certainly sums it up. Personality rights are a separate issue, and in most cases it should be easy to separate them except maybe conjoined twins and people who have swallowed a charm bracelet with their name clearly exposed. Breach of contractual rights and employment contracts are also a separate matter. It's actually easier to deal with these because something is spelled out. Our concern is more with situations where nothing is expressed before the problem comes up. My basic view is that the X-ray is copyrightable with the ownership of the copyright vesting in the person who invested most of the originality. If that person is bold enough to be the *first* person to put that image in fixed form there will be a presumption that he has a right to do so. Who is going to challenge him? A DMCA takedown order won't work, because it must reference the work that was infringed as well as the infringement. To get any more than provable damages the copyright must also be registered. It may give comfort to owners to know that copyright in a work is automatic without registration, but the down side of this is a huge assortment of material is copyright where the true owner has neither the knowledge or desire for this kind of protection. Ray ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
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 6:48 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: 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 perfectly valid topic for this list. Ray ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
