gt; Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
>
>
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:48 PM, James Salsman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> For those of you who treat WP:IAR as if it is not policy, how do you
>>> look yourselves
ber 18, 2013 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:48 PM, James Salsman wrote:
For those of you who treat WP:IAR as if it is not policy, how do you
look yourselves in the mirror?
Pretty easily. Absent substantial changes in mass, the speed of ligh
very seriously and declare a policy
before any mass deletion starts
Cheers,
Petyer Southwood
- Original Message -
From: "James Salsman"
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List"
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
S
So what does the rest of the publishing industry do? For content that is
author-supplied "it is up to them [the authors] to sort out permissions and
copyright". The journals, with their impeccable ethical standards, simple
get the authors to sign a form and wash their hands of it. I have signed
th
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:48 PM, James Salsman wrote:
>
> For those of you who treat WP:IAR as if it is not policy, how do you
> look yourselves in the mirror?
>
Pretty easily. Absent substantial changes in mass, the speed of light is a
constant.
If we could try to discuss things without histri
hello
can somebody please remind me when and where the meta irc meeting is tomorrow ?
thank you
Joseph Chirum
From: James Heilman
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
So, there has never been a copyright or privacy dispute involving any
actual radiology image, nor has anyone been able to find any evidence
of a hint of any such dispute. The law is silent on the question
because there has never been such a dispute.
Yet some people want to delete hundreds of such
On 17 September 2013 23:56, James Heilman wrote:
> To address the issue of needing "patient consent" for release of X-rays in
> publications the General Medical Council in the UK says ethically it is NOT
> required.
>
>
>1. 10. Consent to make the recordings listed below will be implicit in
>
To address the issue of needing "patient consent" for release of X-rays in
publications the General Medical Council in the UK says ethically it is NOT
required.
1. 10. Consent to make the recordings listed below will be implicit in
the consent given to the investigation or treatment, and do
So with issues around subject consent does this mean all images of people (
including those of their genitals ) should be removed from commons unless
they have been previously published in a high quality open source journal?
OTRS is really not sufficient if we are going to require a proper consent
It was certainly my understanding that most major medical journals
have much better ethical clearance for publication of patient images
than they did ten or twenty years ago. This isn't my field, so quite
likely I've got the wrong end of the stick, but is it that only a few
journals are sufficientl
@Mike Peel, No some are proposing increasing the licensing / consent
requirements of X-rays to an unreachable level which will result in the
deletion of nearly all radiographical images from all projects. Old images
would get deleted for reasons of "unclear patient consent", new images
would get de
Per "c) most reputable journals now have robust ethics &
subject-consent policies
and so we can work on the basis that images published in them will be
ethically usable"
If this were true, which it isn't by the way, than that would mean that
commons is only a repository for professionally publishe
Yes agree completely that we are dealing with an area of law that is
currently undefined. All I am proposing is that we do what the rest of the
publishing industry is doing. No more, no less. We do not need to be
innovator in areas of copyright or in the area of patient consent. And yes
I keep sign
__
> From: Nathan
> To: Joseph Chirum ; Wikimedia Mailing List
>
> 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 wrote:
>> If it were Art, the copyrig
On 9/17/2013 2:02 PM, Nathan wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Joseph Chirum 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 pat
As often, I agree entirely with Risker - ethics and privacy are as big an
issue here as copyright and we need to be able to give a clear declaration
that both aspects are okay.
That said, I think Nathan has spotted a way forward - OA journals might be
the way to square this circle. Three points:
, thus withholding
personally identifying information of the images.
From: Nathan
To: Joseph Chirum ; Wikimedia Mailing List
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
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 otherw
.
From: Nathan
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
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
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Joseph Chirum 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 compl
Chirum ; Wikimedia Mailing List
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
: [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
esday, 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
@lists.wikimedia.org
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) - c
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" wrote:
> On 17/09/2013 17:47, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:
>
>> I took CR scanning recently, and reflected on who would be the right
>> copyrightholder.
>
t; rights are thus rendered irrelevent if not Art, thus the traditional
> copyright structure of said work.
>
> Joe Chirum
>
>
>
>
> From: Katie Chan
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:28 AM
>
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 no
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
mach
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 unl
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 o
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:36 AM, James Heilman wrote:
> Yes "that could be resolved with a policy of only using images published by
> an organization known to pursue permission where feasible" sounds like the
> type of policy nupedia needs. The problems is nupedia went defunct in 2003.
>
> This so
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Asaf Bartov wrote:
> IANAL, but my interpretation would be that X-rays are not copyrightable,
> since they are not creative works, period.
>
Note that e.g. in the Czech Republic, “[a] photograph or a work produced by
a process similar to photography” has lower th
Yes "that could be resolved with a policy of only using images published by
an organization known to pursue permission where feasible" sounds like the
type of policy nupedia needs. The problems is nupedia went defunct in 2003.
This sounds just like a policy "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" does n
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Nathan 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 confi
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
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:06 PM, James Heilman 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, govern
Just joking: ask Jimbo to contact your Queen - I heard he has good
relationship with Her Majesty :-)
2013/9/17 James Heilman :
> 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 copy
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
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:07 PM, George Herbert
wrote:
>
> I think this would be an excellent time for the Foundation to use those
> attorneys they have to render a real legal opinion as to whether this is
> clear or not, safe or not, etc. ...
This somewhat predates me, so I can't answer question
I think this would be an excellent time for the Foundation to use those
attorneys they have to render a real legal opinion as to whether this is
clear or not, safe or not, etc. ...
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote:
> IANAL, but my interpretation would be that X-rays are not co
IANAL, but my interpretation would be that X-rays are not copyrightable,
since they are not creative works, period. Unlike non-X-ray photographs,
they (at least, the ones we care abot -- I'm sure some artists have fooled
around with X-rays as well) are always made specifically and explicitly for
h
From time to time there is discussion on Commons regarding the copyright
status of radiological images. As no one has any idea if they are
copyrightable and on the off chance they are, no one has any idea who would
owns the copyright, there is varying degrees of support to delete images.
(possibili
43 matches
Mail list logo