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 light is a constant. If we could try to discuss things without histri

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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 >

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: German University of Tubingen partners with Malayalam Wikimedians to digitize the works of Herman Gundert.

Hi all, Some of you would have already heard about the recent partnership between Malayalam Wikimedians & German University of Tubingen to digitize the works of Herman Gundert. Dr. Hermann Gundert was a German missionary, scholar, and linguist, as well as the grandfather of German novelist

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

@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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

Wouldn't this be a conversation best held on Wikimedia Commons rather than this mailing list? Thanks, Mike On 17 Sep 2013, at 22:32, Joseph Chirum wrote: > > > Perhaps if all parties are in agreement, the image can be entered into the > Public Domain. The goal of this would be to aid resea

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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, thu

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 otherw

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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. __

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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 To: Joseph Chiru

[Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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 resu

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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 conte

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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. >

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

[Wikimedia-l] FDC staff IRC office hours this week

Hi everyone, I wanted to remind folks about the two upcoming IRC office hours sessions that the FDC staff will be hosting in the coming days. We know many entities are in the midst of creating their proposals to the FDC, so we are hosting these sessions to answer questions about the annual plan gr

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 no

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Watching a catageory

Andy Mabbett, 17/09/2013 13:41: If I "watch" a category in Wikipedia or anther project, I'm notified when the category page changes, but not when an item is added to or removed from a category. Is there a tool which performs this function? https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7148 ht

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view

A talk page on meta wont be noticed by much which is why perhaps this is the better location for the discussion. It is not like I am proposing a meta policy. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> I am not disputing how settled it is but I do

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

[Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who will host Wikimedia Conference 2014? Bidding process is open!

Hi Balázs, thanks for asking. I wanted to focus on the location committee first, and then send a call for input and volunteers for the programme committee within the next days. Best, Nicole On 16 September 2013 21:31, Balázs Viczián wrote: > would be nice to learn more about the "programme co

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Watching a catageory

On 17 September 2013 12:49, Petr Kadlec wrote: >> If I "watch" a category in Wikipedia or anther project, I'm notified >> when the category page changes, but not when an item is added to or >> removed from a category. >> >> Is there a tool which performs this function? > I know only about Magnus’

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view

>> I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta >> sufficiently >> achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you >> stated >> it >> would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already is a >> core >> value. >> >> -- とある白いçŒÂ

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view

> I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta sufficiently > achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you stated > it > would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already is a core > value. > > -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) Yes, good

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view

> I know that, you know that, people participating in this thread knows that, > but for all practical purposes that's a forgotten random pre-WMF edit. I am > not questioning the importance of Neutral Point of View, one of our core values. While larger wikis have this value enshrined and well enforc

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggestion to add sources to millions of (tagged) unsourced articles

I am certainly one of the guilty parties. When I first started editing there were huge subjects on which there was nothing. I remember creating [[Tucson, Arizona]]. There was a temptation to create and contribute to articles on subjects you knew about due to experience or education. As laypersons,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Watching a catageory

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > If I "watch" a category in Wikipedia or anther project, I'm notified > when the category page changes, but not when an item is added to or > removed from a category. > > Is there a tool which performs this function? > I know only about Magnus

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

[Wikimedia-l] Watching a catageory

If I "watch" a category in Wikipedia or anther project, I'm notified when the category page changes, but not when an item is added to or removed from a category. Is there a tool which performs this function? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

[Wikimedia-l] Suggestion to add sources to millions of (tagged) unsourced articles

Wikipedians have proven to be quite adept at creating scripts, software, bots etc to automate all kinds of things. We are now in a situation where anything added - a new article of information added to an existing article - immediately gets challenged if it has no sources, and often the sources ge

[Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view

For data oriented projects such as Wikidata, Wikisource, Commons I think NPOV still applies as we shouldn't censor data just because our POV has issues with it. Consider this in the context of - Mohammed image controversy for Commons (how they aren't deleted) - Bible versions for Wikisource

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view

I know that, you know that, people participating in this thread knows that, but for all practical purposes that's a forgotten random pre-WMF edit. I am not questioning the importance of Neutral Point of View, one of our core values. While larger wikis have this value enshrined and well enforced, sm

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view

Katie Chan, 17/09/2013 11:57: – have a strict *neutral point of view* (NPOV) policy." -- And if you look at the history you'll see that the "but not" part is disputed. As for me, I've spent a few years debunking the myth that NPO

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who will host Wikimedia Conference 2014? Bidding process is open!

Thanks, Itzik! :) On 17 September 2013 09:38, Itzik Edri wrote: > I singed up. I'll be happy to help with the Location committee. > > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Balázs Viczián < >> balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu> wrote: >> >> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view

On 17/09/2013 03:33, Risker wrote: I am not certain that neutral point of view applies to all Wikimedia projects. Wikiversity programs may deliberately examine one aspect of a subject while ignoring others, for example. It is difficult to apply the concept of "neutrality" to images and other m

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who will host Wikimedia Conference 2014? Bidding process is open!

I singed up. I'll be happy to help with the Location committee. On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Balázs Viczián < > balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu> wrote: > > > would be nice to learn more about the "programme committee"; who are > they, >