[Wikimedia-l] Even Google gets it wrong (filtering Bisexual from instant results and autocomplete)

2012-08-20 Thread Kim Bruning
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

2012-08-20 Thread Kim Bruning
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

2012-08-20 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

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

2012-08-20 Thread James Heilman
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

2012-08-20 Thread Anthony
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

2012-08-20 Thread Thomas Morton
  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

2012-08-20 Thread Thomas Dalton
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

2012-08-20 Thread David Gerard
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

2012-08-20 Thread Anthony
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

2012-08-20 Thread David Gerard
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

2012-08-20 Thread Tomasz Ganicz
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

2012-08-20 Thread James Heilman
@ 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

2012-08-20 Thread Max Harmony
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

2012-08-20 Thread Tomasz Ganicz
2012/8/20 Max Harmony m...@sdf.lonestar.org:
 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?


No. Patient is a customer of the hospital, not the employer of the
hospital :-) We are talking about legal issue, so we should stick to
legal definitions of words (not the moral ones).

In case of weeding photos all depends on what is written in the
agreement between a couple and the photographer/agency. The agreement
might and might not contain the clause of copyright transfer. If it
does not - from legal POV pictures can be used only for personal needs
- even publishing them on facebook is questionable in that case..

-- 
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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-20 Thread Anthony
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

2012-08-20 Thread Cynthia Ashley-Nelson
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

2012-08-20 Thread Nathan
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

2012-08-20 Thread Thomas Dalton
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

2012-08-20 Thread Sage Ross
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

2012-08-20 Thread Nathan
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

2012-08-20 Thread Sage Ross
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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-20 Thread Etienne Beaule
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

2012-08-20 Thread Michael Peel
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

On 20 Aug 2012, at 21:19, wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:

 Due to a large amount of spam, emails from non-members of this list
 are now automatically rejected. If you have a valuable contribution to
 the list but would rather not subscribe to it, please send an email to
 wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org and we will forward your post to
 the list. Please be aware that all messages to this list are archived
 and viewable for the public. If you have a confidential communication
 to make, please rather email i...@wikimedia.org
 
 Thank you.
 
 
 From: Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
 Date: 20 August 2012 21:36:07 BST
 To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Cc: Kat Walsh k...@wikimedia.org, Jeffery Nichols jnich...@wikimedia.ca
 
 
 This sounds like a question to ask on Wikimedia Commons, rather than on this 
 mailing list - particularly since the Commons community is the one that needs 
 to monitor and maintain such a legal position! Also asking the question at 
 the talk page of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy 
 might be a good idea.
 
 Thanks,
 Mike
 
 On 20 Aug 2012, at 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:
 
 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
 
 
 
 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-20 Thread James Heilman
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


[Wikimedia-l] X-rays

2012-08-20 Thread Klaus Graf
In Germany the person who makes the x-ray is the owner of the right
(Leistungsschutzrecht according § 72 Copyright Act) even the work is
made for hire.

The discussion is full of confusion of privacy rights and copyright.
The distribution of the x-rays may be restricted by the patient's
rights but if x-rays are copyrighted the patient isn't the owner of
the copyright and cannot distribute the x-rays of his body.

Klaus Graf
http://archivalia.tumblr.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

2012-08-20 Thread Ray Saintonge

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

2012-08-20 Thread Ray Saintonge

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-20 Thread George Herbert
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

2012-08-20 Thread Ray Saintonge

On 08/20/12 10:27 AM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson 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/


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



This US law won't apply if the X-rays are taken at a facility outside og 
the United States.


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

2012-08-20 Thread Matthew Bowker
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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fund-raising goal questions

2012-08-20 Thread James Alexander
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:44 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:


 P.S. I happened to notice at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising
 that the Chapter Fundraising Agreement is not public (looks like it's
 hosted on internal.wikimedia.org). Do you know who I'd talk to about why
 this is and how this could be made public? I'm not sure what the background
 to this is (if there's been past discussion on this list, even) or who to
 ask.




Our internal search sucks but they do look to be on meta at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012-13_Fundraising_Agreement_(Master) (the
country specific ones are linked from there).

James
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fund-raising goal questions

2012-08-20 Thread Philippe Beaudette
Ahem:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012-13_Fundraising_Agreement_%28Master%29
___
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

phili...@wikimedia.org



On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:44 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

 P.S. I happened to notice at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising
 that the Chapter Fundraising Agreement is not public (looks like it's
 hosted on internal.wikimedia.org). Do you know who I'd talk to about why
 this is and how this could be made public? I'm not sure what the background
 to this is (if there's been past discussion on this list, even) or who to
 ask.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fund-raising goal questions

2012-08-20 Thread MZMcBride
James Alexander wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:44 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
 P.S. I happened to notice at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising
 that the Chapter Fundraising Agreement is not public (looks like it's
 hosted on internal.wikimedia.org). Do you know who I'd talk to about why
 this is and how this could be made public? I'm not sure what the background
 to this is (if there's been past discussion on this list, even) or who to
 ask.
 
 Our internal search sucks but they do look to be on meta at
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012-13_Fundraising_Agreement_(Master) (the
 country specific ones are linked from there).

Oh, sweet, thanks!

I've added a link to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising#Rationale
accordingly. (That whole page could use some love if anyone has the time and
inclination.)

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l