Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-22 Thread Anthony
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:19 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 21 August 2012 19:44,  birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable


 Only under a fairly limited number of legal systems.

 --
 geni

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

 Including the US, where WMF is based.

 --
 Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

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

I think we're looking at this from the perspective of contributors,
not from the perspective of the WMF.  WMF has it's own special legal
protections anyway, like OCILLA.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Upcoming Survey, Feedback requested, and Office Hour

2012-08-22 Thread Cristian Consonni
2012/8/21 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com:
 If, however, we're going to mix editor's experience and satisfaction
 about Wikimedia, I am cruelly missing any kind of feedback question
 about the work of the chapters and/or other organisations or groups in
 the Wikimedia Universe that would give people the right scope about
 what is happening in a more offline kind of way. Of course, we could
 do a separate survey for chapters, but if we're truly an international
 movement, then all Wikimedia entities that support/interact with the
 community probably would benefit from being put in the same bag in
 order to fine tune their support and help for the Wikimedia
 communities.

+1.

Cristian

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-22 Thread Birgitte_sb




On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:17 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:19 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 21 August 2012 19:44,  birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
 Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable
 
 
 Only under a fairly limited number of legal systems.
 
 

[[ciatation needed]]

I really doubt non-artistic works are copyrighted as a general rule anywhere (. 
. . but I have been wrong before).

Now clearly being able to judge that X is a utilitarian work is the more normal 
problem with this argument and why it is seldom used. Diagnostic images are one 
of the few clear-cut situations.

And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize copyright on 
diagnostic images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA situation.

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


[Wikimedia-l] next Wikidata office hours

2012-08-22 Thread Lydia Pintscher
Heya folks :)

The next Wikidata office hours are coming up. You're invited to come
and ask your questions - technical or non-technical. Some of the
things to talk about are for example the things listed in the This
needs your input box on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata but
other topics are welcome as well.

Unlike previous Wikidata office hours we'll be doing this one in
#wikimedia-office.

English: 5 Sept. at 8:00 UTC
(http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=08min=00sec=0day=05month=09year=2012)
German: 6. Sept. at 16:00 UTC
(http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=16min=00sec=0day=06month=09year=2012)

Hope to see many of you there.


Cheers
Lydia

-- 
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Community Communications for Wikidata

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Obentrautstr. 72
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.

Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-22 Thread Anthony
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM,  birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
 I really doubt non-artistic works are copyrighted as a general rule anywhere

I'm not sure what you mean by non-artistic, but if you mean purely
utilitarian, as that term is interpreted by the court, then this is a
good point.

I was going to suggest UK, but a quick search suggests that you
*can't* copyright purely utilitarian works in the UK.

(I wouldn't use the term non-artistic though.  There are plenty of
works that are copyrighted in the US and all over that I wouldn't
consider art, and while an argument could be made that such works
shouldn't be copyrightable, court precedent is clearly adverse to that
argument.)

 Now clearly being able to judge that X is a utilitarian work is the more 
 normal problem with
 this argument and why it is seldom used. Diagnostic images are one of the few 
 clear-cut
 situations.

How do you distinguish whether or not it is a diagnostic image, and
what makes it clear-cut?

Even using the term utilitarian rather than artistic I can still
come up with a large number of examples of things which seem pretty
clear-cut as utilitarian to me, but yet which receive copyright
protection.  gzip, for instance.

 And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize copyright 
 on diagnostic
 images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA situation.

Do you have a citation for this?  Also, is it where the image is
created, or where it is first published, or something else?

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-22 Thread Anthony
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM,  birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
 Now clearly being able to judge that X is a utilitarian work is the more 
 normal problem with
 this argument and why it is seldom used. Diagnostic images are one of the 
 few clear-cut
 situations.

 How do you distinguish whether or not it is a diagnostic image, and
 what makes it clear-cut?

If you define diagnostic image as an image created solely for the
purpose of making a diagnosis, then I suppose you've got a clear-cut
utilitarian work.  On the other hand, this wouldn't include an X-ray
which was made by someone who knew the X-ray was going to be used in a
medical book.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-22 Thread geni
On 22 August 2012 14:14,  birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:




 On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:17 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:19 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 21 August 2012 19:44,  birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable


 Only under a fairly limited number of legal systems.



 [[ciatation needed]]

Short answer is that the term Utilitarian work doesn't appear in
French, British or US copyright law and no one else had a worthwhile
empire during the relevant time period.


 I really doubt non-artistic works are copyrighted as a general rule anywhere 
 (. . . but I have been wrong before).

Well EU database copyright would be an a counter example but thats
rather an oddball area.

In the case of the US we can consider the constitutional basis of
copyright To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. So there is no
reason why a scientific work with no artistic element wouldn't be
protected by copyright.


 Now clearly being able to judge that X is a utilitarian work is the more 
 normal problem with this argument and why it is seldom used.

No the argument isn't use because the term has no meaning. I think
perhaps you are referring to the concept of useful article however
I'm not aware of any photograph ever being considered a pure useful
article.

Diagnostic images are one of the few clear-cut situations.

They aren't per Duchamp and the found art movement.


-- 
geni

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-22 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 21 August 2012 19:44,  birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
 In most cases ( Covering the significant majority of all x-rays existing, but 
 not ruling out the possibility of rare uses of X-ray photography as an 
 artistic medium) .  . .

 7 None of the above

 Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upperarm.jpg

That photo, according to the licenses on that page, has copyright. Do
you disagree?

If you agree that that has copyright, why would essentially the same
photo taken using a different frequency of electromagnetic radiation
not have copyright? What is the difference?

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-22 Thread Anthony
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:37 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
 In the case of the US we can consider the constitutional basis of
 copyright To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
 securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
 Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. So there is no
 reason why a scientific work with no artistic element wouldn't be
 protected by copyright.

The reason is that they are protected by patent.  See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_divide

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-22 Thread Anthony
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upperarm.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arm.agr.jpg would probably be a
better example.

There's a good chance that wouldn't be considered copyrightable under US 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

2012-08-22 Thread Todd Allen
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upperarm.jpg

 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arm.agr.jpg would probably be a
 better example.

 There's a good chance that wouldn't be considered copyrightable under US law.


Even if it is, I think an X-ray would be quite different. In taking a
photo of a subject's arm, the photographer must consider lighting,
angle to which the arm is turned, the proper camera settings, how to
find the exact arm that suits the purposes of the intended photo, etc.
I think there would be just enough creativity in that arm shot, but
it'd be close.

An X-ray, on the other hand, is made by a technician according to
documented procedures. The arm is turned to the proper angle to see
what the doctor wants to see, not to an angle that's aesthetically or
artistically pleasing. The image is taken according to standard and
inflexible procedures. The technician is not exercising a bit of
creativity in taking the image. In fact, the tech would likely get in
trouble if (s)he DID decide to get creative with it.

I wouldn't see how medical X-rays would be any more creative or
copyrightable than blood test results.

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-22 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 22 August 2012 20:50, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
 It possibly has a very thin copyright.

Copyright doesn't have thickness. Either it is copyrightable or it isn't.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-22 Thread Anthony
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upperarm.jpg

 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arm.agr.jpg would probably be a
 better example.

 There's a good chance that wouldn't be considered copyrightable under US law.

 Even if it is, I think an X-ray would be quite different. In taking a
 photo of a subject's arm, the photographer must consider lighting,
 angle to which the arm is turned, the proper camera settings, how to
 find the exact arm that suits the purposes of the intended photo, etc.

Heh, I'd argue that the photo in question shows that the photographer
obviously does *not* have to make these considerations.  Looks like a
random arm in a random position against a plain white wall (hardly
creative), with auto everything.

 I think there would be just enough creativity in that arm shot, but
 it'd be close.

Yeah, I agree it'd be close.  I think it'd come down to the testimony
of the photographer.  If he claimed oh, I chose a hairy arm because
X, and I opened my thumb because Y, maybe I'd buy it.  So if you're
feeling particularly copyright-paranoid, it's best to get explicit
permission.

 An X-ray, on the other hand, is made by a technician according to
 documented procedures. The arm is turned to the proper angle to see
 what the doctor wants to see, not to an angle that's aesthetically or
 artistically pleasing.

I could be wrong, but I'm not sure there's a requirement for aesthetic
or artistic purpose.  Non-fiction, software, legal contracts, etc.,
all have been held to be copyrightable.

 The image is taken according to standard and inflexible procedures.
 The technician is not exercising a bit of
 creativity in taking the image. In fact, the tech would likely get in
 trouble if (s)he DID decide to get creative with it.

That, on the other hand, is a very important point.

On the other other hand, it's not true of all X-ray images.  It's
certainly possible, for instance, to create an X-ray image with the
explicit purpose of putting it in an encyclopedia, or a journal, or
even a book of artwork.

Where it gets into grey area would be if the person created the X-ray
image knowing that it would be used in a book, but that it would also
be used for diagnostic purposes.

Either way, it's a question of fact what instructions were given to
the X-ray tech, as well as whether or not the tech followed them.

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 22 August 2012 20:50, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
 It possibly has a very thin copyright.

 Copyright doesn't have thickness. Either it is copyrightable or it isn't.

Incorrect.  In some works, some aspects are copyrighted, and some
aspects are not.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-22 Thread Anthony
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 On 22 August 2012 20:50, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
 It possibly has a very thin copyright.

 Copyright doesn't have thickness. Either it is copyrightable or it isn't.

 Incorrect.  In some works, some aspects are copyrighted, and some
 aspects are not.

As for the term thin as it refers to copyright, see the seminal case
of Feist.  This inevitably means that the copyright in a factual
compilation is thin.

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