Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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