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 jmh...@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:56 PM Subject: 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 does not need to be obtained separately. - Images of internal organs or structures - Images of pathology slides - Laparoscopic and endoscopic images - Recordings of organ functions - Ultrasound images - X-rays 1. 12. You may disclose or use any of the recordings listed in paragraph 10 for secondary purposes without seeking consent provided that, before use, the recordings are anonymised for example, by the removal or coding of any identifying marks such as writing in the margins of an X-ray (see paragraph 17 http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/7842.asp). Further advice on anonymising information is available from the Information Commissioner’s Office.7http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/7840.asp#7 Per http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/7840.asp -- 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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 k...@ktchan.info To: wikimedia-l@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) - 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 machine who are closer to the rights. Those individuals, in the case of the operators would probably / could well come under work for hire. The operators - well in the case of CR there are two, and they only push a button (i.e., not artistic). They are Remote from the Object, do not see it, and do not Direct the skanner (camera) to adjust or improve the final image. Someone taking a photograph using a point and shoot compact camera also only push a button, yet the law have no problem with assigning copyright to the photographer. The patient - the only real candidate in my view. While as a patient you are alone With the machine, the only one present in the room, and you move to get Your body in the right position (i.,e., you are the primary agent to make the image successful). Erlend, Oslo Katie -- Katie Chan Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by. Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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 content of the original work of technical craft, if not Art. Artist's rights are thus rendered irrelevent if not Art, thus the traditional copyright structure of said work. Joe Chirum From: Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info To: wikimedia-l@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) - 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 machine who are closer to the rights. Those individuals, in the case of the operators would probably / could well come under work for hire. The operators - well in the case of CR there are two, and they only push a button (i.e., not artistic). They are Remote from the Object, do not see it, and do not Direct the skanner (camera) to adjust or improve the final image. Someone taking a photograph using a point and shoot compact camera also only push a button, yet the law have no problem with assigning copyright to the photographer. The patient - the only real candidate in my view. While as a patient you are alone With the machine, the only one present in the room, and you move to get Your body in the right position (i.,e., you are the primary agent to make the image successful). Erlend, Oslo Katie -- Katie Chan Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by. Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[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 result of the observed, in the privacy realm of patient to doctor operations, there should theoretically be at least 2 people present, at the time of the creation of the radiological image. Therefore some median agreement of rights at least , should go to the patient and the operator in a dual fashion primarily, with the hospital or medical center having no copyright priviliges, except those under patient/operator direction. From: Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.no To: Joseph Chirum sundog...@yahoo.com; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 also seems that the operation of both persons is necessary for the images to be taken. Quite apart from the question of who actually takes the image, the question of creative / artistic work is interesting. Is an x-ray image artistic, or is it part of a clinical process. The same really goes With the geologicing surveying image of a sea bottom taken by a geo-service vessel, the machines being operated by a number of crew. First question is who of them took the image, the next question is whether or not the geological mapping image is artistic at all. I think it's not. Erlend 2013/9/17 Joseph Chirum sundog...@yahoo.com 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 content of the original work of technical craft, if not Art. Artist's rights are thus rendered irrelevent if not Art, thus the traditional copyright structure of said work. Joe Chirum From: Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info To: wikimedia-l@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) - 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 machine who are closer to the rights. Those individuals, in the case of the operators would probably / could well come under work for hire. The operators - well in the case of CR there are two, and they only push a button (i.e., not artistic). They are Remote from the Object, do not see it, and do not Direct the skanner (camera) to adjust or improve the final image. Someone taking a photograph using a point and shoot compact camera also only push a button, yet the law have no problem with assigning copyright to the photographer. The patient - the only real candidate in my view. While as a patient you are alone With the machine, the only one present in the room, and you move to get Your body in the right position (i.,e., you are the primary agent to make the image successful). Erlend, Oslo Katie -- Katie Chan Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by. Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Erlend Bjørtvedt Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway Mob: +47 - 9225 9227 http://no.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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 erl...@wikimedia.no To: Joseph Chirum sundog...@yahoo.com; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 also seems that the operation of both persons is necessary for the images to be taken. Quite apart from the question of who actually takes the image, the question of creative / artistic work is interesting. Is an x-ray image artistic, or is it part of a clinical process. The same really goes With the geologicing surveying image of a sea bottom taken by a geo-service vessel, the machines being operated by a number of crew. First question is who of them took the image, the next question is whether or not the geological mapping image is artistic at all. I think it's not. Erlend 2013/9/17 Joseph Chirum sundog...@yahoo.com 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 content of the original work of technical craft, if not Art. Artist's rights are thus rendered irrelevent if not Art, thus the traditional copyright structure of said work. Joe Chirum From: Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info To: wikimedia-l@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) - 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 machine who are closer to the rights. Those individuals, in the case of the operators would probably / could well come under work for hire. The operators - well in the case of CR there are two, and they only push a button (i.e., not artistic). They are Remote from the Object, do not see it, and do not Direct the skanner (camera) to adjust or improve the final image. Someone taking a photograph using a point and shoot compact camera also only push a button, yet the law have no problem with assigning copyright to the photographer. The patient - the only real candidate in my view. While as a patient you are alone With the machine, the only one present in the room, and you move to get Your body in the right position (i.,e., you are the primary agent to make the image successful). Erlend, Oslo Katie -- Katie Chan Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by. Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Erlend Bjørtvedt Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway Mob: +47 - 9225 9227 http://no.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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. From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 realm, unresolved. My own guess is that the organization employing the people performing the imaging likely owns the copyright barring agreements otherwise, but the circumstances vary so much that only an image by image analysis of the legal conditions that apply will resolve ownership for any particular image. But quite apart from the legal issues, there are ethical considerations that shouldn't be ignored for the sake of expediency. While an x-ray or CT or other image may not fall under HIPAA (because it isn't generally personally identifying), it is still an image of a human being who ought to - and in some jurisdictions may by law - have some control over its use. What James Heilman appeared to be seeking was a quick response affirming that x-rays can be used freely without encumbrance by concerns over ownership or permission. Despite his ultimatum that he would take his considerable energy and effort elsewhere, it doesn't seem like he's going to get that from contributors to this thread. That doesn't mean there is no possible solution. If we use images garnered from journals, institutions and repositories with rigorous patient consent rules, and treat those from other sources carefully, I imagine that encyclopedia editors will find an adequate number of images to properly illustrate articles. But that would have to take place under an EDP, and I don't see Commons getting around the issue of ownership until the legal landscape is more settled. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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, thus withholding personally identifying information of the images. From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com To: Joseph Chirum sundog...@yahoo.com; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 sundog...@yahoo.com 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 compliant, or other agreement binding. It's just not that simple, unfortunately. HIPAA applies to personally identifying information; I think it'd be easy to argue that the presumption on imagery, devoid of identifying accompanying text, is that it is de facto de-identified and thus exempt from HIPAA scrutiny. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Fw: MetaWeb updated and refined mission statement and link
Hello Thank you for your feedback... I did not know Wikidata existed. This project looks like pretty much what i was trying to do through MetaWorld's Data. You were right about the branding problem... I was using Metawiki , MetaWeb, and Meta World's Data interchangeably. I was doing this intentionally however, because i was trying to avoid a branding problem. I did not want the community to preference one name over the others, since they are all accurate. I guess the thing to do now, is merge with Wikidata. Is anybody on this list working on wikidata, and have any advice for where to begin on a project like this. I am happy to see that the project has already been begun... of course i am not the first person to think of an idea like this one. I would like to see more discussion of A.I. metadata bots if anybody out there is working on this stuff. Thank you Art From: MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com To: Joseph Chirum sundog...@yahoo.com; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] MetaWeb updated and refined mission statement and link Joseph Chirum wrote: Hello everybody Hi. I havent seen any feedback directly associated with the Meta World's Data, project proposal ... Please get involved ... we are us. Yes, I think we can all agree that we are us. You seem to have a branding problem currently. You're somewhat rambling about... I'm not really sure what. You seem to use the terms MetaWeb, Meta World's Data, and apparently MetaWiki interchangeably. This naming inconsistency makes it difficult to sell your idea(s) to others. Wikimedia has a general history of bad naming (Wikipedia, Wikimedia, MediaWiki, etc.). You've created a page at Meta-Wiki called MetaWiki. You're, err, not helping matters. :-) Most of what you're talking about (I think) sounds very similar to Wikidata. Have you looked at https://www.wikidata.org and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata? Hope that helps. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Meta World's Data project proposal
Hello everybody Here is the outline of my new Meta Project Proposal. It is Metadata is the fuel that feeds this spaceship, and wikipedia is food for thought. Please feel free to add, comment, edit, and otherwise participate and contribute to this project. This project happens in real-time. It should be fun for everybody. Thank you https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta_World%27s_Data#Mailing_list_links I. Goal: To organize all of the world's open source wiki information. II. This will be done by organizing all of the creative commons wiki content into an interdisciplinary Aristotelian structure which mirrors the traditional academic classification and organizational structure. This is not a new wiki, but rather a new way of visualizing the data on wikipedia. III. Simply put, a table of contents structure to the book of knowledge. Wikipedia is currently in a disorganized content organization, and a parallel mirror wiki could be created with the new organizational structure of academic branches and categories. IV. To minimize the amount of manual human labor which will be required for this task, A.I. wiki bots will be utilized to re-organize and unentangle all of the interlinking threads of human knowledge. Art, Art History, Philosophy, Biology, Marine Biology, Computer Science, Genetics, Bio Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Geology, Archaeology, Christian Archaeology, i think you get the idea. V. Wiki's incorporate Time and Space (Place) into their architecture, which is circular or non linear With only Time or only Space in the architecture, the content becomes linear. (history book) History is the table of contents and navigational architecture for the Meta Wiki. VI. The list goes on, but it is easily organizable, and almost effortless with a few good wiki bots. Thank you for your support and participation. of contents, or chronology. We are Us. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
