Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:44 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: On Aug 23, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On the other hand, if probably no one will sue is good enough for you, then you really don't need to ask the legal question in the first place. That is not at all what I said, but you are quite good at striking down an argument which I did not make and do not support! It was an argument that I made and which I do support. I'm not going to make a detailed legal analysis every time I copy or distribute something. If it isn't obviously infringing, and if probably no one will sue, sometimes that's good enough. Other times it isn't. For example, I've never done a detailed legal analysis of what the limits are (if any) to quoting people in an email sent to a mailing list. It isn't obviously infringing, and probably no one will sue, so that's good enough. On the other hand, if I were going to run a business redistributing mailing list emails, I'd pay for or do some legal analysis first. By you I wasn't referring to you in particular, I was referring to anyone considering the matter. Sorry if I was confusing by using the word you. Since there is so little left of what I said, I will rephrase: Diagnostic images are not copyrighted and there are lots of interchangeable images that are equally not copyrighted. Right, you've pretty much already said that. I have no idea how you're defining diagnostic images such that this is true, though. And I've pretty much already said that. And many others were designed, like the X-ray image, to objectively depict reality. _ Yes there are many such images. These types of images are called utilitarian images. Which is what prompted me to write about how copyright hangs upon aesthetic choices. So when a photojournalist takes a picture to objectively depict reality, it's a utilitarian image? In hopes that it would help people understand why images lacking aesthetic choices also lack copyright. I don't make aesthetic choices when I write backend server software. But my software is copyrighted. Maybe this wasn't the intent of the legislators when they codified US copyright law. I'm personally of the opinion that software probably should have been protected by patents rather than copyright. But the de facto state of the law is almost the opposite of this - that software is copyrighted, and maybe patented. So anyways . . . I know it's the internet and all . . . where men are compelled to put on displays of rhetorical prowess as though they were peacocks . . . but please . . . for the children and all that . . . Can we try to avoid picking out the weakest snippets of writing for rhetorical displays and instead focus on the heart of the positions to explore the issue in way that allows us to both improve our understandings? I'd appreciate if you wouldn't make such sexist comments, and if you wouldn't impute on me such motives. I think you're abusing the terms art and aesthetic. ___ 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 Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:44 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: On Aug 23, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: And many others were designed, like the X-ray image, to objectively depict reality. _ Yes there are many such images. These types of images are called utilitarian images. By the way, who calls them this? I tried to look up the term utilitarian image and couldn't find much of anything. I've heard of the term utilitarian object. But never utilitarian image. At this point I'm starting to doubt whether or not Meshwerks even applies. ___ 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 Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: At this point I'm starting to doubt whether or not Meshwerks even applies. Heh, I'm reading Meshwerks (which I believe can be easily distinguished from X-ray images for many reasons, not the least of which is that it wasn't about a photograph, but about digital wire-frame computer models), and I came across this gem: In addition, the work must possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity, Feist, 499 U.S. at 345; see also William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 3:27 (both independent creation and a minimal degree of creativity are required), though this is not to say that to count as containing a minimal degree of creativity a work must have aesthetic merit in the minds of judges (arguably not always the most artistically discerning lot). There's also this: But what can be said, at least based on received copyright doctrine, to distinguish an independent creation from a copy? And how might that doctrine apply in an age of virtual worlds and digital media that seek to mimic the real world, but often do so in ways that undoubtedly qualify as (highly) original? which pretty much directly counters the claim that an image made to objectively depict reality is not copyrightable. Here's another distinguishing feature of Meshwerks, from Meshwerks itself: the facts in this case unambiguously show that Meshwerks did not make any decisions regarding lighting, shading, the background in front of which a vehicle would be posed, the angle at which to pose it, or the like -- in short, its models reflect none of the decisions that can make depictions of things or facts in the world, whether Oscar Wilde or a Toyota Camry, new expressions subject to copyright protection Meshwerks is not applicable case law. I based my earlier comment about it on the summary at https://open.umich.edu/wiki/Casebook#Radiograph_.28X-Ray.29 , which I have now found is not what the case actually says. I thought that there is no copyright protection when the purpose is to faithfully represent the underlying object was a quote from the case. It isn't, and in fact the case doesn't say that at all. I very much appreciate that people making copyright decisions in the wikis may be using this list as a tool for making those decisions. That's why I think it is important to point out flaws in the reasoning of posts made here, even if I do agree with their ultimate conclusion. ___ 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 Aug 22, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: 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. If any such images exist where the technician knew to aim for something more than a mere depiction, I would agree that things become more questionable. if the technician is actually credited by the textbook I personally would find a different image to use, because why bother about it? But just the fact that the technician knew something might it be used in a larger work (x-rays don't have preview), wouldn't flip the copyright switch all by itself. Presumably the textbook in question is for instructing someone on how to interpret a diagnostic image. Presumably an actual diagnostic image would be selected for inclusion in such a textbook. Now if a technician, while working to create diagnostic images, aimed to create an image that might *also* be displayed in an art gallery, then I wouldn't include that image in my general conclusion. But the image has to stand on its own; either was never copyrightable wherever it might be used, or it has always been copyrighted since the moment it was created until the copyright is waived or expires. To reword what I said before the vast majority of X-ray images in existence are diagnostic images. There is no reason at all to purposefully search out X-rays that might land in some grey area. If something makes a particular X-ray really stand out from the vast majority, something about that makes an editor want to use *that* one instead picking another from the mountain on diagnostic images. I would suspect that in such a case the uncopyrightable conclusion would be less certain than it is for the vast majority. We are never going to be able to actually determine the copyright on every single image uploaded. Never. Not even with infinite resources. The unknowable category wrt copyright is significant. It is just tiny subset of all works existing, but not so tiny that you will fail to come across it now and again. If an image is borderline and easily substituted; please refrain from wasting the communities' time and energy on it. Substitute it with an equivalent image with superior provenance. Rule of thumb (that I haven't thought about very long and may later disagree with): If a specific image truly is uncopyrightable as a utilitarian image, then it should be very easy to replace with another equivalent image. If a specific image doesn't seem to have any *possible* equivalents, it probably isn't a utilitarian image. Another rule of thumb: Most images, whatever they depict, are also *designed* to be pleasing to human aesthetics. That is usually the part that creates the copyright, the choices that are made to produce a certain aesthetic. When an image is designed without any consideration for aesthetics at all (i.e. an arm is placed on a plane and arranged at a certain angle in order to best diagnose any possible damage to the elbow joint), then it is a very good candidate to be considered a utilitarian image. Consider any stock story with a comic and a tragic version, consider all the reinterpretations that have been done of Shakespeare's plays. The new derivative is copyrighted on the weight of the aesthetic choices. Not idea of boy meets girl. Copyright is about how something is expressed. The harder it is to express the same information with different aesthetics, whether it is the phone numbers for businesses in a list or the soundness of a joint on an image, the harder it is to attach copyright to any particular expression of this information. 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 Aug 22, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: 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.), I believe artistic/non-artistic is accurate for images. Technically it is artistic, literary, dramatic, or musical works. The rules can change a bit as you change mediums, so when we are talking about an image I am talking about copyright wrt to images. 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. I actually expanded on this at the end of my last email. If that doesn't clarify, ask again and explain what gzip is. 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? Copyright, internationally, is bilateral agreements. If it is not protected in the US, it cannot demand bilateral protection elsewhere. It would be based on the jurisdiction of creation. Publication has had nothing to do with the creation of copyright since the 1970's as far as I am aware. Before 1976, in the US, place of publication was significant for determining copyright protection because of the notice requirement. Now copyright is automatic at fixation. 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 Aug 22, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: 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. I think you are overestimating the very minimal amount of creativity that is required to here. The aesthetic choice between noting a pause as a period vs. a dash vs. a semi-colon has been upheld as copyrightable. There is aesthetics within non-fiction and legal documents, whether or not they are primary consideration. 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. I disagree here, the intention of the creator has no more to do with copyright than effort expended. It all hangs on whether the work as executed contains some newly created creative expression of the information. Whether it resulted from purposeful or subconscious choices do not matter. 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. +1 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 Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: I believe artistic/non-artistic is accurate for images. Technically it is artistic, literary, dramatic, or musical works. Well, I think that's an abuse of the term artistic. The job of a photojournalist, for instance, is to capture what is true, not what is aesthetically pleasing. I understand that it's an abuse of the term artistic which is, to some extent codified into law. But I still don't think it's the right term. 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. I actually expanded on this at the end of my last email. If that doesn't clarify, ask again and explain what gzip is. gzip is command line compression software. As you've limited your comment to images, it doesn't apply. 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? Copyright, internationally, is bilateral agreements. If it is not protected in the US, it cannot demand bilateral protection elsewhere. It would be based on the jurisdiction of creation. Publication has had nothing to do with the creation of copyright since the 1970's as far as I am aware. Before 1976, in the US, place of publication was significant for determining copyright protection because of the notice requirement. Now copyright is automatic at fixation. Are you sure, or are you guessing? What about all that country of origin stuff in the Berne Convention? That certainly suggests to me that the location of first publication matters. ___ 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 2:49 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: To reword what I said before the vast majority of X-ray images in existence are diagnostic images. There is no reason at all to purposefully search out X-rays that might land in some grey area. One problem with that is that the X-ray images that you are most likely to find are the most likely to have been created with the intention of being distributed. On the other hand, if probably no one will sue is good enough for you, then you really don't need to ask the legal question in the first place. Another rule of thumb: Most images, whatever they depict, are also *designed* to be pleasing to human aesthetics. I don't understand that. What are you using the term human aesthetics to mean? And even if you're true about most, that still leaves a great number which were not. Many images were in fact designed to be aesthetically displeasing. And many others were designed, like the X-ray image, to objectively depict reality. ___ 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 Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: And many others were designed, like the X-ray image, to objectively depict reality. In fact, in theory, almost all the images in an encyclopedia should be of this type (I say almost because there will also be images which are there for the purposes of talking about the image itself). Unfortunately this is only the theory, and not the practice, and we get pictures winning picture of the year which are altered from reality in order to be more aesthetically pleasing. ___ 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 Aug 23, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:49 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: To reword what I said before the vast majority of X-ray images in existence are diagnostic images. There is no reason at all to purposefully search out X-rays that might land in some grey area. One problem with that is that the X-ray images that you are most likely to find are the most likely to have been created with the intention of being distributed. I don't understand why intention to distribute would be relevant. On the other hand, if probably no one will sue is good enough for you, then you really don't need to ask the legal question in the first place. That is not at all what I said, but you are quite good at striking down an argument which I did not make and do not support! Since there is so little left of what I said, I will rephrase: Diagnostic images are not copyrighted and there are lots of interchangeable images that are equally not copyrighted. If one of these interchangeable images credits someone as a creator, and you are worried they probably will sue, then use another interchangeable image. Unless, of course, one purposefully wishes to be a jerk about their understanding of copyright. And while I am sure someone will, I wound prefer not to put any more effort in considering the situation. (So please don't misquote me on this issue!) Another rule of thumb: Most images, whatever they depict, are also *designed* to be pleasing to human aesthetics. I don't understand that. What are you using the term human aesthetics to mean? I meant when creating a common photo no consideration is given to composition of the infrared wavelengths. However, whether the photographer is very aware of it or not, aesthetic choices are being made as the overall composition is selected. It is really outside this topic, but I think the aesthetics which happen please/disturb us are often evolutionary. I tend to always be connecting things in my thinking, I didn't mean to have it spill over and muddy things here. Don't read too much into and pretend I just wrote aesthetics. I doubt any one but me would be reading that sentence and wondering whether non-humans would find most pictures to be pleasing. Sorry for confusing the issue. And even if you're truer about most, that still leaves a great number which were not. Many images were in fact designed to be aesthetically displeasing. I also wrote a sentence about copyrightable images being designed for aesthetic effect. While I think the statement you quoted works as *a rule of thumb*, I purposefully did not limit the statement that followed to only *pleasing* aesthetic effects. And many others were designed, like the X-ray image, to objectively depict reality. _ Yes there are many such images. These types of images are called utilitarian images. Which is what prompted me to write about how copyright hangs upon aesthetic choices. In hopes that it would help people understand why images lacking aesthetic choices also lack copyright. I was very aware there are many such images. I labeled my statement a rule of thumb not a universal rule. I know this all sounds like I am very annoyed. I am really just slightly annoyed ;) Look copyright is really tough. Really. And most people, probably everyone to some degree, misunderstands copyright. I honestly am happy to see you smack down some of my statements, like you did about all the international agreements working as bi-lateral treaties. I learned that Berne is different today, and frankly I think that is awesome. I ran out of low hanging fruit wrt to copyright a long time ago. I really appreciate the opportunity this thread has offered me to gain a nuance to my understanding. Seriously. But I don't appreciate the rhetorical twists that, instead of clarifying the discussion, muddy things by making our that a sentence or two that wrote support a position that I never took. Not that it bothers me personally. But it confuses the discussion immensely for people who may have been struggling to follow it in the beginning. A long time ago, when I knew *nothing* of copyright, this list is where I managed to gather most of the low hanging fruit. Eventually I had to search for understanding elsewhere, but I know people making copyright decisions in the wikis may be using this list as a tool for making those decisions. At one time, I was such a person. So anyways . . . I know it's the internet and all . . . where men are compelled to put on displays of rhetorical prowess as though they were peacocks . . . but please . . . for the children and all that . . . Can we try to avoid picking out the weakest snippets of writing for rhetorical displays and instead focus on the heart of the positions to explore the issue in way that allows us to both improve our understandings? At least about
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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
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
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
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
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
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
2012/8/20 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
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
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
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
