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
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:48 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
For those of you who treat WP:IAR as if it is not policy, how do you
look yourselves in the mirror?
Pretty easily. Absent substantial changes in mass, the speed of light is a
constant.
If we could try to discuss things
So what does the rest of the publishing industry do? For content that is
author-supplied it is up to them [the authors] to sort out permissions and
copyright. The journals, with their impeccable ethical standards, simple
get the authors to sign a form and wash their hands of it. I have signed
seriously and declare a policy
before any mass deletion starts
Cheers,
Petyer Southwood
- Original Message -
From: James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:48 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
For those of you who treat WP:IAR as if it is not policy, how do you
look yourselves in the mirror?
Pretty easily. Absent
@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:48 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
For those of you who treat WP:IAR as if it is not policy, how do you
look yourselves in the mirror?
Pretty
Maybe they don't own the images outright from a legal perspective, but
certainly ethics (and particularly medical ethics) is moving in the
direction of securing permission from the subject of the images before
they are used for purposes other than treatment. Documenting this kind
of permission in
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe they don't own the images outright from a legal perspective, but
certainly ethics (and particularly medical ethics)
They do not own it from a copyright perspective. I did not speak about
other applicable laws protecting
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
IANAL, but my interpretation would be that X-rays are not copyrightable,
since they are not creative works, period.
Note that e.g. in the Czech Republic, “[a] photograph or a work produced by
a process similar to
In many jurisdictions, there are specific privacy laws that address the
rights of patients to control access to *any* information about them,
whether identifying or not, and requirements that any use of patient
information, whether anonymized or not, must be done with the consent of
the patient
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
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
-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
: 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
...@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
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
.
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
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
, 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
As often, I agree entirely with Risker - ethics and privacy are as big an
issue here as copyright and we need to be able to give a clear declaration
that both aspects are okay.
That said, I think Nathan has spotted a way forward - OA journals might be
the way to square this circle. Three points:
It was certainly my understanding that most major medical journals
have much better ethical clearance for publication of patient images
than they did ten or twenty years ago. This isn't my field, so quite
likely I've got the wrong end of the stick, but is it that only a few
journals are
So with issues around subject consent does this mean all images of people (
including those of their genitals ) should be removed from commons unless
they have been previously published in a high quality open source journal?
OTRS is really not sufficient if we are going to require a proper consent
On 17 September 2013 23:56, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
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
So, there has never been a copyright or privacy dispute involving any
actual radiology image, nor has anyone been able to find any evidence
of a hint of any such dispute. The law is silent on the question
because there has never been such a dispute.
Yet some people want to delete hundreds of such
24 matches
Mail list logo
