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
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 without histrionics, please, that would be better. ___ 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
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 these forms a few dozens times without much though. And no I did not request permission from the X-ray tech. In fact it is often not possible to determine who the tech was as that actually pushed the button as there are a lot of student techs in the department. -- 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
Someone else's problem - therefore not a problem? I also think that deleting useful images just because it is possible to imagine a dispute without any evidence that such a dispute has ever occurred goes against the concept of freedom of information I call on the WMF to take this matter very 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] Radiological images 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 images, profoundly harming the quality of the encyclopedia, on the theory that some day their might be such a dispute. For those of you who treat WP:IAR as if it is not policy, how do you look yourselves in the mirror? ___ 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
Not really, the speed of light varies considerably in materials with different refractive indices, which is about as relevant as the original statement. Cheers, Peter - Original Message - From: Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@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 easily. Absent substantial changes in mass, the speed of light is a constant. If we could try to discuss things without histrionics, please, that would be better. ___ 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
Just chiming in here because I have uploaded some x-ray images in the past and was wondering about public domain artworks - lots of research on attribution of art is based on x-ray images, and I just assumed it was OK - uncopyrightable image of PD work 2013/9/18, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net: Not really, the speed of light varies considerably in materials with different refractive indices, which is about as relevant as the original statement. Cheers, Peter - Original Message - From: Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@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 easily. Absent substantial changes in mass, the speed of light is a constant. If we could try to discuss things without histrionics, please, that would be better. ___ 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 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
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 a format like Commons is going to be tough, but that could be resolved with a policy of only using images published by an organization known to pursue permission where feasible. On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Mathias Schindler mathias.schind...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:06 PM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: My concern is that if we are going to be both super cautious and assume that X-rays are copyrightable than we will need to get permission from all 9 potential copyright holders (ordering physician, patient, radiologist, hospital, government, X-ray tech, machine manufacturer, software programmer and the Queen of English in my jurisdiction, shareholders of hospitals in other jurisdictions). Out of the 9 categories of potential copyright holders, we should be able to eliminate patients as they are not an active part of the creation process and there is no transfer of copyright to them. Mathias ___ 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
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 doctor-patient confidentiality or privacy of patients. Mathias ___ 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
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 photography” has lower threshold on originality/creativity; it is protected “if it is original in the sense that it is the author’s own intellectual creation” (while a work of another types needs to be “a unique outcome of the creative activity of the author”). And this is language from the European Copyright Duration Directive (Article 6: “Photographs which are original in the sense that they are the author's own intellectual creation shall be protected in accordance with Article 1. No other criteria shall be applied to determine their eligibility for protection.”), so other EU countries probably have similar legal constructions. It might be debatable whether medical X-ray images are, in fact, “photographs or works produced by a process similar to photography” (while “traditional” X-ray images probably are, I would argue CT pictures are not), and whether they are “the author’s own intellectual creation” at all. -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]] ___ 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 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 unless specifically legislated. This has nothing at all to do with copyright. A surprisingly large number of studies, tissue samples, and so on *are* actually pretty easily identifiable. In many cases, patient consent is required in order to use information for research or educational purposes; those participating in research have to sign fairly extensive consent agreements that often include a clause about how their information will be shared. I'd suggest practitioners themselves ought to be quite cautious before uploading such images, and ensure that they have had a very specific discussion with their institution, and received *in writing* authorization for uploading. It is spectacularly wonderful that the physicians amongst us have such a strong desire to educate, and it would be horrible if someone lost privileges at their institution (and possibly their license) over such a benevolent gesture. Don't just call your professional association - have the discussion with the institution, and get things in writing and actively pursue an institutional policy on the educational use of medical images. Risker On 17 September 2013 09:21, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: 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 a format like Commons is going to be tough, but that could be resolved with a policy of only using images published by an organization known to pursue permission where feasible. On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Mathias Schindler mathias.schind...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:06 PM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: My concern is that if we are going to be both super cautious and assume that X-rays are copyrightable than we will need to get permission from all 9 potential copyright holders (ordering physician, patient, radiologist, hospital, government, X-ray tech, machine manufacturer, software programmer and the Queen of English in my jurisdiction, shareholders of hospitals in other jurisdictions). Out of the 9 categories of potential copyright holders, we should be able to eliminate patients as they are not an active part of the creation process and there is no transfer of copyright to them. Mathias ___ 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 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
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
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 http://no.wikimedia.org/wiki/About_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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
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: a) Medicine (thanks in part to our friends at the Wellcome and similar groups) has been very active in adopting open access publication; b) many gold (paid) open access uses a Wikipedia-compatible license, and many funding mandates now require it; c) most reputable journals now have robust ethics subject-consent policies and so we can work on the basis that images published in them will be ethically usable; Putting these three together, we might well have some good sources without needing to develop our own ethical-clearance process. Searching for just license-compliant OA articles is not yet a solved easy problem, but at least we have somewhere to start looking. Andrew. On 17 September 2013 17:15, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: 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 unless specifically legislated. This has nothing at all to do with copyright. A surprisingly large number of studies, tissue samples, and so on *are* actually pretty easily identifiable. In many cases, patient consent is required in order to use information for research or educational purposes; those participating in research have to sign fairly extensive consent agreements that often include a clause about how their information will be shared. I'd suggest practitioners themselves ought to be quite cautious before uploading such images, and ensure that they have had a very specific discussion with their institution, and received *in writing* authorization for uploading. It is spectacularly wonderful that the physicians amongst us have such a strong desire to educate, and it would be horrible if someone lost privileges at their institution (and possibly their license) over such a benevolent gesture. Don't just call your professional association - have the discussion with the institution, and get things in writing and actively pursue an institutional policy on the educational use of medical images. Risker On 17 September 2013 09:21, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: 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 a format like Commons is going to be tough, but that could be resolved with a policy of only using images published by an organization known to pursue permission where feasible. On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Mathias Schindler mathias.schind...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:06 PM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: My concern is that if we are going to be both super cautious and assume that X-rays are copyrightable than we will need to get permission from all 9 potential copyright holders (ordering physician, patient, radiologist, hospital, government, X-ray tech, machine manufacturer, software programmer and the Queen of English in my jurisdiction, shareholders of hospitals in other jurisdictions). Out of the 9 categories of potential copyright holders, we should be able to eliminate patients as they are not an active part of the creation process and there is no transfer of copyright to them. Mathias ___ 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 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 -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ 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
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 sufficiently rigorous, or that their form of rigour doesn't match what we'd need? On the second point - these discussions seem to me to be saying it's a very complicated environment - ethically, legally, perhaps practically, all these things are making it difficult for us to know how we can say something is safe. If we have the opportunity to hand the problem to someone else who makes the material available to us, that seems pretty beneficial to me. It's not perfect, but there already contexts where Commons is primarily full of professionally published material - the ones where we cannot easily get non-professional stuff. (Most of our pictures of military operations are taken from professionally published resources, for example, because the many issues surrounding going into warzones tends to discourage most people not paid to do so.) If it turns out, once the lawyers have chewed it over, that the copyright/ethical clearance/whatever situation around these images can be made clear and unencumbered, great. Everyone wins, and I think we'd all be happy if there was a clear and convincing just go for it. But if it turns out to be sufficiently complicated that it's going to be very difficult for Commons to do suitable levels of due diligence, then it might well be that we're faced with a choice of externally - professionally - cleared, or almost nothing. Andrew. On 18 September 2013 02:29, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: Per c) most reputable journals now have robust ethics subject-consent policies and so we can work on the basis that images published in them will be ethically usable If this were true, which it isn't by the way, than that would mean that commons is only a repository for professionally published material. Sort of defeats the purpose of commons in a way. -- 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 -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ 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
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 process. We need witnesses and identifying documentation. We need all up-loaders to use real names. We will need a system to verify the identity of all up-loaders and the subjects of the images in question. -- 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
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 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 That works for the UK, probably. However, it doesn't work in other places. There's good reason to believe that legislation about patient consent (and its interpretation by the courths) is every bit as varied between jurisdictions as is legislation about copyright. Case law is still developing significantly in this area; it's only in the past 20-30 years that patients have been acknowledged to have some rights about the use of their personal health information, even in the Western world where personal autonomy is a more entrenched philosophy. And I'd not necessarily bet on individual institutions taking a different position than the Medical Council, either. Risker/Anne ___ 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
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 images, profoundly harming the quality of the encyclopedia, on the theory that some day their might be such a dispute. For those of you who treat WP:IAR as if it is not policy, how do you look yourselves in the mirror? ___ 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
