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 Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l