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
