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