Would someone look at the copyright issues surrounding the image in Marfan syndrome? This article was mentioned in the Signpost as being worked on in honor of Kevin Gorman. The image shows a pubescent child, partially clothed, apparently during a medical exam. The image was uploaded with a CC-by-2.5 license. But if you go to the copyright information in the case study, it says the article was published under 2.0 license. There is separate copyright statement for the image: "Written informed consent was obtained from the patient's parents for the publication of this case report and accompanying images. A copy of the consent form is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal." It says the child is 13 years old and has a "global intellectual impairment".
Is the consent needed for a medical study in Brazil the same type of consent needed to host an image on Commons? Does the license for the article also apply to the image of the child? Can someone sort through these issues?
Dear Neotarf,
I also had a look at the copyright surrounding the image, and agree with your analysis:
* In any case the image should be CC BY 2.0 - not 2.5.
Technically I think this information provides you with the information that allows us to share on Commons and beyond under the CC BY 2.5 conditions, however - though I cannot be sure without reading the consent letter that the parents signed - it seems unlikely that the parents gave such broad permissions concerning the photograph of their daughter. They likely gave permission for publication in the medical journal, not necessarily sharing under a Creative Commons license. Though technically (copyright wise) they do not have to - unless they are the copyright holders of the image.
And even if the parents did give permission for the CC license - and this is simply my personal opinion - we should perhaps limit our use of the image on a more ethical standpoint of a half-naked pubescent underage girl. The image was clearly intended for an academic medical context, and although Wikipedia shows it in an encyclopaedic context, I would argue that we should refrain from sharing it and interchange it for an image that shows the syndrome on a more clothed person.
It is also possible that personality / image rights laws in Brazil (as well as child pornography laws) come in to play with regards to this image, but I am by no means an expert on those.
With kind regards,
Lisette Kalshoven
I've started a discussion on the file talk page on Commons if anyone would like to comment. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:MarfanWholeImage.jpg
Sarah
Hello,
I know this issue. It does look like a mistake that the academic paper has a 2.0 license and Wikipedia tags it as 2.5. Other than that issue, the copyright seems in order.
Wikimedia Commons does not have a clear policy on consent for images, other than images should comply with local law. I would like to establish a policy on consent because even though there is no policy, people document consent in OTRS and petition to remove content based on lack of consent.
More information about this image is in these places.
- < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_70...
- < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/Wikimedia_New_York_City/Deve...
The issue of consent for photographs is not easy to resolve.
yours,
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Would someone look at the copyright issues surrounding the image in Marfan syndrome? This article was mentioned in the Signpost as being worked on in honor of Kevin Gorman. The image shows a pubescent child, partially clothed, apparently during a medical exam. The image was uploaded with a CC-by-2.5 license. But if you go to the copyright information in the case study, it says the article was published under 2.0 license. There is separate copyright statement for the image: "Written informed consent was obtained from the patient's parents for the publication of this case report and accompanying images. A copy of the consent form is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal." It says the child is 13 years old and has a "global intellectual impairment".
Is the consent needed for a medical study in Brazil the same type of consent needed to host an image on Commons? Does the license for the article also apply to the image of the child? Can someone sort through these issues?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfan_syndrome
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
There is a consent template on Commons with lots of options, BTW.
On Aug 5, 2016, at 5:38 AM, Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com wrote:
Hello,
I know this issue. It does look like a mistake that the academic paper has a 2.0 license and Wikipedia tags it as 2.5. Other than that issue, the copyright seems in order.
Wikimedia Commons does not have a clear policy on consent for images, other than images should comply with local law. I would like to establish a policy on consent because even though there is no policy, people document consent in OTRS and petition to remove content based on lack of consent.
More information about this image is in these places. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_70#Patient_with_Marfans https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/Wikimedia_New_York_City/Development_of_a_model_release_process_for_photos_and_video#Patient_with_Marfan_syndrome.2C_image_taken_from_academic_medical_journal The issue of consent for photographs is not easy to resolve.
yours,
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote: Would someone look at the copyright issues surrounding the image in Marfan syndrome? This article was mentioned in the Signpost as being worked on in honor of Kevin Gorman. The image shows a pubescent child, partially clothed, apparently during a medical exam. The image was uploaded with a CC-by-2.5 license. But if you go to the copyright information in the case study, it says the article was published under 2.0 license. There is separate copyright statement for the image: "Written informed consent was obtained from the patient's parents for the publication of this case report and accompanying images. A copy of the consent form is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal." It says the child is 13 years old and has a "global intellectual impairment".
Is the consent needed for a medical study in Brazil the same type of consent needed to host an image on Commons? Does the license for the article also apply to the image of the child? Can someone sort through these issues?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfan_syndrome
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Well said, Lane. We lack a clear consensus around what kind of consent is required for the subject of photos. It's an area that deserves attention.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com wrote:
Hello,
I know this issue. It does look like a mistake that the academic paper has a 2.0 license and Wikipedia tags it as 2.5. Other than that issue, the copyright seems in order.
Wikimedia Commons does not have a clear policy on consent for images, other than images should comply with local law. I would like to establish a policy on consent because even though there is no policy, people document consent in OTRS and petition to remove content based on lack of consent.
More information about this image is in these places.
WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_70#Patient_with_Marfans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_70#Patient_with_Marfans
Wikimedia_New_York_City/Development_of_a_model_ release_process_for_photos_and_video#Patient_with_Marfan_ syndrome.2C_image_taken_from_academic_medical_journal https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/Wikimedia_New_York_City/Development_of_a_model_release_process_for_photos_and_video#Patient_with_Marfan_syndrome.2C_image_taken_from_academic_medical_journal
The issue of consent for photographs is not easy to resolve.
yours,
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Would someone look at the copyright issues surrounding the image in Marfan syndrome? This article was mentioned in the Signpost as being worked on in honor of Kevin Gorman. The image shows a pubescent child, partially clothed, apparently during a medical exam. The image was uploaded with a CC-by-2.5 license. But if you go to the copyright information in the case study, it says the article was published under 2.0 license. There is separate copyright statement for the image: "Written informed consent was obtained from the patient's parents for the publication of this case report and accompanying images. A copy of the consent form is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal." It says the child is 13 years old and has a "global intellectual impairment".
Is the consent needed for a medical study in Brazil the same type of consent needed to host an image on Commons? Does the license for the article also apply to the image of the child? Can someone sort through these issues?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfan_syndrome
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
One option in these cases is to anonymize the image to make the subject not immediately recognizable - one common way I see to do this is to block out the subject's eyes or blur their face. I would offer to do this but I have no idea how to work any kind of image editing program, so it would probably be a disaster!
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Well said, Lane. We lack a clear consensus around what kind of consent is required for the subject of photos. It's an area that deserves attention.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com wrote:
Hello,
I know this issue. It does look like a mistake that the academic paper has a 2.0 license and Wikipedia tags it as 2.5. Other than that issue, the copyright seems in order.
Wikimedia Commons does not have a clear policy on consent for images, other than images should comply with local law. I would like to establish a policy on consent because even though there is no policy, people document consent in OTRS and petition to remove content based on lack of consent.
More information about this image is in these places.
Medicine/Archive_70#Patient_with_Marfans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_70#Patient_with_Marfans
New_York_City/Development_of_a_model_release_process_for_ photos_and_video#Patient_with_Marfan_syndrome.2C_image_ taken_from_academic_medical_journal https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/Wikimedia_New_York_City/Development_of_a_model_release_process_for_photos_and_video#Patient_with_Marfan_syndrome.2C_image_taken_from_academic_medical_journal
The issue of consent for photographs is not easy to resolve.
yours,
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Would someone look at the copyright issues surrounding the image in Marfan syndrome? This article was mentioned in the Signpost as being worked on in honor of Kevin Gorman. The image shows a pubescent child, partially clothed, apparently during a medical exam. The image was uploaded with a CC-by-2.5 license. But if you go to the copyright information in the case study, it says the article was published under 2.0 license. There is separate copyright statement for the image: "Written informed consent was obtained from the patient's parents for the publication of this case report and accompanying images. A copy of the consent form is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal." It says the child is 13 years old and has a "global intellectual impairment".
Is the consent needed for a medical study in Brazil the same type of consent needed to host an image on Commons? Does the license for the article also apply to the image of the child? Can someone sort through these issues?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfan_syndrome
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap