I am in no way an expert in copyright so I can't comment on that aspect of the image.
However, reading through the article it is clear to me that the syndrome can affect several parts of the body. As in many medical images I have seen in the past, nudity of the subject of the image allows for the symptoms referred to to be clearly seen by non-experts on the field (like myself) and be educated. This is not possible in the same way if the subject is clothed.
My personal preference would for the image to be anonymised, in the way that previously suggested (obscuring the subject's face or eyes).
K.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:00 PM, gendergap-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Send Gendergap mailing list submissions to gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to gendergap-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at gendergap-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Gendergap digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: Marfan syndrome image (Keilana)
- Re: Marfan syndrome image (Lisette Kalshoven)
- Marfan syndrome image (Neotarf) (Ellie Kesselman)
- Re: Marfan syndrome image (SarahSV)
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2016 11:54:48 -0500 From: Keilana keilanawiki@gmail.com To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects." gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Marfan syndrome image Message-ID: <CADYPWKkAs3TK=yGWvtJBHuks+-2pdNyNR3JYYxD_cBuem8P_ew@mail. gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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
The image was removed by Doc James with the edit summary "Prior person had a lot more than marfans"
One way to obscure the face is, if you're not trying to illustrate facial features of certain genetic conditions, to crop the face out entirely.
Also, I think the concern is more "Are the parents of the kids aware that the picture is on Wikipedia and are they okay with it?", and not copyright. I know people with genetic syndromes, along with some doctors and a lot of parents of kids with genetic syndromes, have issues with some of the medical imagery used to portray genetic conditions.
From, Emily
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The image was removed by Doc James with the edit summary "Prior person had a lot more than marfans"
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Please also bear in mind the ethical concerns around using images of children, especially around medical conditions, and their own informed consent. Children cannot consent to this, so obviously their parents/guardians can, which makes it legal. However, if they’re identifiable, they may well grow up to regret having their image associated with a medical condition, and this may have ramifications for them in later life. They, as children, had no say in the matter.
Just putting that out there.
— Allie
On Aug 9, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
One way to obscure the face is, if you're not trying to illustrate facial features of certain genetic conditions, to crop the face out entirely.
Also, I think the concern is more "Are the parents of the kids aware that the picture is on Wikipedia and are they okay with it?", and not copyright. I know people with genetic syndromes, along with some doctors and a lot of parents of kids with genetic syndromes, have issues with some of the medical imagery used to portray genetic conditions.
From, Emily
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com mailto:nawrich@gmail.com> wrote: The image was removed by Doc James with the edit summary "Prior person had a lot more than marfans"
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap 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
Some comment on Lane Rasberry's "model release" question: first it seems from the supporting essays, the underlying purpose of a "model release" is legal protection for a photographer selling photographs, which wouldn't apply to Commons. The "model" terminology is somehow not quite right for the open source movement either, it invokes fashion or "adult" industry terminology. The definition of a "model" is someone who is paid to display merchandise. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/model Finally, if such a thing became available, how would it end up being used--to require Wikipedians to sign such a release as a precondition of attending events? We have already seen in the past the unfortunate effects of such photographs being used against Wikimedians, and disproportionately against women, by those who politically oppose the Wikimedia movement. I suspect such a thing would result in less, not more photographs uploaded.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Alison Cassidy cooties@mac.com wrote:
Please also bear in mind the ethical concerns around using images of children, especially around medical conditions, and their own informed consent. Children cannot consent to this, so obviously their parents/guardians can, which makes it legal. However, if they’re identifiable, they may well grow up to regret having their image associated with a medical condition, and this may have ramifications for them in later life. They, as children, had no say in the matter.
Just putting that out there.
— Allie
On Aug 9, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
One way to obscure the face is, if you're not trying to illustrate facial features of certain genetic conditions, to crop the face out entirely.
Also, I think the concern is more "Are the parents of the kids aware that the picture is on Wikipedia and are they okay with it?", and not copyright. I know people with genetic syndromes, along with some doctors and a lot of parents of kids with genetic syndromes, have issues with some of the medical imagery used to portray genetic conditions.
From, Emily
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The image was removed by Doc James with the edit summary "Prior person had a lot more than marfans"
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
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
In many (most?) legal jurisdictions, no release is required if you're in a place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Aug 12, 2016 1:43 AM, "Neotarf" neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Some comment on Lane Rasberry's "model release" question: first it seems from the supporting essays, the underlying purpose of a "model release" is legal protection for a photographer selling photographs, which wouldn't apply to Commons. The "model" terminology is somehow not quite right for the open source movement either, it invokes fashion or "adult" industry terminology. The definition of a "model" is someone who is paid to display merchandise. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/model Finally, if such a thing became available, how would it end up being used--to require Wikipedians to sign such a release as a precondition of attending events? We have already seen in the past the unfortunate effects of such photographs being used against Wikimedians, and disproportionately against women, by those who politically oppose the Wikimedia movement. I suspect such a thing would result in less, not more photographs uploaded.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Alison Cassidy cooties@mac.com wrote:
Please also bear in mind the ethical concerns around using images of children, especially around medical conditions, and their own informed consent. Children cannot consent to this, so obviously their parents/guardians can, which makes it legal. However, if they’re identifiable, they may well grow up to regret having their image associated with a medical condition, and this may have ramifications for them in later life. They, as children, had no say in the matter.
Just putting that out there.
— Allie
On Aug 9, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
One way to obscure the face is, if you're not trying to illustrate facial features of certain genetic conditions, to crop the face out entirely.
Also, I think the concern is more "Are the parents of the kids aware that the picture is on Wikipedia and are they okay with it?", and not copyright. I know people with genetic syndromes, along with some doctors and a lot of parents of kids with genetic syndromes, have issues with some of the medical imagery used to portray genetic conditions.
From, Emily
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The image was removed by Doc James with the edit summary "Prior person had a lot more than marfans"
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
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