So, there has never been a copyright or privacy dispute involving any
actual radiology image, nor has anyone been able to find any evidence
of a hint of any such dispute. The law is silent on the question
because there has never been such a dispute.
Yet some people want to delete hundreds of such images, profoundly
harming the quality of the encyclopedia, on the theory that some day
their might be such a dispute.
For those of you who treat WP:IAR as if it is not policy, how do you
look yourselves in the mirror?
Dear Wikimedians,
Kira (as the project manager) and I (project lead) would like to give
you a brief update on what happened and what’s next for the Chapters
Dialogue project.[1]
Fun first: We now have a Facebook page where we share news, insights
and pics pics pics from our tour around the world.[2] If you’re not on
Facebook, don’t worry: The central spot for all information and
reports, of course, still is the Meta page which we are currently
refurbishing.
== Wikimania and interviews ==
During Wikimania, we took the chance to talk to many of you and were
quite happy with all the interest and positive feedback. Kira already
run the first interviews and posted the some insights on Meta.[3]
Thanks to everyone who took the time to speak with us!
According to the input we gathered throughout Wikimania and the
following discussions, we have updated the questionnaires for chapters
and stakeholders. Since we are collecting more stories than data, this
list of questions is not a standardised questionnaire, but rather a
guideline for the interviews.[4]
== Chapters Dialogue Tour ==
The tour around the world already kicked-off. At the moment, Kira is
in the Netherlands, interviewing the Dutch chapter, Lodewijk Gelauff
and Jan-Bart de Vreede (pics on FB!). Coming up are interviews with
chapters in Switzerland, Austria, Italy and France, followed by
attendance at the Iberoconf in Mexiko and the CEE meeting in Slovakia.
Don’t worry if your organisation is not listed here or you haven’t
been contacted yet: We are in the process of further travel and
videocall planning and will get in touch soon! Tourdates are regularly
updated on Meta.[5]
== What’s next ==
Wikimedia Deutschland aims to share stories and revive the dialogue
already in the course of the ongoing project. In the interviews, Kira
is asking chapters about lessons they have learnt and want to share as
well as challenges they need to solve and where they feel they can
learn from others. Publishing the first answers in the coming weeks
can be a starting point for the dialogue between movement entities,
and motivate them to exchange knowledge and learn from each other.
And of course, the project will not just end after the observe,
understand and analysis phase. Depending on the results of the
project, we will define next steps and encourage more entities to join
in and make use of the outcomes.
As always, your input is highly appreciated. Should you have questions
or feedback, feel free to get in touch anytime.
Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_Dialogue
[2] https://www.facebook.com/chaptersdialogue
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_Dialogue#Some_insights_from_the_fi…
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_Dialogue/Questionnaire
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_Dialogue#Chapters_Dialogue_Tourdat…
--
Nicole Ebber
International Affairs
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0
http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
So what does the rest of the publishing industry do? For content that is
author-supplied "it is up to them [the authors] to sort out permissions and
copyright". The journals, with their impeccable ethical standards, simple
get the authors to sign a form and wash their hands of it. I have signed
these forms a few dozens times without much though. And no I did not
request permission from the X-ray tech. In fact it is often not possible to
determine who the tech was as that actually pushed the button as there are
a lot of student techs in the department.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
To address the issue of needing "patient consent" for release of X-rays in
publications the General Medical Council in the UK says ethically it is NOT
required.
1. 10. Consent to make the recordings listed below will be implicit in
the consent given to the investigation or treatment, and does not need to
be obtained separately.
- Images of internal organs or structures
- Images of pathology slides
- Laparoscopic and endoscopic images
- Recordings of organ functions
- Ultrasound images
- X-rays
1. 12. You may disclose or use any of the recordings listed in paragraph
10 for secondary purposes without seeking consent provided that, before
use, the recordings are anonymised for example, by the removal or coding of
any identifying marks such as writing in the margins of an X-ray
(see paragraph
17 <http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/7842.asp>). Further
advice on anonymising information is available from the Information
Commissioner’s
Office.7<http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/7840.asp#7>
Per http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/7840.asp
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
So with issues around subject consent does this mean all images of people (
including those of their genitals ) should be removed from commons unless
they have been previously published in a high quality open source journal?
OTRS is really not sufficient if we are going to require a proper consent
process. We need witnesses and identifying documentation. We need all
up-loaders to use real names. We will need a system to verify the identity
of all up-loaders and the subjects of the images in question.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
Per "c) most reputable journals now have robust ethics &
subject-consent policies
and so we can work on the basis that images published in them will be
ethically usable"
If this were true, which it isn't by the way, than that would mean that
commons is only a repository for professionally published material. Sort of
defeats the purpose of commons in a way.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
@Mike Peel, No some are proposing increasing the licensing / consent
requirements of X-rays to an unreachable level which will result in the
deletion of nearly all radiographical images from all projects. Old images
would get deleted for reasons of "unclear patient consent", new images
would get deleted for a combination of unclear copyright laws and "unclear
patient consent".
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
Yes agree completely that we are dealing with an area of law that is
currently undefined. All I am proposing is that we do what the rest of the
publishing industry is doing. No more, no less. We do not need to be
innovator in areas of copyright or in the area of patient consent. And yes
I keep signed consent of all identifiable images I upload to Wikipedia (I
have discussed this issue with my licensing authority and they are happy
with this arrangement).
All the comments by this group are similar to those of the 10 of so lawyers
I have spoken with. They all say that "if the images are copyrightable with
no guarantee that they are, some combination of these 10 groups own the
copyright" with each lawyer supporting one or a number of the different
members of this group of 10.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
My concern is that if we are going to be both super cautious and assume
that X-rays are copyrightable than we will need to get permission from all
9 potential copyright holders (ordering physician, patient, radiologist,
hospital, government, X-ray tech, machine manufacturer, software
programmer and the Queen of English in my jurisdiction, shareholders of
hospitals in other jurisdictions). This will eliminate all radiological
images from Wikipedia. Last time I wrote the Queen asking her to release
content under a CC BY SA license she didn't respond. If the Wikimedia
movement takes this stance I will go elsewhere.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
credits on the work should also be added to the machine operator, as they would be akin to the photographer. However they are simply contracted, and not the independent conceptualizer of the work, in its final output. There may be observers present, and the observer always affects the result of the observed, in the privacy realm of patient to doctor operations, there should theoretically be at least 2 people present, at the time of the creation of the radiological image. Therefore some median agreement of rights at least , should go to the patient and the operator in a dual fashion primarily, with the hospital or medical center having no copyright priviliges, except those under patient/operator direction.
________________________________
From: Erlend Bjørtvedt <erlend(a)wikimedia.no>
To: Joseph Chirum <sundog358(a)yahoo.com>; Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
When we speak of CT or MR, the machine is in both cases operated by (at least) two persons. It seems that they perform different tasks (the machines are big and complex). It also seems that the operation of both persons is necessary for the images to be taken.
Quite apart from the question of who actually takes the image, the question of creative / artistic work is interesting. Is an x-ray image artistic, or is it part of a clinical process. The same really goes With the geologicing surveying image of a sea bottom taken by a geo-service vessel, the "machines" being operated by a number of crew. First question is who of them took the image, the next question is whether or not the geological mapping image is artistic at all. I think it's not.
Erlend
2013/9/17 Joseph Chirum <sundog358(a)yahoo.com>
In my opinion, the patient is the copyright holder. for these reasons mentioned by Erlend. The hospital is an institution, and the photographer is an employee. Therefore the patient is the consumer, and thus the patron, in turn forming an agreement as to the subject matter, and thus the content of the original work of technical craft, if not Art. Artist's rights are thus rendered irrelevent if not Art, thus the traditional copyright structure of said work.
>
>Joe Chirum
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Katie Chan <ktc(a)ktchan.info>
>To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:28 AM
>Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
>
>
>On 17/09/2013 17:47, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:
>> I took CR scanning recently, and reflected on who would be the right
>> copyrightholder.
>>
>> The manufacturer of the machine (Siemens) - certainly not, that would be
>> like Nikon and Canon holding rights to all photos on Commons...
>>
>> The hospital - certainly not, since there ar eindividuals running the
>> machine who are closer to the rights.
>
>Those individuals, in the case of the operators would probably / could
>well come under work for hire.
>
>> The operators - well in the case of CR there are two, and they only push a
>> button (i.e., not artistic). They are Remote from the Object, do not see
>> it, and do not Direct the skanner ("camera") to adjust or improve the final
>> image.
>
>Someone taking a photograph using a point and shoot compact camera also
>only push a button, yet the law have no problem with assigning copyright
>to the photographer.
>
>> The patient - the only real candidate in my view. While as a patient you
>> are alone With the machine, the only one present in the room, and you move
>> to get Your body in the right position (i.,e., you are the primary agent to
>> make the image successful).
>>
>> Erlend, Oslo
>
>Katie
>
>--
>Katie Chan
>Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by.
>
>
>Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
> - Heinrich Heine
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikimedia-l mailing list
>Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikimedia-l mailing list
>Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Erlend Bjørtvedt
Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge
Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway
Mob: +47 - 9225 9227
http://no.wikimedia.org