The purpose of radiological images is not to make money in the market, nor to benefit in
the arena of copyright holdings, but rather to provide knowledge which is of benefit to
specialists and researchers in the field.
________________________________
From: Erlend Bjørtvedt <erlend(a)wikimedia.no>
To: Joseph Chirum <sundog358(a)yahoo.com>om>; 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