It was certainly my understanding that most major medical journals have much better ethical clearance for publication of patient images than they did ten or twenty years ago. This isn't my field, so quite likely I've got the wrong end of the stick, but is it that only a few journals are sufficiently rigorous, or that their form of rigour doesn't match what we'd need? On the second point - these discussions seem to me to be saying "it's a very complicated environment" - ethically, legally, perhaps practically, all these things are making it difficult for us to know how we can say something is "safe". If we have the opportunity to hand the problem to someone else who makes the material available to us, that seems pretty beneficial to me. It's not perfect, but there already contexts where Commons is primarily full of professionally published material - the ones where we cannot easily get non-professional stuff. (Most of our pictures of military operations are taken from professionally published resources, for example, because the many issues surrounding going into warzones tends to discourage most people not paid to do so.) If it turns out, once the lawyers have chewed it over, that the copyright/ethical clearance/whatever situation around these images can be made clear and unencumbered, great. Everyone wins, and I think we'd all be happy if there was a clear and convincing "just go for it". But if it turns out to be sufficiently complicated that it's going to be very difficult for Commons to do suitable levels of due diligence, then it might well be that we're faced with a choice of externally - professionally - cleared, or almost nothing. Andrew. On 18 September 2013 02:29, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk