Maybe they don't own the images outright from a legal perspective, but certainly ethics (and particularly medical ethics) is moving in the direction of securing permission from the subject of the images before they are used for purposes other than treatment. Documenting this kind of permission in a format like Commons is going to be tough, but that could be resolved with a policy of only using images published by an organization known to pursue permission where feasible. On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:

In many jurisdictions, there are specific privacy laws that address the rights of patients to control access to *any* information about them, whether identifying or not, and requirements that any use of patient information, whether anonymized or not, must be done with the consent of the patient unless specifically legislated. This has nothing at all to do with copyright. A surprisingly large number of studies, tissue samples, and so on *are* actually pretty easily identifiable. In many cases, patient consent is required in order to use information for research or educational purposes; those participating in research have to sign fairly extensive consent agreements that often include a clause about how their information will be shared. I'd suggest practitioners themselves ought to be quite cautious before uploading such images, and ensure that they have had a very specific discussion with their institution, and received *in writing* authorization for uploading. It is spectacularly wonderful that the physicians amongst us have such a strong desire to educate, and it would be horrible if someone lost privileges at their institution (and possibly their license) over such a benevolent gesture. Don't just call your professional association - have the discussion with the institution, and get things in writing and actively pursue an institutional policy on the educational use of medical images. Risker On 17 September 2013 09:21, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 17/09/2013 17:47, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote: Those individuals, in the case of the operators would probably / could well come under work for hire. 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. 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

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 &lt;sundog358(a)yahoo.com&gt; -- *Erlend Bjørtvedt* Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway Mob: +47 - 9225 9227 http://no.wikimedia.org <http://no.wikimedia.org/wiki/About_us>

If it were Art, the copyright would be clearly defined.  If it is technical craft in the medical field, such images fall unto another category all together.  Any display of such images would need the patient consent to be HIPPA compliant, or other agreement binding. ________________________________ From: Nathan &lt;nawrich(a)gmail.com&gt; To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images I think the question of who owns the copyright is just plain unsettled law. Debating it here isn't going to resolve an issue that is, in the legal realm, unresolved. My own guess is that the organization employing the people performing the imaging likely owns the copyright barring agreements otherwise, but the circumstances vary so much that only an image by image analysis of the legal conditions that apply will resolve ownership for any particular image. But quite apart from the legal issues, there are ethical considerations that shouldn't be ignored for the sake of expediency. While an x-ray or CT or other image may not fall under HIPAA (because it isn't generally personally identifying), it is still an image of a human being who ought to - and in some jurisdictions may by law - have some control over its use. What James Heilman appeared to be seeking was a quick response affirming that x-rays can be used freely without encumbrance by concerns over ownership or permission. Despite his ultimatum that he would take his considerable energy and effort elsewhere, it doesn't seem like he's going to get that from contributors to this thread. That doesn't mean there is no possible solution. If we use images garnered from journals, institutions and repositories with rigorous patient consent rules, and treat those from other sources carefully, I imagine that encyclopedia editors will find an adequate number of images to properly illustrate articles. But that would have to take place under an EDP, and I don't see Commons getting around the issue of ownership until the legal landscape is more settled. _______________________________________________ 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>

Perhaps if all parties are in agreement, the image can be entered into the Public Domain.  The goal of this would be to aid researchers and scientists.  The images cannot be stuck in limbo forever, so by setting them into the public domain, they become non-copyrightable if HIPPA is exempt, thus withholding personally identifying information of the images. ________________________________ From: Nathan &lt;nawrich(a)gmail.com&gt; To: Joseph Chirum &lt;sundog358(a)yahoo.com&gt;om>; Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Joseph Chirum &lt;sundog358(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: It's just not that simple, unfortunately. HIPAA applies to personally identifying information; I think it'd be easy to argue that the presumption on imagery, devoid of identifying accompanying text, is that it is de facto de-identified and thus exempt from HIPAA scrutiny.

On 9/17/2013 2:02 PM, Nathan wrote: It would be easy to argue that, yes. It would also be easy to argue the opposite, that in a variety of circumstances medical imagery might well be individually identifying. For example, if an image shows any distinguishing characteristics (and many times the reason we would be interested in having the image is because of some distinguishing characteristic), those could be used to identify the patient in question. After all, that's pretty much what the use of fingerprints and dental records in forensic investigations entails. It may be less familiar in the context of modern medical imaging, either because the images are targeting hopefully-temporary characteristics (injuries or illnesses) or because forensics has focused most of the attention on DNA as its strongest tool. But many medical images could be used for similar purposes. --Michael Snow

furthermore , when radiological images are concerned, they are protected from distribution by HIPPA privacy regulations and laws.  Also leaning in the favor of the patient as far as rights go concerning images. ________________________________ From: Katie Chan &lt;ktc(a)ktchan.info&gt; 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: Those individuals, in the case of the operators would probably / could well come under work for hire. 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. 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>

As often, I agree entirely with Risker - ethics and privacy are as big an issue here as copyright and we need to be able to give a clear declaration that both aspects are okay. That said, I think Nathan has spotted a way forward - OA journals might be the way to square this circle. Three points: a) Medicine (thanks in part to our friends at the Wellcome and similar groups) has been very active in adopting open access publication; b) many gold (paid) open access uses a Wikipedia-compatible license, and many funding mandates now require it; 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; Putting these three together, we might well have some good sources without needing to develop our own ethical-clearance process. Searching for just license-compliant OA articles is not yet a solved easy problem, but at least we have somewhere to start looking. Andrew. On 17 September 2013 17:15, Risker &lt;risker.wp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: wrote: assume radiologist, of <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk