[Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

[George Herbert]

Was this long thread launched by an actual on-wiki (or off-wiki)
Wikipedia or other WMF project issue with medical imaging images?

...

Pardon if it would be obvious should I actually check AN or some such,
but I've been busy all weekend and today.


-george

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> On 08/20/12 12:17 PM, geni wrote:
>>
>> On 20 August 2012 12:52, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20 August 2012 12:50, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:47 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I'm sure that collectively we can bloviate with the best of 'em on the
>>>>> topic - but do we have any case law whatsoever anywhere on the topic
>>>>> that might give real-world pointers?
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's a question of fact, not a question of law.
>>>
>>> Then any real-world examples of the question arising.
>>
>> I doubt it. Most X-rays aren't worth enough to be worth suing over and
>> the handful that are mostly derive for the scientific community who
>> tend not to sue people over the issue of copyright.
>>
> This certainly sums it up. Personality rights are a separate issue, and in
> most cases it should be easy to separate them except maybe conjoined twins
> and people who have swallowed a charm bracelet with their name clearly
> exposed. Breach of contractual rights and employment contracts are also a
> separate matter. It's actually easier to deal with these because something
> is spelled out. Our concern is more with situations where nothing is
> expressed before the problem comes up.
>
> My basic view is that the X-ray is copyrightable with the ownership of the
> copyright vesting in the person who invested most of the originality. If
> that person is bold enough to be the *first* person to put that image in
> fixed form there will be a presumption that he has a right to do so. Who is
> going to challenge him? A DMCA takedown order won't work, because it must
> reference the work that was infringed as well as the infringement. To get
> any more than provable damages the copyright must also be registered.
>
> It may give comfort to owners to know that copyright in a work is automatic
> without registration, but the down side of this is a huge assortment of
> material is copyright where the "true" owner has neither the knowledge or
> desire for this kind of protection.
>
> Ray
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com