[Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

[Nathan]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:36 AM, James Heilman <jmh649 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes "that could be resolved with a policy of only using images published by
> an organization known to pursue permission where feasible" sounds like the
> type of policy nupedia needs. The problems is nupedia went defunct in 2003.
>
> This sounds just like a policy "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" does not
> need as it is sort of against the "anyone can edit" bit. How again are we
> going to convince these excellent organizations "that are known to pursue
> permission where feasible" to release there images under a CC BY SA
> license? And what are the names of some of these organizations that are
> doing this for non-identifiable images?
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>

That argument doesn't make much sense to me. We discriminate between
sources all the time. At Commons, there are policies intended to offer
some protection to the subjects of photographs and other media. A
policy that attempts to ensure that only medical imagery with a
patient release is used on Wikimedia projects is a simple melding of
those two principles.

I'm reminded of the Henrietta Lacks case, where tissue samples were
taken from a woman in the 50s and used continuously since for public
and commercial research. Only recently was an agreement forged to
secure permission for further research, something the National
Institutes of Health in the U.S. agreed was necessary and appropriate.

It's a moot point I suppose if medical imaging journals and other
publishers don't make a practice of verifying consent for publication
of imagery. Reading the "authors guide" on JMIRS suggests that they
only demand consent for identifying information, and that ethical
considerations are limited to research protocols and IRB approval.