Commons talk:Requests for comment/Xrays

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Malformed RfC[edit]

The author of this RfC has failed to follow the instructions at COM:RFC#General, thereby de facto hiding the RfC from public view. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this comment has expended more effort pointing this out than they would have simply to fix it. Colin (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This will be running for a while. Feel free to spread the word. I will continue to do the same. James Heilman, MD (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing[edit]

I've come across some unsubtle canvassing for this RfC, in a comment under this week's English Wikipedia Signpost article "In the Media: Fox News: Wikipedia abandons efforts to purge porn from online encyclopedia" (offsite discussion:  [1]). --Avenue (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprised as this seems to match his discussion style about this issue on Commons. Anyway, he got the appropriate answer[2] already. --Túrelio (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. So those here consider all Wikimedia sites other than Commons to be "offsite". James Heilman, MD (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Links to sister projects from enwiki articles are put in the "External links" section, and that's public facing content, not just an internal discussion. Interesting indeed. --Avenue (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
James is upset and rightly so. Those criticising discussion style should perhaps examine their own contributions to the deletion/rfc and their attitude and consider how this looks externally. James has contributed hundreds of medical pictures to this project, including x-rays. These were done under the good-faith assumption that he had the necessary permission or didn't need it. Similarly for our German radiologist and his thousands of such images. A deletion review of a single image is completely the wrong way of going about this. It just creates an adversarial battleground. We should be working together to find a solution to this problem, rather than taking pot shots at featured pictures on whim. Those with talents at discovering the legal situation (such as exists) should be doing so without holding their finger over the big delete button. We've had a number of misleading comments and beliefs from all parties in this, based on whatever Google turned up, and the knowledge that some Admin might randomly come along and make a unilateral decision at any point is not helpful. Those opening and participating in deletion discussions where they have nothing to lose should be more mindful of the consequences of their actions and effect on contributors. One side of that deletion discussion saw a single image from Sweden, the other side saw thousands of similar images where the same arguments held. And James has a point -- Commons spends a lot of effort at times to retain material of no or little educational merit and yet has now spent a lot of effort to delete material with clear educational merit.
It would be useful if someone could review the radiology images on commons to see the size of the issue and perhaps the range of nationalities and types of uploader (patient/physician/radiographer). We could perhaps get some of them to engage in this discussion. Perhaps obtaining permission is easy, perhaps impossible. Colin (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are working together, and the nomination prompted a much more fruitful discussion than would be possible without the nomination. Yes, it may lead to the deletion of thousands of images, but the point is to find out which images are copyrighted and which not, and to remove only those about which there is significant doubt they are free. I understand that James is upset, but he should have understood that any third-party image that has not been freely licensed by the creator may be proposed for deletion at any time. I know that this will not sound nice, but the interest of the project must have the priority over the interest of individual editors if we want it to succeed. As to the admins' decisions: if some admin comes along and makes a decision that you disagree with, there is always the option of renominating the image or an undeletion request. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, DRs can serve a useful purpose in identifying problems. They also focus on a limited set of images, which can help limit the range of legal issues that have to be addressed. Yes, the DR may result in the image being deleted, and perhaps that will happen before this RfC reaches any conclusions. If we later agree on some rationale for keeping such images, it can always be undeleted then.
Colin, this RfC seems to have been started in a highly adversarial spirit. In contrast, some DRs can be entirely mellow. I don't buy your argument that problems with the tone of these discussions have been driven entirely by the venue.
We had a flurry of drive-by !votes at the beginning of this RfC. Canvassing could be relevant. --Avenue (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can see from my (now deleted) comments on the draft that I wanted to open a discussion, not a !vote. And we all know !votes don't matter a jot. Just because some DRs can be mellow doesn't detract from the argument that "I AM GOING TO DELETE YOUR IMAGE UNLESS YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHY NOT RIGHT NOW" is likely to provoke a defensive response rather than a considered collaborative one [I know that's not the wording, but is the effect]. We could have had a discussion without the nomination. It could have been phrased as "We have a problem with policy, our (very limited) understanding of the law, and thousands of radiographic images -- let's collect information and discuss how we can fix the problem". Instead, we have an image that has been on Commons for years, is an FP, is widely used, and now has the clock ticking on it quite unnecessarily. When people are upset, it pays to try to understand why, rather than mocking them as Turelio does above. Colin (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be bad if the image was speedy deleted. It is nothing bad to open a DR to an image that one thinks could be non-free. DRs are available exactly for this purpose, to collect information and discuss whether an image is free or not. DRs don't mean "I am going to delete your image unless you can explain why not right now" (and I was not shouting like you tried to show it). As you can see, this DR has been opened for quite some time now, and it will remain open as long as necessary for us to clear the matter. They rather mean "I think there may be a copyright problem with this image, so we have to discuss whether it is free or not." And Avenue has explained quite well what advantages do they bring. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eleassar, you just don't get it do you? You haven't understood a word of my previous comment. And you haven't understood the effect of your DR. You opened a DR while fully admitting you didn't have a clue and your opening request was "Deletion would be warranted per COM:PRP", not "Commons appears to have a huge problem with medical images where the the copyright situation is uncertain. Let's discuss a solution". For too many, Commons is an intellectual game, and deletion review a passtime for amateur lawyers. Copyright is a serious legal issue that the WMF should spend its money investigating, not leaving it up to guesswork + Google searches. That the real world has a solution to this problem seems to be regarded as beside-the-point to the purists who would rather delete based on inventions and theory. Some of us are here to build an repository of free educational material, not to destroy it. Start trying to find a solution. Colin (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do get it and I do understand what you have written, and I have understood the effect of my DR. It is the intended effect: to get people to start searching for arguments and start a wide discussion. I don't think such a discussion would be possible without me having opened this DR. I don't think Commons is an intellectual game, and I take copyright seriously. A repository of free educational material cannot be built only by uploading the photographs that we have taken or found, but also by removing non-free and potentially non-free images.
As to your call to finding a solution, I have searched for any relevant material (reliable material like court cases etc.), I have thought a lot about the issue and participated in the discussion, and I have written to prof. Levin, as already stated. She has expressed her interest about the matter and has stated that she needs to think and talk to her colleagues about the issue, so I will notify you when she sends me her final reply. I invite you to start searching for related material and get some outside opinions too. I also propose you that you start communicating with editors in a more civil way, because your last reply was arrogant and offensive towards me. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eleassar, I do understand you have investigated the legal situation quite extensively, but you've failed to engage in any effort to reconsider Commons policy on this matter, and remain highly defensive of your DR. You've openly stated your mistrust of James, which is an unacceptable situation. Your rigidity that Commons policy is what it is, and must be applied no matter what the cost, is exemplified by your DR and several comments in your DR, which was not initiated as the beginning of a constructive engagement on the issues, but a straightforward request to delete an image. An image we've had for years, which is featured and illustrates several articles. An image who's licensing problems are shared with many many others. If a bunch of editors from the medical wikiproject hadn't turned up to complain, the image would have been deleted quite rapidly. And tomorrow another image would go. And then another. To use the "Commons is broken" refrain seems appropriate here. Commons needs a different mechanism than DR to handle such issues -- because DR is only a forum populated by a minority group on Commons and unrepresentative of the community, and is adversarial in its very nature. There remains a significant risk that thousands of radiography images will be deleted from Commons for the sake of policy purity you adhere to. Commons and Wikipedia will be poorer for it. You continue to kid yourself that you're only deleting one image and that the "nuclear" option won't happen, yet also continue to press for the very same absolute adherence to policy (such as the precautionary principle) that will cause it to occur. I await your "Oh shit, we're about to delete a huge chunk of educational material for no particularly good reason" moment. There is a real world outside Commons that has found a solution to this issue without needless copyright-paranoia. -- Colin (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of editors would not turn up to complan, if I had not notified James at his talk page in meta, exactly because I didn't want this image to get deleted unnecessarily. However, I don't know why mistrusting him would not be acceptable: he has reported the matter in a very biased way in a number of places. I am completely aware that thousands of images may be deleted. Yet, to disregard the policy is not the correct way, because this is a slippery slope that leads to the demise of the project. The reason to delete is particularly good: we host only material that is free, and we don't host material that we are not sure about, because of our scope (what the project is about: a repository of free media files) and because we guarantee to our reusers that they may reuse the hosted materials without the fear of getting sued some day. The correct way in my opinion is to apply the policy, to change it if necessary, or to gain consensus that 'no significant doubt exists', supported by the opinion of a Swedish copyright expert or some really relevant secondary source. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said policy should be disregarded. What I say that is if the policy is preventing us achieving the goals of the project, then the policy needs to change. I am glad you have at least now mentioned the possibility that it could change. Our knowledge of this issue continues to evolve but my current understanding is that the standards you wish to apply to Commons do not apply to published material in any medical journal. They don't have the "correct" paperwork for their images from the actual rightsholders. And I'm pretty sure you won't find a single radiography image on Commons with an OTRS ticket from someone who you are confident really is the copyright holder. There is a real possibility that WMF legal will side with the publishers and conclude that Commons should regard such images as copyright globally pending evidence to the contrary. However it would appear that using previously unpublished images poses no fear for our re-users of getting sued. I think we can guarantee that with at least, if not more, confidence than we guarantee any other image on Commons. It requires an open mind to consider that perhaps copyright paperwork in this area is unhelpful and unnecessary. There are risks with all the material we host and frankly if I was a commercial company looking to use an image, I'd choose a microstock site that indemnifies me of any legal issues over a site run by amateurs and with content uploaded anonymously. So we rationally deal with the various risks in proportion to their size. For example, one could be paranoid about uploader identity and require everyone to not only register in their real name, and supply name address and contact phone number, but also (as some stock agencies require) proof of identity such as a copy of a driving licence. That would give our reusers a lot of confidence (at least they'd know who to sue) but isn't acceptable. Colin (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said that I'd be willling the keep the image if the policy changes already on 28 September.[3][4] We've already discussed the reason why the discrepancy between the Commons and the published journals here, therefore if you think anything changed in this regard, please comment in that section. I can tell you from my initial conversation with the mentioned Swedish law professor, which on her request I won't publish yet, that there is a real possibility these files are not free in Sweden. Your claim that there is not a single radiography image on Commons by someone whom we should perceive the copyright holder is incorrect (see [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] etc.). --Eleassar (t/p) 09:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First the discussion is around diagnostic images. Just because an OTRS is sent in does not mean the person sending in the OTRS owns copyright and is able to release it under a CC BY SA license. So none of the diagnostic image example refutes Colin's statement. James Heilman, MD (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you invited others to consider changing policy as the only thing that would make you change your mind. You aren't actively suggesting even that such change might be desirable or considering what form it might take. Those images you linked to aren't the kind we are discussing -- either previously published or dentist/vet images which may well be self-taken. And I have my doubts over them too. I can't see the OTRS details (no idea if this can be made public) but think there is every chance the ticket details aren't to the copyright holder (though the person may believe themselves to be such). If you trust third-party websites wrt images they claim copyright too, then the solution is simple. James sets up a website with radiography images. Commons users scrape them off the site with an OTRS ticket to James. I don't see how that improves on things really, but perhaps making it "somebody else's problem" is sufficient to keep people here sleeping at night. It seems to be what the journals do.
Wrt the commons/journals discrepancy section, this is only a theory on part of the issue. Some journals don't claim copyright on the images but many do. They may be claiming ownership of assets without the paperwork. And many journals are open access or make their material open after a period, which also requires Commons-like licensing. And the whole section is just a theory. -- Colin (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I have refuted has been your statement that I have only now "mentioned the possibility that it could change".
As to the images, we are discussing whether medical and other technical X-ray images can be copyrighted, or they are non-creative and not analogous to photographic images, therefore they could not be copyrighted. At least some of these are diagnostic images, and for the others, I don't see anything strikingly creative about them, so in my opinion, they're in the same basket. I see no legal difference between the medical and other technical X-rays in regard to the copyright, but if there is such a difference, by all means, point it out.
I have checked the OTRS, but can't publish the details. However, I have no reason to think that the person who has given the permission is not the copyright holder. For me, the statement "I am the sole copyright holder" in the absence to the contrary is good enough. I'm not sure what makes you believe there is any significant doubt about them. This can't be compared to James giving the permission, where we know that he is not the copyright holder. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eleassar, please avoid using the term "copyrighted" for the "related rights" law that covers uncreative works in a few countries. It just confuses things. One could create an x-ray that is a work of art or that shows great creative skill. Or one could create an x-ray that must be void of all creative choices and as impersonal as one can be such that an other operator would create the same image. The latter is the very definition of a diagnostic x-ray. Quite different to someone using x-rays for another purpose. Colin (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I have been discussing the related rights. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we do go with deletion I bet this will be how Fox News will portray the actions. This comment will not be just within the comment section of some signpost article. James Heilman, MD (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Canvassing is not evil. People have the right to be informed. Opposing it is effective censorship. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Informing people in a neutral fashion isn't bad, canvassing with highly biased descriptions of the situation is. Compare [10] vs this. As for this op-ed, James is certainly entitled to air his opinions, but I think the Signpost editors have done everyone a disservice by not finding someone to provide a contrasting view. --Avenue (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't get too worked up about it, Avenue. Drive-by votes won't achieve anything other than perhaps a psychological pressure to consider the options rather than ignore things (there really haven't been many Commons users participating in this RFC, compared to certain other subjects that seem to get every one participating). You never know, somebody who actually knows some hard facts might contribute. And a one-sided (rather than balanced) op-ed might encourage someone with the opposite viewpoint to come here with their opinion rather than to let things lie because the argument presented seemed reasonable. I disagree with a lot of what James wrote in the op-ed but the title "Commons medical diagnostic images under threat from unresolved ownership" is still absolutely the case: our precautionary principle together with the unresolved legal case in the US, UK, Germany and Sweden and others, mean that pretty much all the radiographic images I have seen on Commons lack the required permission or have been incorrectly tagged as "own work" and so could be deleted. And I think that is a hugely serious issue. Colin (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that the Signpost would love to have an Op-Ed by yourself Avenue next week and I strongly encourage you to write one. James Heilman, MD (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, on second thought you're probably right that the positives of the op-ed raising the profile of this issue could outweigh the negatives of it being a bit one-sided. And yes, I have been unmellow about this - sorry. James, I'll be away on holiday much of this week, so I don't think I'll be able to put something together for the next Signpost. I also think that, at least at this stage, what time I'll have to address this whole issue could probably be spent in more constructive ways. I need to give more thought to some ideas Colin and I discussed earlier, for instance. --Avenue (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good Avenue. I am sure this discussion will be ongoing for the next few weeks. James Heilman, MD (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Some are pushing for an interpretation of the law that would result in the deletion of all diagnostic images on Commons" -- true, or not?[edit]

Re the last sentence of the lede: Some are pushing for an interpretation of the law that would result in the deletion of all diagnostic images on Commons.unsourced POV claim

Based on the little tag at the end, it looks like there's a dispute over whether "Some are pushing for an interpretation of the law that would result in the deletion of all diagnostic images on Commons" is true or not. Is it? This matters, because if it's not true we we relax and slow down a bit, right? Herostratus (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of COM:PRP and the fact that it is unclear who owns copyright is a push to delete radiological images and could apply to all of them. This is what those supporting Commons:Requests_for_comment/Xrays#Follow_the_law.2C_and_our_policies indirectly support. We have a number of radiological images that have been deleted over the years due to the above reasons.James Heilman, MD (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add the tag, but I do dispute the sentence as it stands (although I wouldn't if it said "could" and "most" instead of "would" and "all"). The fact that it's still somewhat unclear whether these images are protected under US law, and if so who would own the copyright, could lead us to delete such images under COM:PRP. But if there was no significant doubt that all people who might hold the copyright (which could be a few different people) have released an image under a free license, we can certainly keep it. I think this should be possible to establish for some new images, al least. Of course, it would be better if we didn't have to ask more people for permission than necessary, especially if it turns out these images aren't protected by copyright after all. So hopefully the legal situation will be clarified further. --Avenue (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone wants to delete all radiological images from Commons. There are certainly diagnostic images that are undoubtedly free, e.g. those for which any potential copyright has expired or those that have been released under a free license by all potential copyright holders. As for now, I don't even see enough significant doubt that images from the US are copyrighted, although the answer about this is not completely clear yet. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are two small exceptions 1) images from the US military which are PD 2) images before 1923 or what have you. Some are proposing the deletion of the rest which is the majority. James Heilman, MD (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images that were published in Sweden before 1969 are free, images that were published in Slovenia before 1970 (and similar in the other countries of the former Yugoslavia) are free etc. If a copyright holder has given them to the public domain / freely licensed them, and I guess there are such websites where the images have been created by the site owner and he has given the permission for the free reusage, they are also free. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eleassar, I'm having trouble following you when you say "I don't even see enough significant doubt that images from the US are copyrighted". Are you saying you think it's very likely most US radiological images are copyrighted, or that it's very likely they are not copyrighted? I think James has taken you to mean that they are copyrighted, but my initial reading was the opposite. Your examples of free Swedish and Solvenian images would also be moot if they fell under US-copyright. --Avenue (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm saying that I think it's very likely they are not copyrighted. As far as I have checked, they don't. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that. --Avenue (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Law in the United States[edit]

The en:United States Copyright Office on 19 August 2014 issued a report saying that "...the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author," then gives "Medical imaging produced by x-rays, ultrasounds, magnetic resonance imaging, or other diagnostic equipment." as an example of one such work. This is in chapter 300 page 300-9. I interpret this to mean that such works are not copyrightable in the United States, and therefore considered to be in the public domain by United States copyright law.

Thanks to Jmh649 for pointing this out. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of clarification, and a warning to be careful with wording: findings and positions of the U.S. Copyright Office are not "law" and are not even authoritative (courts can and do ignore and find contrary to opinions of the Copyright Office). I don't mean to say that this report is not relevant (it is) or that we should not yield our judgment to the Copyright Office (we should), merely that it is not law. The distinction is important. Эlcobbola talk 20:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does help support this RfC with currently 23 supporting and 4 opposed. James Heilman, MD (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct it's not law or a court ruling, but it's the next best thing. It is effectively a regulation. It's far more meaningful than a legal opinion from anywhere else. It will mean that copyright registrations on such works will be denied. The Copyright Office is required by law to decide what is copyrightable and what is not (based on law and court precedents); it would take someone to be denied registration, then file an infringement lawsuit over the material, then have a judge overrule for the state of affairs to change. In many cases (including any direct challenge to the denied registration), judges would have to rule that the Copyright Office abused its discretion, which is a much stronger standard -- most courts give pretty wide deference to Copyright Office decisions and this one is now *very* explicit. They are experts, and are trying to decide the exact same thing we are -- whether, per statutory law and court rulings, which works are copyrightable and which are not. To *not* use that guidance would be extremely silly, in my opinion. It would take an explicit court ruling either way to make an actual precedent (Copyright Office registration denials are not precedents, not even for their own later decisions), but until then this is by far the best guidance we could get -- and it's very blunt. The more explicit discussion is actually in Chapter 900, which is explicitly for which visual works are copyrightable, in section 924.3. It states:
924.3(D) X-Rays, Medical Imaging, and Non-Medical Echo Sonography
Generally, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register medical x-rays or imaging, regardless of whether they are claimed on an application as photographs, images, artwork, or graphics. These types of images are considered useful articles, because they have an intrinsic utilitarian function, and the skill or craft used to create the images (if any) is dictated by that functional purpose. The following is a nonexhaustive list of such works:
  • Medical x-rays.
  • Magnetic resonance imaging.
  • Echocardiography.
  • Echo mammography.
  • Varieties of ultrasound.
  • Iodinated ultra venous imaging.
  • Angiography.
  • Electrocardiography.
  • Three-dimensional computed tomography.
  • Positron emission tomography.
  • Electroencephalography imaging.
  • Computed axial tomography.
For the same reasons, the Office will not register surveys of water and land masses that are captured by the data that echo-sounders and similar equipment produce.
It is good to note that this new version of the Compendium does not look like it's been finalized, but it's also hard to imagine this section changing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My position has been all the time that medical images are not copyrightable in the United States. This, however, has nothing to do with them being copyrightable in Germany and Sweden. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This document discusses originality, which is a relevant criterion under United States law but not under Swedish law. Under Swedish law, the main originality criterion is that something doesn't meet the threshold of originality if it is likely that someone else might create the same thing. If you make a sound recording, the sound recording will be essentially the same regardless of how you record the sound, and if you take a photograph of a building, the photograph will be more or less the same regardless of who the photographer is, provided that you take the photograph on the same day. Therefore, all sound recordings and most photographs are below the threshold of originality. Since a lot of sound recordings and photographs are important and need protection, sound recordings and photographic imagess are protected using related rights, which do not need originality. This means that there are no sound recordings or photographic images which are ineligible for copyright protection, but it also means that the copyright term is a lot shorter than for other material.
In the United States, copyright protection for photograph is instead granted by setting a ridiculously low threshold of originality for photographs so that almost no photographs are below the threshold of originality, but also so that there are some extremely simple photographs which are ineligible for copyright protection. The United States also provides copyright protection for sound recordings, but I'm not sure exactly how U.S. law works in that respect as I'm not sure what an "original" or "creative" sound recording would sound like. There is really only one way to record sound.
The quote also suggests that the pictures are ineligible for copyright in the United States for being "utilitarian". This is not relevant under Swedish law, where courts frequently rule that clearly utilitarian things such as chairs, lamps and clothes are protected by copyright. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This section was specifically about U.S. law; yes the situation in other countries could be different. This however should mean that U.S. medical imagery is find, and we don't have to worry about U.S. law when such works are definitely OK in the country of origin. Some countries protect industrial design via their copyright law (and I think Sweden is one of those), which is why those sort of objects end up in copyright cases. In the U.S., industrial designs are protected (if applied for) via design patents, not copyright. There is some protection but it is more about direct competitors, and not the expansive derivative works concept. Little chance of industrial design coming up with medial imagery though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does it belong to the world?[edit]

I found some public domain images at the New England Journal of Medicine's Images in Clinical Medicine gallery.

Under what circumstances should these be uploaded to Commons? Should we get input from NEJM or any other journal about their interpretation of the US Copyright offices policy? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018 blog post[edit]

I am sure this topic still arises in many places. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related: taxonomic images[edit]

  • (6 March 2017). "Copyright and the Use of Images as Biodiversity Data". Research Ideas and Outcomes 3: e12502. DOI:10.3897/rio.3.e12502.

This paper asserts that there is no creativity in the technical process of producing taxonomic photos of animals and plants, and consequently, such photos are not eligible for copyright. This seems like the same argument made for lack of copyright in medical images. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Requests_for_comment/Xrays&oldid=778434783"