Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chest CT scan with lung metastatis 3.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Chest CT scan with lung metastatis 3.jpg

[edit]
See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chest CT scan with lung metastatis.png
See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chest CT scan with lung metastatis 2.jpg

Probably copyrighted by doctor. --Superm401 - Talk 06:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know any reason this would be correct. The patient has a HIPPA right to privacy, but that only limits how information can be shared. It doesn't give them a copyright. Superm401 - Talk 13:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a US citizen, and these images were not taken in the US; please do not attempt to apply US law to this situation. :-) Unless you can provide proof that in the UK jurisdiction images are not owned by the patient, then the images should stay. They are images of me, taken on my behalf and paid for by my health insurance. If they fall into a category, it is of work for hire. Gerv 15:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you have an actual argument? Superm401 - Talk 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that I have. I am sure it is obvious, but let me articulate it. :-) For a work to be copyrightable, it must meet some minimal standards of originality and author's input. It should be the result of some creative, intellectual, or artistic efforts, none of which these CT scans are, IMO. →Spiritia 07:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not a mind-reader, and this isn't a vote. As noted, the Berne convention mandates protection for works in the scientific domain, of which this is included. The operator has enough discretion about how the image is taken that it is copyrightable. Superm401 - Talk 00:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether you're a U.S. citizen is irrelevant to this. Yes, HIPPA is a U.S. law; but my point was that medical privacy laws (the U.K. does have medical privacy law, I presume) are separate from copyright. As for the U.K., it's party to the Berne convention which says, "The works mentioned in this Article [including "literary, scientific and artistic domain"] shall enjoy protection in all countries of the Union. This protection shall operate for the benefit of the author and his successors in title." Note that it doesn't say for the benefit of the patient. Nor is it a work for hire, since the doctor is not your employee. Superm401 - Talk 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the UK is party to the Berne Convention, which automatically gives copyright to the author (i.e. operator). I see nothing to indicate an exception here. Superm401 - Talk 01:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except "author" and "operator" are not synonyms in the context of a work for hire relationship. --Una Smith (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader has provided no evidence they are the employer in a work for hire relationship. This is unlikely as they don't have the ability to control how the radiographer does their job. Superm401 - Talk 18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the patient does control whether the image is taken. Work for hire is common in self-employed photographers, by the way; eg although many wedding photographers claim copyright some wedding photographers work for hire, in which case the client has all copyright. --Una Smith (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The uploader attests the copyright is his, and no evidence has been given that it is not his. --Una Smith (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Commons works. The uploader needs to provide evidence the image is acceptable for the site. They have done nothing to show they own the copyright under the law. Superm401 - Talk 18:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When in doubt, keep it. --Una Smith (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. To keep the image, there must be proof it is acceptable. If there are serious and unresolved doubts, the image must be deleted. Superm401 - Talk 11:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By what policy? --Una Smith (talk) 08:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Licensing. "The information given on the description page should be sufficient to allow others to verify the license status" The information is not anywhere near sufficient to verify that it's PD. Superm401 - Talk 19:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point which a friend made when we discussed this tonight: He said I have the ability to order the hospital to delete my scans. And if I can do that, they must not have ownership of them, because if they did, they could refuse. gerv (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The right to order someone to delete private information has nothing to do with copyright. Superm401 - Talk 11:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Under UK law, copyright in such images follows the usual rules - ie the copyright owner is the author of the image (the radiographer) or, most likely in practice, the radiographer's employer such as the Health Authority. See the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss 11(1) & (2). Nothing under UK law gives the patient ownership of the copyright. It is true that there are other laws relating to the way in which the Health Authority can retain and use such images, but those are Data Protection laws amongst others. The fact that the subject may have some say in the use of the image does not mean he owns the copyright. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright owner has right to transfer all copyrights to someone else. So, for example, many veterinarians in small practices simply give the images, and the copyrights, to the client. --Una Smith (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "radiographer's employer" is me (through the intermediary of my insurance company) - these are not NHS scans, they are private. No Health Authority involved. gerv (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Photographs made by point-and-shoot cameras are always copyrighted. There's no reason the situation here would be different. Superm401 - Talk 19:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. There is no doubt that images of this type require sufficient skill and labour (eg in setting-up the equipment) for copyright to subsist - UK copyright law grants protection to images having far less originality than this. Under UK law, the "radiographer's employer" is the actual employer, not the patient/client, even if he paid privately for the images to be made. Employment, for this purpose, means under a contract of service, and not a contract for services (CDPA 1988, s178). The client does not become an employer merely by virtue of the fact that he is paying for the images to be made. Also, copyright does not pass with physical ownership of the image (eg an x-ray film, a printout etc) so the only way in which the patient could own this copyright is if there has been a formal copyright assignment in writing. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for deletion. Copyright is ambiguous. Deleting admin no longer active. Requested undelete. James Heilman, MD (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Chest_CT_scan_with_lung_metastatis_3.jpg&oldid=418383228"