4 ms·
Copyright requires creative work, so I find it hard to classify a medical image of a natural subject under that definition (skill is involved, but not creativit
by makeitdouble 4y ago
Copyright requires creative work, so I find it hard to classify a medical image of a natural subject under that definition (skill is involved, but not creativity)
- bloak 4y agoThat sounds absolutely right to me. I would guess that there's more likely to be creativity, and therefore a copyright, in the brief medical notes written by an expert who has examined the image. So, if you want to worry about the intersection between copyright law and medical data ...
- littlestymaar 4y agoYeah, and I'm really puzzled to see this answer not being at the top.
- D13Fd 4y agoAgreed. This is the copyright answer. The medical images are (probably) not an original work of authorship subject to copyright protection.
- DannyBee 4y agoas an ip lawyer, this is the correct answer. In the US, the copyright office even has an FAQ answer about this: "As per Compendium: Chapter 300 by the US Copyright Office, "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." including "Medical imaging produced by x-rays, ultrasounds, magnetic resonance imaging, or other diagnostic equipment." " Even an ultrasound operator will not get a copyright in the ultrasound, because their work is not creative. IE while they are manipulating the location of the image, they are doing it to find your kidney or whatever, not for creative reasons.