5 ms·

That's an interesting point. I'm not a copyright lawyer, or a radiologist for that matter. Is lining up the X-ray equipment and hitting the go button perhaps

by YPPH 4y ago

That's an interesting point. I'm not a copyright lawyer, or a radiologist for that matter. Is lining up the X-ray equipment and hitting the go button perhaps sufficient? The radiologist must have some idea about the result they will get from kicking off the process. In relation to the two technicians point, couldn't you say that about any photographic image where the camera is tripod mounted with a static target? Or is it the case that the choice of subject is what matters? Now I'm wondering: If A sets up an X-ray and B comes over and presses the shutter without having even seen what will be photographed, I wonder if that meets the intellectual effort requirement. Perhaps not. Having given it some more thought, a CAT scan could certainly be more legally complicated. This process involves taking many photographs and computing them into a single work using a complex algorithm, with minimal human involvement.

killjoywashere 4y ago
I work in medical imaging and at least in my domain we consider the digital images facsimile copies.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  They better be. If creative input as a big factor then medical images would be useless! Obviously not all radiologists are created equal and some may be able to work the equipment better than other enabling better diagnosis but the goal is the same for all of them.
pbhjpbhj 4y ago
>This process involves taking many photographs and computing them into a single work using a complex algorithm, with minimal human involvement. // Yes, so it's a technical process and not an artistic creative process. The correct IP law is patent law, copyright is for protection of artistic and creative works not for slavish production of images using technological means. This is my own private opinion and not legal advice.
- YPPH 4y ago
  What I'm curious about is how you distinguish this from ordinary photography. What sets an X-ray apart? For starters, without knowing, I suspect it is not necessary that you "preview" the result before taking the photograph, given this wasn't viable with early photography. It could be the fact that you can't see the underlying bone structure etc, whereas someone taking an ordinary photograph can look at what they will depict. By this logic, someone who closes their eyes, spins around and photographs something without any idea of what would result may not have used intellectual effort in creating the photograph, since they did not see the subject. On this logic you might also question whether a visually impaired person could ever own copyright in an image. Perhaps it is the predefined nature of what is being depicted. Imagine an autopsy room where the deceased is placed on a trolley and photographs are taken by a mortician from predefined angles. To make it even easier, imagine the cameras are already prepositioned and the mortician simply clicks a button. I wonder if copyright would subsist in the photographs that result from this scenario.
tzs 4y ago
When I had panoramic X-rays done, there really wasn't much opportunity for creativity for the person operating the machine. On the machine used for mine there was a chin rest that you rested your head on that held the head in a fixed position, in in front of that was a thing holding a disposable piece that you bit on. This was adjustable to get the right height for you to bite it. You then put your head on the rest, the operator put a new disposable piece on the bite thing and sets the height so you can bite it. Then they move the part that swings around while it is scanning to be near one ear--I'll call this part the scanner. They then hit the start button on the application running on the controlling computer. The software knows where the chin rest is, and from the height of the holder for the bite thingy it knows where the front of you mouth is relative to the chin holder. The initial placement of the scanner tells it how wide your head is. That gives it all it needs to do its thing.
gopher_space 4y ago
> This process involves taking many photographs and computing them into a single work using a complex algorithm, with minimal human involvement. Well, the human involvement took place earlier. If you're building a system like this it's a mix of off-the-shelf software and plenty of creativity from the folks involved in each step. I can't imagine trying to pick a point where your involvement in the process wouldn't matter. I also can't imagine having this conversation with someone who doesn't appreciate beauty in code.
- littlestymaar 4y ago
  Am I misunderstanding or are you implying that Adobe should get copyright for pictures edited on Photoshop?
  - gopher_space 4y ago
    I'm implying that there are a lot of steps in the process where point of view matters. Less saying that something "should" happen and more describing a can of worms nobody wants to open.
    - littlestymaar 4y ago
      Fortunately for everyone, the question of whether the author of copyrighted software should get copyright about a creative work performed by a user of a software isn't a “can of worm nobody wants to open”, it is a clear an unambiguous “hell no”. And that's quite fortunate actually, since otherwise Sony, Canon and Nikon would have copyright over the entirety of photographs since the invention of digital photography, shared with the authors of jpeg of course… Copyright issues are complicated enough, no need to mix things up with your imagination.
      - gopher_space 4y ago
        We're missing each other a bit here. I'm not saying that copyright law is unambiguous functionally, I'm saying that from my point of view in the process there are a lot of issues that people simply haven't considered. Think about the line between craft and art when it comes to something like woodworking, and you might see what I'm getting at a bit.

by YPPH 4y ago

killjoywashere 4y ago

I work in medical imaging and at least in my domain we consider the digital images facsimile copies.

jacquesm 4y ago
They better be. If creative input as a big factor then medical images would be useless! Obviously not all radiologists are created equal and some may be able to work the equipment better than other enabling better diagnosis but the goal is the same for all of them.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago

>This process involves taking many photographs and computing them into a single work using a complex algorithm, with minimal human involvement. // Yes, so it's a technical process and not an artistic creative process. The correct IP law is patent law, copyright is for protection of artistic and creative works not for slavish production of images using technological means. This is my own private opinion and not legal advice.

YPPH 4y ago
What I'm curious about is how you distinguish this from ordinary photography. What sets an X-ray apart? For starters, without knowing, I suspect it is not necessary that you "preview" the result before taking the photograph, given this wasn't viable with early photography. It could be the fact that you can't see the underlying bone structure etc, whereas someone taking an ordinary photograph can look at what they will depict. By this logic, someone who closes their eyes, spins around and photographs something without any idea of what would result may not have used intellectual effort in creating the photograph, since they did not see the subject. On this logic you might also question whether a visually impaired person could ever own copyright in an image. Perhaps it is the predefined nature of what is being depicted. Imagine an autopsy room where the deceased is placed on a trolley and photographs are taken by a mortician from predefined angles. To make it even easier, imagine the cameras are already prepositioned and the mortician simply clicks a button. I wonder if copyright would subsist in the photographs that result from this scenario.

tzs 4y ago

When I had panoramic X-rays done, there really wasn't much opportunity for creativity for the person operating the machine. On the machine used for mine there was a chin rest that you rested your head on that held the head in a fixed position, in in front of that was a thing holding a disposable piece that you bit on. This was adjustable to get the right height for you to bite it. You then put your head on the rest, the operator put a new disposable piece on the bite thing and sets the height so you can bite it. Then they move the part that swings around while it is scanning to be near one ear--I'll call this part the scanner. They then hit the start button on the application running on the controlling computer. The software knows where the chin rest is, and from the height of the holder for the bite thingy it knows where the front of you mouth is relative to the chin holder. The initial placement of the scanner tells it how wide your head is. That gives it all it needs to do its thing.

gopher_space 4y ago

> This process involves taking many photographs and computing them into a single work using a complex algorithm, with minimal human involvement. Well, the human involvement took place earlier. If you're building a system like this it's a mix of off-the-shelf software and plenty of creativity from the folks involved in each step. I can't imagine trying to pick a point where your involvement in the process wouldn't matter. I also can't imagine having this conversation with someone who doesn't appreciate beauty in code.

littlestymaar 4y ago
Am I misunderstanding or are you implying that Adobe should get copyright for pictures edited on Photoshop?
- gopher_space 4y ago
  I'm implying that there are a lot of steps in the process where point of view matters. Less saying that something "should" happen and more describing a can of worms nobody wants to open.
  - littlestymaar 4y ago
    Fortunately for everyone, the question of whether the author of copyrighted software should get copyright about a creative work performed by a user of a software isn't a “can of worm nobody wants to open”, it is a clear an unambiguous “hell no”. And that's quite fortunate actually, since otherwise Sony, Canon and Nikon would have copyright over the entirety of photographs since the invention of digital photography, shared with the authors of jpeg of course… Copyright issues are complicated enough, no need to mix things up with your imagination.
    - gopher_space 4y ago
      We're missing each other a bit here. I'm not saying that copyright law is unambiguous functionally, I'm saying that from my point of view in the process there are a lot of issues that people simply haven't considered. Think about the line between craft and art when it comes to something like woodworking, and you might see what I'm getting at a bit.