5 ms·
The existing rules also convey certain rights to the subject of an image, namely that, subject to various caveats, the image probably can't be used commercially
by ISL 4y ago
The existing rules also convey certain rights to the subject of an image, namely that, subject to various caveats, the image probably can't be used commercially (for the promotion of a product) without a release from the subject.
The medical image might be used in an editorial/documentary context without the consent of the subject, but for such an intimate image, the photographer would be wise to ask the subject for consent or ensure sufficient anonymization that the subject simply could not be identified. The rules of medical privacy/records also apply, and may prevent any publication/usage without consent.
But, all that said, I suspect that the person who pushed the button on the X-ray machine has initial copyright and that a sufficiently-thoughtful IP agreement for the employee would generally see that copyright transferred to their employer.
- jacquesm 4y agoI've been asked for and have given permission for the use of medical images of a close family member, and the whole process gave me good confidence that some hospitals are really respectful towards their patients in this respect. > But, all that said, I suspect that the person who pushed the button on the X-ray machine has initial copyright They probably do not: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Copyright_of_Medical_Imaging https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Copyright_of_Medic...
- ISL 4y agoWhoa. I sit corrected. "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." would appear to come pretty close to excluding school portraits from copyright, too. Interesting that it, per the linked article, hasn't yet been tested in US courts.
- YPPH 4y agoYou've raised a good point in relation to school portraits. Perhaps creative effort is a result of direction from the photographer (smile?).
- ISL 4y agoLighting, focus, posing, etc. matters too for school portraits -- my actual point is that, from a photographer's perspective, medical imaging seems like it would fall under copyright, too. There is direction and configuration that goes into arranging the patient, correctly operating the imaging system, and interpreting the results to verify that the medical-imaging needs are met. I'm surprised to hear that medical imaging is handled differently by the Copyright Office. Instagram's most popular images are frequently formulaic -- is that not a mechanical process, too?
- YPPH 4y agoI guess we will only know when a court determines the issue. I am having a great deal of difficulty seeing how an X-ray differs from ordinary photography where the shot is pre-set but nevertheless subject to some human decision-making. It's just different photographic technology that enables transparency. I was under the understanding the creativity requirement was very low, and that simply the choice of the area to X-ray would suffice. Clearly, the Copyright Office disagrees with that assesment.
- littlestymaar 4y agoNobody said it doesn't require any work, but the question is whether the said work is a creative process. School photographs would likely be given the benefit of the doubt, because most of their non-school pictures are creative work, but thr same cannot be said for dentists…
- jacquesm 4y agoThere are lots of things that haven't been tested in US courts, this may not necessarily be a signal of ambiguity though, it usually means the exact opposite: that all parties that might ever be involved in such a suit are all confident in the outcome leading the 'loser' to see the error of their ways without the court saying it is so.