4 ms·

Would the person operating the equipment initially own the image? I say initially because they've likely signed some agreement with their employer that assigns

Would the person operating the equipment initially own the image? I say initially because they've likely signed some agreement with their employer that assigns copyright created through the course of employment to the employer... The employer may have then signed an agreement in purchasing that equipment that assigns some rights over the image to the equipment manufacturer... So I guess who knows? In the absence of a law explicitly giving the patient rights to their data, it is probably a super complicated, case-by-case answer.

sixothree 4y ago
In the US, legality is clear. Not copyrightable. Not usable without the patient's authorization (barring exceptions). Not even identifiable unless you are actually caring for the patient.
dehrmann 4y ago
But you're paying for the xray as part of the service. It might even be a line item on the bill.
- pxeger1 4y ago
  Merely paying for a service confers no implications about copyright.
  - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
    Absent any other agreement commissioning work implies ownership of copyright.
    - Kerrick 4y ago
      Not in the U.S. Work For Hire is not assumed to be the default for, say, a person who walks into a portrait studio and commissions a headshot. https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf
    - tzs 4y ago
      Not in the US. In the US the author of the work gets copyright unless it is a "work made for hire". A work made for hire is either: 1. a work prepared by an employee within the scope of their employment, or 2. a work specially ordered or commissioned for use in one of 9 particular ways [1] and the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. The copyright office has a good explanation here: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf [1] The 9 are contribution to a collective work, part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, a translation, a supplementary work, a compilation, an instructional text, a test, answer material for a test, and an atlas.
      - dehrmann 4y ago
        Either the court or the law is wrong; whether someone is an employee or commissioned to create something doesn't change that someone is obviously paying for whatever's created. The linked doc might not apply in the case of medical images because the image was captured by a company, not an individual. Although I suppose the company is a corporate person...
dicom_guy 4y ago
I know in the state of California, the imaging centers own the data. I think it’s similar in other states which is why you see a lot of these institutions selling data to medical imaging AI startups.

sixothree 4y ago

In the US, legality is clear. Not copyrightable. Not usable without the patient's authorization (barring exceptions). Not even identifiable unless you are actually caring for the patient.

dehrmann 4y ago

But you're paying for the xray as part of the service. It might even be a line item on the bill.

pxeger1 4y ago
Merely paying for a service confers no implications about copyright.
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  Absent any other agreement commissioning work implies ownership of copyright.
  - Kerrick 4y ago
    Not in the U.S. Work For Hire is not assumed to be the default for, say, a person who walks into a portrait studio and commissions a headshot. https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf
  - tzs 4y ago
    Not in the US. In the US the author of the work gets copyright unless it is a "work made for hire". A work made for hire is either: 1. a work prepared by an employee within the scope of their employment, or 2. a work specially ordered or commissioned for use in one of 9 particular ways [1] and the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. The copyright office has a good explanation here: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf [1] The 9 are contribution to a collective work, part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, a translation, a supplementary work, a compilation, an instructional text, a test, answer material for a test, and an atlas.
    - dehrmann 4y ago
      Either the court or the law is wrong; whether someone is an employee or commissioned to create something doesn't change that someone is obviously paying for whatever's created. The linked doc might not apply in the case of medical images because the image was captured by a company, not an individual. Although I suppose the company is a corporate person...

dicom_guy 4y ago

I know in the state of California, the imaging centers own the data. I think it’s similar in other states which is why you see a lot of these institutions selling data to medical imaging AI startups.