WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 31388469

(no title)

LosWochosWeek | 3 years ago

> In my country in Europe the solution is quite easy: I have the right to get all papers and images from my doctors within 10 years of creation.

This doesn't answer the question in the article tho. The question isn't "Who has the rights to a copy of my medical images". It's "Who owns the copyright to my medical images".

To answer that question, you'd first have to find out if your medical images are even protected by copyright in the first place. The answer to this question depends wholly on the picture itself.

Let's say a medical image of yours is indeed protected by copyright, then -- even in your country in Europe (regardless of which country it actually is) -- the copyright holder is the person who took the image. Not you. It may very well be that in your country this copyright is restricted by other laws (i.e. Persönlichkeitsrecht in Germany).

discuss

order

chii|3 years ago

> the copyright holder is the person who took the image.

only if you didn't contract that person to take the image for you. So it makes sense, imho, that the person who paid for the image to be taken to own the copyright.

briandear|3 years ago

Actually, absent a work for hire agreement, that isn’t true [in the US.] I used to be a contract photographer for Reuters, Time, and a bunch of other places you’ve heard of and my standard agreement was a day rate, and the client would have rights to the specific photo they published. All the outtakes were mine and I subsequently could sell those through an agency. On other assignments, specifically corporate and advertising, those would often be a work-for-hire agreement in which case they owned everything I shot. Of course I charged a lot more for those assignments because I wouldn’t be able to make residuals from agency sales. An example is I photographed Ken Lay for Enron as a work for hire. So when the Enron scandal hit, I couldn’t sell anything from that shoot. Another assignment was a Bush family portrait for Reuters in 1998. I was able to sell my outtakes and that made me a pile of money during the 2000 presidential campaign since there was no work for hire agreement. And the Bush’s didn’t have any rights to those photos despite being the subject even though I shot it in their family home.

The point is that work-for-hire has to be explicit. For medical imagery, it would seem that the creator of the images would have the rights, but HIPAA would preclude them using them unless there was a specific release (which is common in teaching hospitals.)

dctoedt|3 years ago

Unfortunately it's not that simple under U.S. law: Under 17 U.S.C. § 201, the image-maker (more likely, his/her employer) is considered the "author," and thus will own the copyright. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201.

Exception #1: The contract could provide for the image-maker to assign the copyright to the image subject. See 17 U.S.C. § 204, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/204.

Exception #2: The parties could sign a written work-made-for-hire agreement before the image is created, IFF the work is specially ordered or commissioned for use • as a contribution to a collective work, • as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, • as a translation, • as a supplementary work, • as a compilation, • as an instructional text, • as a test, • as answer material for a test, or • as an atlas. See 17 U.S.C. § 101, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101.

For the purpose of Exception #2 “supplementary work” is a work prepared for a publication as a secondary adjunct to a work by another author for the purpose of • introducing, • concluding, • illustrating, • explaining, • revising, • commenting upon, or • assisting in the use of the other work, such as • forewords, • afterwords, • pictorial illustrations, • maps, •charts, • tables, • editorial notes, • musical arrangements, • answer material for tests, • bibliographies, • appendixes, and • indexes; and an “instructional text” is a • literary, • pictorial, or • graphic work prepared for publication and intended to be used in systematic instructional activities. See 17 U.S.C. § 101, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101.

LosWochosWeek|3 years ago

This depends on your country and specific copyright laws. These differences exist mostly between common law and roman law countries.

In Germany there is a distinction between copyright holder (Inhaber des Urheberrechts) and the entity that is allowed to act on the copyright (Inhaber des Nutzungsrechts). If I take a picture that you contracted me to take, I'm the former and you're the latter.

wyldfire|3 years ago

> the copyright holder is the person who took the image. Not you.

But it could be interesting to think about whether a dental X-ray is "your likeness". So even if the dentist holds the copyright, their copyright is burdened/encumbered by the fact that it's a "picture of you". Unless you sign away that right in exchange for treatment, the copyright might not be that useful.

traceroute66|3 years ago

> This doesn't answer the question in the article tho. The question isn't "Who has the rights to a copy of my medical images". It's "Who owns the copyright to my medical images".

Yes, but that's kind of the point .... the blog post was asking the wrong question.

In the context of the blog post, "but copyright" is BS and the staff member should have been pulled up on it.

Reason ? GDPR. In Europe access to "personally identifiable information" is basically a god given right, saying "no" is not an option. Therefore ..... X-Ray linked to Patient Record = clearly PII = access granted. End of story.

The providing entity has the right to charge a limited fee for "admin" but that's it.

ALSO From a legal perspective, what contract the provider has signed with the equipment manufacturer is IRRELEVANT. The patient's legal relationship is with the healthcare provider. The onus is on the healthcare provider to ensure they are covered downstream for GDPR release, but lack of downstream coverage IS NOT an excuse to withhold GDPR release.