Commons:Deletion requests/Radswiki

• File:NF2 multiple intramedullary ependymomas 001.jpg
• File:NF2 multiple intramedullary ependymomas 002.jpg
• File:Unicornuate-uterus-001.jpg
• File:Vesicoureteral-reflux-004.jpg
• File:Neuroblastoma 101.jpg
• File:Neuroblastoma 102.jpg
• File:Neuroblastoma 103.jpg
• File:Pulmonary-sequestration-001.jpg
• File:Pulmonary-sequestration-002.jpg
• File:Pulmonary-sequestration-003.jpg
• File:Thanatophoric-dwarf-102.jpg
• File:Tarlov cyst 004.jpg
• File:Necrotizing enterocolitis 202.jpg
• File:NF2 multiple intramedullary ependymomas 003.jpg
• File:NF2 multiple intramedullary ependymomas 004.jpg
• File:Oligodendroglioma 001.jpg
• File:Oligodendroglioma 002.jpg
• File:Oligodendroglioma 003.jpg
• File:Oligodendroglioma 004.jpg
• File:Oligodendroglioma 005.jpg
• File:Oligodendroglioma 006.jpg
• File:Oligodendroglioma 007.jpg
• File:Oligodendroglioma 008.jpg
• File:Oligodendroglioma 009.jpg
• File:Oligodendroglioma 010.jpg
• File:Subfalcine-herniation-001.jpg
• File:Pleomorphic-xanthoastrocytoma-002.jpg
• File:Pooh-film.jpg
• File:Prostate-mets-102.jpg
• File:Spondyloepimetaphyseal-dysplasia-001.jpg
• File:Spondyloepimetaphyseal-dysplasia-002.jpg
• File:Spondyloepimetaphyseal-dysplasia-003.jpg
• File:Normal pressure hydrocephalus 001.jpg
• File:T-shaped-uterus-001.jpg
• File:Nasal-glioma05.jpg
• File:Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy 002.jpg
• File:Osteosarcoma-003.jpg
• File:Wound-003.jpg
• File:Vestibular-schwannoma-003.jpg
• File:Phrygian-cap-CT-001 edited-copy.jpg
• File:Nornal-vq-scan.jpg
• File:Osteosarcoma-002.jpg
• File:Osteosarcoma-004.jpg
• File:Simitar-syndrome-003.jpg
• File:Potts-puffy-tumor-004.jpg
• File:Normal-pelvis-001.jpg

Once closed, Category:Deletion requests June 2009 can also be removed.

This is a mass nom of a set of files from radwiki. They have already been nominated for deletion by radswiki (talk · contribs) in conjunction with the message left at User_talk:Filip_em#Questionable_ownership_of_images. As has been noted on many of the deletion request pages, the Radswiki license was changed.

Many of the images were deleted by admin Kameraad Pjotr (talk · contribs), as can be seen on the redlinks in Radswiki contribs, however some of the remaining images are in use on wikipedias.

Previous discussion pages with different comments are:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Normal-pelvis-001.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Simitar-syndrome-003.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Phrygian-cap-CT-001 edited-copy.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Osteosarcoma-003.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NF2 multiple intramedullary ependymomas 002.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NF2 multiple intramedullary ependymomas 001.jpg

Everyone who participated in those discussions has been notified of this new discussion.

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) closed a few as keep:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wound-003.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vestibular-schwannoma-003.jpg

--John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Thank you for organizing the discussion. The longest previous deletion discussion was in Commons:Deletion requests/File:NF2 multiple intramedullary ependymomas 001.jpg. I am against deltion for two reasons: 1) licenses are non-revocable, 2) medical x-ray images are not artistic works and not protected by copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete As no valid license and per COM:PRP. Look at this comment; Radswiki has in essence asserted that he does not own the copyright to those images. In all other cases, where someone uploads an image with invalid copyright, we delete it with extreme prejudice. I'm not going to get into the revocability of the license as it's plainly invalid. As to the copyrightability of radiology images, I think this is too wide-sweeping a decision to make here, and requires input from the Foundation legal team. But as a thought, let me ask, if File:MRI brain sagittal section.jpg would be considered {{pd-ineligible}}, why would File:Human brain midsagittal cut .JPG not be the same? Or any photograph of human anatomy for that matter? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because there can be no creativity in taking simple projection images of what one cannot see. That is the case with x-rays. It is very much like scanning a whole book without even seeing what is on the pages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that if you take a steel block which is visible, X-ray photographs of that block are not copyrightable while visible light photographs are copyrightable? I would really like to see some statute or case law to support that, or to support whatever you're trying to say. If none exists, we need to delete these images per COM:PRP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Dubious quality and use, and some have rather clear copyright problems (derivative of a potentially copyrighted teddy bear, there is no "Freedom of Panorama" for x-rays of copyrighted objects). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I do not believe that radiography creates copyright, as it is not an artistic medium. Thereby, Radswiki not holding the copyright is not in fact a problem. Just for the record, these images are extremely precious for medical or physics articles. Rama (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but a "belief" that radiography does not create copyright is not sufficient to overcome COM:PRP. The onus is very much upon those in the "keep" boat to show some statutory provision or case law that makes medical radiography non-copyrightable. I ask you, why would a visible light photograph of a human skeleton be subject to copyright when an X-ray photograph of the same skeleton would not be? This is at least the third time I've asked this question, and I've yet to get an answer. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See en:Bridgeman vs Corel for the criteria. Also in medical x-rays, there is no creativity in composition or posing, nor in lighting or angle. These are straight shadowgraphs. It is more straightforward than making a poster of a painting - no problems with glare, no question of color balance. So according to US law, this should be clear, even when no such cases about x-ray have been brought to higher courts. In some European countries, there are special laws for any photography, that do not require creativity. Such images would then be protected for a shorter term, counting from creation of the photograph, not from death. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter, please do some reading on what goes on in taking a medical X-ray before making such wide-sweeping pronouncements; may I recommend Fundamentals of musculoskeletal imaging by Lynn McKinnis, ISBN 0803611889. Composition matters a great deal in taking even the most mundane seeming of radiographic images, as does angle, posing, "lighting" (X-ray intensity/MRI field strength), contrast, and "glare" (caused by metallic objects in the radiographic field) among other things. Taking an X-ray is much more involved than stripping the skin off a human being and taking a photograph- something which would be protected by copyright, I'll remind you. We are not talking about photographs of public domain art, we are talking about images of nature. And to assert that the beautiful patterns produced in something like a brain MRI has no artistic merit is terribly narrow-minded.

And I'll continue to argue that COM:PRP still applies and these images need to be deleted; Bridgeman dealt with photographs of art that was already in the public domain- slavish reproductions involving no creativity. Indeed, Wikipedia's own article on Bridgeman suggests that these images should be deleted (read here). Taking an X-ray is not slavish in any respect, no matter how "routine" you may think it is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In making radiograms like File:Pulmonary-sequestration-002.jpg, there are no real choices. Angle should be straight on or from the side, and proper exposure settings for chest x-rays are probably tabulated in the user manual of the instrument. While MRI is more involved (images are made interactively, there is much more choice than with x-rays), the doctors are not asking for creativity - they want skillfully made images, taken according to standard orientations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider File:Human brain midsagittal cut .JPG, which was taken using visible light rather than magnetic resonance or X-ray, ineligible for copyright rather than CC-BY? What about pictures of skin lesions?

In radiology you need to compensate for things like body habitus, and there are a great deal of variables which, though frequently standardized, very much enter into making an image. The threshold for creativity, as stated in Bridgeman, is practically nothing, and many of the factors are available in radiology. In Bridgeman, it was admitted that the purpose of the images was to be slavish. We have no such admission in these images, and given there are images such as File:Pooh-film.jpg in the group, we cannot make the naïve assumption that all of these images are slavish and non-artistic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom, COM:PRP, Mendaliv, and Ottava Rima. It is plainly clear that the Radswiki website's management has been negligent in caring for the licenses of the images it accepted and republished. It is also plainly clear that en:Bridgeman vs Corel does not apply to radiological images. Note in case of archiving that the "message left at User_talk:Filip_em#Questionable_ownership_of_images" was left in this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • but keep any images uploaded to RadsWiki prior to June 25 2009 (which were licenced properly; the licence isn't revocable) per Stifle.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like most or all of the images in this DR have had the deletion templates removed, and it is very unlikely anybody new will find this discussion. However, it does not look like the admin who did so intended to show this DR as closed as opposed to the year-old ones (see User talk:Kameraad Pjotr#Radswiki). Not to beat a dead horse, but seeing as this is a case where we might be extending our interpretation of Bridgeman, I'd hope to see wider involvement (or invocation of COM:PRP). As I'm vastly ignorant in the ways of Commons, I'm hoping someone else can help out with this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep any images uploaded to RadsWiki prior to June 25 2009 (which were licenced properly; the licence isn't revocable);  Delete others. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted any images uploaded to RadsWiki following June 25, 2009, when their license was updated. I carefully checked upload dates on the original site, which do not match those provided on the image description pages. In the end, no images were deleted except for those deleted at Radswiki, for which I could not confirm original upload date (we may require a review process for these images). There is no case law that I know of to guide us for x-ray images; as such the conservative thing to do is to regard the creative contribution of the radiologist (in posing the subject and orienting and configuring the x-ray device) as subject to copyright. I would also suspect images uploaded prior to June 25, 2009, as they may have been uploaded by patients who have a dubious claim to any copyright residing in the images, or by radiologists who performed the x-rays as a work for hire for their employers; but at this time I'm assuming good faith on the part of the Radswiki uploaders. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]