> 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.
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.
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.)
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.
I can imagine that a court might see things differently, given that under Supreme Court precedent [1] it takes comparatively-little human creative effort to constitute an "original work of authorship" as required by the Copyright Act. But it's also likely that no one has ever cared enough about claiming copyright in a medical image to go challenging the Office's position — or that I''m simply not up to date on this area of the law (which isn't part of my day-to-day practice).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....
I was originally thinking it would fall under the monkey taking a selfie as the technician (not photographer) is merely activating a machine that actually makes an image (and not photo, it's actually a radiograph), like a programmer executing code that has an AI generate an image. Particularly in the case of the auto-panning machines. But everything in this paragraph can be wildly misinterpreted by the eyes and lies of a lawyer, since the user of a camera isn't taking a photo, they're pressing a button and the camera generates an image.
So you're absolutely correct on the "in a courtroom" setting.
Speaking as a (former) litigator, I think you have a misimpression about what lawyers and judges do in our common-law judicial system. In part, we deal with edge- and corner cases that simply aren't clearly addressed in the statute. (If you're a software developer, you're surely familiar with the phenomenon.)
It could be argued that in a civil case, if a statute doesn't clearly allow the plaintiff to recover, then the court should simply deny the requested relief. But that's not how the Anglo-American system works. Anciently, to help keep the peace, common-law judges tried to figure out, "what would the King do if he were here?" Likewise, in our modern system, they ask, "what was the intent of [Parliament | Congress | the state legislature] in an edge- or corner case like this?" and to grant or deny relief accordingly. Is that a perfect system? No. But it has worked reasonably well for centuries, and so there'd be a huge path-dependence problem in trying to change it.
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.
The one who took the picture has moral rights, no matter who hired whom. These rights are for life and not transferrable, you have them whether you want it or not. It also means you can't put your work in the public domain. These are "respect the author" rights that can be use if someone defaces you work for instance. Parody and satire are exceptions.
The one who hired the one who took the picture has patrimonial rights if the contract says so. Patrimonial rights are essentially the right to make money and the closest to US copyright. These are transferrable.