[LINK] In other news....

[Stewart Fist]

Stil writes
> 
> An X-ray of you isn't your properly (currently), because the law gives
> ownership of an image to the creator of the image, not the subjects who
> appear in the image.


But not 'exclusive' rights, and not in all circumstances.

If you have portraits done, then the person photographed has some rights
also.

In fact, he may own the copyright if the photographer was deemed to have
been employed, rather than contracted.

And that distinction has been tested many times in documentary film-making,
where even a contracted cinematographer can be held to be 'employed' because
he us under the direction of the director in how to exercise his craft.  If
the director says 'put your tripod there, and zoom in on his face' then the
cinematographer ceases to be a contractor, and becomes an employee -- for
the purposes of copyright and accident liability insurance cases.

Contractors are assumed to be independent decision makes - deciding who or
what will be photographed, and where to put their camera, etc.

That's the basic legal distinction between employment and contracting

Presumably X-rays taken of, say a politician, are within the 'employment'
category.  Certainly they can't be flogged off to the local tabloid as
evidence of his lung-cancer without the permission of the subject.



-- 
Stewart Fist, writer, journalist, film-maker
70 Middle Harbour Road, LINDFIELD, 2070, NSW, Australia
Ph +61 (2) 9416 7458