Author Topic: Getting baby scan images accepted (Read 4943 times)

malamus · « **on:** August 06, 2012, 03:53 »

Hi,

how do people get possession of a digital babyscan image to submit to IStock. I can only think of 3 ways and only have access to 1.

1st, are we able to request the digital file from the hospital (quality issues)
2nd, scan the image the give you (I don't have a scanner, but possibly a shop would do it)
3rd, take a photo of the image (this I could do)

Is the third option viable and if so, are there any tips to get the best quality out of a photo of a photo

Thank you

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** August 06, 2012, 04:42 »

Quote from: malamus on August 06, 2012, 03:53

Hi,

how do people get possession of a digital babyscan image to submit to IStock. I can only think of 3 ways and only have access to 1.

1st, are we able to request the digital file from the hospital (quality issues)
2nd, scan the image the give you (I don't have a scanner, but possibly a shop would do it)
3rd, take a photo of the image (this I could do)

Is the third option viable and if so, are there any tips to get the best quality out of a photo of a photo

Thank you

I remember an iStock thread from way back about either scans or X-Rays. As usual, I can't find anything via 'hospital scan' or 'X*Ray' on the forum search: that was particularly about the release issue. Obviously you need an MR and I think you need a PR, and but I can't remember for sure.
(Sorry, no idea about the quality issue).

bunhill · « **Reply #2 on:** August 06, 2012, 05:15 »

There is no single definitive answer about the copyright issue because it is going to depend upon the contract under which the images are produced (whether at a state hospital, paid for by an insurance company, work for hire etc etc .. various options) - and therefore who owns the copyright. The short answer seems to be that any copyrighted material is going to need a property release. There are 2 relevant threads at the iStockphoto forum. Thanks Google.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=35764&page=1

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=80353&page=1

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** August 06, 2012, 05:43 »

Quote from: bhr on August 06, 2012, 05:15

There is no single definitive answer about the copyright issue because it is going to depend upon the contract under which the images are produced (whether at a state hospital, paid for by an insurance company, work for hire etc etc .. various options) - and therefore who owns the copyright. The short answer seems to be that any copyrighted material is going to need a property release. There are 2 relevant threads at the iStockphoto forum. Thanks Google.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=35764&page=1

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=80353&page=1

Thanks for that! It just shows how pointless these posts are. You get a load of different answers that don't give any definitive answer, and which clearly vary from country to country. I was particularly confused by this one: "An x-ray or other medical imagery is work for hire. You are hiring someone to make specific images on your behalf." That's clearly a local opinion, as here an NHS X-Ray technician is employed by the hospital and paid by the State (i.e. our national insurance payments) to take the images. So maybe the only person who could sign a UK release would be the Minister for Health. Or maybe they are our own, as we pay NI so are indirectly hiring the technician. Ha! What a can of worms.

bunhill · « **Reply #4 on:** August 06, 2012, 06:06 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 06, 2012, 05:43

Thanks for that! It just shows how pointless these posts are. You get a load of different answers that don't give any definitive answer, and which clearly vary from country to country.

That seems a rather negative way of looking at things. It is not pointless if it helps people to logically identify the sorts of questions which they need to find answers for.

The fact that there is no single definitive answer is of itself a pertinent piece of information. The reasons why there is no definitive answer help people to better understand the issues in general.

Unless you took the pictures yourself in your own time using your own equipment then, just like with archival photographs, you have to establish who owns any copyright which may exist and who can sign a property release. With the caveat that the potential exists that you own the copyright yourself .... If the contract said that.

Model releases would a different issue. I doubt these would count as identifiable people.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** August 06, 2012, 06:35 »

Quote from: bhr on August 06, 2012, 06:06

Quote from: ShadySue on August 06, 2012, 05:43
Thanks for that! It just shows how pointless these posts are. You get a load of different answers that don't give any definitive answer, and which clearly vary from country to country.
That seems a rather negative way of looking at things. It is not pointless if it helps people to logically identify the sorts of questions which they need to find answers for.

Sorry. I do have an axe to grind, in that two things I asked about in threads which I was told I would need definitely need PRs for, and it was vitrually impossible (and would have cost a lot of money) to identify who could sign the PRs even if I could find them, were eventually, years later, rejected as editorial with a note that I should put them into the main collection, where I found that in the invervening period loads of photos of similar products had been uploaded, and I had just taken the word of an admin as law. More fool me.

bunhill · « **Reply #6 on:** August 06, 2012, 06:52 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 06, 2012, 06:35

I do have an axe to grind etc

Obviously generic answers are never going to address specific circumstances. This is not an argument against trying to help people to understand the sort of things which they need to find out and document when dealing logically with these sorts of questions.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #7 on:** August 06, 2012, 07:39 »

IMO, just because a piece of data is made of pixels and square does not mean it deserves protection. A sonogram is no different than your cholesterol results. There is no artistic merit to it that would qualify it as a creative work.

gillian vann · « **Reply #8 on:** August 06, 2012, 20:56 »

interesting that this has come up now, as I have just shot 2 x-rays for a children's picture book I'm working on. most of the items i'm shooting are also ending up in my stock port (although A is for apple has been rejected, how rude, don't they want another red apple on white??!) and i was wondering about a model release - how on earth is someone's skeleton "recognisable"?

Hadn't thought about the hospital "owning" the image. I'll bet the hospital hasn't given it any thought either.

malamus · « **Reply #9 on:** August 07, 2012, 08:29 »

If I push the "capture image" button for the original scan, do I own the copyright?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #10 on:** August 15, 2012, 04:01 »

Unless there is capture data imprinted on the printout, it would be impossible for anybody to find out what hospital an x-ray or sonograph image is from or who is in it (unless there is some extraordinarily unique medical feature of the person).

If nobody can identify the subject or location, I fail to see how anybody could sue for it. The thing is as impersonal as an isolated object. And if nobody can sue, it doesn't, in my non-legal opinion, need a release.

I would just upload and wait to see if the reviewers want to play silly beggars about releases or not. If it gets accepted, fine. If not, that's their choice. However it pans out, you're never going to get in trouble for it.

malamus · « **Reply #11 on:** August 15, 2012, 05:20 »

Fair point

How would be best to translate the print out into digital?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #12 on:** August 15, 2012, 08:09 »

Quote from: malamus on August 15, 2012, 05:20

Fair point

How would be best to translate the print out into digital?

I would guess scanning is the best answer. One problem is likely to be that the images won't be sharp because they never are from ultrasound, so anything that prevents them getting worse would be good.

A good photo should be equally OK if you can get the lighting right and the subject perfectly parallel with the sensor. It would also make a good prop for a picture of the expectant mum.

malamus · « **Reply #13 on:** August 15, 2012, 09:26 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 15, 2012, 08:09

It would also make a good prop for a picture of the expectant mum.

Oh, nice one, you little dancer!!!

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #14 on:** August 15, 2012, 11:14 »

Quote from: malamus on August 15, 2012, 09:26

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 15, 2012, 08:09
It would also make a good prop for a picture of the expectant mum.

Oh, nice one, you little dancer!!!

You need to think creativily... an "excited mum with first view of new baby series" could net you well over $1,000 in time. Mum kissing dad while clutching printout (you need to copy a few to avoid damaging your original), mum pointing to baby while proud dad looks on, mum holding printout in one hand and belly in other.... lots of possibilities there.

I almost didn't mention it but then I thought ... hell, you don't even DO people pictures, why hide anything? Keep the secrecy for the way you shoot an ice cream.

malamus · « **Reply #15 on:** August 16, 2012, 05:22 »

I'll explore that.

My wife will not allow our little girl or herself be recognisable in images, but the bump and scan will be OK (props that not many shooters have access to). I also have to take a shot (for our family album) of our little girl kissing the bump, I know there are loads of them but I could take it from behind the kiss to keep anonymity and acceptance

Thanks

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getting baby scan images accepted (Read 4943 times)

malamus

ShadySue

bunhill

ShadySue

bunhill

ShadySue

bunhill

Sean Locke Photography

gillian vann

malamus

BaldricksTrousers

malamus

BaldricksTrousers

malamus

BaldricksTrousers

malamus

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors