Consent to digital imaging

Re: Consent to digital imaging

James Laidlaw — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:25:30 GMT

Nice to know as an employee I don't have to be responsible! Might take it easy for the rest if the week :)

Re: Consent to digital imaging

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:51:27 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]There has been a real necessity to “clean up” HE material[/quote]

[quote user="J G Wray"]Hope this helps – it is a minefield![/quote]

Sorry, sorry, it's just me.

(Explanation for younger generation: HE to me stands for High Explosive)

Re: Consent to digital imaging

J G Wray — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 07:20:28 GMT

In another place the following was posted:

"..

Hi all – a few links here if you are interested

The GMC guidelines are useful, if rather extensive, when considering wording consent forms/writing policies for patient or owner images: http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/making_audiovisual.asp.

The JISC issue a lot of guidelines on copyright aimed at HE but they can also be useful if you are considering what can be used where (the answer is not a lot in the commercial context) http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/topics/legalethical/ipr.aspx#.

They used to have a sample consent form up there ....

If you are looking for images to use from the web the Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ licenses are useful – but beware that not all levels allow commercial use. There is a move to have a similar type of licensing system with consent but it hasn’t happened yet.

Google and Flickr will both do advanced searches for C-C only images, as will Xpert (www.nottingham.ac.uk/xpert) . Xpert will download with the attribution embedded in a strip at the bottom so you don’t need to worry about credits.

As regards ownership of images, my understanding is that if I take images as part of my job they belong to my employer.

[JGW - Employees of veterinary practices please note]

At Nottingham we have a free image data base (>4000 pics) which is BY-NC-SA licensed – theoretically this is educational non-commercial use only but we will (usually) allow use of images by practices if you ask – you can find the pictures/videos at www.flickr.com/photos/nottinghamvets . Feel free to email me if you want to use something. These are all fully consented with a take down policy.

There has been a real necessity to “clean up” HE material over the last few years, hence we started again with images as more often than not you can’t remember where something came from/what it has been consented for....it’s really not good enough to take a gamble with this as students are busy recording lectures and posting them elsewhere.

Hope this helps – it is a minefield!..."

[JGW] - If anyone wants to make contact with the author of this piece then contact me in a conversation.

There are now elements developing about digital files in general, including voice recording of telephone calls. Consent is only part of a more general theme with aspects also involving T&C,copyright, attribution, usage and purpose.

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]As I said already, you don't need consent any more for digital images than you do for x-rad provided they aren't for commercial use. If you had the fine points of consent for everything in every patient admitted, the consent form would be a book. If not an encyclopaedia.[/quote]

Quite. Wish I'd realised that. As I said, if you're an employee, like so much, don't sweat it, you aren't responsible, except you are regulated as an individual - um. If, on the other hand you've been grateful for rigourous record and consent keeping or had stuff "borrowed" then there might be another view.

JGW

Re: Consent to digital imaging

Malcolm Ness — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:41:14 GMT

I have experience of images (rads and patient pics) of one of my cases being lifted from a lecture powerpoint slide (passed to a colleague for, I believed, his own use) later appearing in some promo material for the institution at which my colleague previously worked.

No real problems arose but there could have been if, for example, the owner recognised their dog being used without their permission for a commercial purpose that they had not considered or if the photographer wanted to exert his copyright

Re: Consent to digital imaging

James Laidlaw — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:34:05 GMT

As I said already, you don't need consent any more for digital images than you do for x-rad provided they aren't for commercial use. If you had the fine points of consent for everything in every patient admitted, the consent form would be a book. If not an encyclopaedia.

Re: Consent to digital imaging

J G Wray — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:16:20 GMT

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]How do you get any work done in the day worrying about stuff like this?[/quote]

Just cram this week's concern in, just like every other boss with half a brain. Next week it'll be something else. If you are an employee don't worry, be happy.

Any suggestions for how to get informed consent for digital imaging in line with RCVS policy?

JGW

Re: Consent to digital imaging

James Laidlaw — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 09:08:33 GMT

How do you get any work done in the day worrying about stuff like this?

Re: Consent to digital imaging

J G Wray — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 08:28:04 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"] We're talking about the RCVS. Didn't I make that clear?[/quote]

In another place you can get example of comprehensive mods of Ts&Cs and (soon) consent forms in respect of digital images.

My comment on that was as follows:

"..
This is v comprehensive [The example T&C] . We can all see how complex our consent forms are becoming. We all know that informed consent is what we are seeking. How do I approach my professional regulator to ask them to consider how to issue guidance, rolling guidance on basics like this?

What formal mechanism exists for approaching RCVS with this non Statutory enquiry, which clearly has legs and lands squarely with RCVS?

There is a speculative email or letter to a generic contact contact at RCVS. Unfortunately, whilst an acknowledgement might be forthcoming, there is no "customer focussed" anything after that.

There is an ad hoc contact with RCVS Councillors through this or other forums, or if you happen to know their email address. Or, there's writing to them. My own experience of writing to RCVS Councillors at RCVS was that only three replied......

There is approaching a representative organisation, if you are a member, but actually all that achieves is inserting another bureaucracy into the equation which may or may not take the matter forward.

RFPs pay. If a RFP has no access then they are disenfranchised. Mr Stace does not have a "customer", "audience" or "people" defined in his JD and the usual parasites in central London will command his attention for some time to come.

There is also a sense coming across from COuncillors of the ancien regime that they don't have to worry about "customers", "audience" or people" and their issues now Mr Stace is here. This is quite true. They were not elected to represent anyone except themselves and certainly not RFPs. They can now get on with their own interests and distance, cocoon themselves again.

RCVS have learnt nothing. The World is moving on in small but important ways and RCVS is retreating. Mind you the window dressing is pretty good and expensive..."

JGW

PS in 2013 enjoy whole New World of social media contact from RCVS. One way stuff mind you, but it will called communication and therefore it will be all that is required.

Re: Consent to digital imaging

James Laidlaw — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:19:19 GMT

Commercial use of photographs requires release forms to be signed. Education, private records/private use requires no release/consent. You don't have to consent to X-rays being taken in terms of imaging rights, why would photographs of an animal be any different. In music photography it's the same, unless commercial use is going to occur, release forms aren't required. You don't have to go alon the entire front 3 rows of a crowd to get release authorised when shooting concerts!

Re: Consent to digital imaging

Frances Barr — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:08:18 GMT

It is interesting in the context of CPD. The GMC has issued guidance to medics on this issue, and although I don't know if there is separate guidance for use of animal images, it seems reasonable to extrapolate. In the GMC guidance, they state that express permission is not needed to record images such as ultrasound, X ray or endoscopic images, as consent is deemed implicit when consenting to the procedure. They further go on to say that such recordings may be used for secondary purposes (such as teaching) without consent provided they are anonymised before use. I appreciate that photographs of the actual patient (human or animal) are quite different.

Ownership of medical images is less clear, but is generally presumed to belong to the relevant health trust. Not, interestingly, to either the patient, the clinician in charge of the case, or the radiographer taking the image.

Re: Consent to digital imaging

Mike Martin — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:25:19 GMT

This is an interesting point, particularly for anyone who lectures. I don't know the legal standing on this - I'm not sure if Arlo's views are actually the legal standpoint or simply common sense.

But, I guess it comes under data protection laws, which apply to people and not to animals?

Or are photographs or even images (such as x-ray, ultrasound) of animals (even though they are patients) in some way protected under law?

I presume BVA or someone has a lawyer that could answer these questions?

Presumably RCVS would have to follow the Law of the land on this one and cannot create their own laws....? Or am I naive?

Re: Consent to digital imaging

J G Wray — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:00:12 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I don't think (might be wrong), that there is a legal precedent here for someone successfully suing a photographer / filmmaker for breach of privacy over footage of an animal. So common sense must surely prevail:[/quote]

Long sigh.

We're not talking about common sense here. We're talking about the RCVS. Didn't I make that clear?

Making a complaint to RCVS is free - see anecdote - and Mr Hockey's in charge now.

He's keen to make everything consensual. Consent forms with estimates attached copied to owners, covering the possible use of off licence meds and now digital image ownership and use is all in the mix.

I'm not remotely interested in giving RCVS anything to hook me on procedurally.

None of this applies in NW Wales by the way

JGW

Re: Consent to digital imaging

Marie Kubiak — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:49:24 GMT

My consent forms have a paragraph saying that photos and images may be used for education purposes and ask owners to opt out if they do not agree to this. Hopefully this covers us for using them for training/CPD. I remain surprised that so far (18months since wording was added) no-one has opted out or even questioned this.

Marie

Re: Consent to digital imaging

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 20:39:38 GMT

Jeez, JG, you aren't 'alf a worrywart.

Re: Consent to digital imaging

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:28:41 GMT

I researched this a bit for some filming of people and animals I did for publicity purposes a while back.

Film or photographs of recognisable people or their pets usually requires one to get the subject to sign a release form before using the film for commercial purposes etc. The release form should just be worded in such a way as to include all the possible ways you might want to use the film/photo.

As I understand it, film or photographs of people or animals that are unrecognisable do not require release forms. So, I do not think you need to get a release for a film/photo of a close up of a surgical procedure, or a body part (other than the head, I guess).

The question of whether film is for marketing purposes isn't really relevant, other than being clear in a release form how you are going to use it.

I don't think (might be wrong), that there is a legal precedent here for someone successfully suing a photographer / filmmaker for breach of privacy over footage of an animal. So common sense must surely prevail:

animal not recognisable from footage - permission not required, though you might feel more comfortable asking for it anyway. I know that the owner of the subject of one of my films on this site was asked for permission, despite not being indentifiable on the footage.
animal (or owner) recognisable from footage - to protect yourself, ask owner to sign release form for film/images. Reality is that in most cases, you would probably never need it.

Re: Consent to digital imaging

J G Wray — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:45:50 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I don't worry much as long as the owner is not identifiable from the images. If they are I would ask consent.[/quote]

"I would ask consent" - how and what for? DO you market to others through the use of images? Do you use photo images to justify a clinical approach?

JGW

Re: Consent to digital imaging

Bob Russell — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:33:28 GMT

I don't worry much as long as the owner is not identifiable from the images. If they are I would ask consent.

We photograph puppies/kittens etc to put up on a board in the waiting room. There has never been a problem and we encourage clients to bring in amusing pictures of their pets.

A number of clients bring in pictures of pets that have died and those we happily put up in the office but not in public.

We do photograph lesions etc and store those on the computer as part of the history and I will share them with colleagues if necessary.