Legal and Ethical Considerations around the Use of Existing Illustrations to Generate New Illustrations in the Anatomical Sciences
Saved in:
| Title: | Legal and Ethical Considerations around the Use of Existing Illustrations to Generate New Illustrations in the Anatomical Sciences |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Jon Cornwall (ORCID |
| Source: | Anatomical Sciences Education. 2025 18(3):289-300. |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 12 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Descriptive |
| Descriptors: | Anatomy, Human Body, Illustrations, Copyrights, Plagiarism, Publishing Industry, Textbook Publication, Legal Responsibility, Compliance (Legal), Ethics, Reprography, Use Studies |
| DOI: | 10.1002/ase.70002 |
| ISSN: | 1935-9772 1935-9780 |
| Abstract: | It is likely existing anatomical illustrations are often used as the basis for new illustrative works, given not all illustrators have access to human tissues, bodies, or prosections on which to base their illustrations. Potential issues arise with this practice in the realms of copyright infringement and plagiarism when authors are seeking to publish, a matter becoming more prevalent with the proliferation in publishing platforms and the increased adoption of generative artificial intelligence applications within academia. However, there is little published guidance that might inform authors when using an existing illustration as the basis for new work. This article provides information pertaining to copyright, copyright infringement, fair use and fair dealings, plagiarism, and the overlap of copyright and plagiarism to highlight issues of law and ethics that are relevant to the creation of illustrations. Interestingly, the determination of exactly what constitutes an "original" illustration per construction from a secondary source has not been determined in case law for anatomy illustrations. This fact illuminates the absence of a "bright-line" test for illustration reproduction and the difficulties in the objective assessment of what constitutes a "nonoriginal" illustration. The term "substantively different" is useful for determining whether illustrations derived from secondary sources can be deemed original. This article delivers guidance on how to develop illustrations with reference to determining whether copyright has been breached or plagiarism has occurred. It also provides information that will direct decision-making around illustrative content. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1462644 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE3MsidDd5QYMQ_H4tn09XLAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKNPh-AWcjlQQtaJRQIBEICBmi1gEfv7Gm540fIagTJsw0tZxoZ1-ZrFCeGnsJt_ozuJ08XM4xQheJrpHzPwBpjWpEgzYR5Pq25KujPbL5BGsEDjoKTtWRHmYoj4QP9MU9VXDPj2tUU518xClXc5gds81t4H-kLRhMCKmuIQ-MujFX7ig--sUO7aNFFmSMJldlV_tyZbj4axn_rPAQ7Ux31As5nr_dkHGi8B5CU= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0183690177;[8z8k]01mar.25;2025Mar18.06:18;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183690177-1">Legal and ethical considerations around the use of existing illustrations to generate new illustrations in the anatomical sciences </title> <p>It is likely existing anatomical illustrations are often used as the basis for new illustrative works, given not all illustrators have access to human tissues, bodies, or prosections on which to base their illustrations. Potential issues arise with this practice in the realms of copyright infringement and plagiarism when authors are seeking to publish, a matter becoming more prevalent with the proliferation in publishing platforms and the increased adoption of generative artificial intelligence applications within academia. However, there is little published guidance that might inform authors when using an existing illustration as the basis for new work. This article provides information pertaining to copyright, copyright infringement, fair use and fair dealings, plagiarism, and the overlap of copyright and plagiarism to highlight issues of law and ethics that are relevant to the creation of illustrations. Interestingly, the determination of exactly what constitutes an "original" illustration per construction from a secondary source has not been determined in case law for anatomy illustrations. This fact illuminates the absence of a "bright‐line" test for illustration reproduction and the difficulties in the objective assessment of what constitutes a "nonoriginal" illustration. The term "substantively different" is useful for determining whether illustrations derived from secondary sources can be deemed original. This article delivers guidance on how to develop illustrations with reference to determining whether copyright has been breached or plagiarism has occurred. It also provides information that will direct decision‐making around illustrative content.</p> <p>Keywords: anatomy; copying; copyright; ethics; illustration; images; medical illustrator; plagiarism; publishing; visual plagiarism</p> <hd id="AN0183690177-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>An increase in the volume of publishing in the biomedical, medical, and anatomical sciences in recent decades[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] has been accompanied by a proliferation of copyright infringements[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>] and ongoing concerns around plagiarized content.[[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>]] Copyright infringement (a legal issue) and ethical considerations such as plagiarism are recognized as an ongoing and contemporary concern in many fields, including areas such as photography,[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref4">5</reflink>] graphic design,[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref5">6</reflink>] architecture,[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref6">7</reflink>] interior design,[[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref7">8</reflink>]] and music,[[<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref8">10</reflink>]] often because of the financial implications associated with content reproduction. These costs can arise through either legal action involving persons or groups that potentially violated copyright,[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref9">11</reflink>] or the license fees associated with gaining permission to use material protected by copyright. The use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has also raised the profile of both copyright infringement and plagiarism in recent years,[[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref10">12</reflink>]] leading to further discussion around the unauthorized use and reproduction of content. In particular, arguments center on original content creators suggesting AI engines should be paying authors for the use of their creations in generating new material.[<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref11">14</reflink>]</p> <p>Artworks, including illustrations, are protected by copyright law[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref12">15</reflink>] and international conventions.[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref13">16</reflink>] Despite the inherent protections for artists and illustrators, it is difficult to find detailed information that assists authors and illustrators in understanding <emph>what</emph> copyright infringement and plagiarism are, particularly when it comes to visualizations and illustrations. Such guidance is necessary as existing illustrations are often utilized as inspiration for creating new images.[[<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref14">17</reflink>]] This is especially relevant in the anatomical sciences given the common features of the human form, the plethora of images from about 600 years of scientific anatomical visualizations,[[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref15">19</reflink>]] and the increasing volume of additional new anatomical illustrations becoming available in print and digital formats. Further, many persons generating medical illustrations may not have access to body donors or dissections and must rely on others' depictions for reference.</p> <p>This article aims to provide guidance by presenting an overview of the issues central to the determination of copyright infringement and plagiarism with respect to anatomical illustrations. That is, it illuminates issues of law which underpin copyright infringement, as well as discusses plagiarism which is determined around ethical standards. It outlines the technicalities around copyright infringement and visual plagiarism to aid an understanding of legal and ethical practice in creating and publishing anatomical illustrations, while also illuminating other ethical concerns relevant to the generation of these items. Its purpose is to enable and encourage transparent practice in the publishing community and among the creators of images, and to facilitate discussions around standards that can be used in conversations concerning the adoption of new technologies and their role in developing anatomical illustrations.[[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref16">21</reflink>]]</p> <hd id="AN0183690177-3">Copyright and illustrations</hd> <p>Copyright is a concept established in the seventeenth century,[[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref17">23</reflink>]] and while generally long‐lasting, it can expire. In the United States, this duration is the creator's lifetime plus 70 years,[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref18">25</reflink>] whereas the Berne Convention sets the minimum at life +50 years,[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref19">16</reflink>] indicating differences around expiry of copyright may exist between countries. However, all images created in the United States after 1978 and not in the public domain should be considered covered by copyright, and thus, the timing surrounding copyright should be assumed as long‐lasting.[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref20">25</reflink>] For older illustrations, this may mean they are no longer subject to copyright, and no legal infringement of copyright would take place if they were reproduced. Therefore, there would potentially be no <emph>legal</emph> consequence for reproducing the illustration as a facsimile or identical copy, though consideration around aspects relating to plagiarism would still exist. The responsibility for determining whether an illustration is protected under copyright falls with those who are looking to reproduce the original form. In relation to teaching contexts, specific exceptions to copyright law allow educators, within specified parameters, to reproduce works in the classroom setting.</p> <p>Laws around copyright are globally ubiquitous, and across the world, they have similarities pertaining to the protection of copyright which originate from the establishment of the 1886 Berne Convention.[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref21">16</reflink>] Copyright laws allow the owner of the copyright to litigate against the use of an item or work that is copied or used without the express permission of the copyright owner, thus providing the owner to enforce exclusive rights over the use and reproduction of their work. It protects the <emph>expression</emph> of ideas, not the ideas themselves. For a work to be protected under copyright, it must meet criteria such as being an original work, a fixed expression, capable of identification, and having some permanent endurance (i.e., must endure and not be unduly impromptu or unrehearsed). This distinction is crucial in determining whether reproducing a work infringes on the copyright holder's rights. Illustrations are, by their permanent nature, creations covered by copyright.</p> <p>Copyright is typically awarded to the person who creates or generates a work; however, the copyright holder may also be the employer of the person who generates the work if the work is created as a consequence of their role inside that organization (i.e., work for hire). It can also be transferred to another person or organization, such as when the copyright for the contents of an academic manuscript is transferred to the publisher. This transfer means that the publisher subsequently holds the copyright for the content of the published manuscript and can litigate against unauthorized reproduction of any part of this work, including illustrations.[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref22">15</reflink>]</p> <p>In many instances, illustrators who generate content for an academic publication may wish to own the copyright for the illustration they produce, and if they do so, they must negotiate with the publisher about retaining the copyright for the illustration(s) in question. In these cases, it will likely be noted in the illustration legend or within the illustration itself to whom the copyright belongs if it is not the publisher. There are also circumstances where those who generate material do not have copyright placed upon their work, and the work is therefore able to be reproduced without legal consequence. An example of this is images published publicly by a U.S. federal agency, which exist in the public domain and can be freely used without copyright infringement.[<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref23">26</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0183690177-4">Creative commons licenses and copyright</hd> <p>Another type of publication right that illustrators should remain aware of are Creative Commons (CC) licenses (see https://creativecommons.org/share‐your‐work/cclicenses/). The CC licenses fall within copyright law and can only be asserted by the copyright owner. They provide permission for material to be reproduced with certain conditions. In other words, CC licenses are a way in which permissions may be granted by the copyright holder (the licensor) to users of a work (the licensee) without the latter having to ask. There are presently six different kinds of CC licenses, all with different criteria around what is permissible in regard to content modification and distribution. All CC licenses allow copying of the work, with the stipulation that credit must be given to the content creator ("Attribution," for which "BY" is used as shorthand). Licensors may add other stipulations: noncommercial uses only, reuse only under the same license terms as the original, and nonderivative uses only. This last stipulation prohibits making something that is an adaptation of the original.[<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref24">27</reflink>] It is, therefore, still possible to infringe the copyright of CC licenses by reusing material in ways not allowed by the license. Those who seek to utilize CC‐protected material need to be aware of the type of CC license covering the work.[<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref25">28</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0183690177-5">Practice of industry or copyright holder</hd> <p>For works that are not licensed for reuse, obtaining written permission from the copyright holder is a recommended best practice before reproducing an illustration, as failing to do so may lead to legal action depending on the industry's practices and the copyright holder's attitude toward infringement. This may include a secondary publisher requiring documented evidence of permission from a copyright holder. When this permission is acquired, it should be noted in the illustration legend that permission to reproduce the illustration has been obtained, and copyright holders (such as publishing companies) may stipulate what exact words or phrases are to be used in the work that is attributing copyright. A common example of these requirements comes from a publisher in the anatomical sciences (Wiley Publishers) and is as follows:</p> <p>If excerpts from copyrighted works owned by third parties are included, credit must be shown in the contribution. It is your responsibility to also obtain written permission for reproduction from the copyright owners. The corresponding author is responsible for obtaining written permission to reproduce the material 'in print and other media' from the publisher of the original source, and for supplying Wiley with that permission upon submission.</p> <p>The enforcement of legal redress for copyright infringement where permission from the copyright holder has not been acquired may depend on the practice of the industry of the copyright holder and is likely influenced by the attitude of the copyright holder to the nature of the infringement in question. A decision by a copyright holder to take legal action against copyright infringement could potentially be influenced by the purpose of the use, how much of the original illustration was used, the financial benefit to the user, and the influence on any "value" inherent in the original. It should also be noted that a copyright holder does not have to provide permission for an illustration to be used and may choose not to do so under any circumstances.</p> <hd id="AN0183690177-6">Fair use and fair dealings of material</hd> <p>Some uses of illustrative materials, including the replication of a whole or parts of an illustration, can be undertaken without necessarily having to approach a copyright holder for permission. Depending on the jurisdiction, this is deemed "fair use" or "fair dealing," terms which can be included in copyright law.[<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref26">29</reflink>] The broad purpose of these exceptions in law is to enable certain uses that are seen as desirable, such as research, criticism, review, news reporting, parody, or teaching and educational purposes. However, while these two concepts are similar, fair use is broadly more flexible, with court judgments in the United States developing the principle of "transformative use," that is, where a use for a work is different from the one intended by the creator, whereas fair dealing (the common term in many Commonwealth countries) is more prescriptive and, generally, does not incorporate the concept of transformative use. It is important to note that fair use in no way enables "free use." There are generally agreed factors weighed up by courts as to what constitutes a desirable use that does not unfairly impact the rights holder. In the context of illustrations, the key among these factors is the amount of the work copied, which, for an image, is typically the whole work, as distinct from a quotation of text, which may represent an insubstantial proportion of the whole work.</p> <p>While statutes contain no "bright‐line" rules (a defined distinction or standard that guides interpretation or resolution of any dispute, such as "100 words" or "'10% difference between illustrations" in the case of illustrations) about what constitutes fair use or fair dealing, there are guidelines that have been developed to suggest what fair use and fair dealing do and do not include.[[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref27">30</reflink>]] It may include uses such as reporting within a news item, critique, review, or using the illustration for some purpose such as an art form or comparison.[<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref28">32</reflink>] Commercial publishers usually have their own guidelines on when fair use is acceptable and when permission must be sought. It is also widely utilized in academic environments where original works are used as the basis for academic critique, discussion, or analysis.[<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref29">31</reflink>] The concepts can sometimes successfully be argued when the original artwork is used for the purpose of pastiche, homage, or parody, although the interpretation around this can invite legal challenge to determine whether the resulting use is, in fact, an infringement of copyright.[[<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref30">33</reflink>]]</p> <p>The fair use concept was not intended to allow reproduction of the illustration for a similar purpose to that which was originally intended, and guidelines around this distinction are clear.[[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref31">30</reflink>]] Illustrators need to be aware of the correct term (i.e., fair use or fair dealings) and parameters of use that apply to their own jurisdiction. It is worth noting that, depending on jurisdiction, fair use of images from such sources does not legally require attribution while fair dealing does specify that use be "accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgment".[<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref32">35</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0183690177-7">Breaching copyright in newly created illustrations</hd> <p>Anatomical illustrations are rarely the subject of copyright disputes in a court of law, either by breaching fair use customs or by outright breach of copyright. This is interesting because copies of anatomical images appearing across different publishers and publications have, historically, been quite common. Examples include the perpetuation of incorrect anatomy through copying of illustrations in subsequent versions of textbooks such as repeated illustrations where the least thoracic splanchnic nerve is not shown[<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref33">36</reflink>] or where cranial nerves are misidentified.[<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref34">37</reflink>]</p> <p>Other forms of illustration have been scrutinized in court proceedings, including the generation of illustrations from photographs.[<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref35">38</reflink>] Examining multiple cases, Arnold[<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref36">38</reflink>] explored considerations around whether the generated illustrations breached copyright and found that perspectives about whether they did or did not breach copyright differed between jurisdictions. Common factors were the application of the degree of similarity, the nature of the reproduction (copy or modification), and the amount of skill required to generate the original photographs. In other case law focusing on illustrations, courts have noted that while copying requires a deliberate act, copyright infringement is determined by examining the similarities between the works and whether the infringing work is a disguised imitation of the original. The court further clarified that a "colorable imitation"—a work that appears original but is a reproduction of another's work—can constitute copyright infringement even if additional elements are introduced into the new work.[<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref37">39</reflink>]</p> <p>Cases from other artistic fields can provide guidance around potential copyright breaches for illustrations. In <emph>Drynan v. Rostad (Canada)</emph>, which centered on music content, the court evaluated whether the alleged infringing work had qualities that suggested it was a reproduction or adaptation of the original. In this case, for copyright infringement to be established, it was suggested two key elements must be present: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref38">1</reflink>) sufficient objective similarity between the infringing work and the original, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref39">2</reflink>) a causal link proving that the infringing work was derived from the original.[<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref40">40</reflink>] This "causal link" was determined through the consideration of factors including objective similarity, the probability that similarity is due to coincidence, and the quality of the subsequent work. The court ultimately ruled that both objective similarity and a causal connection were necessary to establish infringement.</p> <p>Another case that is widely cited as guiding infringement of copyright, albeit for written work and from the nineteenth century, is <emph>Folsom v. Marsh</emph> from the United States, which helped determine what was required for a work to be original. The judge in the case provided illumination around their perspective:</p> <p>The central purpose of this investigation is to see ... whether the new work merely 'supersedes the objects' of the original creation ... or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is 'transformative'. (Judge Story in <emph>Folsom v. Marsh</emph>, 9. F.Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841)[<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref41">41</reflink>])</p> <p> <emph>Folsom v. Marsh</emph> highlights that any new work needs to be sufficiently transformative to be considered new and original. Care must be taken in considering this precedent when applying it to illustrations, noting it was a case focused on copyright and written work.</p> <p>From the extant case law, it is therefore clear that there is no "bright‐line" test for when copyright breach has occurred. It is suggested that, where it is apparent that another work is the basis for the secondary illustration, this is often likely to be interpreted as constituting a violation of copyright unless it can be clearly demonstrated to be used in a critique or in making an original contribution. A work should be substantively different, with original elements that make it not directly recognizable, to be argued as an original illustration that does not breach copyright. This is different to the application of the standard "sufficiently transformative," a term which is generally applied to the use of the material where the purpose of the new work is different from the original. Therefore, the copyright of an illustration may be breached when a secondary illustration is deemed to be not substantively different from the original. That is, to the skilled observer, it is apparent that the original illustration has been used as the basis for the secondary item. Derivative illustrations need to be substantively different to avoid copyright infringement (Figure 1). In practice, this means copyright is violated if an original illustration is recolored, changed in orientation (e.g., "flipped" in the horizontal or vertical plane), placed into another image, traced, or used in part.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/8Z8K/01mar25/ase70002-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ase70002-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Illustration demonstrating inappropriate reproduction and therefore copyright infringement of an original illustration (A) in ways commonly observed in published literature. These include different reproduction forms such as the original work being recolored (B), being altered by flipping in the horizontal plane (C), placing the original into another image (D), reproducing the original by tracing (E), or by using part of the original illustration (F). Note that in each reproduction, the highly variable patterns of small gyri and sulci, and the minor branches of the anterior cerebral artery, are identical. This indicates reproductions (B–F) are not substantively different to (A). Used with permission from ©Mount Sinai Heath System." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183690177-9">Plagiarism and visual plagiarism</hd> <p>Plagiarism is the copying or reproduction of material that was generated by someone or something else (i.e., AI) without attributing the creation of this material to the original source.[<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref42">42</reflink>] It is an ethical construct that has no basis in law and, in this regard, is therefore distinctly different from copyright, which is a legal construct. Within the field of scientific publishing, instances of plagiarism are usually accompanied by censure or action by a professional body, institution, or association. When these instances occur in the sciences, they are often referred to as scientific misconduct. Visual plagiarism is the term used to signify illustrative content that is generated using another illustrative source without acknowledgment of or credit given to the original creator(s).</p> <p>Publisher guidelines are generally explicit in their rules around not permitting plagiarized content to be knowingly published. Professional associations of editors,[<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref43">43</reflink>] illustrators,[<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref44">44</reflink>] and groups involved in highlighting publishing standards[<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref45">45</reflink>] also prohibit plagiarism to help uphold academic integrity. Detecting visual plagiarism can be difficult for the untrained observer,[[<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref46">46</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref47">48</reflink>]] and identifying the original source of the plagiarized content can be problematic given the source may not be well known.[<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref48">46</reflink>] However, some experts can discern plagiarized artwork based on their knowledge of anatomical images and their sources. Currently, tools such as Google's "reverse image search" can identify original image sources when presented with a derivative image. In the future, generative AI models could conceivably be trained to detect such visual plagiarism with more accuracy than current methods.[<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref49">49</reflink>]</p> <p>There are many terms used to describe content reproduced from another original illustration, including appropriation, tracing, copying, facsimile, reproducing, altering, and adapting. Some of these terms have distinct definitions. However, all have in common that for a derivative illustration <emph>not</emph> to be defined as plagiarism, it must acknowledge the original as the source of the generated illustration. Defining "what" constitutes visual plagiarism of illustrations is difficult.[<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref50">50</reflink>] Cui et al.[<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref51">46</reflink>] used criteria based on the principal object (e.g., the leg if a leg is the focus of the illustration), minor object (such as an individual muscle, in the case of an illustration of a leg), layout, artistic style, color, theme, object category, and textual information to inform their study of illustrative plagiarism. Garrett and Robinson[<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref52">51</reflink>] had study subjects mention how "different" an illustration needs to be in order to be "not plagiarized." In practice, similar to copyright standards, there is no bright‐line test for what is or is not considered visual plagiarism. However, it is prudent to suggest that copyright standards for assessing similarity are a useful basis for assessing reproductions to determine whether plagiarism has occurred.</p> <hd id="AN0183690177-10">The overlap of copyright and visual plagiarism</hd> <p>Visually plagiarized content is often accompanied by a breach of copyright, though this will depend on whether copyright exists in the content. The obvious consideration is whether copyright exists in an illustration and in what state the copyright resides (e.g., CC license). The original copyright may have expired in some instances, such as very old content. This means that copyright for this old content cannot be breached, although plagiarism can still occur because the original content was generated by another person. An example of this would be someone discovering an illustration from the late nineteenth century and reproducing it identically under the discoverer's name. There would be no breach of copyright because any "automatic right to copyright" has likely expired. However, the reproduction of someone else's work without an acknowledgment of the original source remains plagiarism.</p> <hd id="AN0183690177-11">When sources or authors of illustrations cannot be identified—The orphan work</hd> <p>The term "orphan work" is used to describe copyrighted illustrative content where no illustrator or author can be identified, thus rendering inquiries around copyright impossible.[<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref53">52</reflink>] This can occur when illustrations are posted or used on the internet with no attribution or source, and those accessing the illustrations are unable to trace the original use. Given orphan illustrative content likely has copyright attached (unless the copyright has expired because of time), any subsequent use of this material would, therefore, breach the author's or publisher's copyright. Any use of orphan illustrations to generate new works that were substantively similar to the original could, therefore, constitute a liability risk due to possible copyright infringement.</p> <p>The U.S. Copyright Office[<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref54">53</reflink>] and similar agencies in other countries[<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref55">54</reflink>] have stated that remedies are required to address the burgeoning volume of orphan content, suggesting that denying users the right to use orphan content (on copyright grounds) stymies creativity by directing a large volume of resources away from their use. Solutions for dealing appropriately with orphan content include limiting the infringement remedies against a user of orphan content if they had undertaken a "good faith diligent search for the rights holder and completed certain notice and attribution requirements," which is the current legal position in New Zealand.[<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref56">35</reflink>] Other means of solving issues around orphan works have been put forward, including changing the copyright system, introducing blockchain licensing that would allow control and licensing of downstream content use,[<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref57">55</reflink>] or use of digital watermarks to more easily identify the author or source. At present, the prudent solution to the issue of orphan content is to avoid its use in generating new illustrative content, given the issues with potential copyright infringement. It should also be noted that any derivative work of orphan content is potentially unable to avoid being labeled as plagiarism, given it cannot correctly be attributed.</p> <hd id="AN0183690177-12">Stock image websites, copyright, and plagiarism</hd> <p>Multiple websites exist that allow users to freely or cheaply access and download images and illustrations for use. Examples include Freepik (<ulink href="http://www.freepik.com">www.freepik.com</ulink>), Pixabay (<ulink href="http://www.pixabay.com">www.pixabay.com</ulink>), and Unsplash (<ulink href="http://www.unsplash.com">www.unsplash.com</ulink>). These websites all have terms and conditions that outline to users' information about illustration copyright and attribution. Sometimes, this can include freely licensed illustrations and no obligation to attribute content. While attribution may not be required as part of the terms and conditions of illustration use, this does not excuse users from not attributing the illustrations if they seek to reproduce and publish them in peer‐reviewed journals. Part of an author's obligations to academic journal publishers during the publication process is to declare whether the content is original and, if it is not, to correctly and accurately attribute a source. Even though there may be no copyright infringements using illustrations acquired from these types of websites, failure to attribute the illustrations within scientific publications still constitutes an ethical violation of accepted publishing standards and is viewed as plagiarism.[[<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref58">43</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref59">45</reflink>]]</p> <hd id="AN0183690177-13">"How to": Guidance for using existing illustrations as the basis for creating new illustratio...</hd> <p>For authors wishing to use illustrations where the resulting product is a clear reproduction of another illustration, publishing such work would constitute a violation of copyright should permission not be acquired from the copyright holder (see Figure 2 for a flowchart of processes and considerations). In the example of an illustration prepared for the purposes of a peer‐reviewed journal submission, it is the responsibility of the illustrator to communicate to the authorship team whether the illustration is derived from another source and to assist with acquiring permission from the copyright holder to produce a derivative of another work. This process will likely require obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder indicated on the publication or illustration (if the copyright is held by the illustrator). If the original illustration is an orphan work, this presents additional difficulties in both determining what steps may address copyright within local jurisdictions and considerations around plagiarism should the original author not be able to be correctly attributed.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/8Z8K/01mar25/ase70002-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ase70002-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Flowchart to guide decision‐making around copyright, permission to use illustrations to avoid copyright infringement, avoidance of plagiarism, and appropriate attribution for illustrations where fair use or fair dealings are not being claimed." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Once permission to reproduce the original is acquired, it is then necessary to correctly attribute the illustration to its original creator to avoid plagiarism. Good practice also includes stating that permission was acquired from the copyright holder to reproduce the work, and correct attribution will require the original publication to be cited in the bibliography of any resulting manuscript. If the resulting work is substantively different from the original source, no infringement of copyright will likely occur, and the illustration will not likely be viewed as plagiarism. Caution should be used in such circumstances as no definitive standard exists for determining precisely what "substantive difference" entails, and it is suggested that illustrators err on the side of caution, if doubt exists, and gain copyright holder permission and attribute the work appropriately.</p> <hd id="AN0183690177-15">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Human anatomy is remarkable in its general consistency of form and structure between persons, and it would seem likely there already exists an illustration of specific anatomical details to suit most scientific purposes. There is some logic in the proposition that existing illustrations could be used as the basis for further illustrations. This is likely one cause of the plagiarism observed among early medieval and renaissance anatomical illustrations that accompanied the development of reproductive printing methods of the era, including the unauthorized copies of images in Vesalius' <emph>De humani corporis fabrica</emph>.[[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref60">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref61">56</reflink>]] The modern perspective on copying or reproducing illustrations that someone else owns or creates is that these practices are both illegal[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref62">25</reflink>] and unethical.[[<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref63">43</reflink>]] The lack of case law to provide explicit guidance, the absence of a "bright‐line" test for what is or is not a copied or derivative work, and the inherent difficulty in illuminating decisions around copying that will be broadly subjective in nature do not excuse the publishing and authorship community from refining standards around the interpretation of derivative works to guide future practice.</p> <p>The topics of copyright infringement and visual plagiarism are of interest to those involved in the anatomical and health sciences for several reasons, including the integrity of the scientific publishing industry and academia in general. Early illustrators and artists, such as Max Brödel, have argued for the importance of creators of work to maintain control of the subsequent use of their work.[[<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref64">57</reflink>]] The application of consistent standards and approaches to the reproduction of illustrations, including publisher management of this field,[<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref65">59</reflink>] is important for the maintenance of academic standards and ethical mores in the publishing community. Dissemination of "good practices" and clear indications of "what" copyright infringement and plagiarism entail around the reproduction of illustrations are required on a cyclic basis to assist authors and allow standards to be iteratively revised. This practice would also aid contemporary decision‐making around illustration generation as the increased use of visual platforms and the proliferation of journals and publishing mechanisms mean there is a risk that standards around the reproduction of illustrations will not be well known or communicated within an increasing pool of authors. The dissemination of "good practices" needs to include the publication of articles such as this current work that seeks to explain the concepts surrounding copyright and plagiarism, and educational initiatives to aid students and emerging authors in their understanding of what good practice entails.[[<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref66">60</reflink>]]</p> <p>Importantly, authoritative bodies with perspectives on the reproduction of illustrations should also deliver information about the ethical use of images in the anatomical sciences[[<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref67">62</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref68">64</reflink>]] and the impact of the history of anatomy on copyright infringement and plagiarism. This includes explanations about why this topic is important, with reference to the copying of famous illustrations. A notable is illustrations from the Pernkopf atlas, from the National Socialist (Nazi) era and World War II, where victims of the Nazi regime were executed, dissected, and used as subjects for anatomical illustrations.[[<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref69">65</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref70">67</reflink>]] Copies of these images were created for the postwar editions of the Sobotta atlas as late as 2019, in a practice that has only recently been openly addressed in a new introduction to the Sobotta.[<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref71">68</reflink>] In this case, the original publisher of both atlases was Urban and Schwarzenberg; however, now Elsevier holds the copyright for both works and is the publisher of the Sobotta atlas. Thus, because Elsevier owns the copyright and is the publisher of both the Pernkopf originals and Sobotta reproductions, there was no infringement of copyright and no legal transgression. However, the practice of copying or tracing the Pernkopf originals without disclosure of source or warning for the reader is considered highly questionable, given the active debate around the Pernkopf atlas.[<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref72">69</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0183690177-16">Illustrations and a potential future using generative artificial intelligence</hd> <p>The recent explosion of generative AI platforms and their accessibility has impacted many aspects of society, whereby creation of material once reserved within the domain of literary and visual artists is now possible with an internet connection.[<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref73">70</reflink>] Recent controversies around the generation of artistic works include the Screen Actors Guild—American Federation of Television and Radio Artists strike in the United States where a key focus was around the use of AI within the industry.[<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref74">71</reflink>] Generative AI applications are already utilized for creating illustrations (e.g., OpenArt, www.openart.ai; Canva, www.canva.com), and recent attempts to use them to evaluate creativity in drawings have been encouraging,[<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref75">72</reflink>] suggesting such tools could be utilized for both the future production and identification of generative AI content. However, for the purposes of preparing anatomical illustrations their accuracy is currently poor.[[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref76">21</reflink>]]</p> <p>Ongoing use of generative AI to produce illustrative content poses interesting questions, including whether such content will be covered by copyright. Currently, copyright is not awarded to illustrations generated through automated processes where the author is not human.[<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref77">73</reflink>] This position is under considerable scrutiny in courts as definitions surrounding how much and what sort of human input is required to establish a threshold allowing copyright to be awarded.[<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref78">74</reflink>] This has implications for the scientific publishing community who would need to explore how publishing of AI‐generated illustrations would impact processing and publishing frameworks with regard to copyright.</p> <p>There are additional considerations that the anatomy profession will need to proactively address as the use of generative AI to create illustrations proliferates. These include how to determine whether AI illustrations are of an adequate standard and fit for purpose, and whether the generation of such illustration is ethical in regard to subject matter (i.e., where training data are sourced, and whether this is ethical) and illustration utility (e.g., how professions such as medical illustrators are impacted or involved in illustrative processes or applications).[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref79">21</reflink>] Identifying an appropriate balance between innovation and ethical integrity will be necessary in ensuring generative AI benefits anatomists and other stakeholders while these issues are addressed.</p> <hd id="AN0183690177-17">Future‐facing: Responsibilities of publishers and the academic community</hd> <p>In an environment where rates of publishing are substantially increasing,[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref80">1</reflink>] it is naïve to believe there will not be a concomitant increase in rates of copyright infringement and plagiarism in academic publishing. Future‐facing initiatives, tied to appropriate aims and objectives around standards of academic publishing, are crucial for maintaining and improving publishing standards in the medical sciences. Initiatives to increase awareness around contemporary standards will assist in building a community of practice and promoting awareness and adherence to legal and ethical standards. Resourcing educational communications and events such as workshops, webinars, and collaborative events focused on the appropriate use of illustrations would assist researchers, educators, and students in developing the knowledge to identify and navigate copyright and plagiarism issues responsibly.</p> <p>Information or instruction to authors and illustrators on signifying copyright infringement and plagiarism around illustrations, and how best to effectively communicate this information effectively between interested parties, is currently opaque or not readily discoverable. Resources exist to guide readers, reviewers, and editors when plagiarism is suspected,[[<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref81">75</reflink>]] including when potential image manipulation is identified.[<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref82">77</reflink>] Processes from the identification of visual plagiarism, including actions and consequences, are outlined in the COPE guidelines and include notifying the editor in chief of the journal where the offending image is located. Other options are available to readers who identify illustrative content that may be suspicious, including directly contacting the publishing journal (for an example of process, see https://<ulink href="http://www.wiley.com/en&amp;#8208;us/network/publishing/research&amp;#8208;publishing/research&amp;#8208;integrity">www.wiley.com/en&amp;#8208;us/network/publishing/research&amp;#8208;publishing/research&amp;#8208;integrity</ulink>). If it is the reader's own work that has been reproduced without copyright permission or attribution, they could consider notifying the editor in chief of the journal in which they originally published in as this journal may own the copyright and therefore have a legal interest in pursuing an outcome.</p> <p>Despite the existence of resources such as the COPE guidelines, no detailed instructions exist to guide authors and illustrators in making decisions around derivative illustrative content. Resources should include clear instructions and documentation that guide authors and illustrators on how to respond when they identify potential copyright infringement or plagiarism around illustrations. Similarly, clear documentation is needed regarding the actions publishers will take if copyright infringement or plagiarism is identified. Active engagement of publishers with the author and illustrator community to develop or implement resources will be useful, in addition to publishers taking appropriate legal and ethical action where infringement is identified. Companies with ownership of large databases of images trawl the internet for posted images to identify copyright infringement and serve "cease and desist" notices, which are commonly accompanied by requests for payment.[<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref83">50</reflink>] The application of similar standards by the publishing industry, regardless of the publishing platform, will aid in providing clarity and reducing confusion about what is and is not good practice. This will assist in developing and maintaining an informed, educated community of practice and give confidence that the existing standards are being appropriately enforced. Increased clarity will help ensure that anatomical illustrations are both generated and used appropriately, thereby supporting integrity in academic publishing.</p> <hd id="AN0183690177-18">Limitations of this exploration</hd> <p>This article is not intended as legal advice regarding the determination of copyright around medical illustrations. Rather, its purpose is to illuminate the finer points surrounding the use and reproduction of these images and the considerations that are required when a medical image or illustration is reproduced or used as the basis for subsequent artwork or illustration. It does not address the issue of Indigenous perspectives around intellectual property and ownership, a field that will likely continue to develop and influence discussion about copyright. The topic of Indigenous contribution and engagement with illustrative works will need to be addressed and considered for future anatomical illustrations where Indigenous content is created, developed, or utilized to ensure respectful and authentic outcomes that are community‐supported and appropriate for all users and generators of illustrative content.</p> <hd id="AN0183690177-19">CONCLUSIONS</hd> <p>The identification, illumination, and implementation of best practices around the publication of medical illustrations are becoming more urgent. This is due to the rapid proliferation of images coupled with the application of generative AI and machine learning algorithms that allow for rapid modifications and changes to existing digital catalogs. This article looks to raise awareness around aspects of good practice regarding the publication of illustrations, providing guidance to maintain and promote legal and ethical standards in the academic and publishing communities. Copyright and plagiarism are important concepts for authors and illustrators to understand, regardless of their experience in publishing or presenting material. The application of these concepts to illustrations is no exception, and the proliferation of publishing opportunities demands that literature illuminating good practice is circulated on a regular basis to remind and educate the academic community of its collective responsibility. While there are difficulties in determining precisely what is or is not copyright infringement and plagiarism with respect to illustrations, there are commonalities in the determination of both, which suggest that a reproduction should be substantively different to be defined as an original illustration. While some criteria and computer programs exist to help evaluate and determine substantive differences between two or more illustrations, more tangible use cases comparing images would be beneficial for the field to guide such determinations.</p> <hd id="AN0183690177-20">AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS</hd> <p> <bold>Jon Cornwall:</bold> Conceptualization; project administration; visualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. <bold>Richard White:</bold> Writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. <bold>Patrick Pennefather:</bold> Writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. <bold>Sabine Hildebrandt:</bold> Writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. <bold>Jill Gregory:</bold> Writing – original draft; writing – review and editing; visualization. <bold>Heather F. Smith:</bold> Writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. <bold>Jason Organ:</bold> Writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. <bold>Claudia Krebs:</bold> Conceptualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing.</p> <hd id="AN0183690177-21">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the thoughtful review and comments of Jon Festinger on drafts of this manuscript. Open access publishing facilitated by University of Otago, as part of the Wiley ‐ University of Otago agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.</p> <hd id="AN0183690177-22">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.</p> <ref id="AN0183690177-23"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Bornmann L, Mutz R. Growth rates of modern science: a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015 Nov; 66 (11): 2215 – 2222.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Government. Consumer Survey on Online Copyright Infringement. 2021. https://<ulink href="http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/news/2021&amp;#8208;online&amp;#8208;copyright&amp;#8208;infringement&amp;#8208;results&amp;#8208;released">www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/news/2021&amp;#8208;online&amp;#8208;copyright&amp;#8208;infringement&amp;#8208;results&amp;#8208;released</ulink>. Accessed 3 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bieliauskaitė J. Solidarity in academia and its relationship to academic integrity. J Acad Ethics. 2021 ; 19 : 309 – 322.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Park C. In other (people's) words: plagiarism by university students—literature and lessons. Assess Eval High Educ. 2003 ; 28 (5): 471 – 488.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref4" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Van Heerden L. Detecting internet visual plagiarism in higher education photography with Google search by image: proposed upload methods and system evaluation [Doctoral Dissertation]. Bloemfontein, South Africa : Central University of Technology: Free State ; 2014.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref5" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Noh MA, Nudin AL, Abdullah NN, Shamsudin WN, Harun MF. Plagiarism in graphic design. Proceedings of the Art and Design International Conference (AnDIC 2016). Singapore : Springer ; 2018. p. 391 – 400.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref6" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Kim Y, Choi J. The applicability of aesthetics of appropriation for the discussion on architectural plagiarism. J Arch Inst Korea Plan Des. 2020 ; 36 (5): 11 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref7" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bettaieb DM, Alawad AA, Malek RB. Visual plagiarism in interior design: is it easy to recognise? Int J Educ Integr. 2022 Mar 29; 18 (1): 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Alawad AA. Exploring Google reverse image search to detect visual plagiarism in interior design. J High Educ Theory Pract. 2021 Sep 30; 21 (10): 198 – 208.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chiang EP, Assane D. Determinants of music copyright violations on the university campus. J Cult Econ. 2007 Sep; 31 : 187 – 204.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petridis A. Ed Sheeran's court victory reveals the paradox of putting creativity on trial. 2023. Guardian.com. https://<ulink href="http://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/may/05/ed&amp;#8208;sheeran&amp;#8208;court&amp;#8208;victory">www.theguardian.com/music/2023/may/05/ed&amp;#8208;sheeran&amp;#8208;court&amp;#8208;victory</ulink>. Accessed 3 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Getty Images (US), Inc. v Stability AI, Inc., 1:23‐cv‐00135, (D. Del.).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noveck J, O'Brien M. 2023. https://apnews.com/article/artists‐ai‐image‐generators‐stable‐diffusion‐midjourney‐7ebcb6e6ddca3f165a3065c70ce85904. Accessed 3 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knight L. Authors call for AI companies to stop using their work without consent. 2023. https://<ulink href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jul/20/authors&amp;#8208;call&amp;#8208;for&amp;#8208;ai&amp;#8208;companies&amp;#8208;to&amp;#8208;stop&amp;#8208;using&amp;#8208;their&amp;#8208;work&amp;#8208;without&amp;#8208;consent">www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jul/20/authors&amp;#8208;call&amp;#8208;for&amp;#8208;ai&amp;#8208;companies&amp;#8208;to&amp;#8208;stop&amp;#8208;using&amp;#8208;their&amp;#8208;work&amp;#8208;without&amp;#8208;consent</ulink>. Accessed 3 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blakeney M. Contemporary art and patents. Queen Mary J Intellect Prop. 2019 Jul 1; 9 (3): 244 – 261.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Intellectual Property Organisation. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. n.d. https://<ulink href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/">www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/</ulink>. Accessed 3 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dazkir S, Mower J, Reddy‐Best K, Pedersen E. An exploration of design students' inspiration process. Coll Stud J. 2013 Jun 1; 47 (2): 394 – 404.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Okada T, Ishibashi K. Imitation, inspiration, and creation: cognitive process of creative drawing by copying others' artworks. Cogn Sci. 2017 ; 41 (7): 1804 – 1837.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts KB, Tomlinson JDW. The fabric of the body. Oxford : Oxford University Press ; 1992.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf‐Heidegger G, Cetto AM. Die anatomische Sektion in bildlicher Darstellung. New York : Karger ; 1967.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cornwall J, Krebs C, Hildebrandt S, Gregory J, Pennefather P. Considerations on the use of artificial intelligence in generating anatomical images: comment on "evaluating AI‐powered text‐to‐image generators for anatomical illustration: a comparative study". Anat Sci Educ. 2023 Nov 2; 17 : 1097 – 1099.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noel GP. Evaluating AI‐powered text‐to‐image generators for anatomical illustration: a comparative study. Anat Sci Educ. 2024 Jul; 17 (5): 979 – 983.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patterson LR. Copyright in historical perspective. Nashville : Vanderbilt UP ; 1968.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saunders D. Authorship and copyright. Melbourne : Routledge ; 2023.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Code. Edition, Supplement 3, Title 17 Copyrights, Chapter 3: Duration of Copyright. Section 302. 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> US Department of the Interior. Copyright, restrictions, and permissions. n.d. https://<ulink href="http://www.doi.gov/copyright">www.doi.gov/copyright</ulink>. Accessed 3 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fishman S. The public domain: how to find &amp; use copyright‐free writings, music, art &amp; more. Berkeley : Nolo ; 2023 Jun 2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin YH, Ko TM, Chuang TR, Lin KJ. Open source licenses and the creative commons framework: license selection and comparison. J Inf Sci Eng. 2006 Jan 1; 22 (1): 1 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Copyright Office. U.S. Copyright Law: Title 17 of the United States Code. 2022. https://<ulink href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/">www.copyright.gov/title17/</ulink>. Accessed 13 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Aufderheide P, Jaszi P, College Art Association. Code of best practices in fair use for the visual arts. 2015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacob M, Jaszi P, Adler PS, Cross W. Code of best practices in fair use for open educational resources: A guide for authors, adapters &amp; adopters of openly licensed teaching and learning materials. 2021. Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. 210. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/210</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Canadian Copyright Act, R.S.C. c. C‐42. 1985.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dr. Seuss Enterprises, LP v. COMICMIX LLC, 983 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2020).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mieras JA. One test, two test: the ninth circuit further entangles copyright fair use. Tul J Tech Intell Prop. 2022 ; 24 : 275 – 287.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Copyright Act 1994 (N.Z.). Wellington, New Zealand: N.Z. Government.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gest TR, Hildebrandt S. The pattern of the thoracic splanchnic nerves as they pass through the diaphragm. Clin Anat. 2010 Sep; 23 (6): 732.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corrales CE, Mudry A, Jackler RK. Perpetuation of errors in illustrations of cranial nerve anatomy. J Neurosurg. 2016 ; 127 (1): 192 – 198.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Arnold R. Paintings from photographs: a copyright conundrum. IIC Int Rev Intellect Prop Compet Law. 2019 Sep; 50 (7): 860 – 878.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robb v. Orca Bay Sports and Entertainment (1999 CanLII 5722 (BC SC)).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Drynan v. Rostad, 1994 CanLII 7418 (ON SC).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Folsom v. Marsh, 9. F.Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masic I. Plagiarism in scientific publishing. Acta Inform Med. 2012 ; 20 (4): 208 – 213.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> ICMJE. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. 2024. https://icmje.org/. Accessed 3 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Association of Medical Illustrators (AMI). Code of Ethics. 2023. https://<ulink href="http://www.ami.org/">www.ami.org/</ulink>. Accessed 3 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> COPE Council. Committee on publication ethics. n.d. https://publicationethics.org/. Accessed 3 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cui S, Liu F, Zhou T, Zhang M. Understanding and identifying artwork plagiarism with the wisdom of designers: a case study on poster artworks. Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia ; 2022 Oct 10. p. 1117 – 1127.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riehmann P, Potthast M, Stein B, Froehlich B. Visual assessment of alleged plagiarism cases. Computer Graphics Forum. 2015 Jun; 34 (3): 61 – 70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winstanley L, Hodgkinson G. Visual plagiarism and a new framework to address localised opinions and perceptions in applied arts education. Int J Educ Arts. 2023 ; 24 (18): 1 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bucci EM. Automatic detection of image manipulations in the biomedical literature. Cell Death Dis. 2018 Mar 14; 9 (3): 400.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mullin JA, Haviland CP. Who owns this text? Plagiarism, authorship, and disciplinary cultures. 1st ed. Utah : Utah State University Press ; 2008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garrett L, Robinson A. Spot the difference! Plagiarism identification in the visual arts. Electronic visualisation and the arts (EVA 2012). BCS Learning &amp; Development ; 2012 Jul 1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Beer J, Bouchard M. Canada's 'orphan works' regime: Unlocatable copyright owners and the copyright board. Oxf Univ Commonw Law J. 2010 Dec 1; 10 (2): 215 – 254.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Copyright Office. Orphan works and mass digitization. A report of the Register of Copyrights. 2015 Jun. https://<ulink href="http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/">www.copyright.gov/orphan/</ulink>. Accessed 13 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gompel S, Hugenholtz P. The orphan works problem: the copyright conundrum of digitizing large‐scale audiovisual archives, and how to solve it. Int J Media Cult. 2010 ; 4 (1): 61 – 71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Arman K. Adopting solution to copyright's orphan works problem. UC Law SF Comm Ent J. 2023 ; 46 (1): 59‐[i].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lanska DJ, Lanska JR. Medieval and renaissance anatomists: the printing and unauthorized copying of illustrations, and the dissemination of ideas. Prog Brain Res. 2013 ; 203 : 33 – 74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patel SK, Couldwell WT, Liu JK. Max Brödel: his art, legacy, and contributions to neurosurgery through medical illustration: historical vignette. J Neurosurg. 2011 Jul 1; 115 (1): 182 – 190.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brodel M. Medical illustration. JAMA. 1941 Aug 30; 117 (9): 668 – 672.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis BR, Duchac JE, Douglas BS. An academic publisher's response to plagiarism. J Bus Ethics. 2011 Sep; 102 : 489 – 506.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foxe JP, Miller A, Farrelly G, Hui V, Nubla D, Schindler‐Lynch C. Visual plagiarism: seeing the forest and the trees. Academic integrity in Canada: an enduring and essential challenge. Cham : Springer International Publishing ; 2022 Mar 3. p. 267 – 289.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy C, Marshall D, DuBose J. Image thieves: a study of university library research guides on image use and citation. Public Serv Q. 2024 Apr 2; 20 (2): 102 – 109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cornwall J, Callahan D, Wee R. Ethical issues surrounding the use of images from donated cadavers in the anatomical sciences. Clin Anat. 2016 ; 29 (1): 30 – 36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cornwall J, Hildebrandt S, Champney T, Billings B, Schmitt B, Winkelmann A. IFAA recommendations for the ethical use of anatomical images. Anat Sci Educ. 2023 ; 17 : 7 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lottering T, Billings B, Brits D, Hutchinson E, Kramer B. The ethical use of digital technology in teaching anatomy: a southern African perspective. Annals of Anatomy‐Anatomischer Anzeiger. 2022 ; 244 : 151990.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Czech H, Hildebrandt S, Reis SP, Chelouche T, Fox M, González‐López E, et al. The lancet commission on medicine, Nazism, and the Holocaust: historical evidence, implications for today, teaching for tomorrow. Lancet. 2023 ; 402 (10415): 1867 – 1940.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krebs C, Schwab K, Kahlon M, Bratanovic I, Greenwood A, Rosenblum S, et al. Pernkopf was not alone: the Nazi origins of the Spalteholz–Spanner atlas. The Lancet. 2024 ; 404 (10466): 1921 – 1922.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lax L, Schnitz G. Please use the following citation for articles from this JBC Special Issue. J Biocommun. 2021 ; 45 : 1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hildebrandt S, Paulsen F, Waschke J. Naturgetreue Darstellungals höchstes Gebot. Vorwort. In: Paulsen F, Waschke J, editors. Sobotta Atlas der Anatomie 25. Munich : Urban &amp; Fischer, Elsevier München ; 2022.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Polak JA. How to Deal with holocaust era human remains: recommendations arising from a special symposium "Vienna protocol" for when Jewish or possibly‐Jewish human remains are discovered. JBC. 2021 ; 45 (1): 71 – 83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hosseini M, Rasmussen LM, Resnik DB. Using AI to write scholarly publications. Account Res. 2024 Dec 6; 31 (7): 715 – 723.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyriakoudes KJ. Securing workers' futures: why replacing union workers with artificial intelligence in creative professions is the new subcontracting. Am Univ Int Law Rev. 2023 ; 73 : 1569.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patterson JD, Barbot B, Lloyd‐Cox J, Beaty RE. AuDrA: an automated drawing assessment platform for evaluating creativity. Behav Res Methods. 2024 Jun; 56 (4): 3619 – 3636.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fenwick M, Jurcys P. Originality and the future of copyright in an age of generative AI. Comput Law Secur Rev. 2023 Nov 1; 51 : 105892.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Samuelson P. Generative AI meets copyright. Science. 2023 Jul 14; 381 (6654): 158 – 161.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> COPE Council. COPE flowcharts and infographics—plagiarism in a published article—English. 2019 https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.2 Accessed 3 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> COPE Council. COPE flowcharts and infographics—plagiarism in a submitted manuscript—English. 2019 https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.1 Accessed 3 October 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> COPE Council. COPE flowcharts and infographics—inappropriate image manipulation in a published article—English. 2019 https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.21. Accessed 3 Oct 2024.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jon Cornwall; Richard White; Patrick Pennefather; Sabine Hildebrandt; Jill Gregory; Heather F. Smith; Jason Organ and Claudia Krebs</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Jon Cornwall, Ph.D., is currently an education adviser in the Centre for Early Learning in Medicine at the Otago Medical School, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. He is interested in body donation and the use of human tissue in education, research, and health care and is one of three academics guiding the "Bioethics Unicorns" initiative that seeks to promote ethics and professional education in gross anatomy. Jon is chair of the Federative International Committee for Ethics in the Medical Humanities (FICEM) for the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists.</p> <p>Richard White is the manager, Copyright and Open Access, University of Otago, Dunedin. He is a member of the Universities New Zealand Copyright Expert Working Group and current member of the SPARC Open Access Week Advisory Committee. His practice focuses on educating teachers, researchers, and students about copyright, with equal emphasis on the responsibilities inherent in using others' work and the rights conferred by copyright to them both as creators of original work and as critics of the work of others. Outside of the workplace, he is himself a composer and performer.</p> <p>Patrick Pennefather, Ph.D., is an associate professor in Theater and Film at University of British Columbia, an author, researcher of emerging technologies, and has worked as a composer since the mid‐1990's licensing original tracks for live and mediated productions. He has used AI systems with audio since that time and has worked with major advertising brands, theater companies internationally, and Fortune 500 companies in tech, retail, and entertainment. Patrick has written on different ways of working with machine learning models ethically and responsibly and is an advocate of open‐source machine learning models used privately and trained with company/organizational data to increase the accuracy of generated content. He regularly speaks on the importance of developing guidelines on the use of generative AI aligned with organizational values, designs learning and processes to enable teams within organizations to integrate AI, and conducts workshops on the creative uses of the technology to support production‐oriented workflows.</p> <p>Sabine Hildebrandt, M.D., is an associate professor of Pediatrics in the Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics at Boston Children's Hospital, and a lecturer on global health and social medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts. She teaches anatomy, and her research interests are the history and ethics of anatomy, with a focus on the history of anatomy in National Socialist Germany. Sabine is one of three academics guiding the "Bioethics Unicorns" initiative that seeks to promote ethics and professionalism in anatomy.</p> <p>Jill Gregory, MFA, CMI, is a certified medical illustrator and the associate director of Scholarly Publishing and Visualization at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She creates visual learning materials for academic purposes including journal articles, textbook chapters, and in‐classroom and online learning. She also teaches classes and workshops on effective visual communication for medical and graduate students. Jill is past president and past board chair of the Association of Medical Illustrators.</p> <p>Heather F. Smith, Ph.D., is a professor of Anatomy at Midwestern University in Glendale, Arizona. She teaches human gross anatomy to medical and graduate health science students. Her research focuses on evolutionary biology and comparative anatomy of wide range of vertebrate taxa, especially turtles, carnivorans, and primates, using dissection and imaging of extant species and paleontology of extinct life forms. Heather is editor in chief of The Anatomical Record.</p> <p>Jason Organ, Ph.D., is an associate professor of Anatomy, Cell Biology, and Physiology at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana. He teaches gross anatomy, science communication, and science policy courses to graduate and professional students. His research interests are in mammalian musculoskeletal biomechanics and evolution and effective science communication. Jason is editor in chief of Anatomical Sciences Education.</p> <p>Claudia Krebs, M.D., Ph.D., is a professor of Teaching in the Department of Cellular and Physiological Sciences and the Academic Director of the Hackspace for Innovation and Visualization in Education at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She teaches gross anatomy and neuroanatomy to the health professions. Her research interest is around the ethical development and integration of technology in the classroom.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref82"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1462644 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Legal and Ethical Considerations around the Use of Existing Illustrations to Generate New Illustrations in the Anatomical Sciences – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jon+Cornwall%22">Jon Cornwall</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4607-3988">0000-0003-4607-3988</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Richard+White%22">Richard White</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8975-3126">0000-0002-8975-3126</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Patrick+Pennefather%22">Patrick Pennefather</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sabine+Hildebrandt%22">Sabine Hildebrandt</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7257-9440">0000-0002-7257-9440</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jill+Gregory%22">Jill Gregory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Heather+F%2E+Smith%22">Heather F. Smith</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3738-0903">0000-0002-3738-0903</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jason+Organ%22">Jason Organ</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8462-0271">0000-0001-8462-0271</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Claudia+Krebs%22">Claudia Krebs</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8034-2796">0000-0001-8034-2796</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Anatomical+Sciences+Education%22"><i>Anatomical Sciences Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 18(3):289-300. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 12 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anatomy%22">Anatomy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Human+Body%22">Human Body</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Illustrations%22">Illustrations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Copyrights%22">Copyrights</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Plagiarism%22">Plagiarism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Publishing+Industry%22">Publishing Industry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Textbook+Publication%22">Textbook Publication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Legal+Responsibility%22">Legal Responsibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Compliance+%28Legal%29%22">Compliance (Legal)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethics%22">Ethics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reprography%22">Reprography</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Use+Studies%22">Use Studies</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1002/ase.70002 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1935-9772<br />1935-9780 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: It is likely existing anatomical illustrations are often used as the basis for new illustrative works, given not all illustrators have access to human tissues, bodies, or prosections on which to base their illustrations. Potential issues arise with this practice in the realms of copyright infringement and plagiarism when authors are seeking to publish, a matter becoming more prevalent with the proliferation in publishing platforms and the increased adoption of generative artificial intelligence applications within academia. However, there is little published guidance that might inform authors when using an existing illustration as the basis for new work. This article provides information pertaining to copyright, copyright infringement, fair use and fair dealings, plagiarism, and the overlap of copyright and plagiarism to highlight issues of law and ethics that are relevant to the creation of illustrations. Interestingly, the determination of exactly what constitutes an "original" illustration per construction from a secondary source has not been determined in case law for anatomy illustrations. This fact illuminates the absence of a "bright-line" test for illustration reproduction and the difficulties in the objective assessment of what constitutes a "nonoriginal" illustration. The term "substantively different" is useful for determining whether illustrations derived from secondary sources can be deemed original. This article delivers guidance on how to develop illustrations with reference to determining whether copyright has been breached or plagiarism has occurred. It also provides information that will direct decision-making around illustrative content. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1462644 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1462644 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1002/ase.70002 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 12 StartPage: 289 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Anatomy Type: general – SubjectFull: Human Body Type: general – SubjectFull: Illustrations Type: general – SubjectFull: Copyrights Type: general – SubjectFull: Plagiarism Type: general – SubjectFull: Publishing Industry Type: general – SubjectFull: Textbook Publication Type: general – SubjectFull: Legal Responsibility Type: general – SubjectFull: Compliance (Legal) Type: general – SubjectFull: Ethics Type: general – SubjectFull: Reprography Type: general – SubjectFull: Use Studies Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Legal and Ethical Considerations around the Use of Existing Illustrations to Generate New Illustrations in the Anatomical Sciences Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Jon Cornwall – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Richard White – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Patrick Pennefather – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Sabine Hildebrandt – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Jill Gregory – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Heather F. Smith – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Jason Organ – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Claudia Krebs IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 03 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1935-9772 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1935-9780 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 18 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: Anatomical Sciences Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
