Copyright Implications For Medical Imaging Data Visualization Software.
I. What Parts of Medical Imaging Visualization Software Can Be Protected?
Medical imaging software typically includes:
Source Code and Object Code – clearly protected as literary works.
Graphical User Interface (GUI) – layout, icons, color schemes (protected if sufficiently original).
Image Rendering Outputs – 2D/3D reconstructions (may be protected depending on creativity).
Algorithms & Methods – generally not protected by copyright (may be patentable instead).
Medical Images (MRI, CT, X-ray) – may or may not qualify for copyright depending on originality.
Databases & Image Collections – protected in structure/selection, not raw facts.
Training Data for AI Imaging Tools – raises derivative work and infringement issues.
II. Foundational Software Copyright Cases
1. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.
Key Holding:
Object code and operating systems are copyrightable.
Relevance:
Medical imaging systems run proprietary software embedded in diagnostic hardware. This case confirmed:
Software is protectable even in binary form.
ROM-embedded programs (like imaging firmware) are protected.
Impact on Medical Imaging:
If a competitor copies compiled imaging visualization software or embedded firmware used in MRI machines, that copying is infringement—even without access to source code.
2. Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc.
Key Holding:
Introduced the “structure, sequence, and organization” (SSO) doctrine.
Relevance:
Medical imaging systems often share similar functions (zooming, rotating 3D scans, contrast control). Under Whelan:
Not just literal code copying,
But copying overall program structure could infringe.
Problem:
This case was criticized for being overly broad and protecting functional aspects.
Impact:
A competing radiology viewer with nearly identical menu structure, navigation flow, and processing sequence could risk infringement under Whelan’s reasoning.
3. Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.
Key Holding:
Established the Abstraction–Filtration–Comparison (AFC) Test.
Why This Matters Most for Medical Imaging
The AFC test filters out:
Ideas
Processes
Efficiency-driven elements
Industry standards (like DICOM compliance)
Only original expression remains protected.
Application to Medical Imaging:
If two CT reconstruction systems use:
Standard DICOM formatting,
Standard grayscale mapping,
Required FDA safety displays,
Those elements are filtered out as functional/standardized.
Only creative choices (unique 3D shading style, artistic color mapping, UI design) are protected.
This case prevents over-monopolization of medical software standards.
4. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
Key Holding:
Facts are not copyrightable; originality requires minimal creativity.
Relevance to Medical Imaging Data
Medical scans contain:
Factual anatomical data
Physical measurements
Diagnostic readings
Under Feist:
Raw scan data = factual information → not protected.
Creative presentation (color enhancement, stylization, 3D rendering choices) = possibly protected.
Important Implication:
A hospital cannot claim copyright over the patient’s anatomy captured in a CT scan.
But it may claim copyright over:
A creatively rendered 3D visualization model.
III. GUI & Visual Interface Protection
5. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
Key Holding:
General GUI “look and feel” is not broadly protected—only specific expressive elements are.
Application to Imaging Platforms:
Many radiology viewers look similar:
Image pane on left
Tools panel on right
Slice navigation slider
Measurement toolbar
These layouts may be:
Functional
Standardized by industry practice
Thus:
A competitor can design a similar interface so long as they do not copy exact expressive elements (icons, artwork, exact screen layout duplication).
IV. Reverse Engineering & Interoperability
6. Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.
Key Holding:
Reverse engineering for interoperability can qualify as fair use.
Application to Medical Imaging:
Suppose a company reverse engineers proprietary imaging software to:
Enable compatibility with hospital PACS systems,
Achieve DICOM compliance,
Integrate imaging AI tools.
Under Sega:
Intermediate copying for compatibility may be fair use.
Final product must not copy protected expressive elements.
This is critical in healthcare interoperability.
V. API and Functional Elements
7. Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.
Key Holding:
Copying API structure for interoperability was fair use.
Importance for Medical Imaging AI Platforms:
Imaging systems rely on:
APIs for data exchange,
Standardized command structures,
Integration with EHR systems.
If a developer reuses API command structures for compatibility:
That copying may qualify as fair use.
This case limits copyright control over functional software interfaces.
VI. Useful Articles & Separability Doctrine
8. Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.
Key Holding:
Artistic features of useful articles are protectable if separable from function.
Application:
Medical imaging software is functional (a “useful article” in digital form).
However:
Artistic 3D rendering styles,
Unique color schemes,
Custom anatomical visual overlays,
May be protected if separable from diagnostic function.
This case helps determine whether visualizations are aesthetic or purely functional.
VII. Derivative Works & Transformations
9. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
Key Holding:
Temporary modifications that do not create a fixed copy may not infringe.
Application:
If imaging software:
Applies real-time filters to MRI scans,
Temporarily enhances contrast,
Creates non-fixed visual overlays,
There may be no derivative work unless fixed and distributed.
VIII. AI-Generated Imaging & Human Authorship
Although not tied to a single imaging case, courts increasingly rely on the principle reaffirmed in:
10. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony
Key Holding:
Copyright requires human authorship.
Application to AI Imaging:
If AI autonomously generates:
3D tumor segmentation maps,
Automated radiology heat maps,
Without meaningful human creative control:
→ The output may not qualify for copyright.
This creates uncertainty in AI diagnostic visualization systems.
IX. Key Legal Doctrines Affecting Medical Imaging Software
1. Idea–Expression Dichotomy
Medical diagnostic methods are ideas → not protected.
The specific code implementing them → protected.
2. Merger Doctrine
If only one or limited ways exist to express something (e.g., grayscale CT rendering), copyright protection is thin.
3. Scenes à Faire
Standard radiology tools (zoom, rotate, measure) are industry-required features → not protected.
4. Fair Use
Reverse engineering, interoperability, research use may qualify.
5. Database Protection
Selection/arrangement of imaging databases may be protected, but raw medical facts are not.
X. Practical Risk Areas in Medical Imaging Software
Copying competitor GUI layouts.
Using proprietary rendering code.
Reproducing AI training datasets.
Reusing proprietary anatomical visualization models.
Exporting software internationally (jurisdictional variation).
XI. Conclusion
Copyright law protects:
✔ Source code
✔ Creative GUI design
✔ Artistic 3D renderings
✔ Database structure
It does NOT protect:
✘ Medical facts
✘ Diagnostic methods
✘ Standardized file formats
✘ Functional requirements
The most influential cases for medical imaging software remain:
Apple v. Franklin (software is protected),
Altai (AFC filtration test),
Feist (facts not protected),
Google v. Oracle (APIs & fair use),
Star Athletica (separability of artistic elements).
RELATED Blog
comments